User login
‘Miracle’ Drugs
We toss the word “miracle” around a lot — the ’69 Mets; the 1980 U.S. mens hockey team; Charlton Heston scowling into the wind, parting the waters of the Red Sea (or at least a Hollywood backlot).
We especially like to use it for medications, as in “miracle drug.”
Those of us who do this long enough know there ain’t no such thing, but the term keeps coming up — aspirin, penicillin, Botox ...
Recently, the popular press has hung the moniker on the GLP-1 drugs, like Ozempic, as “miracles.” While certainly useful, most of this comes from the drug’s reputation as the American dream of something that causes weight loss without the bother of diet and exercise. Of course, it’s also useful for diabetes, and is being investigated for numerous other conditions.
But the real truth is that it’s not a miracle (in fairness, none of the manufacturers of these drugs are making such a ridiculous claim). Nothing is. The word is tossed around for so many things that it’s almost become meaningless.
This isn’t a knock on the GLP-1 agents as much as it’s how people are. Of course, such a drug will never exist, in spite of all the claims on various Internet sites about miracle cures that Big Medicine is hiding from the public.
People are similar, but not the same, and too heterogeneous to know which drug will work/not work or cause a given side effect. We all deal with the uncertainties of medicine being a trial and error process. We try our best to communicate this to people, with varying degrees of success.
Unfortunately, human nature is such that we often hear only what we want to hear. You can run down the whole list of concerns, but some people stopped paying attention when they heard “weight loss” or “migraine relief” or whatever. Every physician ever has had to deal with this, as will those who follow us.
Medicine changes. People ... not so much.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
We toss the word “miracle” around a lot — the ’69 Mets; the 1980 U.S. mens hockey team; Charlton Heston scowling into the wind, parting the waters of the Red Sea (or at least a Hollywood backlot).
We especially like to use it for medications, as in “miracle drug.”
Those of us who do this long enough know there ain’t no such thing, but the term keeps coming up — aspirin, penicillin, Botox ...
Recently, the popular press has hung the moniker on the GLP-1 drugs, like Ozempic, as “miracles.” While certainly useful, most of this comes from the drug’s reputation as the American dream of something that causes weight loss without the bother of diet and exercise. Of course, it’s also useful for diabetes, and is being investigated for numerous other conditions.
But the real truth is that it’s not a miracle (in fairness, none of the manufacturers of these drugs are making such a ridiculous claim). Nothing is. The word is tossed around for so many things that it’s almost become meaningless.
This isn’t a knock on the GLP-1 agents as much as it’s how people are. Of course, such a drug will never exist, in spite of all the claims on various Internet sites about miracle cures that Big Medicine is hiding from the public.
People are similar, but not the same, and too heterogeneous to know which drug will work/not work or cause a given side effect. We all deal with the uncertainties of medicine being a trial and error process. We try our best to communicate this to people, with varying degrees of success.
Unfortunately, human nature is such that we often hear only what we want to hear. You can run down the whole list of concerns, but some people stopped paying attention when they heard “weight loss” or “migraine relief” or whatever. Every physician ever has had to deal with this, as will those who follow us.
Medicine changes. People ... not so much.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
We toss the word “miracle” around a lot — the ’69 Mets; the 1980 U.S. mens hockey team; Charlton Heston scowling into the wind, parting the waters of the Red Sea (or at least a Hollywood backlot).
We especially like to use it for medications, as in “miracle drug.”
Those of us who do this long enough know there ain’t no such thing, but the term keeps coming up — aspirin, penicillin, Botox ...
Recently, the popular press has hung the moniker on the GLP-1 drugs, like Ozempic, as “miracles.” While certainly useful, most of this comes from the drug’s reputation as the American dream of something that causes weight loss without the bother of diet and exercise. Of course, it’s also useful for diabetes, and is being investigated for numerous other conditions.
But the real truth is that it’s not a miracle (in fairness, none of the manufacturers of these drugs are making such a ridiculous claim). Nothing is. The word is tossed around for so many things that it’s almost become meaningless.
This isn’t a knock on the GLP-1 agents as much as it’s how people are. Of course, such a drug will never exist, in spite of all the claims on various Internet sites about miracle cures that Big Medicine is hiding from the public.
People are similar, but not the same, and too heterogeneous to know which drug will work/not work or cause a given side effect. We all deal with the uncertainties of medicine being a trial and error process. We try our best to communicate this to people, with varying degrees of success.
Unfortunately, human nature is such that we often hear only what we want to hear. You can run down the whole list of concerns, but some people stopped paying attention when they heard “weight loss” or “migraine relief” or whatever. Every physician ever has had to deal with this, as will those who follow us.
Medicine changes. People ... not so much.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
SUID and a Cardboard Box
In this February’s issue of the journal Pediatrics there is an interesting paper that explores the demographics and sleep environments of the more than 8000 sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) victims who died in the United States between 2011 and 2020. The authors’ broad conclusion was “Most SUID, regardless of sleep location, had multiple unsafe sleep factors present demonstrating the need for comprehensive sleep counseling for every family at every encounter.”
From the perspective of a former busy primary care physician I shudder when I read a statement this broad because it doesn’t acknowledge the realities of my professional life. A sentence containing “comprehensive” and two “every’s” won’t be taken seriously by most of the practicing pediatricians I know. However, there is an abundance of information generated by these investigators that could help a pediatrician target his advice to the individual families in his practice without having to resort to time-consuming comprehensive counseling, which is likely to sound like just so much chatter to families overwhelmed by the new challenge of raising a child.
For example, nearly 60% of SUID cases were sharing a sleep surface when they died, and surface-sharing infants were more likely to not have a crib in their home. It seems to me that one should start with the simple question, “Do your have a crib in your home ... in all the homes where the baby will sleep?” And, it should be asked in the hospital prior to discharge.
In 1993, our second-born daughter went home from a teaching hospital in a cardboard box. So did all of her nursery mates. It was decorated with a stork motif and had served as her bassinet. Since early in the last century, families in Finland have been offered a similar box filled with baby supplies. Shrinkflation has caused a scale back in its contents, but the box itself has remained as a safe and inexpensive sleep surface for income-challenged families.
Many babies in this country are put to sleep in a variety of places as they are shuttled around to where the inexpensive childcare is available. Offering families as many boxes as they need may avoid the tragedy of their infant smothering on Aunt Louise’s couch or Cousin Martha’s bed littered with pillows. This is particularly important in a family with multiples (twins, triplets, etc.) who are overrepresented in the SUID population. The opening question about crib availability is likely to alert the healthcare provider to a social situation dominated by poverty that may include lower parental education and a higher likelihood of residential insecurity, all of which are associated with surface-sharing.
The authors observe “surface-sharing in and of itself may not be what caregiver education should focus on.” A simple cardboard box, however, is not a sleep surface likely to be shared with an adult.
For the families for whom surface-sharing is a choice and not a necessity, the investigators encourage us to engage families on their motivation for surface-sharing. This is a discussion that clinicians should be initiating, regardless of our concern of SUID prevention, by simply asking “How are you and your baby sleeping?” Is the baby being nursed to sleep? Where? While the authors acknowledge that their raw data did not allow them to make any observations on a relationship between surface-sharing and breastfeeding, my anecdotal observations have found an unfortunate number of mothers who have become human pacifiers for their babies and are co-sleeping. This association can result in a sleep-deprived parent(s) with unhealthy consequences. Although it can be difficult to uncouple breastfeeding from settling, early intervention triggered by asking a simple question can improve the chances of resolution.
Although I may quibble with the wording of authors’ final conclusion, this is an excellent paper worth looking at. SUID while infrequent and for the most part still mysterious is a tragedy that we should be able to prevent.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
In this February’s issue of the journal Pediatrics there is an interesting paper that explores the demographics and sleep environments of the more than 8000 sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) victims who died in the United States between 2011 and 2020. The authors’ broad conclusion was “Most SUID, regardless of sleep location, had multiple unsafe sleep factors present demonstrating the need for comprehensive sleep counseling for every family at every encounter.”
From the perspective of a former busy primary care physician I shudder when I read a statement this broad because it doesn’t acknowledge the realities of my professional life. A sentence containing “comprehensive” and two “every’s” won’t be taken seriously by most of the practicing pediatricians I know. However, there is an abundance of information generated by these investigators that could help a pediatrician target his advice to the individual families in his practice without having to resort to time-consuming comprehensive counseling, which is likely to sound like just so much chatter to families overwhelmed by the new challenge of raising a child.
For example, nearly 60% of SUID cases were sharing a sleep surface when they died, and surface-sharing infants were more likely to not have a crib in their home. It seems to me that one should start with the simple question, “Do your have a crib in your home ... in all the homes where the baby will sleep?” And, it should be asked in the hospital prior to discharge.
In 1993, our second-born daughter went home from a teaching hospital in a cardboard box. So did all of her nursery mates. It was decorated with a stork motif and had served as her bassinet. Since early in the last century, families in Finland have been offered a similar box filled with baby supplies. Shrinkflation has caused a scale back in its contents, but the box itself has remained as a safe and inexpensive sleep surface for income-challenged families.
Many babies in this country are put to sleep in a variety of places as they are shuttled around to where the inexpensive childcare is available. Offering families as many boxes as they need may avoid the tragedy of their infant smothering on Aunt Louise’s couch or Cousin Martha’s bed littered with pillows. This is particularly important in a family with multiples (twins, triplets, etc.) who are overrepresented in the SUID population. The opening question about crib availability is likely to alert the healthcare provider to a social situation dominated by poverty that may include lower parental education and a higher likelihood of residential insecurity, all of which are associated with surface-sharing.
The authors observe “surface-sharing in and of itself may not be what caregiver education should focus on.” A simple cardboard box, however, is not a sleep surface likely to be shared with an adult.
For the families for whom surface-sharing is a choice and not a necessity, the investigators encourage us to engage families on their motivation for surface-sharing. This is a discussion that clinicians should be initiating, regardless of our concern of SUID prevention, by simply asking “How are you and your baby sleeping?” Is the baby being nursed to sleep? Where? While the authors acknowledge that their raw data did not allow them to make any observations on a relationship between surface-sharing and breastfeeding, my anecdotal observations have found an unfortunate number of mothers who have become human pacifiers for their babies and are co-sleeping. This association can result in a sleep-deprived parent(s) with unhealthy consequences. Although it can be difficult to uncouple breastfeeding from settling, early intervention triggered by asking a simple question can improve the chances of resolution.
Although I may quibble with the wording of authors’ final conclusion, this is an excellent paper worth looking at. SUID while infrequent and for the most part still mysterious is a tragedy that we should be able to prevent.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
In this February’s issue of the journal Pediatrics there is an interesting paper that explores the demographics and sleep environments of the more than 8000 sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) victims who died in the United States between 2011 and 2020. The authors’ broad conclusion was “Most SUID, regardless of sleep location, had multiple unsafe sleep factors present demonstrating the need for comprehensive sleep counseling for every family at every encounter.”
From the perspective of a former busy primary care physician I shudder when I read a statement this broad because it doesn’t acknowledge the realities of my professional life. A sentence containing “comprehensive” and two “every’s” won’t be taken seriously by most of the practicing pediatricians I know. However, there is an abundance of information generated by these investigators that could help a pediatrician target his advice to the individual families in his practice without having to resort to time-consuming comprehensive counseling, which is likely to sound like just so much chatter to families overwhelmed by the new challenge of raising a child.
For example, nearly 60% of SUID cases were sharing a sleep surface when they died, and surface-sharing infants were more likely to not have a crib in their home. It seems to me that one should start with the simple question, “Do your have a crib in your home ... in all the homes where the baby will sleep?” And, it should be asked in the hospital prior to discharge.
In 1993, our second-born daughter went home from a teaching hospital in a cardboard box. So did all of her nursery mates. It was decorated with a stork motif and had served as her bassinet. Since early in the last century, families in Finland have been offered a similar box filled with baby supplies. Shrinkflation has caused a scale back in its contents, but the box itself has remained as a safe and inexpensive sleep surface for income-challenged families.
Many babies in this country are put to sleep in a variety of places as they are shuttled around to where the inexpensive childcare is available. Offering families as many boxes as they need may avoid the tragedy of their infant smothering on Aunt Louise’s couch or Cousin Martha’s bed littered with pillows. This is particularly important in a family with multiples (twins, triplets, etc.) who are overrepresented in the SUID population. The opening question about crib availability is likely to alert the healthcare provider to a social situation dominated by poverty that may include lower parental education and a higher likelihood of residential insecurity, all of which are associated with surface-sharing.
The authors observe “surface-sharing in and of itself may not be what caregiver education should focus on.” A simple cardboard box, however, is not a sleep surface likely to be shared with an adult.
For the families for whom surface-sharing is a choice and not a necessity, the investigators encourage us to engage families on their motivation for surface-sharing. This is a discussion that clinicians should be initiating, regardless of our concern of SUID prevention, by simply asking “How are you and your baby sleeping?” Is the baby being nursed to sleep? Where? While the authors acknowledge that their raw data did not allow them to make any observations on a relationship between surface-sharing and breastfeeding, my anecdotal observations have found an unfortunate number of mothers who have become human pacifiers for their babies and are co-sleeping. This association can result in a sleep-deprived parent(s) with unhealthy consequences. Although it can be difficult to uncouple breastfeeding from settling, early intervention triggered by asking a simple question can improve the chances of resolution.
Although I may quibble with the wording of authors’ final conclusion, this is an excellent paper worth looking at. SUID while infrequent and for the most part still mysterious is a tragedy that we should be able to prevent.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Different cultures, same wiring
Some things are universal, or at least worldwide.
She didn’t speak a word of English, but I don’t speak any Mandarin. Fortunately, her concerned son was fluent in both.
A nice lady in her 60s, here from China to visit her son and his family for a month. The visit was going fine until she abruptly developed double vision. Through the modern miracle of email she contacted her doctor in Beijing, who told her to find a neurologist here or go to an ER.
I’d had a last minute cancellation a few minutes before her son called and so was able to see her that afternoon. Both were scared that I was going to admit her to a hospital.
Fortunately, people are wired the same no matter where they’re from. The electrical fibers of the nervous system are predictable across international borders, as are the maladies.
A history and exam made the diagnosis of a diabetic cranial nerve palsy most likely, and I was able to reassure them. I ordered the usual imaging studies (fortunately she’d bought travelers’ insurance in advance). As anticipated, they were normal.
Her son and I spoke by phone to close things out, with her in the background and him translating between us. By the time she left 2 weeks later the symptoms were resolving. I made sure she went home with copies of my notes and the MRI reports, figuring someone there would be able to translate them for her physician.
These sorts of encounters are uncommon in my little solo practice, but still drive home the point that people around the world have more in common than not.
Not to mention families. The mother traveling around the world to see her son and grandchildren. The child concerned for the welfare of his parent and helping her get care. These, too, are human universals, regardless of the language spoken. There isn’t a culture on Earth that doesn’t value family connections, nor is there one that didn’t develop (albeit in different forms) doctors.
The human population is 8 billion. Everyone is different, and yet everyone, overall, is the same. Fellow travelers on a small planet.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Some things are universal, or at least worldwide.
She didn’t speak a word of English, but I don’t speak any Mandarin. Fortunately, her concerned son was fluent in both.
A nice lady in her 60s, here from China to visit her son and his family for a month. The visit was going fine until she abruptly developed double vision. Through the modern miracle of email she contacted her doctor in Beijing, who told her to find a neurologist here or go to an ER.
I’d had a last minute cancellation a few minutes before her son called and so was able to see her that afternoon. Both were scared that I was going to admit her to a hospital.
Fortunately, people are wired the same no matter where they’re from. The electrical fibers of the nervous system are predictable across international borders, as are the maladies.
A history and exam made the diagnosis of a diabetic cranial nerve palsy most likely, and I was able to reassure them. I ordered the usual imaging studies (fortunately she’d bought travelers’ insurance in advance). As anticipated, they were normal.
Her son and I spoke by phone to close things out, with her in the background and him translating between us. By the time she left 2 weeks later the symptoms were resolving. I made sure she went home with copies of my notes and the MRI reports, figuring someone there would be able to translate them for her physician.
These sorts of encounters are uncommon in my little solo practice, but still drive home the point that people around the world have more in common than not.
Not to mention families. The mother traveling around the world to see her son and grandchildren. The child concerned for the welfare of his parent and helping her get care. These, too, are human universals, regardless of the language spoken. There isn’t a culture on Earth that doesn’t value family connections, nor is there one that didn’t develop (albeit in different forms) doctors.
The human population is 8 billion. Everyone is different, and yet everyone, overall, is the same. Fellow travelers on a small planet.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Some things are universal, or at least worldwide.
She didn’t speak a word of English, but I don’t speak any Mandarin. Fortunately, her concerned son was fluent in both.
A nice lady in her 60s, here from China to visit her son and his family for a month. The visit was going fine until she abruptly developed double vision. Through the modern miracle of email she contacted her doctor in Beijing, who told her to find a neurologist here or go to an ER.
I’d had a last minute cancellation a few minutes before her son called and so was able to see her that afternoon. Both were scared that I was going to admit her to a hospital.
Fortunately, people are wired the same no matter where they’re from. The electrical fibers of the nervous system are predictable across international borders, as are the maladies.
A history and exam made the diagnosis of a diabetic cranial nerve palsy most likely, and I was able to reassure them. I ordered the usual imaging studies (fortunately she’d bought travelers’ insurance in advance). As anticipated, they were normal.
Her son and I spoke by phone to close things out, with her in the background and him translating between us. By the time she left 2 weeks later the symptoms were resolving. I made sure she went home with copies of my notes and the MRI reports, figuring someone there would be able to translate them for her physician.
These sorts of encounters are uncommon in my little solo practice, but still drive home the point that people around the world have more in common than not.
Not to mention families. The mother traveling around the world to see her son and grandchildren. The child concerned for the welfare of his parent and helping her get care. These, too, are human universals, regardless of the language spoken. There isn’t a culture on Earth that doesn’t value family connections, nor is there one that didn’t develop (albeit in different forms) doctors.
The human population is 8 billion. Everyone is different, and yet everyone, overall, is the same. Fellow travelers on a small planet.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Oxaliplatin in Older Adults With Resected Colorectal Cancer: Is There a Benefit?
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Our group, the QUASAR Group, made a very significant contribution in terms of trials and knowledge in this field. One of the things that we still need to discuss and think about in our wider community is the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients.
Colorectal cancer is a disease of the elderly, with the median age of presentation around 72. We know that, at presentation, more than 50% of patients are aged 65 or over and one third of patients are 75 or over. It’s a disease predominantly of the elderly. Are we justified in giving combination chemotherapy with oxaliplatin to high-risk resected colorectal cancer patients?
There’s a very nice report of a meta-analysis by Dottorini and colleagues that came out recently in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. It’s an excellent group. They did their meta-analytical work according to a strict, rational protocol. Their statistical analyses were on point, and they collected data from all the relevant trials.
According to the results of their study, it could be concluded that the addition of oxaliplatin to adjuvant therapy for resected high-risk colorectal cancer in older patients — patients older than 70 — doesn’t result in any statistically significant gain in terms of preventing recurrences or saving lives.
When we did our QUASAR trials, initially we were looking at control vs fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. Although there was an overall impact on survival of the whole trial group (the 5000 patients in our study), when we looked by decile, there was a significant diminution of benefit even to fluoropyrimidine therapy in our trial in patients aged 70 or above. I think this careful meta-analysis must make us question the use of oxaliplatin in elderly patients.
What could the explanation be? Why could the well-known and described benefits of oxaliplatin, particularly for stage III disease, attenuate in older people? It may be to do with reduction in dose intensity. Older people have more side effects; therefore, the chemotherapy isn’t completed as planned. Although, increasingly these days, we tend only to be giving 3 months of treatment.
Is there something biologically in terms of the biology or the somatic mutational landscape of the tumor in older people? I don’t think so. Certainly, in terms of their capacity, in terms of stem cell reserve to be as resistant to the side effects of chemotherapy as younger people, we know that does attenuate with age.
Food for thought: The majority of patients I see in the clinic for the adjuvant treatment are elderly. The majority are coming these days with high-risk stage II or stage III disease. There is a real question mark about whether we should be using oxaliplatin at all.
Clearly, one would say that we need more trials of chemotherapy in older folk to see if the addition of drugs like oxaliplatin to a fluoropyrimidine backbone really does make a difference. I’ve said many times before that we, the medical community recommending adjuvant treatment, need to have better risk stratifiers. We need to have better prognostic markers. We need to have better indices that would allow us to perhaps consider these combination treatments in a more focused group of patients who may have a higher risk for recurrence.
Have a look at the paper and see what you think. I think it’s well done. It’s certainly given me pause for thought about the treatment that we will offer our elderly patients.
Have a think about it. Let me know if there are any comments that you’d like to make. For the time being, over and out.
Dr. Kerr is Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom. He disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Our group, the QUASAR Group, made a very significant contribution in terms of trials and knowledge in this field. One of the things that we still need to discuss and think about in our wider community is the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients.
Colorectal cancer is a disease of the elderly, with the median age of presentation around 72. We know that, at presentation, more than 50% of patients are aged 65 or over and one third of patients are 75 or over. It’s a disease predominantly of the elderly. Are we justified in giving combination chemotherapy with oxaliplatin to high-risk resected colorectal cancer patients?
There’s a very nice report of a meta-analysis by Dottorini and colleagues that came out recently in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. It’s an excellent group. They did their meta-analytical work according to a strict, rational protocol. Their statistical analyses were on point, and they collected data from all the relevant trials.
According to the results of their study, it could be concluded that the addition of oxaliplatin to adjuvant therapy for resected high-risk colorectal cancer in older patients — patients older than 70 — doesn’t result in any statistically significant gain in terms of preventing recurrences or saving lives.
When we did our QUASAR trials, initially we were looking at control vs fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. Although there was an overall impact on survival of the whole trial group (the 5000 patients in our study), when we looked by decile, there was a significant diminution of benefit even to fluoropyrimidine therapy in our trial in patients aged 70 or above. I think this careful meta-analysis must make us question the use of oxaliplatin in elderly patients.
What could the explanation be? Why could the well-known and described benefits of oxaliplatin, particularly for stage III disease, attenuate in older people? It may be to do with reduction in dose intensity. Older people have more side effects; therefore, the chemotherapy isn’t completed as planned. Although, increasingly these days, we tend only to be giving 3 months of treatment.
Is there something biologically in terms of the biology or the somatic mutational landscape of the tumor in older people? I don’t think so. Certainly, in terms of their capacity, in terms of stem cell reserve to be as resistant to the side effects of chemotherapy as younger people, we know that does attenuate with age.
Food for thought: The majority of patients I see in the clinic for the adjuvant treatment are elderly. The majority are coming these days with high-risk stage II or stage III disease. There is a real question mark about whether we should be using oxaliplatin at all.
Clearly, one would say that we need more trials of chemotherapy in older folk to see if the addition of drugs like oxaliplatin to a fluoropyrimidine backbone really does make a difference. I’ve said many times before that we, the medical community recommending adjuvant treatment, need to have better risk stratifiers. We need to have better prognostic markers. We need to have better indices that would allow us to perhaps consider these combination treatments in a more focused group of patients who may have a higher risk for recurrence.
Have a look at the paper and see what you think. I think it’s well done. It’s certainly given me pause for thought about the treatment that we will offer our elderly patients.
Have a think about it. Let me know if there are any comments that you’d like to make. For the time being, over and out.
Dr. Kerr is Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom. He disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Our group, the QUASAR Group, made a very significant contribution in terms of trials and knowledge in this field. One of the things that we still need to discuss and think about in our wider community is the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients.
Colorectal cancer is a disease of the elderly, with the median age of presentation around 72. We know that, at presentation, more than 50% of patients are aged 65 or over and one third of patients are 75 or over. It’s a disease predominantly of the elderly. Are we justified in giving combination chemotherapy with oxaliplatin to high-risk resected colorectal cancer patients?
There’s a very nice report of a meta-analysis by Dottorini and colleagues that came out recently in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. It’s an excellent group. They did their meta-analytical work according to a strict, rational protocol. Their statistical analyses were on point, and they collected data from all the relevant trials.
According to the results of their study, it could be concluded that the addition of oxaliplatin to adjuvant therapy for resected high-risk colorectal cancer in older patients — patients older than 70 — doesn’t result in any statistically significant gain in terms of preventing recurrences or saving lives.
When we did our QUASAR trials, initially we were looking at control vs fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. Although there was an overall impact on survival of the whole trial group (the 5000 patients in our study), when we looked by decile, there was a significant diminution of benefit even to fluoropyrimidine therapy in our trial in patients aged 70 or above. I think this careful meta-analysis must make us question the use of oxaliplatin in elderly patients.
What could the explanation be? Why could the well-known and described benefits of oxaliplatin, particularly for stage III disease, attenuate in older people? It may be to do with reduction in dose intensity. Older people have more side effects; therefore, the chemotherapy isn’t completed as planned. Although, increasingly these days, we tend only to be giving 3 months of treatment.
Is there something biologically in terms of the biology or the somatic mutational landscape of the tumor in older people? I don’t think so. Certainly, in terms of their capacity, in terms of stem cell reserve to be as resistant to the side effects of chemotherapy as younger people, we know that does attenuate with age.
Food for thought: The majority of patients I see in the clinic for the adjuvant treatment are elderly. The majority are coming these days with high-risk stage II or stage III disease. There is a real question mark about whether we should be using oxaliplatin at all.
Clearly, one would say that we need more trials of chemotherapy in older folk to see if the addition of drugs like oxaliplatin to a fluoropyrimidine backbone really does make a difference. I’ve said many times before that we, the medical community recommending adjuvant treatment, need to have better risk stratifiers. We need to have better prognostic markers. We need to have better indices that would allow us to perhaps consider these combination treatments in a more focused group of patients who may have a higher risk for recurrence.
Have a look at the paper and see what you think. I think it’s well done. It’s certainly given me pause for thought about the treatment that we will offer our elderly patients.
Have a think about it. Let me know if there are any comments that you’d like to make. For the time being, over and out.
Dr. Kerr is Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom. He disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Poor Quality of Cancer Content on Social Media
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’m delighted to talk about a very interesting topic in this commentary. This is an area that we generally don’t discuss, but it’s one that’s obviously very topical, which includes the question of social media.
The paper I’m referring to is entitled, “More Than a Song and Dance”: Exploration of Patient Perspectives and Educational Quality of Gynecologic Cancer Content on TikTok. The paper was published in Gynecologic Oncology in 2023.
They had a total of 466.7 million views. They looked at 430 of the 500 top posts that were eligible, looked at 11 central themes, did an objective analysis of educational content based on published strategy for looking at this.
What they found, unfortunately but not surprisingly, overall was that the educational quality and reliability were quite poor. They also noticed considerable differences in disparities based on racial background and really emphasized in their analysis not only how common it is for individuals to look at this content on TikTok but also concerns about what it is that the public, patients, and their families are actually seeing.
This, of course, specifically relates to gynecologic cancers, but almost certainly relates to other cancers as well. Clearly, this is a topic that needs to be discussed widely. It’s very complex and very controversial, but when you think about the information that might be provided to our patients and their families going to social media, it’s important that we understand what they’re seeing, what they’re hearing, what they’re viewing, and the impact this might have on their care and outcomes.
I encourage you to read this very interesting paper if you have an interest in this topic. Again, it was recently published in Gynecologic Oncology. I thank you for your attention.
Dr. Markman is professor, Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, California; president of Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’m delighted to talk about a very interesting topic in this commentary. This is an area that we generally don’t discuss, but it’s one that’s obviously very topical, which includes the question of social media.
The paper I’m referring to is entitled, “More Than a Song and Dance”: Exploration of Patient Perspectives and Educational Quality of Gynecologic Cancer Content on TikTok. The paper was published in Gynecologic Oncology in 2023.
They had a total of 466.7 million views. They looked at 430 of the 500 top posts that were eligible, looked at 11 central themes, did an objective analysis of educational content based on published strategy for looking at this.
What they found, unfortunately but not surprisingly, overall was that the educational quality and reliability were quite poor. They also noticed considerable differences in disparities based on racial background and really emphasized in their analysis not only how common it is for individuals to look at this content on TikTok but also concerns about what it is that the public, patients, and their families are actually seeing.
This, of course, specifically relates to gynecologic cancers, but almost certainly relates to other cancers as well. Clearly, this is a topic that needs to be discussed widely. It’s very complex and very controversial, but when you think about the information that might be provided to our patients and their families going to social media, it’s important that we understand what they’re seeing, what they’re hearing, what they’re viewing, and the impact this might have on their care and outcomes.
I encourage you to read this very interesting paper if you have an interest in this topic. Again, it was recently published in Gynecologic Oncology. I thank you for your attention.
Dr. Markman is professor, Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, California; president of Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’m delighted to talk about a very interesting topic in this commentary. This is an area that we generally don’t discuss, but it’s one that’s obviously very topical, which includes the question of social media.
The paper I’m referring to is entitled, “More Than a Song and Dance”: Exploration of Patient Perspectives and Educational Quality of Gynecologic Cancer Content on TikTok. The paper was published in Gynecologic Oncology in 2023.
They had a total of 466.7 million views. They looked at 430 of the 500 top posts that were eligible, looked at 11 central themes, did an objective analysis of educational content based on published strategy for looking at this.
What they found, unfortunately but not surprisingly, overall was that the educational quality and reliability were quite poor. They also noticed considerable differences in disparities based on racial background and really emphasized in their analysis not only how common it is for individuals to look at this content on TikTok but also concerns about what it is that the public, patients, and their families are actually seeing.
This, of course, specifically relates to gynecologic cancers, but almost certainly relates to other cancers as well. Clearly, this is a topic that needs to be discussed widely. It’s very complex and very controversial, but when you think about the information that might be provided to our patients and their families going to social media, it’s important that we understand what they’re seeing, what they’re hearing, what they’re viewing, and the impact this might have on their care and outcomes.
I encourage you to read this very interesting paper if you have an interest in this topic. Again, it was recently published in Gynecologic Oncology. I thank you for your attention.
Dr. Markman is professor, Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, California; president of Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CRC: Troubling Mortality Rates for a Preventable Cancer
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
The American Cancer Society has just published its cancer statistics for 2024. This is an annual report, the latest version of which has some alarming news for gastroenterologists. Usually, we think of being “number one” as a positive thing, but that’s not the case this year when it comes to the projections for colorectal cancer.
But first, let’s discuss the report’s overall findings. That decline over the past four decades is due to reductions in smoking, earlier detection, and improved screening and treatments for localized or metastatic disease. But these gains are now threatened by some offsets that we’re seeing, with increasing rates of six of the top 10 cancers in the past several years.
Increasing Rates of Gastrointestinal Cancers
The incidence rate of pancreas cancer has increased from 0.6% to 1% annually.
Pancreas cancer has a 5-year relative survival rate of 13%, which ranks as one of the three worst rates for cancers. This cancer represents a real screening challenge for us, as it typically presents asymptomatically.
Women have experienced a 2%-3% annual increase in incidence rates for liver cancer.
I suspect that this is due to cases of fibrotic liver disease resulting from viral hepatitis and metabolic liver diseases with nonalcoholic fatty liver and advanced fibrosis (F3 and F4). These cases may be carried over from before, thereby contributing to the increasing incremental cancer risk.
We can’t overlook the need for risk reduction here and should focus on applying regular screening efforts in our female patients. However, it’s also true that we require better liver cancer screening tests to accomplish that goal.
In Those Under 50, CRC the Leading Cause of Cancer Death in Men, Second in Women
I really want to focus on the news around colorectal cancer.
To put this in perspective, in the late 1990s, colorectal cancer was the fourth leading cause of death in men and women. The current report extrapolated 2024 projections using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database ending in 2020, which was necessary given the incremental time it takes to develop cancers. The SEER database suggests that in 2024, colorectal cancer in those younger than 50 years of age will become the number-one leading cause of cancer death in men and number-two in women. The increasing incidence of colorectal cancer in younger people is probably the result of a number of epidemiologic and other reasons.
The current report offers evidence of racial disparities in cancer mortality rates in general, which are twofold higher in Black people compared with White people, particularly for gastric cancer. There is also an evident disparity in Native Americans, who have higher rates of gastric and liver cancer. This is a reminder of the increasing need for equity to address racial disparities across these populations.
But returning to colon cancer, it’s a marked change to go from being the fourth-leading cause of cancer death in those younger than 50 years of age to being number one for men and number two for women.
Being “number one” is supposed to make you famous. This “number one,” however, should in fact be infamous. It’s a travesty, because colorectal cancer is a potentially preventable disease.
As we move into March, which happens to be Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, hopefully this fires up some of the conversations you have with your younger at-risk population, who may be reticent or resistant to colorectal cancer screening.
We have to do better at getting this message out to that population at large. “Number one” is not where we want to be for this potentially preventable problem.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
The American Cancer Society has just published its cancer statistics for 2024. This is an annual report, the latest version of which has some alarming news for gastroenterologists. Usually, we think of being “number one” as a positive thing, but that’s not the case this year when it comes to the projections for colorectal cancer.
But first, let’s discuss the report’s overall findings. That decline over the past four decades is due to reductions in smoking, earlier detection, and improved screening and treatments for localized or metastatic disease. But these gains are now threatened by some offsets that we’re seeing, with increasing rates of six of the top 10 cancers in the past several years.
Increasing Rates of Gastrointestinal Cancers
The incidence rate of pancreas cancer has increased from 0.6% to 1% annually.
Pancreas cancer has a 5-year relative survival rate of 13%, which ranks as one of the three worst rates for cancers. This cancer represents a real screening challenge for us, as it typically presents asymptomatically.
Women have experienced a 2%-3% annual increase in incidence rates for liver cancer.
I suspect that this is due to cases of fibrotic liver disease resulting from viral hepatitis and metabolic liver diseases with nonalcoholic fatty liver and advanced fibrosis (F3 and F4). These cases may be carried over from before, thereby contributing to the increasing incremental cancer risk.
We can’t overlook the need for risk reduction here and should focus on applying regular screening efforts in our female patients. However, it’s also true that we require better liver cancer screening tests to accomplish that goal.
In Those Under 50, CRC the Leading Cause of Cancer Death in Men, Second in Women
I really want to focus on the news around colorectal cancer.
To put this in perspective, in the late 1990s, colorectal cancer was the fourth leading cause of death in men and women. The current report extrapolated 2024 projections using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database ending in 2020, which was necessary given the incremental time it takes to develop cancers. The SEER database suggests that in 2024, colorectal cancer in those younger than 50 years of age will become the number-one leading cause of cancer death in men and number-two in women. The increasing incidence of colorectal cancer in younger people is probably the result of a number of epidemiologic and other reasons.
The current report offers evidence of racial disparities in cancer mortality rates in general, which are twofold higher in Black people compared with White people, particularly for gastric cancer. There is also an evident disparity in Native Americans, who have higher rates of gastric and liver cancer. This is a reminder of the increasing need for equity to address racial disparities across these populations.
But returning to colon cancer, it’s a marked change to go from being the fourth-leading cause of cancer death in those younger than 50 years of age to being number one for men and number two for women.
Being “number one” is supposed to make you famous. This “number one,” however, should in fact be infamous. It’s a travesty, because colorectal cancer is a potentially preventable disease.
As we move into March, which happens to be Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, hopefully this fires up some of the conversations you have with your younger at-risk population, who may be reticent or resistant to colorectal cancer screening.
We have to do better at getting this message out to that population at large. “Number one” is not where we want to be for this potentially preventable problem.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
The American Cancer Society has just published its cancer statistics for 2024. This is an annual report, the latest version of which has some alarming news for gastroenterologists. Usually, we think of being “number one” as a positive thing, but that’s not the case this year when it comes to the projections for colorectal cancer.
But first, let’s discuss the report’s overall findings. That decline over the past four decades is due to reductions in smoking, earlier detection, and improved screening and treatments for localized or metastatic disease. But these gains are now threatened by some offsets that we’re seeing, with increasing rates of six of the top 10 cancers in the past several years.
Increasing Rates of Gastrointestinal Cancers
The incidence rate of pancreas cancer has increased from 0.6% to 1% annually.
Pancreas cancer has a 5-year relative survival rate of 13%, which ranks as one of the three worst rates for cancers. This cancer represents a real screening challenge for us, as it typically presents asymptomatically.
Women have experienced a 2%-3% annual increase in incidence rates for liver cancer.
I suspect that this is due to cases of fibrotic liver disease resulting from viral hepatitis and metabolic liver diseases with nonalcoholic fatty liver and advanced fibrosis (F3 and F4). These cases may be carried over from before, thereby contributing to the increasing incremental cancer risk.
We can’t overlook the need for risk reduction here and should focus on applying regular screening efforts in our female patients. However, it’s also true that we require better liver cancer screening tests to accomplish that goal.
In Those Under 50, CRC the Leading Cause of Cancer Death in Men, Second in Women
I really want to focus on the news around colorectal cancer.
To put this in perspective, in the late 1990s, colorectal cancer was the fourth leading cause of death in men and women. The current report extrapolated 2024 projections using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database ending in 2020, which was necessary given the incremental time it takes to develop cancers. The SEER database suggests that in 2024, colorectal cancer in those younger than 50 years of age will become the number-one leading cause of cancer death in men and number-two in women. The increasing incidence of colorectal cancer in younger people is probably the result of a number of epidemiologic and other reasons.
The current report offers evidence of racial disparities in cancer mortality rates in general, which are twofold higher in Black people compared with White people, particularly for gastric cancer. There is also an evident disparity in Native Americans, who have higher rates of gastric and liver cancer. This is a reminder of the increasing need for equity to address racial disparities across these populations.
But returning to colon cancer, it’s a marked change to go from being the fourth-leading cause of cancer death in those younger than 50 years of age to being number one for men and number two for women.
Being “number one” is supposed to make you famous. This “number one,” however, should in fact be infamous. It’s a travesty, because colorectal cancer is a potentially preventable disease.
As we move into March, which happens to be Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, hopefully this fires up some of the conversations you have with your younger at-risk population, who may be reticent or resistant to colorectal cancer screening.
We have to do better at getting this message out to that population at large. “Number one” is not where we want to be for this potentially preventable problem.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Daycare Petri Dish
I can’t remember where I heard it. Maybe I made it up myself. But, one definition of a family is a group of folks with whom you share your genes and germs. In that same vein, one could define daycare as a group of germ-sharing children. Of course that’s news to almost no one. Parents who decide, or are forced, to send their children to daycare expect that those children will get more colds, “stomach flu,” and ear infections than the children who spend their days in isolation at home. Everyone from the pediatrician to the little old lady next door has warned parents of the inevitable reality of daycare. Of course there are upsides that parents can cling to, including increased socialization and the hope that getting sick young will build a more robust immunity in the long run.
However, there has been little research exploring the nuances of the germ sharing that we all know is happening in these and other social settings.
A team of evolutionary biologists at Harvard is working to better define the “social microbiome” and its “role in individuals’ susceptibility to, and resilience against, both communicable and noncommunicable diseases.” These researchers point out that while we harbor our own unique collection of microbes, we share those with the microbiomes of the people with whom we interact socially. They report that studies by other investigators have shown that residents of a household share a significant proportion of their gastrointestinal flora. There are other studies that have shown that villages can be identified by their own social biome. There are few social settings more intimately involved in microbe sharing than daycares. I have a friends who calls them “petri dishes.”
The biologists point out that antibiotic-resistant microbes can become part of an individual’s microbiome and can be shared with other individuals in their social group, who can then go on and share them in a different social environment. Imagine there is one popular physician in a community whose sense of antibiotic stewardship is, shall we say, somewhat lacking. By inappropriately prescribing antibiotics to a child or two in a daycare, he may be altering the social biome in that daycare, which could then jeopardize the health of all the children and eventually their own home-based social biomes, that may include an immune deficient individual.
The researchers also remind us that different cultures and countries may have different antibiotic usage patterns. Does this mean I am taking a risk by traveling in these “culture-dependent transmission landscapes”? Am I more likely to encounter an antibiotic-resistant microbe when I am visiting a country whose healthcare providers are less prudent prescribers?
However, as these evolutionary biologists point out, not all shared microbes are bad. There is some evidence in animals that individuals can share microbes that have been found to “increase resilience against colitis or improve their responsiveness to cancer therapy.” If a microbe can contribute to a disease that was once considered to be “noncommunicable,” we may need to redefine “communicable” in the light this more nuanced view of the social biome.
It became standard practice during the COVID pandemic to test dormitory and community sewage water to determine the level of infection. Can sewage water be used as a proxy for a social biome? If a parent is lucky enough to have a choice of daycares, would knowing each facility’s biome, as reflected in an analysis of its sewage effluent, help him or her decide? Should a daycare ask for a stool sample from each child before accepting him or her? Seems like this would raise some privacy issues, not to mention the logistical messiness of the process. As we learn more about social biomes, can we imagine a time when a daycare or country or region might proudly advertise itself as having the healthiest spectrum of microbes in its sewage system?
Communal living certainly has its benefits, not just for children but also adults as we realize how loneliness is eating its way into our society. However,
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
I can’t remember where I heard it. Maybe I made it up myself. But, one definition of a family is a group of folks with whom you share your genes and germs. In that same vein, one could define daycare as a group of germ-sharing children. Of course that’s news to almost no one. Parents who decide, or are forced, to send their children to daycare expect that those children will get more colds, “stomach flu,” and ear infections than the children who spend their days in isolation at home. Everyone from the pediatrician to the little old lady next door has warned parents of the inevitable reality of daycare. Of course there are upsides that parents can cling to, including increased socialization and the hope that getting sick young will build a more robust immunity in the long run.
However, there has been little research exploring the nuances of the germ sharing that we all know is happening in these and other social settings.
A team of evolutionary biologists at Harvard is working to better define the “social microbiome” and its “role in individuals’ susceptibility to, and resilience against, both communicable and noncommunicable diseases.” These researchers point out that while we harbor our own unique collection of microbes, we share those with the microbiomes of the people with whom we interact socially. They report that studies by other investigators have shown that residents of a household share a significant proportion of their gastrointestinal flora. There are other studies that have shown that villages can be identified by their own social biome. There are few social settings more intimately involved in microbe sharing than daycares. I have a friends who calls them “petri dishes.”
The biologists point out that antibiotic-resistant microbes can become part of an individual’s microbiome and can be shared with other individuals in their social group, who can then go on and share them in a different social environment. Imagine there is one popular physician in a community whose sense of antibiotic stewardship is, shall we say, somewhat lacking. By inappropriately prescribing antibiotics to a child or two in a daycare, he may be altering the social biome in that daycare, which could then jeopardize the health of all the children and eventually their own home-based social biomes, that may include an immune deficient individual.
The researchers also remind us that different cultures and countries may have different antibiotic usage patterns. Does this mean I am taking a risk by traveling in these “culture-dependent transmission landscapes”? Am I more likely to encounter an antibiotic-resistant microbe when I am visiting a country whose healthcare providers are less prudent prescribers?
However, as these evolutionary biologists point out, not all shared microbes are bad. There is some evidence in animals that individuals can share microbes that have been found to “increase resilience against colitis or improve their responsiveness to cancer therapy.” If a microbe can contribute to a disease that was once considered to be “noncommunicable,” we may need to redefine “communicable” in the light this more nuanced view of the social biome.
It became standard practice during the COVID pandemic to test dormitory and community sewage water to determine the level of infection. Can sewage water be used as a proxy for a social biome? If a parent is lucky enough to have a choice of daycares, would knowing each facility’s biome, as reflected in an analysis of its sewage effluent, help him or her decide? Should a daycare ask for a stool sample from each child before accepting him or her? Seems like this would raise some privacy issues, not to mention the logistical messiness of the process. As we learn more about social biomes, can we imagine a time when a daycare or country or region might proudly advertise itself as having the healthiest spectrum of microbes in its sewage system?
Communal living certainly has its benefits, not just for children but also adults as we realize how loneliness is eating its way into our society. However,
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
I can’t remember where I heard it. Maybe I made it up myself. But, one definition of a family is a group of folks with whom you share your genes and germs. In that same vein, one could define daycare as a group of germ-sharing children. Of course that’s news to almost no one. Parents who decide, or are forced, to send their children to daycare expect that those children will get more colds, “stomach flu,” and ear infections than the children who spend their days in isolation at home. Everyone from the pediatrician to the little old lady next door has warned parents of the inevitable reality of daycare. Of course there are upsides that parents can cling to, including increased socialization and the hope that getting sick young will build a more robust immunity in the long run.
However, there has been little research exploring the nuances of the germ sharing that we all know is happening in these and other social settings.
A team of evolutionary biologists at Harvard is working to better define the “social microbiome” and its “role in individuals’ susceptibility to, and resilience against, both communicable and noncommunicable diseases.” These researchers point out that while we harbor our own unique collection of microbes, we share those with the microbiomes of the people with whom we interact socially. They report that studies by other investigators have shown that residents of a household share a significant proportion of their gastrointestinal flora. There are other studies that have shown that villages can be identified by their own social biome. There are few social settings more intimately involved in microbe sharing than daycares. I have a friends who calls them “petri dishes.”
The biologists point out that antibiotic-resistant microbes can become part of an individual’s microbiome and can be shared with other individuals in their social group, who can then go on and share them in a different social environment. Imagine there is one popular physician in a community whose sense of antibiotic stewardship is, shall we say, somewhat lacking. By inappropriately prescribing antibiotics to a child or two in a daycare, he may be altering the social biome in that daycare, which could then jeopardize the health of all the children and eventually their own home-based social biomes, that may include an immune deficient individual.
The researchers also remind us that different cultures and countries may have different antibiotic usage patterns. Does this mean I am taking a risk by traveling in these “culture-dependent transmission landscapes”? Am I more likely to encounter an antibiotic-resistant microbe when I am visiting a country whose healthcare providers are less prudent prescribers?
However, as these evolutionary biologists point out, not all shared microbes are bad. There is some evidence in animals that individuals can share microbes that have been found to “increase resilience against colitis or improve their responsiveness to cancer therapy.” If a microbe can contribute to a disease that was once considered to be “noncommunicable,” we may need to redefine “communicable” in the light this more nuanced view of the social biome.
It became standard practice during the COVID pandemic to test dormitory and community sewage water to determine the level of infection. Can sewage water be used as a proxy for a social biome? If a parent is lucky enough to have a choice of daycares, would knowing each facility’s biome, as reflected in an analysis of its sewage effluent, help him or her decide? Should a daycare ask for a stool sample from each child before accepting him or her? Seems like this would raise some privacy issues, not to mention the logistical messiness of the process. As we learn more about social biomes, can we imagine a time when a daycare or country or region might proudly advertise itself as having the healthiest spectrum of microbes in its sewage system?
Communal living certainly has its benefits, not just for children but also adults as we realize how loneliness is eating its way into our society. However,
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Updated Clinical Guidelines for the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris
In January 2024, the American Academy of Dermatology released updated clinical guidelines for the treatment of acne. These guidelines include 18 evidence-based recommendations.
As primary care physicians, we commonly encounter acne vulgaris in our practices. While it may not be a life-threatening condition, it deeply affects the quality of life for many who suffer from it. It can be accompanied by stigmatization and bullying and can affect a person’s self-esteem; it can lead to suicidal ideation. It is important to treat it and know when to refer to a dermatologist.
According to the AAD, acne is the most common skin condition, affecting 50 million Americans annually. It can occur at any stage in life, often starting during puberty. It is so common that at least 85% of people between the ages of 12 and 24 experience at least mild acne.
The guidelines stress using multimodal therapies combining multiple mechanisms of action. For example, they show strong evidence for using topical retinoids with topical benzoyl peroxide or topical retinoids with topical antibiotics. They recommend against using oral antibiotics, except in severe cases, to prevent antibiotic resistance. The strongest evidence regarding antibiotics shows doxycycline or minocycline to be the most effective for treating acne and these can be combined with topical medications.
These guidelines also include isotretinoin to be used for severe acne patients, who are defined as “patients with psychosocial burden or scarring.” They recommend monitoring liver function and lipids as good practice and mandatory pregnancy prevention. These guidelines find no conclusive evidence for physical modalities such as lesion extraction, chemical peels, use of laser and light-based devices, microneedling, use of radiofrequency devices, and photodynamic therapy.
A conditional recommendation is given for the use of combined oral contraception pills and spironolactone. The AAD advises considering the risks of these agents along with other conditions present that they may be useful for.
In primary care, we see many complicated patients and often acne is not considered a serious condition. However, it can be as life-altering to the patient as other chronic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. We need to know the appropriate management of acne and start following the evidence-based guidelines. Acne needs follow-up as close as for other chronic diseases. We need to be able to assess the severity of disease and the effectiveness of treatments we have prescribed.
Some patients may be embarrassed to start the discussion about acne. If the patient doesn’t initiate the discussion, we should in an empathetic way. Acne is one of those diseases that doesn’t need any diagnostic tests to discover as it is readily apparent right in front of us.
Some patients may not be bothered by it, but for others, it may be ruining their lives, and they just don’t feel comfortable starting the conversation. Offering them a treatment will alleviate their disease but may also change their lives for the better.
Acne is also one of those conditions that has a host of misinformation and myths surrounding it. These myths range from dietary recommendations to hygiene and many others. As physicians, we need to educate ourselves about these myths and misconceptions. Patients will have questions regarding them and we need to be able to give them answers to their questions. We also shouldn’t give out misinformation ourselves. The evidence around acne treatment is readily available.
Given the availability of multiple acne therapies, shared-decision making is important. We need to discuss options with the patients and devise the best treatment regimen for them. If our therapies are not getting the results we would like, we need to consider referring the patient to a dermatologist.
We need to remember that acne is not just a cosmetic disease. It affects the lives of those suffering from it and we need to address it like any other chronic disease.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.
In January 2024, the American Academy of Dermatology released updated clinical guidelines for the treatment of acne. These guidelines include 18 evidence-based recommendations.
As primary care physicians, we commonly encounter acne vulgaris in our practices. While it may not be a life-threatening condition, it deeply affects the quality of life for many who suffer from it. It can be accompanied by stigmatization and bullying and can affect a person’s self-esteem; it can lead to suicidal ideation. It is important to treat it and know when to refer to a dermatologist.
According to the AAD, acne is the most common skin condition, affecting 50 million Americans annually. It can occur at any stage in life, often starting during puberty. It is so common that at least 85% of people between the ages of 12 and 24 experience at least mild acne.
The guidelines stress using multimodal therapies combining multiple mechanisms of action. For example, they show strong evidence for using topical retinoids with topical benzoyl peroxide or topical retinoids with topical antibiotics. They recommend against using oral antibiotics, except in severe cases, to prevent antibiotic resistance. The strongest evidence regarding antibiotics shows doxycycline or minocycline to be the most effective for treating acne and these can be combined with topical medications.
These guidelines also include isotretinoin to be used for severe acne patients, who are defined as “patients with psychosocial burden or scarring.” They recommend monitoring liver function and lipids as good practice and mandatory pregnancy prevention. These guidelines find no conclusive evidence for physical modalities such as lesion extraction, chemical peels, use of laser and light-based devices, microneedling, use of radiofrequency devices, and photodynamic therapy.
A conditional recommendation is given for the use of combined oral contraception pills and spironolactone. The AAD advises considering the risks of these agents along with other conditions present that they may be useful for.
In primary care, we see many complicated patients and often acne is not considered a serious condition. However, it can be as life-altering to the patient as other chronic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. We need to know the appropriate management of acne and start following the evidence-based guidelines. Acne needs follow-up as close as for other chronic diseases. We need to be able to assess the severity of disease and the effectiveness of treatments we have prescribed.
Some patients may be embarrassed to start the discussion about acne. If the patient doesn’t initiate the discussion, we should in an empathetic way. Acne is one of those diseases that doesn’t need any diagnostic tests to discover as it is readily apparent right in front of us.
Some patients may not be bothered by it, but for others, it may be ruining their lives, and they just don’t feel comfortable starting the conversation. Offering them a treatment will alleviate their disease but may also change their lives for the better.
Acne is also one of those conditions that has a host of misinformation and myths surrounding it. These myths range from dietary recommendations to hygiene and many others. As physicians, we need to educate ourselves about these myths and misconceptions. Patients will have questions regarding them and we need to be able to give them answers to their questions. We also shouldn’t give out misinformation ourselves. The evidence around acne treatment is readily available.
Given the availability of multiple acne therapies, shared-decision making is important. We need to discuss options with the patients and devise the best treatment regimen for them. If our therapies are not getting the results we would like, we need to consider referring the patient to a dermatologist.
We need to remember that acne is not just a cosmetic disease. It affects the lives of those suffering from it and we need to address it like any other chronic disease.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.
In January 2024, the American Academy of Dermatology released updated clinical guidelines for the treatment of acne. These guidelines include 18 evidence-based recommendations.
As primary care physicians, we commonly encounter acne vulgaris in our practices. While it may not be a life-threatening condition, it deeply affects the quality of life for many who suffer from it. It can be accompanied by stigmatization and bullying and can affect a person’s self-esteem; it can lead to suicidal ideation. It is important to treat it and know when to refer to a dermatologist.
According to the AAD, acne is the most common skin condition, affecting 50 million Americans annually. It can occur at any stage in life, often starting during puberty. It is so common that at least 85% of people between the ages of 12 and 24 experience at least mild acne.
The guidelines stress using multimodal therapies combining multiple mechanisms of action. For example, they show strong evidence for using topical retinoids with topical benzoyl peroxide or topical retinoids with topical antibiotics. They recommend against using oral antibiotics, except in severe cases, to prevent antibiotic resistance. The strongest evidence regarding antibiotics shows doxycycline or minocycline to be the most effective for treating acne and these can be combined with topical medications.
These guidelines also include isotretinoin to be used for severe acne patients, who are defined as “patients with psychosocial burden or scarring.” They recommend monitoring liver function and lipids as good practice and mandatory pregnancy prevention. These guidelines find no conclusive evidence for physical modalities such as lesion extraction, chemical peels, use of laser and light-based devices, microneedling, use of radiofrequency devices, and photodynamic therapy.
A conditional recommendation is given for the use of combined oral contraception pills and spironolactone. The AAD advises considering the risks of these agents along with other conditions present that they may be useful for.
In primary care, we see many complicated patients and often acne is not considered a serious condition. However, it can be as life-altering to the patient as other chronic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. We need to know the appropriate management of acne and start following the evidence-based guidelines. Acne needs follow-up as close as for other chronic diseases. We need to be able to assess the severity of disease and the effectiveness of treatments we have prescribed.
Some patients may be embarrassed to start the discussion about acne. If the patient doesn’t initiate the discussion, we should in an empathetic way. Acne is one of those diseases that doesn’t need any diagnostic tests to discover as it is readily apparent right in front of us.
Some patients may not be bothered by it, but for others, it may be ruining their lives, and they just don’t feel comfortable starting the conversation. Offering them a treatment will alleviate their disease but may also change their lives for the better.
Acne is also one of those conditions that has a host of misinformation and myths surrounding it. These myths range from dietary recommendations to hygiene and many others. As physicians, we need to educate ourselves about these myths and misconceptions. Patients will have questions regarding them and we need to be able to give them answers to their questions. We also shouldn’t give out misinformation ourselves. The evidence around acne treatment is readily available.
Given the availability of multiple acne therapies, shared-decision making is important. We need to discuss options with the patients and devise the best treatment regimen for them. If our therapies are not getting the results we would like, we need to consider referring the patient to a dermatologist.
We need to remember that acne is not just a cosmetic disease. It affects the lives of those suffering from it and we need to address it like any other chronic disease.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.
Unleashing Our Immune Response to Quash Cancer
This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”
It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.
Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.
Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.
And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.
As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.
Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.
An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.
But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.
Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.
An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.
Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)
There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.
A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.
This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.
Oncolytic Viruses
Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.
After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.
Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])
As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.
As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.
Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.
Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.
Summary
Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.
Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.
Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.
Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.
Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”
It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.
Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.
Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.
And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.
As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.
Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.
An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.
But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.
Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.
An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.
Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)
There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.
A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.
This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.
Oncolytic Viruses
Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.
After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.
Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])
As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.
As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.
Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.
Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.
Summary
Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.
Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.
Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.
Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.
Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”
It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.
Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.
Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.
And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.
As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.
Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.
An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.
But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.
Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.
An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.
Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)
There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.
A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.
This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.
Oncolytic Viruses
Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.
After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.
Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])
As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.
As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.
Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.
Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.
Summary
Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.
Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.
Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.
Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.
Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Kimchi: Not Magically Protective Against Weight Gain
How much of societal diet-related scientific illiteracy can be blamed on the publication decisions of medical journals around food studies?
That was the question I pondered when reading “Association between kimchi consumption and obesity based on BMI and abdominal obesity in Korean adults: a cross-sectional analysis of the Health Examinees study,” recently published in BMJ Open. Although I will get to the study particulars momentarily, that it’s 2024 and journals are still publishing cross-sectional studies of the impact of a single food’s subjectively reported consumption on health outcomes is mind boggling.
You might wonder why I wasn’t mind boggled by the authors rather than the journal — but the authors’ interest in publishing a study on kimchi’s supposed impact on obesity is an easy thing to explain, in that the study was funded by the World Institute of Kimchi, where two of its four authors are employed.
You might also wonder why I wasn’t mind boggled by media running with this story — but the media’s job is to capture eyeballs, and who doesn’t love a good magic food story, doubly so for one involving obesity and one with a study backing it up?
Back to this World Institute of Kimchi project looking at kimchi intake on obesity rates. No doubt if I worked for the World Institute of Kimchi, I would want kimchi to be shown to be somehow magically protective against weight gain. So how might I go about exploring that?
Well, I could look to the data from the Health Examinees (HEXA) Study. The HEXA study was a cross-sectional look at South Koreans; included in their data collection was a 106-item food frequency questionnaire (FFQ).
That questionnaire looked at 106 food items — yep, you guessed it, explicitly including kimchi. Not included in this FFQ, though, were prepared foods, meaning that it was unable to measure seasonings, spices, or cooking oils. Also perhaps problematic is that no doubt most of us consume more than 106 total food items in our diets. Perhaps this is why the validation study of HEXA’s food item–based FFQ found that it had “relatively low validity” when compared against 12-day food diaries and why its creators themselves report it to be in their study’s conclusion only “reasonably acceptable” to apply to a population. But yes, kimchi!
So for the sake of this exercise, though, let’s assume that instead of only a reasonably acceptable FFQ with low validity, the FFQ was fantastic and its data robust. How great then is kimchi at preventing obesity? Certainly, the media report it’s pretty darn good. Here’s a smattering from the literal dozens of headlines of stories covering this paper:
Eating kimchi every day could help stave off weight gain, new study says — NBC News
Eating kimchi every day may prevent weight gain, research suggests — Sky News
Want to avoid piling on the pounds? Try kimchi for breakfast — The Telegraph
But when we turn to the paper itself, suddenly things aren’t so clear.
According to the paper, men who reported eating two to three servings of kimchi per day were found to have lower rates of obesity, whereas men who reported eating three to five servings of kimchi per day were not. But these are overlapping groups! Also found was that men consuming more than five servings of kimchi per day have higher rates of obesity. When taken together, these findings do not demonstrate a statistically significant trend of kimchi intake on obesity in men. Whereas in women, things are worse in that the more kimchi reportedly consumed, the more obesity, in a trend that did (just) reach statistical significance.
So even if we pretend the FFQs were robust enough to make conclusions about a single food’s impact on obesity, and we pretend there was a well-described, plausible mechanistic reason to believe same (there isn’t), and we pretend that this particular FFQ had better than “relatively low validity,” there is no conclusion here to be drawn about kimchi’s impact on obesity.
What we can conclude is that when it comes to publishing papers purporting to find the impact of single foods on obesity, journals will still happily publish them and their publication will lead to hyperbolic headlines and stories, which in turn reinforce the scientifically illiterate notion that the highly complex multifactorial problem of obesity boils down to simple food choices, which in turn keeps weight loss grifters everywhere in business while fueling societal weight bias.
Dr. Freedhoff is Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He disclosed ties with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
How much of societal diet-related scientific illiteracy can be blamed on the publication decisions of medical journals around food studies?
That was the question I pondered when reading “Association between kimchi consumption and obesity based on BMI and abdominal obesity in Korean adults: a cross-sectional analysis of the Health Examinees study,” recently published in BMJ Open. Although I will get to the study particulars momentarily, that it’s 2024 and journals are still publishing cross-sectional studies of the impact of a single food’s subjectively reported consumption on health outcomes is mind boggling.
You might wonder why I wasn’t mind boggled by the authors rather than the journal — but the authors’ interest in publishing a study on kimchi’s supposed impact on obesity is an easy thing to explain, in that the study was funded by the World Institute of Kimchi, where two of its four authors are employed.
You might also wonder why I wasn’t mind boggled by media running with this story — but the media’s job is to capture eyeballs, and who doesn’t love a good magic food story, doubly so for one involving obesity and one with a study backing it up?
Back to this World Institute of Kimchi project looking at kimchi intake on obesity rates. No doubt if I worked for the World Institute of Kimchi, I would want kimchi to be shown to be somehow magically protective against weight gain. So how might I go about exploring that?
Well, I could look to the data from the Health Examinees (HEXA) Study. The HEXA study was a cross-sectional look at South Koreans; included in their data collection was a 106-item food frequency questionnaire (FFQ).
That questionnaire looked at 106 food items — yep, you guessed it, explicitly including kimchi. Not included in this FFQ, though, were prepared foods, meaning that it was unable to measure seasonings, spices, or cooking oils. Also perhaps problematic is that no doubt most of us consume more than 106 total food items in our diets. Perhaps this is why the validation study of HEXA’s food item–based FFQ found that it had “relatively low validity” when compared against 12-day food diaries and why its creators themselves report it to be in their study’s conclusion only “reasonably acceptable” to apply to a population. But yes, kimchi!
So for the sake of this exercise, though, let’s assume that instead of only a reasonably acceptable FFQ with low validity, the FFQ was fantastic and its data robust. How great then is kimchi at preventing obesity? Certainly, the media report it’s pretty darn good. Here’s a smattering from the literal dozens of headlines of stories covering this paper:
Eating kimchi every day could help stave off weight gain, new study says — NBC News
Eating kimchi every day may prevent weight gain, research suggests — Sky News
Want to avoid piling on the pounds? Try kimchi for breakfast — The Telegraph
But when we turn to the paper itself, suddenly things aren’t so clear.
According to the paper, men who reported eating two to three servings of kimchi per day were found to have lower rates of obesity, whereas men who reported eating three to five servings of kimchi per day were not. But these are overlapping groups! Also found was that men consuming more than five servings of kimchi per day have higher rates of obesity. When taken together, these findings do not demonstrate a statistically significant trend of kimchi intake on obesity in men. Whereas in women, things are worse in that the more kimchi reportedly consumed, the more obesity, in a trend that did (just) reach statistical significance.
So even if we pretend the FFQs were robust enough to make conclusions about a single food’s impact on obesity, and we pretend there was a well-described, plausible mechanistic reason to believe same (there isn’t), and we pretend that this particular FFQ had better than “relatively low validity,” there is no conclusion here to be drawn about kimchi’s impact on obesity.
What we can conclude is that when it comes to publishing papers purporting to find the impact of single foods on obesity, journals will still happily publish them and their publication will lead to hyperbolic headlines and stories, which in turn reinforce the scientifically illiterate notion that the highly complex multifactorial problem of obesity boils down to simple food choices, which in turn keeps weight loss grifters everywhere in business while fueling societal weight bias.
Dr. Freedhoff is Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He disclosed ties with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
How much of societal diet-related scientific illiteracy can be blamed on the publication decisions of medical journals around food studies?
That was the question I pondered when reading “Association between kimchi consumption and obesity based on BMI and abdominal obesity in Korean adults: a cross-sectional analysis of the Health Examinees study,” recently published in BMJ Open. Although I will get to the study particulars momentarily, that it’s 2024 and journals are still publishing cross-sectional studies of the impact of a single food’s subjectively reported consumption on health outcomes is mind boggling.
You might wonder why I wasn’t mind boggled by the authors rather than the journal — but the authors’ interest in publishing a study on kimchi’s supposed impact on obesity is an easy thing to explain, in that the study was funded by the World Institute of Kimchi, where two of its four authors are employed.
You might also wonder why I wasn’t mind boggled by media running with this story — but the media’s job is to capture eyeballs, and who doesn’t love a good magic food story, doubly so for one involving obesity and one with a study backing it up?
Back to this World Institute of Kimchi project looking at kimchi intake on obesity rates. No doubt if I worked for the World Institute of Kimchi, I would want kimchi to be shown to be somehow magically protective against weight gain. So how might I go about exploring that?
Well, I could look to the data from the Health Examinees (HEXA) Study. The HEXA study was a cross-sectional look at South Koreans; included in their data collection was a 106-item food frequency questionnaire (FFQ).
That questionnaire looked at 106 food items — yep, you guessed it, explicitly including kimchi. Not included in this FFQ, though, were prepared foods, meaning that it was unable to measure seasonings, spices, or cooking oils. Also perhaps problematic is that no doubt most of us consume more than 106 total food items in our diets. Perhaps this is why the validation study of HEXA’s food item–based FFQ found that it had “relatively low validity” when compared against 12-day food diaries and why its creators themselves report it to be in their study’s conclusion only “reasonably acceptable” to apply to a population. But yes, kimchi!
So for the sake of this exercise, though, let’s assume that instead of only a reasonably acceptable FFQ with low validity, the FFQ was fantastic and its data robust. How great then is kimchi at preventing obesity? Certainly, the media report it’s pretty darn good. Here’s a smattering from the literal dozens of headlines of stories covering this paper:
Eating kimchi every day could help stave off weight gain, new study says — NBC News
Eating kimchi every day may prevent weight gain, research suggests — Sky News
Want to avoid piling on the pounds? Try kimchi for breakfast — The Telegraph
But when we turn to the paper itself, suddenly things aren’t so clear.
According to the paper, men who reported eating two to three servings of kimchi per day were found to have lower rates of obesity, whereas men who reported eating three to five servings of kimchi per day were not. But these are overlapping groups! Also found was that men consuming more than five servings of kimchi per day have higher rates of obesity. When taken together, these findings do not demonstrate a statistically significant trend of kimchi intake on obesity in men. Whereas in women, things are worse in that the more kimchi reportedly consumed, the more obesity, in a trend that did (just) reach statistical significance.
So even if we pretend the FFQs were robust enough to make conclusions about a single food’s impact on obesity, and we pretend there was a well-described, plausible mechanistic reason to believe same (there isn’t), and we pretend that this particular FFQ had better than “relatively low validity,” there is no conclusion here to be drawn about kimchi’s impact on obesity.
What we can conclude is that when it comes to publishing papers purporting to find the impact of single foods on obesity, journals will still happily publish them and their publication will lead to hyperbolic headlines and stories, which in turn reinforce the scientifically illiterate notion that the highly complex multifactorial problem of obesity boils down to simple food choices, which in turn keeps weight loss grifters everywhere in business while fueling societal weight bias.
Dr. Freedhoff is Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He disclosed ties with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.