User login
Could Baseline MRIs Reshape Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment?
The multicenter, real-world trial showed that men with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease who had higher Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores at baseline were more likely to be reclassified with more aggressive disease on a future biopsy, wrote lead author Kiran R. Nandalur, MD and colleagues. The study was published in The Journal of Urology.
This means that without MRI, some cases of prostate cancer are being labeled as lower-risk than they actually are.
The investigators noted that MRI is increasingly being used to choose patients who are appropriate for active surveillance instead of treatment, but related clinical data are scarce.
Although PI-RADS is the preferred metric for characterizing prostate tumors via MRI, “most previous studies on the prognostic implications of baseline PI-RADS score included smaller populations from academic centers, limited inclusion of clinical and pathologic data into models, and/or [are] ambiguous on the implications of PI-RADS score,” they wrote.
These knowledge gaps prompted the present study.
How Were Baseline MRI Findings Related to Prostate Cancer Disease Risk?
The dataset included 1491 men with prostate cancer that was diagnosed at 46 hospital-based, academic, or private practice urology groups. All had low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease and had undergone MRI within 6 months before or after initial biopsy, along with enrollment in active surveillance.
“A novel aspect of this study was that the MRIs were not read by dedicated prostate MRI experts at academic institutions, but rather a mix of community and academic radiologists,” Dr. Nandalur, medical director of Corewell Health East Radiology, Royal Oak, Michigan, said in an interview.
After traditional risk factors were accounted for, baseline PI-RADS (four or more lesions) was significantly associated with increased likelihood of biopsy reclassification to high-grade prostate cancer on surveillance biopsy (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI 1.6-3.2; P < .001).
“These patients with suspicious lesions on their initial MRI were more than twice as likely to have higher-grade disease within 5 years,” Nandalur noted. “This result was not only seen in the low-risk group but also in the favorable intermediate-risk group, which hasn’t been shown before.”
Grade group 2 vs 1 and increasing age were also associated with significantly increased risk for reclassification to a more aggressive cancer type.
How Might These Findings Improve Outcomes in Patients With Prostate Cancer?
Currently, 60%-70% of patients with low-risk disease choose active surveillance over immediate treatment, whereas 20% with favorable intermediate-risk disease choose active surveillance, according to Dr. Nandalur.
For low-risk patients, PI-RADS score is unlikely to change this decision, although surveillance intervals could be adjusted in accordance with risk. More notably, those with favorable intermediate-risk disease may benefit from considering PI-RADS score when choosing between active surveillance and immediate treatment.
“Most of the management strategies for prostate cancer are based on just your lab values and your pathology,” Dr. Nandalur said, “but this study shows that maybe we should start taking MRI into account — into the general paradigm of management of prostate cancer.”
Ideally, he added, prospective studies will confirm these findings, although such studies can be challenging to perform and similar data have historically been sufficient to reshape clinical practice.
“We are hoping that [baseline PI-RADS score] will be adopted into the NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines,” Dr. Nandalur said.
How Likely Are These Findings to Reshape Clinical Practice?
“The study’s large, multicenter cohort and its focus on the prognostic value of baseline MRI in active surveillance make it a crucial contribution to the field, providing evidence that can potentially refine patient management strategies in clinical practice,” Ismail Baris Turkbey, MD, FSAR, head of MRI Section, Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, said in a written comment.
“The findings from this study are likely to have a significant impact on clinical practice and potentially influence future guidelines in the management of localized prostate cancer, particularly in the context of active surveillance,” Dr. Turkbey said. “MRI, already a commonly used imaging modality in prostate cancer management, may become an even more integral part of the initial assessment and ongoing monitoring of patients with low or favorable-intermediate risk prostate cancer.”
Dr. Turkbey noted several strengths of the study.
First, the size and the diversity of the cohort, along with the variety of treatment centers, support generalizability of findings. Second, the study pinpoints a “critical aspect” of active surveillance by uncovering the link between baseline MRI findings and later risk reclassification. Finally, the study also showed that increasing age was associated with higher likelihood of risk reclassification, “further emphasizing the need for personalized risk assessment” among these patients.
What Were Some Limitations of This Study?
“One important limitation is the lack of inter-reader agreement for PI-RADS evaluations for baseline MRIs,” Dr. Turkbey said. “Variation of PI-RADS is quite known, and centralized evaluations could have made this study stronger. Same applies for centralized quality evaluation of MRIs using The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score. These items are difficult to do in a multicenter prospective data registry, and maybe authors will consider including these additional analyses in their future work.”
How Does This New Approach to Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Compare With Recent Advances in AI-Based Risk Assessment?
Over the past few years, artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted risk assessment in prostate cancer has been gaining increasing attention. Recently, for example, Artera, a self-styled “precision medicine company,” released the first AI tool to help patients choose between active surveillance and active treatment on the basis of analysis of digital pathology images.
When asked to compare this approach with the methods used in the present study, Dr. Nandalur called the AI model “a step forward” but noted that it still relies on conventional risk criteria.
“Our data show imaging with MRI has independent prognostic information for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance, over and above these traditional factors,” he said. “Moreover, this predictive ability of MRI was seen in low and favorable intermediate risk groups, so the additive value is broad.”
Still, he predicted that the future will not involve a binary choice, but a combination approach.
“The exciting aspect is that MRI results can eventually be added to this novel AI model and further improve prediction models for patients,” Dr. Nandalur said. “The combination of recent AI models and MRI will likely represent the future paradigm for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance versus immediate treatment.”
The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan. The investigators and Dr. Turkbey reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The multicenter, real-world trial showed that men with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease who had higher Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores at baseline were more likely to be reclassified with more aggressive disease on a future biopsy, wrote lead author Kiran R. Nandalur, MD and colleagues. The study was published in The Journal of Urology.
This means that without MRI, some cases of prostate cancer are being labeled as lower-risk than they actually are.
The investigators noted that MRI is increasingly being used to choose patients who are appropriate for active surveillance instead of treatment, but related clinical data are scarce.
Although PI-RADS is the preferred metric for characterizing prostate tumors via MRI, “most previous studies on the prognostic implications of baseline PI-RADS score included smaller populations from academic centers, limited inclusion of clinical and pathologic data into models, and/or [are] ambiguous on the implications of PI-RADS score,” they wrote.
These knowledge gaps prompted the present study.
How Were Baseline MRI Findings Related to Prostate Cancer Disease Risk?
The dataset included 1491 men with prostate cancer that was diagnosed at 46 hospital-based, academic, or private practice urology groups. All had low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease and had undergone MRI within 6 months before or after initial biopsy, along with enrollment in active surveillance.
“A novel aspect of this study was that the MRIs were not read by dedicated prostate MRI experts at academic institutions, but rather a mix of community and academic radiologists,” Dr. Nandalur, medical director of Corewell Health East Radiology, Royal Oak, Michigan, said in an interview.
After traditional risk factors were accounted for, baseline PI-RADS (four or more lesions) was significantly associated with increased likelihood of biopsy reclassification to high-grade prostate cancer on surveillance biopsy (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI 1.6-3.2; P < .001).
“These patients with suspicious lesions on their initial MRI were more than twice as likely to have higher-grade disease within 5 years,” Nandalur noted. “This result was not only seen in the low-risk group but also in the favorable intermediate-risk group, which hasn’t been shown before.”
Grade group 2 vs 1 and increasing age were also associated with significantly increased risk for reclassification to a more aggressive cancer type.
How Might These Findings Improve Outcomes in Patients With Prostate Cancer?
Currently, 60%-70% of patients with low-risk disease choose active surveillance over immediate treatment, whereas 20% with favorable intermediate-risk disease choose active surveillance, according to Dr. Nandalur.
For low-risk patients, PI-RADS score is unlikely to change this decision, although surveillance intervals could be adjusted in accordance with risk. More notably, those with favorable intermediate-risk disease may benefit from considering PI-RADS score when choosing between active surveillance and immediate treatment.
“Most of the management strategies for prostate cancer are based on just your lab values and your pathology,” Dr. Nandalur said, “but this study shows that maybe we should start taking MRI into account — into the general paradigm of management of prostate cancer.”
Ideally, he added, prospective studies will confirm these findings, although such studies can be challenging to perform and similar data have historically been sufficient to reshape clinical practice.
“We are hoping that [baseline PI-RADS score] will be adopted into the NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines,” Dr. Nandalur said.
How Likely Are These Findings to Reshape Clinical Practice?
“The study’s large, multicenter cohort and its focus on the prognostic value of baseline MRI in active surveillance make it a crucial contribution to the field, providing evidence that can potentially refine patient management strategies in clinical practice,” Ismail Baris Turkbey, MD, FSAR, head of MRI Section, Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, said in a written comment.
“The findings from this study are likely to have a significant impact on clinical practice and potentially influence future guidelines in the management of localized prostate cancer, particularly in the context of active surveillance,” Dr. Turkbey said. “MRI, already a commonly used imaging modality in prostate cancer management, may become an even more integral part of the initial assessment and ongoing monitoring of patients with low or favorable-intermediate risk prostate cancer.”
Dr. Turkbey noted several strengths of the study.
First, the size and the diversity of the cohort, along with the variety of treatment centers, support generalizability of findings. Second, the study pinpoints a “critical aspect” of active surveillance by uncovering the link between baseline MRI findings and later risk reclassification. Finally, the study also showed that increasing age was associated with higher likelihood of risk reclassification, “further emphasizing the need for personalized risk assessment” among these patients.
What Were Some Limitations of This Study?
“One important limitation is the lack of inter-reader agreement for PI-RADS evaluations for baseline MRIs,” Dr. Turkbey said. “Variation of PI-RADS is quite known, and centralized evaluations could have made this study stronger. Same applies for centralized quality evaluation of MRIs using The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score. These items are difficult to do in a multicenter prospective data registry, and maybe authors will consider including these additional analyses in their future work.”
How Does This New Approach to Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Compare With Recent Advances in AI-Based Risk Assessment?
Over the past few years, artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted risk assessment in prostate cancer has been gaining increasing attention. Recently, for example, Artera, a self-styled “precision medicine company,” released the first AI tool to help patients choose between active surveillance and active treatment on the basis of analysis of digital pathology images.
When asked to compare this approach with the methods used in the present study, Dr. Nandalur called the AI model “a step forward” but noted that it still relies on conventional risk criteria.
“Our data show imaging with MRI has independent prognostic information for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance, over and above these traditional factors,” he said. “Moreover, this predictive ability of MRI was seen in low and favorable intermediate risk groups, so the additive value is broad.”
Still, he predicted that the future will not involve a binary choice, but a combination approach.
“The exciting aspect is that MRI results can eventually be added to this novel AI model and further improve prediction models for patients,” Dr. Nandalur said. “The combination of recent AI models and MRI will likely represent the future paradigm for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance versus immediate treatment.”
The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan. The investigators and Dr. Turkbey reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The multicenter, real-world trial showed that men with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease who had higher Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores at baseline were more likely to be reclassified with more aggressive disease on a future biopsy, wrote lead author Kiran R. Nandalur, MD and colleagues. The study was published in The Journal of Urology.
This means that without MRI, some cases of prostate cancer are being labeled as lower-risk than they actually are.
The investigators noted that MRI is increasingly being used to choose patients who are appropriate for active surveillance instead of treatment, but related clinical data are scarce.
Although PI-RADS is the preferred metric for characterizing prostate tumors via MRI, “most previous studies on the prognostic implications of baseline PI-RADS score included smaller populations from academic centers, limited inclusion of clinical and pathologic data into models, and/or [are] ambiguous on the implications of PI-RADS score,” they wrote.
These knowledge gaps prompted the present study.
How Were Baseline MRI Findings Related to Prostate Cancer Disease Risk?
The dataset included 1491 men with prostate cancer that was diagnosed at 46 hospital-based, academic, or private practice urology groups. All had low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease and had undergone MRI within 6 months before or after initial biopsy, along with enrollment in active surveillance.
“A novel aspect of this study was that the MRIs were not read by dedicated prostate MRI experts at academic institutions, but rather a mix of community and academic radiologists,” Dr. Nandalur, medical director of Corewell Health East Radiology, Royal Oak, Michigan, said in an interview.
After traditional risk factors were accounted for, baseline PI-RADS (four or more lesions) was significantly associated with increased likelihood of biopsy reclassification to high-grade prostate cancer on surveillance biopsy (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI 1.6-3.2; P < .001).
“These patients with suspicious lesions on their initial MRI were more than twice as likely to have higher-grade disease within 5 years,” Nandalur noted. “This result was not only seen in the low-risk group but also in the favorable intermediate-risk group, which hasn’t been shown before.”
Grade group 2 vs 1 and increasing age were also associated with significantly increased risk for reclassification to a more aggressive cancer type.
How Might These Findings Improve Outcomes in Patients With Prostate Cancer?
Currently, 60%-70% of patients with low-risk disease choose active surveillance over immediate treatment, whereas 20% with favorable intermediate-risk disease choose active surveillance, according to Dr. Nandalur.
For low-risk patients, PI-RADS score is unlikely to change this decision, although surveillance intervals could be adjusted in accordance with risk. More notably, those with favorable intermediate-risk disease may benefit from considering PI-RADS score when choosing between active surveillance and immediate treatment.
“Most of the management strategies for prostate cancer are based on just your lab values and your pathology,” Dr. Nandalur said, “but this study shows that maybe we should start taking MRI into account — into the general paradigm of management of prostate cancer.”
Ideally, he added, prospective studies will confirm these findings, although such studies can be challenging to perform and similar data have historically been sufficient to reshape clinical practice.
“We are hoping that [baseline PI-RADS score] will be adopted into the NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines,” Dr. Nandalur said.
How Likely Are These Findings to Reshape Clinical Practice?
“The study’s large, multicenter cohort and its focus on the prognostic value of baseline MRI in active surveillance make it a crucial contribution to the field, providing evidence that can potentially refine patient management strategies in clinical practice,” Ismail Baris Turkbey, MD, FSAR, head of MRI Section, Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, said in a written comment.
“The findings from this study are likely to have a significant impact on clinical practice and potentially influence future guidelines in the management of localized prostate cancer, particularly in the context of active surveillance,” Dr. Turkbey said. “MRI, already a commonly used imaging modality in prostate cancer management, may become an even more integral part of the initial assessment and ongoing monitoring of patients with low or favorable-intermediate risk prostate cancer.”
Dr. Turkbey noted several strengths of the study.
First, the size and the diversity of the cohort, along with the variety of treatment centers, support generalizability of findings. Second, the study pinpoints a “critical aspect” of active surveillance by uncovering the link between baseline MRI findings and later risk reclassification. Finally, the study also showed that increasing age was associated with higher likelihood of risk reclassification, “further emphasizing the need for personalized risk assessment” among these patients.
What Were Some Limitations of This Study?
“One important limitation is the lack of inter-reader agreement for PI-RADS evaluations for baseline MRIs,” Dr. Turkbey said. “Variation of PI-RADS is quite known, and centralized evaluations could have made this study stronger. Same applies for centralized quality evaluation of MRIs using The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score. These items are difficult to do in a multicenter prospective data registry, and maybe authors will consider including these additional analyses in their future work.”
How Does This New Approach to Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Compare With Recent Advances in AI-Based Risk Assessment?
Over the past few years, artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted risk assessment in prostate cancer has been gaining increasing attention. Recently, for example, Artera, a self-styled “precision medicine company,” released the first AI tool to help patients choose between active surveillance and active treatment on the basis of analysis of digital pathology images.
When asked to compare this approach with the methods used in the present study, Dr. Nandalur called the AI model “a step forward” but noted that it still relies on conventional risk criteria.
“Our data show imaging with MRI has independent prognostic information for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance, over and above these traditional factors,” he said. “Moreover, this predictive ability of MRI was seen in low and favorable intermediate risk groups, so the additive value is broad.”
Still, he predicted that the future will not involve a binary choice, but a combination approach.
“The exciting aspect is that MRI results can eventually be added to this novel AI model and further improve prediction models for patients,” Dr. Nandalur said. “The combination of recent AI models and MRI will likely represent the future paradigm for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance versus immediate treatment.”
The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan. The investigators and Dr. Turkbey reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Cancer Treatment 101: A Primer for Non-Oncologists
The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.
I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
Chemotherapy
Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.
Careful, compassionate communication between patient and physician is key. Goals and expectations must be clearly understood.
Organized chemotherapeutic efforts are further categorized as first line, second line, and third line.
First-line treatment. The initial round of recommended chemotherapy for a specific cancer. It is typically considered the most effective treatment for that type and stage of cancer on the basis of current research and clinical trials.
Second-line treatment. This is the treatment used if the first-line chemotherapy doesn’t work as desired. Reasons to switch to second-line chemo include:
- Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
- Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
- Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.
The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.
Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:
- New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
- Surgery to debulk the tumor.
- Radiation for symptom control.
- Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
- Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
- Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.
The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.
It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.
Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
Interventions to Consider Earlier
In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:
- Molecular testing.
- Palliation.
- Clinical trials.
- Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.
I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.
Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:
- Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
- Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
- Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.
Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.
Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.
Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.
Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:
- Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
- If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
- When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
- In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.
Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.
In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.
Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.
Read more about these leading innovations:
SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment
Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working
PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment
Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug
Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:
Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?
High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells
All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions
Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.
Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief, Cancer Commons, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.
I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
Chemotherapy
Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.
Careful, compassionate communication between patient and physician is key. Goals and expectations must be clearly understood.
Organized chemotherapeutic efforts are further categorized as first line, second line, and third line.
First-line treatment. The initial round of recommended chemotherapy for a specific cancer. It is typically considered the most effective treatment for that type and stage of cancer on the basis of current research and clinical trials.
Second-line treatment. This is the treatment used if the first-line chemotherapy doesn’t work as desired. Reasons to switch to second-line chemo include:
- Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
- Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
- Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.
The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.
Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:
- New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
- Surgery to debulk the tumor.
- Radiation for symptom control.
- Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
- Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
- Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.
The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.
It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.
Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
Interventions to Consider Earlier
In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:
- Molecular testing.
- Palliation.
- Clinical trials.
- Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.
I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.
Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:
- Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
- Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
- Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.
Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.
Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.
Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.
Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:
- Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
- If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
- When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
- In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.
Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.
In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.
Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.
Read more about these leading innovations:
SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment
Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working
PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment
Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug
Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:
Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?
High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells
All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions
Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.
Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief, Cancer Commons, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.
I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
Chemotherapy
Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.
Careful, compassionate communication between patient and physician is key. Goals and expectations must be clearly understood.
Organized chemotherapeutic efforts are further categorized as first line, second line, and third line.
First-line treatment. The initial round of recommended chemotherapy for a specific cancer. It is typically considered the most effective treatment for that type and stage of cancer on the basis of current research and clinical trials.
Second-line treatment. This is the treatment used if the first-line chemotherapy doesn’t work as desired. Reasons to switch to second-line chemo include:
- Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
- Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
- Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.
The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.
Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:
- New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
- Surgery to debulk the tumor.
- Radiation for symptom control.
- Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
- Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
- Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.
The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.
It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.
Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
Interventions to Consider Earlier
In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:
- Molecular testing.
- Palliation.
- Clinical trials.
- Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.
I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.
Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:
- Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
- Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
- Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.
Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.
Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.
Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.
Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:
- Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
- If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
- When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
- In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.
Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.
In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.
Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.
Read more about these leading innovations:
SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment
Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working
PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment
Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug
Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:
Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?
High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells
All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions
Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.
Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief, Cancer Commons, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians Lament Over Reliance on Relative Value Units: Survey
Most physicians oppose the way standardized relative value units (RVUs) are used to determine performance and compensation, according to Medscape’s 2024 Physicians and RVUs Report. About 6 in 10 survey respondents were unhappy with how RVUs affected them financially, while 7 in 10 said RVUs were poor measures of productivity.
The report analyzed 2024 survey data from 1005 practicing physicians who earn RVUs.
“I’m already mad that the medical field is controlled by health insurers and what they pay and authorize,” said an anesthesiologist in New York. “Then [that approach] is transferred to medical offices and hospitals, where physicians are paid by RVUs.”
Most physicians surveyed produced between 4000 and 8000 RVUs per year. Roughly one in six were high RVU generators, generating more than 10,000 annually.
In most cases, the metric influences earning potential — 42% of doctors surveyed said RVUs affect their salaries to some degree. One quarter said their salary was based entirely on RVUs. More than three fourths of physicians who received performance bonuses said they must meet RVU targets to do so.
“The current RVU system encourages unnecessary procedures, hurting patients,” said an orthopedic surgeon in Maine.
Nearly three fourths of practitioners surveyed said they occasionally to frequently felt pressure to take on more patients as a result of this system.
“I know numerous primary care doctors and specialists who have been forced to increase patient volume to meet RVU goals, and none is happy about it,” said Alok Patel, MD, a pediatric hospitalist with Stanford Hospital in Palo Alto, California. “Plus, patients are definitely not happy about being rushed.”
More than half of respondents said they occasionally or frequently felt compelled by their employer to use higher-level coding, which interferes with a physician’s ethical responsibility to the patient, said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a bioethicist at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City.
“Rather than rewarding excellence or good outcomes, you’re kind of rewarding procedures and volume,” said Dr. Caplan. “It’s more than pressure; it’s expected.”
Nearly 6 in 10 physicians said that the method for calculating reimbursements was unfair. Almost half said that they weren’t happy with how their workplace uses RVUs.
A few respondents said that their RVU model, which is often based on what Dr. Patel called an “overly complicated algorithm,” did not account for the time spent on tasks or the fact that some patients miss appointments. RVUs also rely on factors outside the control of a physician, such as location and patient volume, said one doctor.
The model can also lower the level of care patients receive, Dr. Patel said.
“I know primary care doctors who work in RVU-based systems and simply cannot take the necessary time — even if it’s 30-45 minutes — to thoroughly assess a patient, when the model forces them to take on 15-minute encounters.”
Finally, over half of clinicians said alternatives to the RVU system would be more effective, and 77% suggested including qualitative data. One respondent recommended incorporating time spent doing paperwork and communicating with patients, complexity of conditions, and medication management.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Most physicians oppose the way standardized relative value units (RVUs) are used to determine performance and compensation, according to Medscape’s 2024 Physicians and RVUs Report. About 6 in 10 survey respondents were unhappy with how RVUs affected them financially, while 7 in 10 said RVUs were poor measures of productivity.
The report analyzed 2024 survey data from 1005 practicing physicians who earn RVUs.
“I’m already mad that the medical field is controlled by health insurers and what they pay and authorize,” said an anesthesiologist in New York. “Then [that approach] is transferred to medical offices and hospitals, where physicians are paid by RVUs.”
Most physicians surveyed produced between 4000 and 8000 RVUs per year. Roughly one in six were high RVU generators, generating more than 10,000 annually.
In most cases, the metric influences earning potential — 42% of doctors surveyed said RVUs affect their salaries to some degree. One quarter said their salary was based entirely on RVUs. More than three fourths of physicians who received performance bonuses said they must meet RVU targets to do so.
“The current RVU system encourages unnecessary procedures, hurting patients,” said an orthopedic surgeon in Maine.
Nearly three fourths of practitioners surveyed said they occasionally to frequently felt pressure to take on more patients as a result of this system.
“I know numerous primary care doctors and specialists who have been forced to increase patient volume to meet RVU goals, and none is happy about it,” said Alok Patel, MD, a pediatric hospitalist with Stanford Hospital in Palo Alto, California. “Plus, patients are definitely not happy about being rushed.”
More than half of respondents said they occasionally or frequently felt compelled by their employer to use higher-level coding, which interferes with a physician’s ethical responsibility to the patient, said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a bioethicist at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City.
“Rather than rewarding excellence or good outcomes, you’re kind of rewarding procedures and volume,” said Dr. Caplan. “It’s more than pressure; it’s expected.”
Nearly 6 in 10 physicians said that the method for calculating reimbursements was unfair. Almost half said that they weren’t happy with how their workplace uses RVUs.
A few respondents said that their RVU model, which is often based on what Dr. Patel called an “overly complicated algorithm,” did not account for the time spent on tasks or the fact that some patients miss appointments. RVUs also rely on factors outside the control of a physician, such as location and patient volume, said one doctor.
The model can also lower the level of care patients receive, Dr. Patel said.
“I know primary care doctors who work in RVU-based systems and simply cannot take the necessary time — even if it’s 30-45 minutes — to thoroughly assess a patient, when the model forces them to take on 15-minute encounters.”
Finally, over half of clinicians said alternatives to the RVU system would be more effective, and 77% suggested including qualitative data. One respondent recommended incorporating time spent doing paperwork and communicating with patients, complexity of conditions, and medication management.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Most physicians oppose the way standardized relative value units (RVUs) are used to determine performance and compensation, according to Medscape’s 2024 Physicians and RVUs Report. About 6 in 10 survey respondents were unhappy with how RVUs affected them financially, while 7 in 10 said RVUs were poor measures of productivity.
The report analyzed 2024 survey data from 1005 practicing physicians who earn RVUs.
“I’m already mad that the medical field is controlled by health insurers and what they pay and authorize,” said an anesthesiologist in New York. “Then [that approach] is transferred to medical offices and hospitals, where physicians are paid by RVUs.”
Most physicians surveyed produced between 4000 and 8000 RVUs per year. Roughly one in six were high RVU generators, generating more than 10,000 annually.
In most cases, the metric influences earning potential — 42% of doctors surveyed said RVUs affect their salaries to some degree. One quarter said their salary was based entirely on RVUs. More than three fourths of physicians who received performance bonuses said they must meet RVU targets to do so.
“The current RVU system encourages unnecessary procedures, hurting patients,” said an orthopedic surgeon in Maine.
Nearly three fourths of practitioners surveyed said they occasionally to frequently felt pressure to take on more patients as a result of this system.
“I know numerous primary care doctors and specialists who have been forced to increase patient volume to meet RVU goals, and none is happy about it,” said Alok Patel, MD, a pediatric hospitalist with Stanford Hospital in Palo Alto, California. “Plus, patients are definitely not happy about being rushed.”
More than half of respondents said they occasionally or frequently felt compelled by their employer to use higher-level coding, which interferes with a physician’s ethical responsibility to the patient, said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a bioethicist at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City.
“Rather than rewarding excellence or good outcomes, you’re kind of rewarding procedures and volume,” said Dr. Caplan. “It’s more than pressure; it’s expected.”
Nearly 6 in 10 physicians said that the method for calculating reimbursements was unfair. Almost half said that they weren’t happy with how their workplace uses RVUs.
A few respondents said that their RVU model, which is often based on what Dr. Patel called an “overly complicated algorithm,” did not account for the time spent on tasks or the fact that some patients miss appointments. RVUs also rely on factors outside the control of a physician, such as location and patient volume, said one doctor.
The model can also lower the level of care patients receive, Dr. Patel said.
“I know primary care doctors who work in RVU-based systems and simply cannot take the necessary time — even if it’s 30-45 minutes — to thoroughly assess a patient, when the model forces them to take on 15-minute encounters.”
Finally, over half of clinicians said alternatives to the RVU system would be more effective, and 77% suggested including qualitative data. One respondent recommended incorporating time spent doing paperwork and communicating with patients, complexity of conditions, and medication management.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA OKs First-Line Lazertinib With Amivantamab for NSCLC
This marks the first approval for lazertinib. Amivantamab was initially approved by the FDA in 2021 and carries a few indications for locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Both drugs are manufactured by Janssen Biotech Inc.
“Patients will now have the option of a potential new first-line standard of care with significant clinical benefits over osimertinib,” study investigator Alexander Spira, MD, PhD, director, Virginia Cancer Specialists Research Institute, said in a news release from Johnson & Johnson .
Lazertinib is an oral, highly selective, third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor that can penetrate the brain and amivantamab is a bispecific antibody targeting EGFR and MET.
The approval was based on results from the phase 3 MARIPOSA trial, which showed that the combination reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 30% compared with osimertinib.
The MARIPOSA trial randomly allocated 1074 patients with exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution mutation-positive locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and no prior systemic therapy for advanced disease to amivantamab plus lazertinib, osimertinib alone, or lazertinib alone.
Lazertinib plus amivantamab demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with osimertinib (hazard ratio, 0.70; P < .001). Median progression-free survival was 23.7 months with the combination vs 16.6 months osimertinib alone and 18.5 months with lazertinib alone.
The median duration of response was 9 months longer with the combination compared with osimertinib (25.8 months vs 16.7 months).
The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) were rash, nail toxicity, infusion-related reactions (amivantamab), musculoskeletal pain, edema, stomatitis, venous thromboembolism, paresthesia, fatigue, diarrhea, constipation, COVID-19, hemorrhage, dry skin, decreased appetite, pruritus, nausea, and ocular toxicity.
“A serious safety signal of venous thromboembolic events was observed with lazertinib in combination with amivantamab and prophylactic anticoagulation should be administered for the first four months of therapy,” the FDA noted in a statement announcing the approval.
Results from MARIPOSA were first presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2023 Congress and published in The New England Journal of Medicine in June. Longer-term follow-up data from MARIPOSA will be presented at the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer 2024 World Congress on Lung Cancer in September.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This marks the first approval for lazertinib. Amivantamab was initially approved by the FDA in 2021 and carries a few indications for locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Both drugs are manufactured by Janssen Biotech Inc.
“Patients will now have the option of a potential new first-line standard of care with significant clinical benefits over osimertinib,” study investigator Alexander Spira, MD, PhD, director, Virginia Cancer Specialists Research Institute, said in a news release from Johnson & Johnson .
Lazertinib is an oral, highly selective, third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor that can penetrate the brain and amivantamab is a bispecific antibody targeting EGFR and MET.
The approval was based on results from the phase 3 MARIPOSA trial, which showed that the combination reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 30% compared with osimertinib.
The MARIPOSA trial randomly allocated 1074 patients with exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution mutation-positive locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and no prior systemic therapy for advanced disease to amivantamab plus lazertinib, osimertinib alone, or lazertinib alone.
Lazertinib plus amivantamab demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with osimertinib (hazard ratio, 0.70; P < .001). Median progression-free survival was 23.7 months with the combination vs 16.6 months osimertinib alone and 18.5 months with lazertinib alone.
The median duration of response was 9 months longer with the combination compared with osimertinib (25.8 months vs 16.7 months).
The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) were rash, nail toxicity, infusion-related reactions (amivantamab), musculoskeletal pain, edema, stomatitis, venous thromboembolism, paresthesia, fatigue, diarrhea, constipation, COVID-19, hemorrhage, dry skin, decreased appetite, pruritus, nausea, and ocular toxicity.
“A serious safety signal of venous thromboembolic events was observed with lazertinib in combination with amivantamab and prophylactic anticoagulation should be administered for the first four months of therapy,” the FDA noted in a statement announcing the approval.
Results from MARIPOSA were first presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2023 Congress and published in The New England Journal of Medicine in June. Longer-term follow-up data from MARIPOSA will be presented at the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer 2024 World Congress on Lung Cancer in September.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This marks the first approval for lazertinib. Amivantamab was initially approved by the FDA in 2021 and carries a few indications for locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Both drugs are manufactured by Janssen Biotech Inc.
“Patients will now have the option of a potential new first-line standard of care with significant clinical benefits over osimertinib,” study investigator Alexander Spira, MD, PhD, director, Virginia Cancer Specialists Research Institute, said in a news release from Johnson & Johnson .
Lazertinib is an oral, highly selective, third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor that can penetrate the brain and amivantamab is a bispecific antibody targeting EGFR and MET.
The approval was based on results from the phase 3 MARIPOSA trial, which showed that the combination reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 30% compared with osimertinib.
The MARIPOSA trial randomly allocated 1074 patients with exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution mutation-positive locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and no prior systemic therapy for advanced disease to amivantamab plus lazertinib, osimertinib alone, or lazertinib alone.
Lazertinib plus amivantamab demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with osimertinib (hazard ratio, 0.70; P < .001). Median progression-free survival was 23.7 months with the combination vs 16.6 months osimertinib alone and 18.5 months with lazertinib alone.
The median duration of response was 9 months longer with the combination compared with osimertinib (25.8 months vs 16.7 months).
The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) were rash, nail toxicity, infusion-related reactions (amivantamab), musculoskeletal pain, edema, stomatitis, venous thromboembolism, paresthesia, fatigue, diarrhea, constipation, COVID-19, hemorrhage, dry skin, decreased appetite, pruritus, nausea, and ocular toxicity.
“A serious safety signal of venous thromboembolic events was observed with lazertinib in combination with amivantamab and prophylactic anticoagulation should be administered for the first four months of therapy,” the FDA noted in a statement announcing the approval.
Results from MARIPOSA were first presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2023 Congress and published in The New England Journal of Medicine in June. Longer-term follow-up data from MARIPOSA will be presented at the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer 2024 World Congress on Lung Cancer in September.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Do New Blood Tests for Cancer Meet the Right Standards?
Biotech startups worldwide are rushing to market screening tests that they claim can detect various cancers in early stages with just a few drops of blood. The tests allegedly will simplify cancer care by eliminating tedious scans, scopes, and swabs at the doctor’s office.
The promise of these early detection tests is truly “enticing,” Hilary A. Robbins, PhD, from the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization in Lyon, France, said in an interview.
In an opinion article in The New England Journal of Medicine, she emphasized that the new cancer tests are much less cumbersome than traditional screening strategies for individual cancers. Moreover, they could enable the early detection of dozens of cancer types for which no screening has been available so far.
Meeting the Criteria
The problem is that these tests have not met the strict criteria typically required for traditional cancer screening tests. To be considered for introduction as a screening procedure, a test usually needs to meet the following four minimum requirements:
- The disease that the test screens for must have a presymptomatic form.
- The screening test must be able to identify this presymptomatic disease.
- Treating the disease in the presymptomatic phase improves prognosis (specifically, it affects cancer-specific mortality in a randomized controlled trial).
- The screening test is feasible, and the benefits outweigh potential risks.
“The new blood tests for multiple cancers have so far only met the second criteria, showing they can detect presymptomatic cancer,” Dr. Robbins wrote.
The next step would be to demonstrate that they affect cancer-specific mortality. “But currently, commercial interests seem to be influencing the evidence standards for these cancer tests,” said Dr. Robbins.
Inappropriate Endpoints?
Some proponents of such tests argue that, unlike for previous cancer screening procedures, initial approval should not depend on the endpoint of cancer-specific mortality. It would take too long to gather sufficient outcome data, and in the meantime, people would die, they argue.
Eric A. Klein, MD, from the Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, and colleagues advocate for alternative endpoints such as the incidence of late-stage cancer in an article published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
“The concept would be,” they wrote, “that a negative signal would not indicate a mortality benefit, leading to the study being stopped. A positive signal, on the other hand, could result in provisional approval until mortality data and real-world evidence of effectiveness are available. This would resemble the accelerated approval of new cancer drugs, which often is based on progression-free survival until there postmarketing data on overall survival emerge.”
Dr. Klein is also employed at the US biotech start-up Grail, which developed the Galleri test, which is one of the best-known and most advanced cancer screening tests. The Galleri test uses cell-free DNA and machine learning to detect a common cancer signal in more than 50 cancer types and predict the origin of the cancer signal. Consumers in the United States can already order and perform the test.
An NHS Study
Arguments for different endpoints apparently resonated with the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS). Three years ago, they initiated the Galleri study, a large randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of Grail’s cancer test. The primary endpoint was not cancer-specific mortality, but the incidence of stage III or IV cancer.
The results are expected in 2026. But recruitment was stopped after 140,000 participants were enrolled. The NHS reported that the initial results were not convincing enough to continue the trial. Exact numbers were not disclosed.
The Galleri study deviates from the standard randomized controlled trial design for cancer screening procedures not only in terms of the primary endpoint, but also in blinding. The only participants who were unblinded and informed of their test results are those in the intervention group with a positive cancer test.
False Security
This trial design encourages participants to undergo blood tests once per year. But according to Dr. Robbins, it prevents the exploration of the phenomenon of “false security,” which is a potential drawback of the new cancer tests.
“Women with a negative mammogram can reasonably assume that they probably do not have breast cancer. But individuals with a negative cancer blood test could mistakenly believe they cannot have any cancer at all. As a result, they may not undergo standard early detection screenings or seek medical help early enough for potential cancer symptoms,” said Dr. Robbins.
To assess the actual risk-benefit ratio of the Galleri test, participants must receive their test results, she said. “Under real-world conditions, benefits and risks can come from positive and negative results.”
Upcoming Trial
More illuminating results may come from a large trial planned by the National Cancer Institute in the United States. Several new cancer tests will be evaluated for their ability to reduce cancer-specific mortality. A pilot phase will start later in 2024. “This study may be the only one with sufficient statistical power to determine whether an approach based on these cancer tests can reduce cancer-specific mortality,” said Dr. Robbins.
For the new blood tests for multiple cancers, it is crucial that health authorities “set a high bar for a benefit,” she said. This, according to her, also means that they must show an effect on cancer-specific mortality before being introduced. “This evidence must come from studies in which commercial interests do not influence the design, execution, data management, or data analysis.”
This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
Biotech startups worldwide are rushing to market screening tests that they claim can detect various cancers in early stages with just a few drops of blood. The tests allegedly will simplify cancer care by eliminating tedious scans, scopes, and swabs at the doctor’s office.
The promise of these early detection tests is truly “enticing,” Hilary A. Robbins, PhD, from the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization in Lyon, France, said in an interview.
In an opinion article in The New England Journal of Medicine, she emphasized that the new cancer tests are much less cumbersome than traditional screening strategies for individual cancers. Moreover, they could enable the early detection of dozens of cancer types for which no screening has been available so far.
Meeting the Criteria
The problem is that these tests have not met the strict criteria typically required for traditional cancer screening tests. To be considered for introduction as a screening procedure, a test usually needs to meet the following four minimum requirements:
- The disease that the test screens for must have a presymptomatic form.
- The screening test must be able to identify this presymptomatic disease.
- Treating the disease in the presymptomatic phase improves prognosis (specifically, it affects cancer-specific mortality in a randomized controlled trial).
- The screening test is feasible, and the benefits outweigh potential risks.
“The new blood tests for multiple cancers have so far only met the second criteria, showing they can detect presymptomatic cancer,” Dr. Robbins wrote.
The next step would be to demonstrate that they affect cancer-specific mortality. “But currently, commercial interests seem to be influencing the evidence standards for these cancer tests,” said Dr. Robbins.
Inappropriate Endpoints?
Some proponents of such tests argue that, unlike for previous cancer screening procedures, initial approval should not depend on the endpoint of cancer-specific mortality. It would take too long to gather sufficient outcome data, and in the meantime, people would die, they argue.
Eric A. Klein, MD, from the Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, and colleagues advocate for alternative endpoints such as the incidence of late-stage cancer in an article published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
“The concept would be,” they wrote, “that a negative signal would not indicate a mortality benefit, leading to the study being stopped. A positive signal, on the other hand, could result in provisional approval until mortality data and real-world evidence of effectiveness are available. This would resemble the accelerated approval of new cancer drugs, which often is based on progression-free survival until there postmarketing data on overall survival emerge.”
Dr. Klein is also employed at the US biotech start-up Grail, which developed the Galleri test, which is one of the best-known and most advanced cancer screening tests. The Galleri test uses cell-free DNA and machine learning to detect a common cancer signal in more than 50 cancer types and predict the origin of the cancer signal. Consumers in the United States can already order and perform the test.
An NHS Study
Arguments for different endpoints apparently resonated with the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS). Three years ago, they initiated the Galleri study, a large randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of Grail’s cancer test. The primary endpoint was not cancer-specific mortality, but the incidence of stage III or IV cancer.
The results are expected in 2026. But recruitment was stopped after 140,000 participants were enrolled. The NHS reported that the initial results were not convincing enough to continue the trial. Exact numbers were not disclosed.
The Galleri study deviates from the standard randomized controlled trial design for cancer screening procedures not only in terms of the primary endpoint, but also in blinding. The only participants who were unblinded and informed of their test results are those in the intervention group with a positive cancer test.
False Security
This trial design encourages participants to undergo blood tests once per year. But according to Dr. Robbins, it prevents the exploration of the phenomenon of “false security,” which is a potential drawback of the new cancer tests.
“Women with a negative mammogram can reasonably assume that they probably do not have breast cancer. But individuals with a negative cancer blood test could mistakenly believe they cannot have any cancer at all. As a result, they may not undergo standard early detection screenings or seek medical help early enough for potential cancer symptoms,” said Dr. Robbins.
To assess the actual risk-benefit ratio of the Galleri test, participants must receive their test results, she said. “Under real-world conditions, benefits and risks can come from positive and negative results.”
Upcoming Trial
More illuminating results may come from a large trial planned by the National Cancer Institute in the United States. Several new cancer tests will be evaluated for their ability to reduce cancer-specific mortality. A pilot phase will start later in 2024. “This study may be the only one with sufficient statistical power to determine whether an approach based on these cancer tests can reduce cancer-specific mortality,” said Dr. Robbins.
For the new blood tests for multiple cancers, it is crucial that health authorities “set a high bar for a benefit,” she said. This, according to her, also means that they must show an effect on cancer-specific mortality before being introduced. “This evidence must come from studies in which commercial interests do not influence the design, execution, data management, or data analysis.”
This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
Biotech startups worldwide are rushing to market screening tests that they claim can detect various cancers in early stages with just a few drops of blood. The tests allegedly will simplify cancer care by eliminating tedious scans, scopes, and swabs at the doctor’s office.
The promise of these early detection tests is truly “enticing,” Hilary A. Robbins, PhD, from the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization in Lyon, France, said in an interview.
In an opinion article in The New England Journal of Medicine, she emphasized that the new cancer tests are much less cumbersome than traditional screening strategies for individual cancers. Moreover, they could enable the early detection of dozens of cancer types for which no screening has been available so far.
Meeting the Criteria
The problem is that these tests have not met the strict criteria typically required for traditional cancer screening tests. To be considered for introduction as a screening procedure, a test usually needs to meet the following four minimum requirements:
- The disease that the test screens for must have a presymptomatic form.
- The screening test must be able to identify this presymptomatic disease.
- Treating the disease in the presymptomatic phase improves prognosis (specifically, it affects cancer-specific mortality in a randomized controlled trial).
- The screening test is feasible, and the benefits outweigh potential risks.
“The new blood tests for multiple cancers have so far only met the second criteria, showing they can detect presymptomatic cancer,” Dr. Robbins wrote.
The next step would be to demonstrate that they affect cancer-specific mortality. “But currently, commercial interests seem to be influencing the evidence standards for these cancer tests,” said Dr. Robbins.
Inappropriate Endpoints?
Some proponents of such tests argue that, unlike for previous cancer screening procedures, initial approval should not depend on the endpoint of cancer-specific mortality. It would take too long to gather sufficient outcome data, and in the meantime, people would die, they argue.
Eric A. Klein, MD, from the Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, and colleagues advocate for alternative endpoints such as the incidence of late-stage cancer in an article published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
“The concept would be,” they wrote, “that a negative signal would not indicate a mortality benefit, leading to the study being stopped. A positive signal, on the other hand, could result in provisional approval until mortality data and real-world evidence of effectiveness are available. This would resemble the accelerated approval of new cancer drugs, which often is based on progression-free survival until there postmarketing data on overall survival emerge.”
Dr. Klein is also employed at the US biotech start-up Grail, which developed the Galleri test, which is one of the best-known and most advanced cancer screening tests. The Galleri test uses cell-free DNA and machine learning to detect a common cancer signal in more than 50 cancer types and predict the origin of the cancer signal. Consumers in the United States can already order and perform the test.
An NHS Study
Arguments for different endpoints apparently resonated with the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS). Three years ago, they initiated the Galleri study, a large randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of Grail’s cancer test. The primary endpoint was not cancer-specific mortality, but the incidence of stage III or IV cancer.
The results are expected in 2026. But recruitment was stopped after 140,000 participants were enrolled. The NHS reported that the initial results were not convincing enough to continue the trial. Exact numbers were not disclosed.
The Galleri study deviates from the standard randomized controlled trial design for cancer screening procedures not only in terms of the primary endpoint, but also in blinding. The only participants who were unblinded and informed of their test results are those in the intervention group with a positive cancer test.
False Security
This trial design encourages participants to undergo blood tests once per year. But according to Dr. Robbins, it prevents the exploration of the phenomenon of “false security,” which is a potential drawback of the new cancer tests.
“Women with a negative mammogram can reasonably assume that they probably do not have breast cancer. But individuals with a negative cancer blood test could mistakenly believe they cannot have any cancer at all. As a result, they may not undergo standard early detection screenings or seek medical help early enough for potential cancer symptoms,” said Dr. Robbins.
To assess the actual risk-benefit ratio of the Galleri test, participants must receive their test results, she said. “Under real-world conditions, benefits and risks can come from positive and negative results.”
Upcoming Trial
More illuminating results may come from a large trial planned by the National Cancer Institute in the United States. Several new cancer tests will be evaluated for their ability to reduce cancer-specific mortality. A pilot phase will start later in 2024. “This study may be the only one with sufficient statistical power to determine whether an approach based on these cancer tests can reduce cancer-specific mortality,” said Dr. Robbins.
For the new blood tests for multiple cancers, it is crucial that health authorities “set a high bar for a benefit,” she said. This, according to her, also means that they must show an effect on cancer-specific mortality before being introduced. “This evidence must come from studies in which commercial interests do not influence the design, execution, data management, or data analysis.”
This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
Jeffrey Weber, MD, PhD, Giant of Cancer Care, Dies
Dr. Weber, a melanoma and cancer immunotherapy specialist, served as deputy director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University (NYU) Langone Medical Center in New York City. He also held positions as the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Professor of Oncology in the Department of Medicine at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, director of the Experimental Therapeutics Program, and co-leader of the Clinical Melanoma Program Board at NYU Langone Health.
Dr. Weber was a principal investigator on many studies, including pivotal clinical drug trials in melanoma and trials focused on managing autoimmune side effects from immunotherapy. He published more than 150 articles in top peer-reviewed journals.
For many years, Dr. Weber hosted the popular “Weber on Oncology” series of video contributions for Medscape Oncology, sharing updates and insights on noteworthy research and breakthroughs in melanoma.
“The Melanoma Research Alliance mourns the passing of Dr. Jeffrey S. Weber, a true pioneer in the field of cancer immunotherapy and an extraordinary leader in melanoma research. His contributions have forever changed the landscape of melanoma treatment, bringing groundbreaking advances from the lab into clinical practice and offering hope to countless patients,” the Melanoma Research Alliance posted on LinkedIn.
Many X users also shared condolences and memories of Dr. Weber, praising his numerous contributions and accomplishments.
“[Cancer Research Institute] mourns the loss of Dr. Jeffrey S. Weber ... [a]s an accomplished physician scientist, Dr. Weber drove advances in melanoma research, and played an active role in educating patients about the lifesaving power of immunotherapy,” the Cancer Research Institute posted.
A colleague noted that “[h]e was involved in the early days of cytokine and cell therapy and most recently led studies of personalized vaccines for melanoma patients. ... He was a great friend and colleague to many of us in the melanoma and immunotherapy field and we will remember him as a pioneer, thought leader and compassionate physician.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dr. Weber, a melanoma and cancer immunotherapy specialist, served as deputy director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University (NYU) Langone Medical Center in New York City. He also held positions as the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Professor of Oncology in the Department of Medicine at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, director of the Experimental Therapeutics Program, and co-leader of the Clinical Melanoma Program Board at NYU Langone Health.
Dr. Weber was a principal investigator on many studies, including pivotal clinical drug trials in melanoma and trials focused on managing autoimmune side effects from immunotherapy. He published more than 150 articles in top peer-reviewed journals.
For many years, Dr. Weber hosted the popular “Weber on Oncology” series of video contributions for Medscape Oncology, sharing updates and insights on noteworthy research and breakthroughs in melanoma.
“The Melanoma Research Alliance mourns the passing of Dr. Jeffrey S. Weber, a true pioneer in the field of cancer immunotherapy and an extraordinary leader in melanoma research. His contributions have forever changed the landscape of melanoma treatment, bringing groundbreaking advances from the lab into clinical practice and offering hope to countless patients,” the Melanoma Research Alliance posted on LinkedIn.
Many X users also shared condolences and memories of Dr. Weber, praising his numerous contributions and accomplishments.
“[Cancer Research Institute] mourns the loss of Dr. Jeffrey S. Weber ... [a]s an accomplished physician scientist, Dr. Weber drove advances in melanoma research, and played an active role in educating patients about the lifesaving power of immunotherapy,” the Cancer Research Institute posted.
A colleague noted that “[h]e was involved in the early days of cytokine and cell therapy and most recently led studies of personalized vaccines for melanoma patients. ... He was a great friend and colleague to many of us in the melanoma and immunotherapy field and we will remember him as a pioneer, thought leader and compassionate physician.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dr. Weber, a melanoma and cancer immunotherapy specialist, served as deputy director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University (NYU) Langone Medical Center in New York City. He also held positions as the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Professor of Oncology in the Department of Medicine at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, director of the Experimental Therapeutics Program, and co-leader of the Clinical Melanoma Program Board at NYU Langone Health.
Dr. Weber was a principal investigator on many studies, including pivotal clinical drug trials in melanoma and trials focused on managing autoimmune side effects from immunotherapy. He published more than 150 articles in top peer-reviewed journals.
For many years, Dr. Weber hosted the popular “Weber on Oncology” series of video contributions for Medscape Oncology, sharing updates and insights on noteworthy research and breakthroughs in melanoma.
“The Melanoma Research Alliance mourns the passing of Dr. Jeffrey S. Weber, a true pioneer in the field of cancer immunotherapy and an extraordinary leader in melanoma research. His contributions have forever changed the landscape of melanoma treatment, bringing groundbreaking advances from the lab into clinical practice and offering hope to countless patients,” the Melanoma Research Alliance posted on LinkedIn.
Many X users also shared condolences and memories of Dr. Weber, praising his numerous contributions and accomplishments.
“[Cancer Research Institute] mourns the loss of Dr. Jeffrey S. Weber ... [a]s an accomplished physician scientist, Dr. Weber drove advances in melanoma research, and played an active role in educating patients about the lifesaving power of immunotherapy,” the Cancer Research Institute posted.
A colleague noted that “[h]e was involved in the early days of cytokine and cell therapy and most recently led studies of personalized vaccines for melanoma patients. ... He was a great friend and colleague to many of us in the melanoma and immunotherapy field and we will remember him as a pioneer, thought leader and compassionate physician.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Low HPV Vaccination in the United States Is a Public Health ‘Failure’
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I would like to briefly discuss what I consider to be a very discouraging report and one that I believe we as an oncology society and, quite frankly, as a medical community need to deal with.
The manuscript I’m referring to is from the United States Department of Health and Human Services, titled, “Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Coverage in Children Ages 9-17 Years: United States, 2022.” This particular analysis looked at the coverage of both men and women — young boys and young girls, I would say — receiving at least one dose of the recommended human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination.
Since 2006, girls have been recommended to receive HPV vaccination; for boys, it’s been since 2011. Certainly, the time period that we’re considering falls within the recommendations based on overwhelmingly positive data. Now, today, still, the recommendation is for more than one vaccine. Obviously, there may be evidence in the future that a single vaccination may be acceptable or appropriate. But today, it’s more than one.
In this particular analysis, they were looking at just a single vaccination. The vaccines have targeted young individuals, both male and female children aged 11-12 years, but it’s certainly acceptable to look starting at age 9.
What is the bottom line? At least one dose of the HPV vaccination was given to 38.6% of children aged 9-17 years in 2022. We are talking about a cancer-preventive vaccine, which on the basis of population-based data in the United States, but also in other countries, is incredibly effective in preventing HPV-associated cancers. This not only includes cervical cancer, but also a large percentage of head and neck cancers.
For this vaccine, which is incredibly safe and incredibly effective, in this country, only 38.6% have received even a single dose. It is noted that the individuals with private insurance had a higher rate, at 41.5%, than individuals with no insurance, at only 20.7%.
In my opinion, this is clearly a failure of our public health establishment at all levels. My own focus has been in gynecologic cancers. I’ve seen young women with advanced cervical cancer, and this is a disease we can prevent. Yet, this is where we are.
For those of you who are interested in cancer prevention or public health, I think this is a very sobering statistic. It’s my plea and my hope that we can, as a society, somehow do something about it.
I thank you for listening. I would encourage you to think about this question if you’re in this area.
Dr. Markman, professor, Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and president of Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I would like to briefly discuss what I consider to be a very discouraging report and one that I believe we as an oncology society and, quite frankly, as a medical community need to deal with.
The manuscript I’m referring to is from the United States Department of Health and Human Services, titled, “Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Coverage in Children Ages 9-17 Years: United States, 2022.” This particular analysis looked at the coverage of both men and women — young boys and young girls, I would say — receiving at least one dose of the recommended human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination.
Since 2006, girls have been recommended to receive HPV vaccination; for boys, it’s been since 2011. Certainly, the time period that we’re considering falls within the recommendations based on overwhelmingly positive data. Now, today, still, the recommendation is for more than one vaccine. Obviously, there may be evidence in the future that a single vaccination may be acceptable or appropriate. But today, it’s more than one.
In this particular analysis, they were looking at just a single vaccination. The vaccines have targeted young individuals, both male and female children aged 11-12 years, but it’s certainly acceptable to look starting at age 9.
What is the bottom line? At least one dose of the HPV vaccination was given to 38.6% of children aged 9-17 years in 2022. We are talking about a cancer-preventive vaccine, which on the basis of population-based data in the United States, but also in other countries, is incredibly effective in preventing HPV-associated cancers. This not only includes cervical cancer, but also a large percentage of head and neck cancers.
For this vaccine, which is incredibly safe and incredibly effective, in this country, only 38.6% have received even a single dose. It is noted that the individuals with private insurance had a higher rate, at 41.5%, than individuals with no insurance, at only 20.7%.
In my opinion, this is clearly a failure of our public health establishment at all levels. My own focus has been in gynecologic cancers. I’ve seen young women with advanced cervical cancer, and this is a disease we can prevent. Yet, this is where we are.
For those of you who are interested in cancer prevention or public health, I think this is a very sobering statistic. It’s my plea and my hope that we can, as a society, somehow do something about it.
I thank you for listening. I would encourage you to think about this question if you’re in this area.
Dr. Markman, professor, Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and president of Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I would like to briefly discuss what I consider to be a very discouraging report and one that I believe we as an oncology society and, quite frankly, as a medical community need to deal with.
The manuscript I’m referring to is from the United States Department of Health and Human Services, titled, “Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Coverage in Children Ages 9-17 Years: United States, 2022.” This particular analysis looked at the coverage of both men and women — young boys and young girls, I would say — receiving at least one dose of the recommended human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination.
Since 2006, girls have been recommended to receive HPV vaccination; for boys, it’s been since 2011. Certainly, the time period that we’re considering falls within the recommendations based on overwhelmingly positive data. Now, today, still, the recommendation is for more than one vaccine. Obviously, there may be evidence in the future that a single vaccination may be acceptable or appropriate. But today, it’s more than one.
In this particular analysis, they were looking at just a single vaccination. The vaccines have targeted young individuals, both male and female children aged 11-12 years, but it’s certainly acceptable to look starting at age 9.
What is the bottom line? At least one dose of the HPV vaccination was given to 38.6% of children aged 9-17 years in 2022. We are talking about a cancer-preventive vaccine, which on the basis of population-based data in the United States, but also in other countries, is incredibly effective in preventing HPV-associated cancers. This not only includes cervical cancer, but also a large percentage of head and neck cancers.
For this vaccine, which is incredibly safe and incredibly effective, in this country, only 38.6% have received even a single dose. It is noted that the individuals with private insurance had a higher rate, at 41.5%, than individuals with no insurance, at only 20.7%.
In my opinion, this is clearly a failure of our public health establishment at all levels. My own focus has been in gynecologic cancers. I’ve seen young women with advanced cervical cancer, and this is a disease we can prevent. Yet, this is where we are.
For those of you who are interested in cancer prevention or public health, I think this is a very sobering statistic. It’s my plea and my hope that we can, as a society, somehow do something about it.
I thank you for listening. I would encourage you to think about this question if you’re in this area.
Dr. Markman, professor, Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and president of Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Doctors Are Seeking Professional Coaches More Often. Here’s Why
When Andrea Austin, MD, an emergency medicine specialist, left the military in 2020, she knew the adjustment to civilian life and practice might be difficult. To help smooth the transition, she reached out to a physician mentor who also had a professional coaching certificate. After a conversation, Dr. Austin signed up for 6 months of career coaching.
It was time well spent, according to Dr. Austin, who today is a coach herself. “It was really the first time I had the ability to choose what I wanted to do, and that required a mindset shift,” she explains. “A big part of coaching is helping physicians discover their agency so that they can make the best career choices.” 
Physicians have long lacked the coaching resources typically made available to corporate executives. But that’s changing. In today’s high-pressure environment, where doctors are burning out at a rapid pace, coaching can sometimes be an avenue to staying in the field, especially if that coach is a fellow physician who understands what you’re facing.
With a physician shortage that the Association of American Medical Colleges expects to hit 86,000 in the next decade or so, coaching could be a stone worth turning over. A 2024 report in JAMA Network Open found that coaching provided by physician peers led to a significant reduction in interpersonal disengagement and burnout.
“What I think is exciting about coaching is that it allows you to better understand yourself and know your strengths and weaknesses,” said Dr. Austin. “It might seem simple, but many ‘soft skills’ aren’t considered mainstream in medicine. Coaching allows us to understand them and ourselves better.”
Why Are Doctors Using Coaches?
Although it’s hard to put a number on how many physicians are turning to coaches, the number of coaches available for doctors is growing rapidly. The American Medical Women’s Association maintains a database of physician coaches. According to deputy director Jodi Godfrey, MS, RDN, the number of members who have added coaching to their skill set has tripled in the past 4 years. “Many cite burnout as the reason they sought coaching support, and then they decided to go on to get certified in coaching.”
The pandemic is one reason physician coaching has grown, said Elizabeth Esparaz, MD, an ophthalmologist and physician coach. “Since the pandemic, the word ‘burnout’ is thrown around a good deal.” And the causes are clear. “Doctors are facing longer hours, they must make split-second decisions, they’re multitasking, and they have less support staff.”
Among her coaching clients, Dr. Austin has noticed other common struggles: fears of litigation, time scarcity with patients, declining reimbursement that hasn’t kept up with inflation, and loss of autonomy because of the corporatization of healthcare.
Coaching, Dr. Esparaz believes, can be an antidote to many of these issues. “Coaches help doctors see their strengths and find better ways of applying them,” she said. “We help them move forward, and also see their blind spots.”
Clarity, Goals, and Making the Right Choices
Physician coaching comes in a variety of flavors — some one on one, and others in the form of group sessions. All, however, serve the purpose of helping physicians gain career clarity. “Sometimes clients realize their job may not be working for them, but that there are things they can do to change that without having to leave the field,” said Jattu Senesie, MD, a former ob.gyn. who is now a physician coach.
Dr. Esparaz works with doctors to establish SMART goals: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time based. She gave the example of learning how to set boundaries. “If a physician is asked to create a presentation for work, I encourage them to ask for compensation or administrative time before committing to unpaid tasks.”
Another big issue: charting. It’s increasingly burdensome, and many doctors find it encroaching on their home lives. “If we can identify a problem like that, we can come up with a strategy for mitigating it,” Dr. Esparaz said. This might include setting a goal of getting 80% of charting completed immediately after the patient encounter on the busiest clinic day of the week. The client tests the experiment and then revisits it with the coach to discuss what worked and what didn’t, refining the process until it has freed up the physician’s home life. 
The younger generation of doctors often struggles with career choices, too, because it’s the first time they are without structure, said Dr. Senesie. There’s med school and residency, which puts a framework around every move a doctor makes. But once they become attending physicians, the choices are endless. “Coaching can help them find a new structure and systems that will allow them to thrive.”
Although mentoring has been a well-embraced concept for decades, it “hits a wall,” at some point in terms of what it can offer, Dr. Austin said. That’s where coaching can take over. “There’s a point where a mentor cannot help someone self-actualize. As a coach, you don’t need to know everything about a doctor’s life, but you can help them learn to ask themselves the right questions to solve problems.”
Should You Stay or Should You Go?
Dr. Austin’s approach begins with the premise that healthcare today is challenging and dysfunctional — but doctors still have agency. She has worked with clients on the verge of leaving the field and helped them find their way back.
“They have a light bulb moment and open up to the idea that they have much to give still,” she said. “We take an inventory to help them better communicate their needs and make changes, and I help them connect to their values. Sometimes that exercise allows them to reframe their current work environment.”
Not every doctor who goes through coaching remains in the field. But “that’s the exception, not the rule,” Dr. Austin said. And that’s okay. “If that’s the outcome, coaching probably helped them get to that point faster, and with an informed decision.”
Dr. Senesie has been coaching for about a decade, and in that time, she’s seen a shift that goes beyond figuring out career goals. “Doctors are more aware of the need for well-being today. The pandemic made it impossible to ignore what doesn’t work for us. When I work with clients, we look for ways to make the job more tenable.”
According to Dr. Senesie, younger doctors are looking for that balance at the outset. “They want to be physicians, but they also want a life,” she said. “It’s a challenge for them because in addition to that mindset, they’re also coming out with more debt than older generations. They want out from underneath that.”
When It’s Time to Find a Physician Coach
Wondering whether coaching is right for you? Consider these symptoms:
- You need help setting boundaries at work.
- You feel like you’re sacrificing your own well-being for your job.
- You’re using maladaptive strategies to cope with the stress at work.
- You’ve reached a point where you are considering leaving the field.
If you’re interested in finding a physician coach, there are several places to begin your search, word of mouth being one of them. “Conferences and social media can also expose you to coaches,” suggested Dr. Esparaz. There are different methods and approaches to coaching. So, as you research, “make sure the coach you choose has techniques and a framework that fit what you’re after.”
Dr. Austin warned that it is an unregulated industry, so buyer beware. To ensure you’re getting an accredited physician coach, look for people who have obtained an International Coach Federation (ICF) accreditation. These coaches will hold an associate certified coach credential, which requires at least 60 hours of coaching-specific training approved by the ICF, in addition to other assessments and education.
Ensure that the coach you choose is within your budget. “There are some people charging astronomical rates out there,” Dr. Austin said. “If you’re burned out or struggling, it can be easy to reach for your credit card.”
Dr. Austin also cautioned doctors seeking a coach to avoid promises that sound too good to be true. Some coaching can have a gaslighting quality to it, she warned, “suggesting it can allow you to endure any environment.” But positive self-talk alone won’t cure an abusive or discriminatory situation. “If a client describes a toxic work environment,” the coach has an “ethical imperative” to help that person protect themselves.
A Side Gig or a New Career Path
After Dr. Austin’s experience with her coach, she made the choice to continue as an emergency physician part-time while starting her own coaching business. “It’s important for me personally to keep in touch with what’s happening on the ground, but I have no judgment for anyone who chooses to leave clinical practice to become a coach.”
When Dr. Senesie looks back on her own struggles as a clinician, she recognizes the state of burnout she was in 10 years ago. “I knew there was an issue, but I didn’t have the mindset to find a way to make it work,” she said. “I left the field when I was at my depths of burnout, which is generally not the best way to go about it.”
Guidance might have allowed her to take into account other avenues and helped her remain in the field, said Dr. Senesie. She has since learned that “there are many ways to practice medicine, and the way we’ve gone about it traditionally has worked for some, but not necessarily for everyone.”
There may be more possibilities than you think. By helping you assess your path and make meaningful changes, a physician coach might be the key to remaining in the field you love.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When Andrea Austin, MD, an emergency medicine specialist, left the military in 2020, she knew the adjustment to civilian life and practice might be difficult. To help smooth the transition, she reached out to a physician mentor who also had a professional coaching certificate. After a conversation, Dr. Austin signed up for 6 months of career coaching.
It was time well spent, according to Dr. Austin, who today is a coach herself. “It was really the first time I had the ability to choose what I wanted to do, and that required a mindset shift,” she explains. “A big part of coaching is helping physicians discover their agency so that they can make the best career choices.”
Physicians have long lacked the coaching resources typically made available to corporate executives. But that’s changing. In today’s high-pressure environment, where doctors are burning out at a rapid pace, coaching can sometimes be an avenue to staying in the field, especially if that coach is a fellow physician who understands what you’re facing.
With a physician shortage that the Association of American Medical Colleges expects to hit 86,000 in the next decade or so, coaching could be a stone worth turning over. A 2024 report in JAMA Network Open found that coaching provided by physician peers led to a significant reduction in interpersonal disengagement and burnout.
“What I think is exciting about coaching is that it allows you to better understand yourself and know your strengths and weaknesses,” said Dr. Austin. “It might seem simple, but many ‘soft skills’ aren’t considered mainstream in medicine. Coaching allows us to understand them and ourselves better.”
Why Are Doctors Using Coaches?
Although it’s hard to put a number on how many physicians are turning to coaches, the number of coaches available for doctors is growing rapidly. The American Medical Women’s Association maintains a database of physician coaches. According to deputy director Jodi Godfrey, MS, RDN, the number of members who have added coaching to their skill set has tripled in the past 4 years. “Many cite burnout as the reason they sought coaching support, and then they decided to go on to get certified in coaching.”
The pandemic is one reason physician coaching has grown, said Elizabeth Esparaz, MD, an ophthalmologist and physician coach. “Since the pandemic, the word ‘burnout’ is thrown around a good deal.” And the causes are clear. “Doctors are facing longer hours, they must make split-second decisions, they’re multitasking, and they have less support staff.”
Among her coaching clients, Dr. Austin has noticed other common struggles: fears of litigation, time scarcity with patients, declining reimbursement that hasn’t kept up with inflation, and loss of autonomy because of the corporatization of healthcare.
Coaching, Dr. Esparaz believes, can be an antidote to many of these issues. “Coaches help doctors see their strengths and find better ways of applying them,” she said. “We help them move forward, and also see their blind spots.”
Clarity, Goals, and Making the Right Choices
Physician coaching comes in a variety of flavors — some one on one, and others in the form of group sessions. All, however, serve the purpose of helping physicians gain career clarity. “Sometimes clients realize their job may not be working for them, but that there are things they can do to change that without having to leave the field,” said Jattu Senesie, MD, a former ob.gyn. who is now a physician coach.
Dr. Esparaz works with doctors to establish SMART goals: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time based. She gave the example of learning how to set boundaries. “If a physician is asked to create a presentation for work, I encourage them to ask for compensation or administrative time before committing to unpaid tasks.”
Another big issue: charting. It’s increasingly burdensome, and many doctors find it encroaching on their home lives. “If we can identify a problem like that, we can come up with a strategy for mitigating it,” Dr. Esparaz said. This might include setting a goal of getting 80% of charting completed immediately after the patient encounter on the busiest clinic day of the week. The client tests the experiment and then revisits it with the coach to discuss what worked and what didn’t, refining the process until it has freed up the physician’s home life.
The younger generation of doctors often struggles with career choices, too, because it’s the first time they are without structure, said Dr. Senesie. There’s med school and residency, which puts a framework around every move a doctor makes. But once they become attending physicians, the choices are endless. “Coaching can help them find a new structure and systems that will allow them to thrive.”
Although mentoring has been a well-embraced concept for decades, it “hits a wall,” at some point in terms of what it can offer, Dr. Austin said. That’s where coaching can take over. “There’s a point where a mentor cannot help someone self-actualize. As a coach, you don’t need to know everything about a doctor’s life, but you can help them learn to ask themselves the right questions to solve problems.”
Should You Stay or Should You Go?
Dr. Austin’s approach begins with the premise that healthcare today is challenging and dysfunctional — but doctors still have agency. She has worked with clients on the verge of leaving the field and helped them find their way back.
“They have a light bulb moment and open up to the idea that they have much to give still,” she said. “We take an inventory to help them better communicate their needs and make changes, and I help them connect to their values. Sometimes that exercise allows them to reframe their current work environment.”
Not every doctor who goes through coaching remains in the field. But “that’s the exception, not the rule,” Dr. Austin said. And that’s okay. “If that’s the outcome, coaching probably helped them get to that point faster, and with an informed decision.”
Dr. Senesie has been coaching for about a decade, and in that time, she’s seen a shift that goes beyond figuring out career goals. “Doctors are more aware of the need for well-being today. The pandemic made it impossible to ignore what doesn’t work for us. When I work with clients, we look for ways to make the job more tenable.”
According to Dr. Senesie, younger doctors are looking for that balance at the outset. “They want to be physicians, but they also want a life,” she said. “It’s a challenge for them because in addition to that mindset, they’re also coming out with more debt than older generations. They want out from underneath that.”
When It’s Time to Find a Physician Coach
Wondering whether coaching is right for you? Consider these symptoms:
- You need help setting boundaries at work.
- You feel like you’re sacrificing your own well-being for your job.
- You’re using maladaptive strategies to cope with the stress at work.
- You’ve reached a point where you are considering leaving the field.
If you’re interested in finding a physician coach, there are several places to begin your search, word of mouth being one of them. “Conferences and social media can also expose you to coaches,” suggested Dr. Esparaz. There are different methods and approaches to coaching. So, as you research, “make sure the coach you choose has techniques and a framework that fit what you’re after.”
Dr. Austin warned that it is an unregulated industry, so buyer beware. To ensure you’re getting an accredited physician coach, look for people who have obtained an International Coach Federation (ICF) accreditation. These coaches will hold an associate certified coach credential, which requires at least 60 hours of coaching-specific training approved by the ICF, in addition to other assessments and education.
Ensure that the coach you choose is within your budget. “There are some people charging astronomical rates out there,” Dr. Austin said. “If you’re burned out or struggling, it can be easy to reach for your credit card.”
Dr. Austin also cautioned doctors seeking a coach to avoid promises that sound too good to be true. Some coaching can have a gaslighting quality to it, she warned, “suggesting it can allow you to endure any environment.” But positive self-talk alone won’t cure an abusive or discriminatory situation. “If a client describes a toxic work environment,” the coach has an “ethical imperative” to help that person protect themselves.
A Side Gig or a New Career Path
After Dr. Austin’s experience with her coach, she made the choice to continue as an emergency physician part-time while starting her own coaching business. “It’s important for me personally to keep in touch with what’s happening on the ground, but I have no judgment for anyone who chooses to leave clinical practice to become a coach.”
When Dr. Senesie looks back on her own struggles as a clinician, she recognizes the state of burnout she was in 10 years ago. “I knew there was an issue, but I didn’t have the mindset to find a way to make it work,” she said. “I left the field when I was at my depths of burnout, which is generally not the best way to go about it.”
Guidance might have allowed her to take into account other avenues and helped her remain in the field, said Dr. Senesie. She has since learned that “there are many ways to practice medicine, and the way we’ve gone about it traditionally has worked for some, but not necessarily for everyone.”
There may be more possibilities than you think. By helping you assess your path and make meaningful changes, a physician coach might be the key to remaining in the field you love.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When Andrea Austin, MD, an emergency medicine specialist, left the military in 2020, she knew the adjustment to civilian life and practice might be difficult. To help smooth the transition, she reached out to a physician mentor who also had a professional coaching certificate. After a conversation, Dr. Austin signed up for 6 months of career coaching.
It was time well spent, according to Dr. Austin, who today is a coach herself. “It was really the first time I had the ability to choose what I wanted to do, and that required a mindset shift,” she explains. “A big part of coaching is helping physicians discover their agency so that they can make the best career choices.”
Physicians have long lacked the coaching resources typically made available to corporate executives. But that’s changing. In today’s high-pressure environment, where doctors are burning out at a rapid pace, coaching can sometimes be an avenue to staying in the field, especially if that coach is a fellow physician who understands what you’re facing.
With a physician shortage that the Association of American Medical Colleges expects to hit 86,000 in the next decade or so, coaching could be a stone worth turning over. A 2024 report in JAMA Network Open found that coaching provided by physician peers led to a significant reduction in interpersonal disengagement and burnout.
“What I think is exciting about coaching is that it allows you to better understand yourself and know your strengths and weaknesses,” said Dr. Austin. “It might seem simple, but many ‘soft skills’ aren’t considered mainstream in medicine. Coaching allows us to understand them and ourselves better.”
Why Are Doctors Using Coaches?
Although it’s hard to put a number on how many physicians are turning to coaches, the number of coaches available for doctors is growing rapidly. The American Medical Women’s Association maintains a database of physician coaches. According to deputy director Jodi Godfrey, MS, RDN, the number of members who have added coaching to their skill set has tripled in the past 4 years. “Many cite burnout as the reason they sought coaching support, and then they decided to go on to get certified in coaching.”
The pandemic is one reason physician coaching has grown, said Elizabeth Esparaz, MD, an ophthalmologist and physician coach. “Since the pandemic, the word ‘burnout’ is thrown around a good deal.” And the causes are clear. “Doctors are facing longer hours, they must make split-second decisions, they’re multitasking, and they have less support staff.”
Among her coaching clients, Dr. Austin has noticed other common struggles: fears of litigation, time scarcity with patients, declining reimbursement that hasn’t kept up with inflation, and loss of autonomy because of the corporatization of healthcare.
Coaching, Dr. Esparaz believes, can be an antidote to many of these issues. “Coaches help doctors see their strengths and find better ways of applying them,” she said. “We help them move forward, and also see their blind spots.”
Clarity, Goals, and Making the Right Choices
Physician coaching comes in a variety of flavors — some one on one, and others in the form of group sessions. All, however, serve the purpose of helping physicians gain career clarity. “Sometimes clients realize their job may not be working for them, but that there are things they can do to change that without having to leave the field,” said Jattu Senesie, MD, a former ob.gyn. who is now a physician coach.
Dr. Esparaz works with doctors to establish SMART goals: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time based. She gave the example of learning how to set boundaries. “If a physician is asked to create a presentation for work, I encourage them to ask for compensation or administrative time before committing to unpaid tasks.”
Another big issue: charting. It’s increasingly burdensome, and many doctors find it encroaching on their home lives. “If we can identify a problem like that, we can come up with a strategy for mitigating it,” Dr. Esparaz said. This might include setting a goal of getting 80% of charting completed immediately after the patient encounter on the busiest clinic day of the week. The client tests the experiment and then revisits it with the coach to discuss what worked and what didn’t, refining the process until it has freed up the physician’s home life.
The younger generation of doctors often struggles with career choices, too, because it’s the first time they are without structure, said Dr. Senesie. There’s med school and residency, which puts a framework around every move a doctor makes. But once they become attending physicians, the choices are endless. “Coaching can help them find a new structure and systems that will allow them to thrive.”
Although mentoring has been a well-embraced concept for decades, it “hits a wall,” at some point in terms of what it can offer, Dr. Austin said. That’s where coaching can take over. “There’s a point where a mentor cannot help someone self-actualize. As a coach, you don’t need to know everything about a doctor’s life, but you can help them learn to ask themselves the right questions to solve problems.”
Should You Stay or Should You Go?
Dr. Austin’s approach begins with the premise that healthcare today is challenging and dysfunctional — but doctors still have agency. She has worked with clients on the verge of leaving the field and helped them find their way back.
“They have a light bulb moment and open up to the idea that they have much to give still,” she said. “We take an inventory to help them better communicate their needs and make changes, and I help them connect to their values. Sometimes that exercise allows them to reframe their current work environment.”
Not every doctor who goes through coaching remains in the field. But “that’s the exception, not the rule,” Dr. Austin said. And that’s okay. “If that’s the outcome, coaching probably helped them get to that point faster, and with an informed decision.”
Dr. Senesie has been coaching for about a decade, and in that time, she’s seen a shift that goes beyond figuring out career goals. “Doctors are more aware of the need for well-being today. The pandemic made it impossible to ignore what doesn’t work for us. When I work with clients, we look for ways to make the job more tenable.”
According to Dr. Senesie, younger doctors are looking for that balance at the outset. “They want to be physicians, but they also want a life,” she said. “It’s a challenge for them because in addition to that mindset, they’re also coming out with more debt than older generations. They want out from underneath that.”
When It’s Time to Find a Physician Coach
Wondering whether coaching is right for you? Consider these symptoms:
- You need help setting boundaries at work.
- You feel like you’re sacrificing your own well-being for your job.
- You’re using maladaptive strategies to cope with the stress at work.
- You’ve reached a point where you are considering leaving the field.
If you’re interested in finding a physician coach, there are several places to begin your search, word of mouth being one of them. “Conferences and social media can also expose you to coaches,” suggested Dr. Esparaz. There are different methods and approaches to coaching. So, as you research, “make sure the coach you choose has techniques and a framework that fit what you’re after.”
Dr. Austin warned that it is an unregulated industry, so buyer beware. To ensure you’re getting an accredited physician coach, look for people who have obtained an International Coach Federation (ICF) accreditation. These coaches will hold an associate certified coach credential, which requires at least 60 hours of coaching-specific training approved by the ICF, in addition to other assessments and education.
Ensure that the coach you choose is within your budget. “There are some people charging astronomical rates out there,” Dr. Austin said. “If you’re burned out or struggling, it can be easy to reach for your credit card.”
Dr. Austin also cautioned doctors seeking a coach to avoid promises that sound too good to be true. Some coaching can have a gaslighting quality to it, she warned, “suggesting it can allow you to endure any environment.” But positive self-talk alone won’t cure an abusive or discriminatory situation. “If a client describes a toxic work environment,” the coach has an “ethical imperative” to help that person protect themselves.
A Side Gig or a New Career Path
After Dr. Austin’s experience with her coach, she made the choice to continue as an emergency physician part-time while starting her own coaching business. “It’s important for me personally to keep in touch with what’s happening on the ground, but I have no judgment for anyone who chooses to leave clinical practice to become a coach.”
When Dr. Senesie looks back on her own struggles as a clinician, she recognizes the state of burnout she was in 10 years ago. “I knew there was an issue, but I didn’t have the mindset to find a way to make it work,” she said. “I left the field when I was at my depths of burnout, which is generally not the best way to go about it.”
Guidance might have allowed her to take into account other avenues and helped her remain in the field, said Dr. Senesie. She has since learned that “there are many ways to practice medicine, and the way we’ve gone about it traditionally has worked for some, but not necessarily for everyone.”
There may be more possibilities than you think. By helping you assess your path and make meaningful changes, a physician coach might be the key to remaining in the field you love.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Approves Neoadjuvant/Adjuvant Durvalumab for NSCLC
The agency approved durvalumab alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting and as monotherapy in the adjuvant setting.
The approval comes shortly after a meeting of FDA’s Oncology Drug Advisory Committee, where agency personnel took AstraZeneca to task for not following its request to include an arm in the approval study, AEGEAN, to clarify whether or not treatment after surgery was necessary.
Even so, advisers at the July 25 meeting voted “yes” to approving the neoadjuvant/adjuvant indication to give patients another immunotherapy option in NSCLC. However, the committee voted unanimously that, going forward, the agency should require — instead of simply request — that companies seeking combined neoadjuvant/adjuvant NSCLC indications show that patients actually need treatment after surgery.
The new approval is durvalumab’s first indication for resectable NSCLC. The agent has been previously approved for unresectable or metastatic disease as well as extensive-stage small cell lung cancer, locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, and advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.
AEGEAN included 802 patients with previously untreated and resectable stage IIA-IIIB squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either durvalumab (400 patients) or placebo (402 patients) on a background of platinum-based chemotherapy every 3 weeks for four cycles then, following surgery, durvalumab or placebo once a month for a year.
The pathologic complete response rate was 17% in the durvalumab arm vs 4.3% in the placebo arm. At 12 months, event-free survival was 73.4% with durvalumab vs 64.5% with placebo. Overall survival differences have not been tested for statistical significance, but there was “no clear detriment” with durvalumab, FDA said in a press release.
Adverse reactions in 20% or more of durvalumab recipients included anemia, nausea, constipation, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and rash; 1.7% of durvalumab recipients and 1% of placebo recipients could not have surgery because of side effects during neoadjuvant treatment.
The dosage for patients weighing > 30 kg is 1500 mg every 3 weeks before surgery and every 4 weeks afterward. For patients who weigh less than that, the recommended dosage is 20 mg/kg.
Durvalumab costs around $1,053 for 120 mg, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency approved durvalumab alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting and as monotherapy in the adjuvant setting.
The approval comes shortly after a meeting of FDA’s Oncology Drug Advisory Committee, where agency personnel took AstraZeneca to task for not following its request to include an arm in the approval study, AEGEAN, to clarify whether or not treatment after surgery was necessary.
Even so, advisers at the July 25 meeting voted “yes” to approving the neoadjuvant/adjuvant indication to give patients another immunotherapy option in NSCLC. However, the committee voted unanimously that, going forward, the agency should require — instead of simply request — that companies seeking combined neoadjuvant/adjuvant NSCLC indications show that patients actually need treatment after surgery.
The new approval is durvalumab’s first indication for resectable NSCLC. The agent has been previously approved for unresectable or metastatic disease as well as extensive-stage small cell lung cancer, locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, and advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.
AEGEAN included 802 patients with previously untreated and resectable stage IIA-IIIB squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either durvalumab (400 patients) or placebo (402 patients) on a background of platinum-based chemotherapy every 3 weeks for four cycles then, following surgery, durvalumab or placebo once a month for a year.
The pathologic complete response rate was 17% in the durvalumab arm vs 4.3% in the placebo arm. At 12 months, event-free survival was 73.4% with durvalumab vs 64.5% with placebo. Overall survival differences have not been tested for statistical significance, but there was “no clear detriment” with durvalumab, FDA said in a press release.
Adverse reactions in 20% or more of durvalumab recipients included anemia, nausea, constipation, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and rash; 1.7% of durvalumab recipients and 1% of placebo recipients could not have surgery because of side effects during neoadjuvant treatment.
The dosage for patients weighing > 30 kg is 1500 mg every 3 weeks before surgery and every 4 weeks afterward. For patients who weigh less than that, the recommended dosage is 20 mg/kg.
Durvalumab costs around $1,053 for 120 mg, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency approved durvalumab alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting and as monotherapy in the adjuvant setting.
The approval comes shortly after a meeting of FDA’s Oncology Drug Advisory Committee, where agency personnel took AstraZeneca to task for not following its request to include an arm in the approval study, AEGEAN, to clarify whether or not treatment after surgery was necessary.
Even so, advisers at the July 25 meeting voted “yes” to approving the neoadjuvant/adjuvant indication to give patients another immunotherapy option in NSCLC. However, the committee voted unanimously that, going forward, the agency should require — instead of simply request — that companies seeking combined neoadjuvant/adjuvant NSCLC indications show that patients actually need treatment after surgery.
The new approval is durvalumab’s first indication for resectable NSCLC. The agent has been previously approved for unresectable or metastatic disease as well as extensive-stage small cell lung cancer, locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, and advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.
AEGEAN included 802 patients with previously untreated and resectable stage IIA-IIIB squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either durvalumab (400 patients) or placebo (402 patients) on a background of platinum-based chemotherapy every 3 weeks for four cycles then, following surgery, durvalumab or placebo once a month for a year.
The pathologic complete response rate was 17% in the durvalumab arm vs 4.3% in the placebo arm. At 12 months, event-free survival was 73.4% with durvalumab vs 64.5% with placebo. Overall survival differences have not been tested for statistical significance, but there was “no clear detriment” with durvalumab, FDA said in a press release.
Adverse reactions in 20% or more of durvalumab recipients included anemia, nausea, constipation, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and rash; 1.7% of durvalumab recipients and 1% of placebo recipients could not have surgery because of side effects during neoadjuvant treatment.
The dosage for patients weighing > 30 kg is 1500 mg every 3 weeks before surgery and every 4 weeks afterward. For patients who weigh less than that, the recommended dosage is 20 mg/kg.
Durvalumab costs around $1,053 for 120 mg, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Radiation Therapy Underused After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Nipple-sparing mastectomy has become increasingly popular for treating early-stage breast cancer given the cosmetic and functional benefits of the procedure. However, appropriate use of adjuvant radiation therapy following nipple-sparing mastectomy has not been characterized.
- Researchers compared outcomes and appropriate uses of radiation therapy among 624,075 women diagnosed with cT1-3N0M0 invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer between 2004 and 2017 who underwent breast-conserving surgery (n = 611,907; median age, 63 years) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 12,168; median age, 50 years).
- The researchers compared the rates of postoperative radiation therapy for two standard indications — positive margins and pathologic node involvement — in patients who had breast-conserving surgery or nipple-sparing mastectomy.
- The team also compared overall survival outcomes in patients with positive margins and node involvement.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had higher rates of positive margins (4.5% vs 3.7%; P < .001) and, on multivariable analysis, a 15% higher risk for positive margins compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; P = .005).
- Similarly, patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had significantly higher rates of node involvement compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (22.5% vs 13.5%) and, on multivariable analysis, an 8% higher risk for node involvement (OR, 1.08; P < .001).
- Despite higher rates of positive margins and node involvement in the nipple-sparing surgery group, these patients were significantly less likely than those in the breast-conserving surgery group to receive adjuvant radiation therapy (OR, 0.07). Overall, only 17.2% of patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy received postoperative radiation therapy compared with 83.3% of those undergoing breast-conserving surgery — an almost fivefold difference (P < .001).
- In the overall study sample, overall survival in the two surgical groups did not differ significantly among patients with positive margins (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.31; P = .21) and those with node involvement (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28; P = .93).
IN PRACTICE:
The researchers emphasized that although overall survival outcomes were comparable in the two surgery groups, the “current standard indications and guidelines for post-mastectomy radiation are not being appropriately” used after nipple-sparing mastectomy.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Wesley J. Talcott, MD, MBA, Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
Data on locoregional recurrence, cause-specific mortality, and all pathologic details were not available. The relatively short median follow-up period might not capture differences in the long-term survival outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not receive any funding support. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Nipple-sparing mastectomy has become increasingly popular for treating early-stage breast cancer given the cosmetic and functional benefits of the procedure. However, appropriate use of adjuvant radiation therapy following nipple-sparing mastectomy has not been characterized.
- Researchers compared outcomes and appropriate uses of radiation therapy among 624,075 women diagnosed with cT1-3N0M0 invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer between 2004 and 2017 who underwent breast-conserving surgery (n = 611,907; median age, 63 years) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 12,168; median age, 50 years).
- The researchers compared the rates of postoperative radiation therapy for two standard indications — positive margins and pathologic node involvement — in patients who had breast-conserving surgery or nipple-sparing mastectomy.
- The team also compared overall survival outcomes in patients with positive margins and node involvement.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had higher rates of positive margins (4.5% vs 3.7%; P < .001) and, on multivariable analysis, a 15% higher risk for positive margins compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; P = .005).
- Similarly, patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had significantly higher rates of node involvement compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (22.5% vs 13.5%) and, on multivariable analysis, an 8% higher risk for node involvement (OR, 1.08; P < .001).
- Despite higher rates of positive margins and node involvement in the nipple-sparing surgery group, these patients were significantly less likely than those in the breast-conserving surgery group to receive adjuvant radiation therapy (OR, 0.07). Overall, only 17.2% of patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy received postoperative radiation therapy compared with 83.3% of those undergoing breast-conserving surgery — an almost fivefold difference (P < .001).
- In the overall study sample, overall survival in the two surgical groups did not differ significantly among patients with positive margins (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.31; P = .21) and those with node involvement (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28; P = .93).
IN PRACTICE:
The researchers emphasized that although overall survival outcomes were comparable in the two surgery groups, the “current standard indications and guidelines for post-mastectomy radiation are not being appropriately” used after nipple-sparing mastectomy.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Wesley J. Talcott, MD, MBA, Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
Data on locoregional recurrence, cause-specific mortality, and all pathologic details were not available. The relatively short median follow-up period might not capture differences in the long-term survival outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not receive any funding support. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Nipple-sparing mastectomy has become increasingly popular for treating early-stage breast cancer given the cosmetic and functional benefits of the procedure. However, appropriate use of adjuvant radiation therapy following nipple-sparing mastectomy has not been characterized.
- Researchers compared outcomes and appropriate uses of radiation therapy among 624,075 women diagnosed with cT1-3N0M0 invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer between 2004 and 2017 who underwent breast-conserving surgery (n = 611,907; median age, 63 years) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 12,168; median age, 50 years).
- The researchers compared the rates of postoperative radiation therapy for two standard indications — positive margins and pathologic node involvement — in patients who had breast-conserving surgery or nipple-sparing mastectomy.
- The team also compared overall survival outcomes in patients with positive margins and node involvement.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had higher rates of positive margins (4.5% vs 3.7%; P < .001) and, on multivariable analysis, a 15% higher risk for positive margins compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; P = .005).
- Similarly, patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had significantly higher rates of node involvement compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (22.5% vs 13.5%) and, on multivariable analysis, an 8% higher risk for node involvement (OR, 1.08; P < .001).
- Despite higher rates of positive margins and node involvement in the nipple-sparing surgery group, these patients were significantly less likely than those in the breast-conserving surgery group to receive adjuvant radiation therapy (OR, 0.07). Overall, only 17.2% of patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy received postoperative radiation therapy compared with 83.3% of those undergoing breast-conserving surgery — an almost fivefold difference (P < .001).
- In the overall study sample, overall survival in the two surgical groups did not differ significantly among patients with positive margins (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.31; P = .21) and those with node involvement (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28; P = .93).
IN PRACTICE:
The researchers emphasized that although overall survival outcomes were comparable in the two surgery groups, the “current standard indications and guidelines for post-mastectomy radiation are not being appropriately” used after nipple-sparing mastectomy.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Wesley J. Talcott, MD, MBA, Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
Data on locoregional recurrence, cause-specific mortality, and all pathologic details were not available. The relatively short median follow-up period might not capture differences in the long-term survival outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not receive any funding support. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.