Liam Davenport

When the American Cancer Society recently unveiled changes to its lung cancer screening guidance, the aim was to remove barriers to screening and catch more cancers in high-risk people earlier.

Although the lung cancer death rate has declined significantly over the past few decades, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide.

Detecting lung cancer early is key to improving survival. Still, lung cancer screening rates are poor. In 2021, the American Lung Association estimated that 14 million US adults qualified for lung cancer screening, but only 5.8% received it.

Smokers or former smokers without symptoms may forgo regular screening and only receive their screening scan after symptoms emerge, explained Janani S. Reisenauer, MD, Division Chair of Thoracic Surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. But by the time symptoms develop, the cancer is typically more advanced, and treatment options become more limited.

The goal of the new American Cancer Society guidelines, published in early November 2023 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Physicians, is to identify lung cancers at earlier stages when they are easier to treat.

The new guidelines, which update a 2013 version, expand the eligibility age for screening and the pool of current and former smokers who qualify for annual screening with low-dose CT. Almost 5 million more high-risk people will now qualify for regular lung cancer screening, the guideline authors estimated.

But will expanding screening help reduce deaths from lung cancer? And perhaps just as important, will the guidelines move the needle on the “disappointingly low” lung cancer screening rates up to this point?

“I definitely think it’s a step in the right direction,” said Lecia V. Sequist, MD, MPH, clinical researcher and lung cancer medical oncologist, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts.

The new guidelines lowered the age for annual lung cancer screening among asymptomatic former or current smokers from 55-74 years to 50-80 years. The update also now considers a high-risk person anyone with a 20-pack-year history, down from a 30-pack-year history, and removes the requirement that former smokers must have quit within 15 years to be eligible for screening.

As people age, their risk for lung cancer increases, so it makes sense to screen all former smokers regardless of when they quit, explained Kim Lori Sandler, MD, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, and cochair of the American College of Radiology’s Lung Cancer Screening Steering Committee.

“There’s really nothing magical or drastic that happens at the 15-year mark,” Dr. Sequist agreed. For “someone who quit 14 years ago versus 16 years ago, it is essentially the same risk, and so scientifically it doesn’t really make sense to impose an artificial cut-off where no change in risk exists.”

The latest evidence reviewed in the new guidelines shows that expanding the guidelines would identify more early-stage cancers and potentially save lives. The authors modeled the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening using several scenarios.

Moving the start age from 55 to 50 years would lead to a 15% reduction in lung cancer mortality in men aged 50-54 years, the model suggested.

Removing the 15-year timeline for quitting smoking also would also improve outcomes. Compared with scenarios that included the 15-year quit timeline for former smokers, those that removed the limit would result in a 37.3% increase in screening exams, a 21% increase in would avert lung cancer deaths, and offer a 19% increase in life-years gained per 100,000 population.

Overall, the evidence indicates that, “if fully implemented, these recommendations have a high likelihood of significantly reducing death and suffering from lung cancer in the United States,” the guideline authors wrote.

But screening more people also comes with risks, such as more false-positive findings, which could lead to extra scans, invasive tests for tissue sampling, or even procedures for benign disease, Dr. Sandler explained. The latter “is what we really need to avoid.”

Even so, Dr. Sandler believes the current guidelines show that the benefit of screening “is great enough that it’s worth including these additional individuals.”
 

Guidelines Are Not Enough

But will expanding the screening criteria prompt more eligible individuals to receive their CT scans?

Simply expanding the eligibility criteria, by itself, likely won’t measurably improve screening uptake, said Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, of Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, New York.

Healthcare and insurance access along with patient demand may present the most significant barriers to improving screening uptake.

The “issue is not the guideline as much as it’s the healthcare system,” said Otis W. Brawley, MD, professor of oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Access to screening at hospitals with limited CT scanners and staff could present one major issue.

When Dr. Brawley worked at a large inner-city safety net hospital in Atlanta, patients with lung cancer frequently had to wait over a week to use one of the four CT scanners, he recalled. Adding to these delays, we didn’t have enough people to read the screens or enough people to do the diagnostics for those who had abnormalities, said Dr. Brawley.

To increase lung cancer screening in this context would increase the wait time for patients who do have cancer, he said.

Insurance coverage could present a roadblock for some as well. While the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations largely align with the new ones from the American Cancer Society, there’s one key difference: The USPSTF still requires former smokers to have quit within 15 years to be eligible for annual screening.

Because the USPSTF recommendations dictate insurance coverage, some former smokers — those who quit more than 15 years ago — may not qualify for coverage and would have to pay out-of-pocket for screening.

Dr. Sequist, however, had a more optimistic outlook about screening uptake.

The American Cancer Society guidelines should remove some of the stigma surrounding lung cancer screening. Most people, when asked a lot of questions about their tobacco use and history, tend to downplay it because there’s shame associated with smoking, Dr. Sequist said. The new guidelines limit the information needed to determine eligibility.

Dr. Sequist also noted that the updated American Cancer Society guideline would improve screening rates because it simplifies the eligibility criteria and makes it easier for physicians to determine who qualifies.

The issue, however, is that some of these individuals — those who quit over 15 years ago — may not have their scan covered by insurance, which could preclude lower-income individuals from getting screened.

The American Cancer Society guidelines” do not necessarily translate into a change in policy,” which is “dictated by the USPSTF and payors such as Medicare,” explained Peter Mazzone, MD, MPH, director of the Lung Cancer Program and Lung Cancer Screening Program for the Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

On the patient side, Dr. Brawley noted, “we don’t yet have a large demand” for screening.

Many current and former smokers may put off lung cancer screening or not seek it out. Some may be unaware of their eligibility, while others may fear the outcome of a scan. Even among eligible individuals who do receive an initial scan, most — more than 75% — do not return for their next scan a year later, research showed.

Enhancing patient education and launching strong marketing campaigns would be a key element to encourage more people to get their annual screening and reduce the stigma associated with lung cancer as a smoker’s disease.

“Primary care physicians are integral in ensuring all eligible patients receive appropriate screening for lung cancer,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians and a family physician in Jackson, Alabama. “It is imperative that family physicians encourage screening in at-risk patients and counsel them on the importance of continued screening, as well as smoking cessation, if needed.”

Two authors of the new guidelines reported financial relationships with Seno Medical Instruments, the Genentech Foundation, Crispr Therapeutics, BEAM Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, Editas Medicine, Freenome, and Guardant Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When the American Cancer Society recently unveiled changes to its lung cancer screening guidance, the aim was to remove barriers to screening and catch more cancers in high-risk people earlier.

Although the lung cancer death rate has declined significantly over the past few decades, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide.

Detecting lung cancer early is key to improving survival. Still, lung cancer screening rates are poor. In 2021, the American Lung Association estimated that 14 million US adults qualified for lung cancer screening, but only 5.8% received it.

Smokers or former smokers without symptoms may forgo regular screening and only receive their screening scan after symptoms emerge, explained Janani S. Reisenauer, MD, Division Chair of Thoracic Surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. But by the time symptoms develop, the cancer is typically more advanced, and treatment options become more limited.

The goal of the new American Cancer Society guidelines, published in early November 2023 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Physicians, is to identify lung cancers at earlier stages when they are easier to treat.

The new guidelines, which update a 2013 version, expand the eligibility age for screening and the pool of current and former smokers who qualify for annual screening with low-dose CT. Almost 5 million more high-risk people will now qualify for regular lung cancer screening, the guideline authors estimated.

But will expanding screening help reduce deaths from lung cancer? And perhaps just as important, will the guidelines move the needle on the “disappointingly low” lung cancer screening rates up to this point?

“I definitely think it’s a step in the right direction,” said Lecia V. Sequist, MD, MPH, clinical researcher and lung cancer medical oncologist, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts.

The new guidelines lowered the age for annual lung cancer screening among asymptomatic former or current smokers from 55-74 years to 50-80 years. The update also now considers a high-risk person anyone with a 20-pack-year history, down from a 30-pack-year history, and removes the requirement that former smokers must have quit within 15 years to be eligible for screening.

As people age, their risk for lung cancer increases, so it makes sense to screen all former smokers regardless of when they quit, explained Kim Lori Sandler, MD, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, and cochair of the American College of Radiology’s Lung Cancer Screening Steering Committee.

“There’s really nothing magical or drastic that happens at the 15-year mark,” Dr. Sequist agreed. For “someone who quit 14 years ago versus 16 years ago, it is essentially the same risk, and so scientifically it doesn’t really make sense to impose an artificial cut-off where no change in risk exists.”

The latest evidence reviewed in the new guidelines shows that expanding the guidelines would identify more early-stage cancers and potentially save lives. The authors modeled the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening using several scenarios.

Moving the start age from 55 to 50 years would lead to a 15% reduction in lung cancer mortality in men aged 50-54 years, the model suggested.

Removing the 15-year timeline for quitting smoking also would also improve outcomes. Compared with scenarios that included the 15-year quit timeline for former smokers, those that removed the limit would result in a 37.3% increase in screening exams, a 21% increase in would avert lung cancer deaths, and offer a 19% increase in life-years gained per 100,000 population.

Overall, the evidence indicates that, “if fully implemented, these recommendations have a high likelihood of significantly reducing death and suffering from lung cancer in the United States,” the guideline authors wrote.

But screening more people also comes with risks, such as more false-positive findings, which could lead to extra scans, invasive tests for tissue sampling, or even procedures for benign disease, Dr. Sandler explained. The latter “is what we really need to avoid.”

Even so, Dr. Sandler believes the current guidelines show that the benefit of screening “is great enough that it’s worth including these additional individuals.”
 

Guidelines Are Not Enough

But will expanding the screening criteria prompt more eligible individuals to receive their CT scans?

Simply expanding the eligibility criteria, by itself, likely won’t measurably improve screening uptake, said Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, of Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, New York.

Healthcare and insurance access along with patient demand may present the most significant barriers to improving screening uptake.

The “issue is not the guideline as much as it’s the healthcare system,” said Otis W. Brawley, MD, professor of oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Access to screening at hospitals with limited CT scanners and staff could present one major issue.

When Dr. Brawley worked at a large inner-city safety net hospital in Atlanta, patients with lung cancer frequently had to wait over a week to use one of the four CT scanners, he recalled. Adding to these delays, we didn’t have enough people to read the screens or enough people to do the diagnostics for those who had abnormalities, said Dr. Brawley.

To increase lung cancer screening in this context would increase the wait time for patients who do have cancer, he said.

Insurance coverage could present a roadblock for some as well. While the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations largely align with the new ones from the American Cancer Society, there’s one key difference: The USPSTF still requires former smokers to have quit within 15 years to be eligible for annual screening.

Because the USPSTF recommendations dictate insurance coverage, some former smokers — those who quit more than 15 years ago — may not qualify for coverage and would have to pay out-of-pocket for screening.

Dr. Sequist, however, had a more optimistic outlook about screening uptake.

The American Cancer Society guidelines should remove some of the stigma surrounding lung cancer screening. Most people, when asked a lot of questions about their tobacco use and history, tend to downplay it because there’s shame associated with smoking, Dr. Sequist said. The new guidelines limit the information needed to determine eligibility.

Dr. Sequist also noted that the updated American Cancer Society guideline would improve screening rates because it simplifies the eligibility criteria and makes it easier for physicians to determine who qualifies.

The issue, however, is that some of these individuals — those who quit over 15 years ago — may not have their scan covered by insurance, which could preclude lower-income individuals from getting screened.

The American Cancer Society guidelines” do not necessarily translate into a change in policy,” which is “dictated by the USPSTF and payors such as Medicare,” explained Peter Mazzone, MD, MPH, director of the Lung Cancer Program and Lung Cancer Screening Program for the Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

On the patient side, Dr. Brawley noted, “we don’t yet have a large demand” for screening.

Many current and former smokers may put off lung cancer screening or not seek it out. Some may be unaware of their eligibility, while others may fear the outcome of a scan. Even among eligible individuals who do receive an initial scan, most — more than 75% — do not return for their next scan a year later, research showed.

Enhancing patient education and launching strong marketing campaigns would be a key element to encourage more people to get their annual screening and reduce the stigma associated with lung cancer as a smoker’s disease.

“Primary care physicians are integral in ensuring all eligible patients receive appropriate screening for lung cancer,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians and a family physician in Jackson, Alabama. “It is imperative that family physicians encourage screening in at-risk patients and counsel them on the importance of continued screening, as well as smoking cessation, if needed.”

Two authors of the new guidelines reported financial relationships with Seno Medical Instruments, the Genentech Foundation, Crispr Therapeutics, BEAM Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, Editas Medicine, Freenome, and Guardant Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When the American Cancer Society recently unveiled changes to its lung cancer screening guidance, the aim was to remove barriers to screening and catch more cancers in high-risk people earlier.

Although the lung cancer death rate has declined significantly over the past few decades, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide.

Detecting lung cancer early is key to improving survival. Still, lung cancer screening rates are poor. In 2021, the American Lung Association estimated that 14 million US adults qualified for lung cancer screening, but only 5.8% received it.

Smokers or former smokers without symptoms may forgo regular screening and only receive their screening scan after symptoms emerge, explained Janani S. Reisenauer, MD, Division Chair of Thoracic Surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. But by the time symptoms develop, the cancer is typically more advanced, and treatment options become more limited.

The goal of the new American Cancer Society guidelines, published in early November 2023 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Physicians, is to identify lung cancers at earlier stages when they are easier to treat.

The new guidelines, which update a 2013 version, expand the eligibility age for screening and the pool of current and former smokers who qualify for annual screening with low-dose CT. Almost 5 million more high-risk people will now qualify for regular lung cancer screening, the guideline authors estimated.

But will expanding screening help reduce deaths from lung cancer? And perhaps just as important, will the guidelines move the needle on the “disappointingly low” lung cancer screening rates up to this point?

“I definitely think it’s a step in the right direction,” said Lecia V. Sequist, MD, MPH, clinical researcher and lung cancer medical oncologist, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts.

The new guidelines lowered the age for annual lung cancer screening among asymptomatic former or current smokers from 55-74 years to 50-80 years. The update also now considers a high-risk person anyone with a 20-pack-year history, down from a 30-pack-year history, and removes the requirement that former smokers must have quit within 15 years to be eligible for screening.

As people age, their risk for lung cancer increases, so it makes sense to screen all former smokers regardless of when they quit, explained Kim Lori Sandler, MD, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, and cochair of the American College of Radiology’s Lung Cancer Screening Steering Committee.

“There’s really nothing magical or drastic that happens at the 15-year mark,” Dr. Sequist agreed. For “someone who quit 14 years ago versus 16 years ago, it is essentially the same risk, and so scientifically it doesn’t really make sense to impose an artificial cut-off where no change in risk exists.”

The latest evidence reviewed in the new guidelines shows that expanding the guidelines would identify more early-stage cancers and potentially save lives. The authors modeled the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening using several scenarios.

Moving the start age from 55 to 50 years would lead to a 15% reduction in lung cancer mortality in men aged 50-54 years, the model suggested.

Removing the 15-year timeline for quitting smoking also would also improve outcomes. Compared with scenarios that included the 15-year quit timeline for former smokers, those that removed the limit would result in a 37.3% increase in screening exams, a 21% increase in would avert lung cancer deaths, and offer a 19% increase in life-years gained per 100,000 population.

Overall, the evidence indicates that, “if fully implemented, these recommendations have a high likelihood of significantly reducing death and suffering from lung cancer in the United States,” the guideline authors wrote.

But screening more people also comes with risks, such as more false-positive findings, which could lead to extra scans, invasive tests for tissue sampling, or even procedures for benign disease, Dr. Sandler explained. The latter “is what we really need to avoid.”

Even so, Dr. Sandler believes the current guidelines show that the benefit of screening “is great enough that it’s worth including these additional individuals.”
 

Guidelines Are Not Enough

But will expanding the screening criteria prompt more eligible individuals to receive their CT scans?

Simply expanding the eligibility criteria, by itself, likely won’t measurably improve screening uptake, said Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, of Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, New York.

Healthcare and insurance access along with patient demand may present the most significant barriers to improving screening uptake.

The “issue is not the guideline as much as it’s the healthcare system,” said Otis W. Brawley, MD, professor of oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Access to screening at hospitals with limited CT scanners and staff could present one major issue.

When Dr. Brawley worked at a large inner-city safety net hospital in Atlanta, patients with lung cancer frequently had to wait over a week to use one of the four CT scanners, he recalled. Adding to these delays, we didn’t have enough people to read the screens or enough people to do the diagnostics for those who had abnormalities, said Dr. Brawley.

To increase lung cancer screening in this context would increase the wait time for patients who do have cancer, he said.

Insurance coverage could present a roadblock for some as well. While the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations largely align with the new ones from the American Cancer Society, there’s one key difference: The USPSTF still requires former smokers to have quit within 15 years to be eligible for annual screening.

Because the USPSTF recommendations dictate insurance coverage, some former smokers — those who quit more than 15 years ago — may not qualify for coverage and would have to pay out-of-pocket for screening.

Dr. Sequist, however, had a more optimistic outlook about screening uptake.

The American Cancer Society guidelines should remove some of the stigma surrounding lung cancer screening. Most people, when asked a lot of questions about their tobacco use and history, tend to downplay it because there’s shame associated with smoking, Dr. Sequist said. The new guidelines limit the information needed to determine eligibility.

Dr. Sequist also noted that the updated American Cancer Society guideline would improve screening rates because it simplifies the eligibility criteria and makes it easier for physicians to determine who qualifies.

The issue, however, is that some of these individuals — those who quit over 15 years ago — may not have their scan covered by insurance, which could preclude lower-income individuals from getting screened.

The American Cancer Society guidelines” do not necessarily translate into a change in policy,” which is “dictated by the USPSTF and payors such as Medicare,” explained Peter Mazzone, MD, MPH, director of the Lung Cancer Program and Lung Cancer Screening Program for the Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

On the patient side, Dr. Brawley noted, “we don’t yet have a large demand” for screening.

Many current and former smokers may put off lung cancer screening or not seek it out. Some may be unaware of their eligibility, while others may fear the outcome of a scan. Even among eligible individuals who do receive an initial scan, most — more than 75% — do not return for their next scan a year later, research showed.

Enhancing patient education and launching strong marketing campaigns would be a key element to encourage more people to get their annual screening and reduce the stigma associated with lung cancer as a smoker’s disease.

“Primary care physicians are integral in ensuring all eligible patients receive appropriate screening for lung cancer,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians and a family physician in Jackson, Alabama. “It is imperative that family physicians encourage screening in at-risk patients and counsel them on the importance of continued screening, as well as smoking cessation, if needed.”

Two authors of the new guidelines reported financial relationships with Seno Medical Instruments, the Genentech Foundation, Crispr Therapeutics, BEAM Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, Editas Medicine, Freenome, and Guardant Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Overall survival among US patients with resected stage II or III gastric cancer differs by race and ethnicity, with Asian and Hispanic patients demonstrating better overall survival than White and Black patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have revealed disparities in gastric cancer outcomes among different racial and ethnic groups in the United States, but the reasons are unclear.
• To better understand the disparities, researchers analyzed survival outcomes by race and ethnicity, treatment type, and a range of other factors.
• The retrospective analysis included 6938 patients with clinical stages IIA-IIIC gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent partial or total gastrectomy between 2006 and 2019, excluding those with a history of cancer. Patient data came from the National Cancer Database, which covers about 70% of all new cancer diagnoses.
• The researchers compared factors, including race and ethnicity, surgical margins, and lymph nodes, as well as treatment modality (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy only, neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemoradiation only, or perioperative chemotherapy with radiation or surgical care only).
• Just over half of the patients (53.6%) were White, 24.3% were Black, 17.8% were Hispanic, 15.8% were Asian, and 2.6% were other race or ethnicity (information was missing for 4.8%). White patients were more likely to be older and insured; Black and White patients had more comorbidities than Asian and Hispanic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Perioperative chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79), while surgical resection alone (HR, 1.79), more positive lymph nodes (HR, 2.95 for 10 or more), and positive surgical margins were associated with the biggest decreases in overall survival.
• Asian and Hispanic patients had significantly better overall survival (HR, 0.64 and 0.77, respectively) than White patients.
• In general, Black and White patients had similar overall survival (HR, 0.96), except among Black patients who received neoadjuvant therapy — these patients had better overall survival than White patients (HR, 0.78).
• Black and Asian patients were more likely to be downstaged or achieve a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant therapy (34.4% and 35.3%, respectively) than White (28.4%) and Hispanic patients (30.8%).

IN PRACTICE:

The authors found that “Asian and Hispanic race and ethnicity were independently associated with improved [overall survival] compared with Black and White race,” even after adjusting for variables including multimodality treatment regimen and response to neoadjuvant therapy.

The authors explained that overall Asian and Black patients responded more favorably to neoadjuvant therapy, demonstrating significantly higher rates of downstaging or pathologic complete response, which may help explain why Black patients demonstrated better overall survival than White patients who received neoadjuvant therapy.

SOURCE:

The research, led by Steve Kwon, MD, MPH, of Roger Williams Medical Center and Boston University, Providence, Rhode Island, was published online on December 21 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis is constrained by the database, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The authors determined the response to neoadjuvant therapy by comparing clinical stage with postoperative pathologic stage.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Overall survival among US patients with resected stage II or III gastric cancer differs by race and ethnicity, with Asian and Hispanic patients demonstrating better overall survival than White and Black patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have revealed disparities in gastric cancer outcomes among different racial and ethnic groups in the United States, but the reasons are unclear.
• To better understand the disparities, researchers analyzed survival outcomes by race and ethnicity, treatment type, and a range of other factors.
• The retrospective analysis included 6938 patients with clinical stages IIA-IIIC gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent partial or total gastrectomy between 2006 and 2019, excluding those with a history of cancer. Patient data came from the National Cancer Database, which covers about 70% of all new cancer diagnoses.
• The researchers compared factors, including race and ethnicity, surgical margins, and lymph nodes, as well as treatment modality (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy only, neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemoradiation only, or perioperative chemotherapy with radiation or surgical care only).
• Just over half of the patients (53.6%) were White, 24.3% were Black, 17.8% were Hispanic, 15.8% were Asian, and 2.6% were other race or ethnicity (information was missing for 4.8%). White patients were more likely to be older and insured; Black and White patients had more comorbidities than Asian and Hispanic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Perioperative chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79), while surgical resection alone (HR, 1.79), more positive lymph nodes (HR, 2.95 for 10 or more), and positive surgical margins were associated with the biggest decreases in overall survival.
• Asian and Hispanic patients had significantly better overall survival (HR, 0.64 and 0.77, respectively) than White patients.
• In general, Black and White patients had similar overall survival (HR, 0.96), except among Black patients who received neoadjuvant therapy — these patients had better overall survival than White patients (HR, 0.78).
• Black and Asian patients were more likely to be downstaged or achieve a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant therapy (34.4% and 35.3%, respectively) than White (28.4%) and Hispanic patients (30.8%).

IN PRACTICE:

The authors found that “Asian and Hispanic race and ethnicity were independently associated with improved [overall survival] compared with Black and White race,” even after adjusting for variables including multimodality treatment regimen and response to neoadjuvant therapy.

The authors explained that overall Asian and Black patients responded more favorably to neoadjuvant therapy, demonstrating significantly higher rates of downstaging or pathologic complete response, which may help explain why Black patients demonstrated better overall survival than White patients who received neoadjuvant therapy.

SOURCE:

The research, led by Steve Kwon, MD, MPH, of Roger Williams Medical Center and Boston University, Providence, Rhode Island, was published online on December 21 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis is constrained by the database, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The authors determined the response to neoadjuvant therapy by comparing clinical stage with postoperative pathologic stage.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Overall survival among US patients with resected stage II or III gastric cancer differs by race and ethnicity, with Asian and Hispanic patients demonstrating better overall survival than White and Black patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have revealed disparities in gastric cancer outcomes among different racial and ethnic groups in the United States, but the reasons are unclear.
• To better understand the disparities, researchers analyzed survival outcomes by race and ethnicity, treatment type, and a range of other factors.
• The retrospective analysis included 6938 patients with clinical stages IIA-IIIC gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent partial or total gastrectomy between 2006 and 2019, excluding those with a history of cancer. Patient data came from the National Cancer Database, which covers about 70% of all new cancer diagnoses.
• The researchers compared factors, including race and ethnicity, surgical margins, and lymph nodes, as well as treatment modality (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy only, neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemoradiation only, or perioperative chemotherapy with radiation or surgical care only).
• Just over half of the patients (53.6%) were White, 24.3% were Black, 17.8% were Hispanic, 15.8% were Asian, and 2.6% were other race or ethnicity (information was missing for 4.8%). White patients were more likely to be older and insured; Black and White patients had more comorbidities than Asian and Hispanic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Perioperative chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79), while surgical resection alone (HR, 1.79), more positive lymph nodes (HR, 2.95 for 10 or more), and positive surgical margins were associated with the biggest decreases in overall survival.
• Asian and Hispanic patients had significantly better overall survival (HR, 0.64 and 0.77, respectively) than White patients.
• In general, Black and White patients had similar overall survival (HR, 0.96), except among Black patients who received neoadjuvant therapy — these patients had better overall survival than White patients (HR, 0.78).
• Black and Asian patients were more likely to be downstaged or achieve a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant therapy (34.4% and 35.3%, respectively) than White (28.4%) and Hispanic patients (30.8%).

IN PRACTICE:

The authors found that “Asian and Hispanic race and ethnicity were independently associated with improved [overall survival] compared with Black and White race,” even after adjusting for variables including multimodality treatment regimen and response to neoadjuvant therapy.

The authors explained that overall Asian and Black patients responded more favorably to neoadjuvant therapy, demonstrating significantly higher rates of downstaging or pathologic complete response, which may help explain why Black patients demonstrated better overall survival than White patients who received neoadjuvant therapy.

SOURCE:

The research, led by Steve Kwon, MD, MPH, of Roger Williams Medical Center and Boston University, Providence, Rhode Island, was published online on December 21 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis is constrained by the database, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The authors determined the response to neoadjuvant therapy by comparing clinical stage with postoperative pathologic stage.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative invasive lobular carcinoma who are treated with endocrine therapy do not derive any additional survival benefit from neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies evaluating the long-term effects of chemotherapy in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma are limited and often “show inconclusive results,” the authors explained.
• Female patients diagnosed with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy were identified from the breast cancer database at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
• Linked information on patient and tumor characteristics, vital status, and treatment were then obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry.
• Patients also had to have an indication for chemotherapy based on lymph node status, tumor size, histologic tumor grade, and hormone receptor status, in line with national guidelines.
• Among 716 patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma, 520 who had an indication for chemotherapy were included. Of those, 379 received chemotherapy and 141 did not.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients who received chemotherapy were younger at diagnosis than those who did not (51 vs 61 years), had an earlier average year of diagnosis (2010 vs 2015), and had longer follow-up (7.8 years vs 5.2 years).
• Chemotherapy recipients were more likely to have T3+ disease (33% vs 14%) and positive lymph node involvement (80% vs 49%), and less likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery (31% vs 43%).
• Researchers, however, found no difference between the chemotherapy and no-chemotherapy groups in terms of recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 0.63-2.31), breast cancer–specific survival (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.60-2.58), and overall survival (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.56-1.66) after adjustment for confounders.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors “observed no evidence for added value of chemotherapy” for ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy. “In view of the adverse effects of chemotherapy, our study takes an important step in answering a valuable question from the patient’s perspective,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, conducted by Bernadette A.M. Heemskerk-Gerritsen, PhD, from Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published in Cancer on November 20, 2023.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design means that there is a risk for residual confounding from factors not recorded in the database. The researchers believe that some patients did not receive chemotherapy owing to having comorbidities or patient preference, which could have influenced the results. Moreover, the duration of endocrine therapy was not recorded.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was declared. One author declares relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, and Novartis. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.

TOPLINE:

Women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative invasive lobular carcinoma who are treated with endocrine therapy do not derive any additional survival benefit from neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies evaluating the long-term effects of chemotherapy in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma are limited and often “show inconclusive results,” the authors explained.
• Female patients diagnosed with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy were identified from the breast cancer database at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
• Linked information on patient and tumor characteristics, vital status, and treatment were then obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry.
• Patients also had to have an indication for chemotherapy based on lymph node status, tumor size, histologic tumor grade, and hormone receptor status, in line with national guidelines.
• Among 716 patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma, 520 who had an indication for chemotherapy were included. Of those, 379 received chemotherapy and 141 did not.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients who received chemotherapy were younger at diagnosis than those who did not (51 vs 61 years), had an earlier average year of diagnosis (2010 vs 2015), and had longer follow-up (7.8 years vs 5.2 years).
• Chemotherapy recipients were more likely to have T3+ disease (33% vs 14%) and positive lymph node involvement (80% vs 49%), and less likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery (31% vs 43%).
• Researchers, however, found no difference between the chemotherapy and no-chemotherapy groups in terms of recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 0.63-2.31), breast cancer–specific survival (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.60-2.58), and overall survival (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.56-1.66) after adjustment for confounders.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors “observed no evidence for added value of chemotherapy” for ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy. “In view of the adverse effects of chemotherapy, our study takes an important step in answering a valuable question from the patient’s perspective,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, conducted by Bernadette A.M. Heemskerk-Gerritsen, PhD, from Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published in Cancer on November 20, 2023.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design means that there is a risk for residual confounding from factors not recorded in the database. The researchers believe that some patients did not receive chemotherapy owing to having comorbidities or patient preference, which could have influenced the results. Moreover, the duration of endocrine therapy was not recorded.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was declared. One author declares relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, and Novartis. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.

TOPLINE:

Women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative invasive lobular carcinoma who are treated with endocrine therapy do not derive any additional survival benefit from neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies evaluating the long-term effects of chemotherapy in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma are limited and often “show inconclusive results,” the authors explained.
• Female patients diagnosed with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy were identified from the breast cancer database at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
• Linked information on patient and tumor characteristics, vital status, and treatment were then obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry.
• Patients also had to have an indication for chemotherapy based on lymph node status, tumor size, histologic tumor grade, and hormone receptor status, in line with national guidelines.
• Among 716 patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma, 520 who had an indication for chemotherapy were included. Of those, 379 received chemotherapy and 141 did not.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients who received chemotherapy were younger at diagnosis than those who did not (51 vs 61 years), had an earlier average year of diagnosis (2010 vs 2015), and had longer follow-up (7.8 years vs 5.2 years).
• Chemotherapy recipients were more likely to have T3+ disease (33% vs 14%) and positive lymph node involvement (80% vs 49%), and less likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery (31% vs 43%).
• Researchers, however, found no difference between the chemotherapy and no-chemotherapy groups in terms of recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 0.63-2.31), breast cancer–specific survival (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.60-2.58), and overall survival (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.56-1.66) after adjustment for confounders.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors “observed no evidence for added value of chemotherapy” for ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy. “In view of the adverse effects of chemotherapy, our study takes an important step in answering a valuable question from the patient’s perspective,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, conducted by Bernadette A.M. Heemskerk-Gerritsen, PhD, from Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published in Cancer on November 20, 2023.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design means that there is a risk for residual confounding from factors not recorded in the database. The researchers believe that some patients did not receive chemotherapy owing to having comorbidities or patient preference, which could have influenced the results. Moreover, the duration of endocrine therapy was not recorded.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was declared. One author declares relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, and Novartis. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved two gene-editing therapies for patients aged 12 years or older with severe sickle cell disease.

One therapy — exagamglogene autotemcel or exa-cel (Casgevy) — is the first to use CRISPR gene-editing technology, and could “provide a one-time functional cure to patients with sickle cell disease,” said Haydar Frangoul, MD, of The Children’s Hospital at TriStar Centennial, Nashville, Tennessee.

Dr. Frangoul, who presented a recent interim analysis on the therapy at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting earlier this month, reported that one infusion of exa-cel prompted rapid increases in total hemoglobin levels and almost completely eliminated a common and painful complication of sickle cell disease that can lead to irreversible organ damage, known as vaso-occlusive crisis.

Overall, the gene therapy led to “a rapid, robust, and durable increase in total hemoglobin to normal or near normal levels,” Dr. Frangoul said.

Exa-cel, from Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics, is a single-dose infusion containing a patient’s modified cells. First, a patient’s stem cells are harvested and then genetically modified to produce fetal hemoglobin. 

The development of exa-cel was “grounded in human genetics, which show that fetal hemoglobin can substitute for sickle hemoglobin,” Dr. Frangoul explained. Patients receive these edited cells, which then help restore normal hemoglobin production.

The analysis showed that a one-time infusion of exa-cel following myeloablative conditioning prevented vaso-occlusive crisis in all but one patient with severe sickle cell disease. The therapy also prevented inpatient hospitalizations for vaso-occlusive crisis in all patients and led to sustained improvements in quality of life.

The results are “really striking,” said Sarah H. O’Brien, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, who was not involved in the research. “The majority of our admissions on the hematology service are our patients with sickle cell. They’re uncomfortable, they’re in pain, they’re missing school, and they’re missing their activities,” which makes these interim findings quite “impactful.”

To examine the impact of exa-cel on vaso-occlusive crisis, the phase 3 trial included individuals aged 12 to 35 years with severe sickle cell disease and a history of at least two vaso-occlusive crises per year over the past 2 years.

Participants underwent cell CD34+ stem cell collection. These cells then underwent gene editing using CRISPR technology, explained Dr. Frangoul.

At the transplant center, patients received myeloablative conditioning chemotherapy with busulfan for 4 days before receiving an exa-cel infusion.

At the data cutoff in June 2023, 44 patients had been enrolled, of whom 30 were available for efficacy analysis. The mean age at screening was 22.1 years, and almost half (46.7%) were female. Prior to study recruitment, patients had a mean of 3.9 vaso-occlusive crises per year and a mean of 2.7 inpatient hospitalizations per year for severe vaso-occlusive crisis.

All but one patient (96.7%) met the primary endpoint of freedom from severe vaso-occlusive crisis for at least 12 consecutive months. The mean duration of freedom from vaso-occlusive crisis was 22.4 months, ranging from 14.8 months to 45.5 months. Moreover, 28 of the 29 patients who remained crisis-free at 12 months did not have a further vaso-occlusive crisis throughout the rest of the follow-up period.

Dr. Frangoul noted that results were similar for both adults and adolescents.

Exa-cel also led to a significant increase in freedom from inpatient hospitalizations, with 100% of patients achieving that goal, as well as early and sustained increases in both total and fetal hemoglobin levels, suggesting a “long-term meaningful benefit” from the therapy.

All 44 patients experienced adverse events related to myeloablative conditioning with busulfan, but only 29.5% had events linked to exa-cel. The most common adverse events overall were nausea (70.5%), stomatitis (63.6%), vomiting (56.8%), and febrile neutropenia (54.5%).

In a separate poster presented at ASH, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, Dr. Frangoul, and colleagues reported that exa-cel also led to better health-related quality of life. 

Patients showed “substantial improvements” in measures of quality of life, which included physical, emotional, social, and functional well-being as well as pain at a 6-month follow-up through year 2.

Typical outcomes studied in most trials are “emergency room visits and hospitalizations but what people may not appreciate as much is how much these patients are dealing with pain and discomfort at home,” Dr. O’Brien said. These recently reported quality-of-life metrics “are so key and really help us understand the impact” of this new therapy.

Dr. O’Brien noted, however, that “patients may be reluctant to undergo” this therapy because of the impact myeloablative conditioning has on fertility. That is why ongoing research on how stem cell transplants can be delivered “without impacting fertility is very important.”

It is “hard to know,” Dr. O’Brien explained, whether exa-cel will be a one-time treatment in practice, as many of the patients “already have end-organ damage from their disease.” 

To that end, Dr. Frangoul noted that patients who complete the current trial can enroll in one that will include 13 years of additional follow-up.

Finally, Dr. O’Brien cautioned, gene therapies such as exa-cel “are only going to apply to a small segment of the population” — patients with the most severe form of the disease. That’s why “it’s important that we still prioritize hydroxyurea [and] multidisciplinary care for patients with sickle cell disease,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Vertex Pharmaceuticals in collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics. Dr. Frangoul declared relationships with Editas Medicine, Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, and others. Dr. Sharma declared relationships with Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and others. Other authors declare numerous financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved two gene-editing therapies for patients aged 12 years or older with severe sickle cell disease.

One therapy — exagamglogene autotemcel or exa-cel (Casgevy) — is the first to use CRISPR gene-editing technology, and could “provide a one-time functional cure to patients with sickle cell disease,” said Haydar Frangoul, MD, of The Children’s Hospital at TriStar Centennial, Nashville, Tennessee.

Dr. Frangoul, who presented a recent interim analysis on the therapy at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting earlier this month, reported that one infusion of exa-cel prompted rapid increases in total hemoglobin levels and almost completely eliminated a common and painful complication of sickle cell disease that can lead to irreversible organ damage, known as vaso-occlusive crisis.

Overall, the gene therapy led to “a rapid, robust, and durable increase in total hemoglobin to normal or near normal levels,” Dr. Frangoul said.

Exa-cel, from Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics, is a single-dose infusion containing a patient’s modified cells. First, a patient’s stem cells are harvested and then genetically modified to produce fetal hemoglobin. 

The development of exa-cel was “grounded in human genetics, which show that fetal hemoglobin can substitute for sickle hemoglobin,” Dr. Frangoul explained. Patients receive these edited cells, which then help restore normal hemoglobin production.

The analysis showed that a one-time infusion of exa-cel following myeloablative conditioning prevented vaso-occlusive crisis in all but one patient with severe sickle cell disease. The therapy also prevented inpatient hospitalizations for vaso-occlusive crisis in all patients and led to sustained improvements in quality of life.

The results are “really striking,” said Sarah H. O’Brien, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, who was not involved in the research. “The majority of our admissions on the hematology service are our patients with sickle cell. They’re uncomfortable, they’re in pain, they’re missing school, and they’re missing their activities,” which makes these interim findings quite “impactful.”

To examine the impact of exa-cel on vaso-occlusive crisis, the phase 3 trial included individuals aged 12 to 35 years with severe sickle cell disease and a history of at least two vaso-occlusive crises per year over the past 2 years.

Participants underwent cell CD34+ stem cell collection. These cells then underwent gene editing using CRISPR technology, explained Dr. Frangoul.

At the transplant center, patients received myeloablative conditioning chemotherapy with busulfan for 4 days before receiving an exa-cel infusion.

At the data cutoff in June 2023, 44 patients had been enrolled, of whom 30 were available for efficacy analysis. The mean age at screening was 22.1 years, and almost half (46.7%) were female. Prior to study recruitment, patients had a mean of 3.9 vaso-occlusive crises per year and a mean of 2.7 inpatient hospitalizations per year for severe vaso-occlusive crisis.

All but one patient (96.7%) met the primary endpoint of freedom from severe vaso-occlusive crisis for at least 12 consecutive months. The mean duration of freedom from vaso-occlusive crisis was 22.4 months, ranging from 14.8 months to 45.5 months. Moreover, 28 of the 29 patients who remained crisis-free at 12 months did not have a further vaso-occlusive crisis throughout the rest of the follow-up period.

Dr. Frangoul noted that results were similar for both adults and adolescents.

Exa-cel also led to a significant increase in freedom from inpatient hospitalizations, with 100% of patients achieving that goal, as well as early and sustained increases in both total and fetal hemoglobin levels, suggesting a “long-term meaningful benefit” from the therapy.

All 44 patients experienced adverse events related to myeloablative conditioning with busulfan, but only 29.5% had events linked to exa-cel. The most common adverse events overall were nausea (70.5%), stomatitis (63.6%), vomiting (56.8%), and febrile neutropenia (54.5%).

In a separate poster presented at ASH, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, Dr. Frangoul, and colleagues reported that exa-cel also led to better health-related quality of life. 

Patients showed “substantial improvements” in measures of quality of life, which included physical, emotional, social, and functional well-being as well as pain at a 6-month follow-up through year 2.

Typical outcomes studied in most trials are “emergency room visits and hospitalizations but what people may not appreciate as much is how much these patients are dealing with pain and discomfort at home,” Dr. O’Brien said. These recently reported quality-of-life metrics “are so key and really help us understand the impact” of this new therapy.

Dr. O’Brien noted, however, that “patients may be reluctant to undergo” this therapy because of the impact myeloablative conditioning has on fertility. That is why ongoing research on how stem cell transplants can be delivered “without impacting fertility is very important.”

It is “hard to know,” Dr. O’Brien explained, whether exa-cel will be a one-time treatment in practice, as many of the patients “already have end-organ damage from their disease.” 

To that end, Dr. Frangoul noted that patients who complete the current trial can enroll in one that will include 13 years of additional follow-up.

Finally, Dr. O’Brien cautioned, gene therapies such as exa-cel “are only going to apply to a small segment of the population” — patients with the most severe form of the disease. That’s why “it’s important that we still prioritize hydroxyurea [and] multidisciplinary care for patients with sickle cell disease,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Vertex Pharmaceuticals in collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics. Dr. Frangoul declared relationships with Editas Medicine, Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, and others. Dr. Sharma declared relationships with Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and others. Other authors declare numerous financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved two gene-editing therapies for patients aged 12 years or older with severe sickle cell disease.

One therapy — exagamglogene autotemcel or exa-cel (Casgevy) — is the first to use CRISPR gene-editing technology, and could “provide a one-time functional cure to patients with sickle cell disease,” said Haydar Frangoul, MD, of The Children’s Hospital at TriStar Centennial, Nashville, Tennessee.

Dr. Frangoul, who presented a recent interim analysis on the therapy at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting earlier this month, reported that one infusion of exa-cel prompted rapid increases in total hemoglobin levels and almost completely eliminated a common and painful complication of sickle cell disease that can lead to irreversible organ damage, known as vaso-occlusive crisis.

Overall, the gene therapy led to “a rapid, robust, and durable increase in total hemoglobin to normal or near normal levels,” Dr. Frangoul said.

Exa-cel, from Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics, is a single-dose infusion containing a patient’s modified cells. First, a patient’s stem cells are harvested and then genetically modified to produce fetal hemoglobin. 

The development of exa-cel was “grounded in human genetics, which show that fetal hemoglobin can substitute for sickle hemoglobin,” Dr. Frangoul explained. Patients receive these edited cells, which then help restore normal hemoglobin production.

The analysis showed that a one-time infusion of exa-cel following myeloablative conditioning prevented vaso-occlusive crisis in all but one patient with severe sickle cell disease. The therapy also prevented inpatient hospitalizations for vaso-occlusive crisis in all patients and led to sustained improvements in quality of life.

The results are “really striking,” said Sarah H. O’Brien, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, who was not involved in the research. “The majority of our admissions on the hematology service are our patients with sickle cell. They’re uncomfortable, they’re in pain, they’re missing school, and they’re missing their activities,” which makes these interim findings quite “impactful.”

To examine the impact of exa-cel on vaso-occlusive crisis, the phase 3 trial included individuals aged 12 to 35 years with severe sickle cell disease and a history of at least two vaso-occlusive crises per year over the past 2 years.

Participants underwent cell CD34+ stem cell collection. These cells then underwent gene editing using CRISPR technology, explained Dr. Frangoul.

At the transplant center, patients received myeloablative conditioning chemotherapy with busulfan for 4 days before receiving an exa-cel infusion.

At the data cutoff in June 2023, 44 patients had been enrolled, of whom 30 were available for efficacy analysis. The mean age at screening was 22.1 years, and almost half (46.7%) were female. Prior to study recruitment, patients had a mean of 3.9 vaso-occlusive crises per year and a mean of 2.7 inpatient hospitalizations per year for severe vaso-occlusive crisis.

All but one patient (96.7%) met the primary endpoint of freedom from severe vaso-occlusive crisis for at least 12 consecutive months. The mean duration of freedom from vaso-occlusive crisis was 22.4 months, ranging from 14.8 months to 45.5 months. Moreover, 28 of the 29 patients who remained crisis-free at 12 months did not have a further vaso-occlusive crisis throughout the rest of the follow-up period.

Dr. Frangoul noted that results were similar for both adults and adolescents.

Exa-cel also led to a significant increase in freedom from inpatient hospitalizations, with 100% of patients achieving that goal, as well as early and sustained increases in both total and fetal hemoglobin levels, suggesting a “long-term meaningful benefit” from the therapy.

All 44 patients experienced adverse events related to myeloablative conditioning with busulfan, but only 29.5% had events linked to exa-cel. The most common adverse events overall were nausea (70.5%), stomatitis (63.6%), vomiting (56.8%), and febrile neutropenia (54.5%).

In a separate poster presented at ASH, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, Dr. Frangoul, and colleagues reported that exa-cel also led to better health-related quality of life. 

Patients showed “substantial improvements” in measures of quality of life, which included physical, emotional, social, and functional well-being as well as pain at a 6-month follow-up through year 2.

Typical outcomes studied in most trials are “emergency room visits and hospitalizations but what people may not appreciate as much is how much these patients are dealing with pain and discomfort at home,” Dr. O’Brien said. These recently reported quality-of-life metrics “are so key and really help us understand the impact” of this new therapy.

Dr. O’Brien noted, however, that “patients may be reluctant to undergo” this therapy because of the impact myeloablative conditioning has on fertility. That is why ongoing research on how stem cell transplants can be delivered “without impacting fertility is very important.”

It is “hard to know,” Dr. O’Brien explained, whether exa-cel will be a one-time treatment in practice, as many of the patients “already have end-organ damage from their disease.” 

To that end, Dr. Frangoul noted that patients who complete the current trial can enroll in one that will include 13 years of additional follow-up.

Finally, Dr. O’Brien cautioned, gene therapies such as exa-cel “are only going to apply to a small segment of the population” — patients with the most severe form of the disease. That’s why “it’s important that we still prioritize hydroxyurea [and] multidisciplinary care for patients with sickle cell disease,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Vertex Pharmaceuticals in collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics. Dr. Frangoul declared relationships with Editas Medicine, Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, and others. Dr. Sharma declared relationships with Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and others. Other authors declare numerous financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — The antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) does not improve survival outcomes compared with the standard of care in older patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) breast cancer, although toxicity is much lower, results from the HERB TEA study show.

Overall, the standard-of-care triple regimen of monoclonal antibodies pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel remains the “first-line treatment for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, regardless of age,” said study author Akihiko Shimomura, MD, PhD, who presented the findings (abstract RF02-04) on December 7 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

However, he noted that the standard-of-care regimen appears to be “intolerable mentally and physically” in those older than 65 years, and “impairs” quality of life. 

Therefore a “new standard treatment with less toxicity and noninferior efficacy for older patients is needed,” said Dr. Shimomura, Department of Breast and Medical Oncology, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo.

Dr. Shimomura and colleagues recruited patients aged 65 years or older with advanced HER2+ breast cancer who had received no prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer and had a good performance status.

Patients were randomly assigned to either pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel or T-DM1 until disease progression. The planned sample size was 250 patients, but the study was terminated after 148 participants were recruited because an interim analysis showed that T-DM1 failed to show noninferiority.

Among 75 patients assigned to the standard-of-care regimen, the mean age was 71 years, with 64% aged 65-74 years. Sixty-five percent had stage IV disease, and 35% had relapsed. These baseline characteristics were similar among the 73 patients given T-DM1.

At the data cutoff of June 15, 2023, the median progression-free survival was comparable between the two groups, at 15.6 months with the triple therapy vs 11.3 months with T-DM1 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.358; P =.1236).

There was also no significant difference in overall survival between the two groups (HR, 1.263; P =.95322).

However, T-DM1 failed to meet its primary endpoint of noninferiority to pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel, defined as a hazard ratio for overall survival of 1.35.

Nevertheless, T-DM1 was associated with significantly less toxicity than the standard-of care-regimen, with rates of grade 3 or worse adverse events of 36.1% vs 56.8%, Shimomura reported.

The most common hematologic adverse events with the triple therapy were leukopenia (34.2%) and neutropenia (52.0%), whereas thrombocytopenia was the most common event with T-DM1 (16.7%).

Liver toxicities were also increased with the antibody-drug conjugate, whereas fatigue, diarrhea, and appetite loss were more frequently seen with the standard-of-care regimen.

Although T-DM1 did not achieve noninferiority, given its lower toxicity profile, a “detailed analysis, including geriatric assessment, is needed to identify the patient population for whom T-DM1 may be used as first line treatment,” said Shimomura.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, codirector of the SABCS and leader of the Breast Cancer Program at the UT Health San Antonio Cancer Center, Texas, said in an interview that the trial shows T-DM1 could be “a good alternative to our first line therapy in HER2+ metastatic breast cancer” for some patients.

“It is, however, unlikely to change the standard of care due to several changes in the field including the results from the KATHERINE trial and the DESTINY-Breast trials,” she said. 

The study was funded by the Japanese National Cancer Center. Dr. Shimomura declares relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, AstraZeneca K.K., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Eli Lilly Japan K.K., MSD Co. Ltd, Eisai Co. Ltd, Gilead Sciences, and Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — The antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) does not improve survival outcomes compared with the standard of care in older patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) breast cancer, although toxicity is much lower, results from the HERB TEA study show.

Overall, the standard-of-care triple regimen of monoclonal antibodies pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel remains the “first-line treatment for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, regardless of age,” said study author Akihiko Shimomura, MD, PhD, who presented the findings (abstract RF02-04) on December 7 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

However, he noted that the standard-of-care regimen appears to be “intolerable mentally and physically” in those older than 65 years, and “impairs” quality of life. 

Therefore a “new standard treatment with less toxicity and noninferior efficacy for older patients is needed,” said Dr. Shimomura, Department of Breast and Medical Oncology, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo.

Dr. Shimomura and colleagues recruited patients aged 65 years or older with advanced HER2+ breast cancer who had received no prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer and had a good performance status.

Patients were randomly assigned to either pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel or T-DM1 until disease progression. The planned sample size was 250 patients, but the study was terminated after 148 participants were recruited because an interim analysis showed that T-DM1 failed to show noninferiority.

Among 75 patients assigned to the standard-of-care regimen, the mean age was 71 years, with 64% aged 65-74 years. Sixty-five percent had stage IV disease, and 35% had relapsed. These baseline characteristics were similar among the 73 patients given T-DM1.

At the data cutoff of June 15, 2023, the median progression-free survival was comparable between the two groups, at 15.6 months with the triple therapy vs 11.3 months with T-DM1 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.358; P =.1236).

There was also no significant difference in overall survival between the two groups (HR, 1.263; P =.95322).

However, T-DM1 failed to meet its primary endpoint of noninferiority to pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel, defined as a hazard ratio for overall survival of 1.35.

Nevertheless, T-DM1 was associated with significantly less toxicity than the standard-of care-regimen, with rates of grade 3 or worse adverse events of 36.1% vs 56.8%, Shimomura reported.

The most common hematologic adverse events with the triple therapy were leukopenia (34.2%) and neutropenia (52.0%), whereas thrombocytopenia was the most common event with T-DM1 (16.7%).

Liver toxicities were also increased with the antibody-drug conjugate, whereas fatigue, diarrhea, and appetite loss were more frequently seen with the standard-of-care regimen.

Although T-DM1 did not achieve noninferiority, given its lower toxicity profile, a “detailed analysis, including geriatric assessment, is needed to identify the patient population for whom T-DM1 may be used as first line treatment,” said Shimomura.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, codirector of the SABCS and leader of the Breast Cancer Program at the UT Health San Antonio Cancer Center, Texas, said in an interview that the trial shows T-DM1 could be “a good alternative to our first line therapy in HER2+ metastatic breast cancer” for some patients.

“It is, however, unlikely to change the standard of care due to several changes in the field including the results from the KATHERINE trial and the DESTINY-Breast trials,” she said. 

The study was funded by the Japanese National Cancer Center. Dr. Shimomura declares relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, AstraZeneca K.K., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Eli Lilly Japan K.K., MSD Co. Ltd, Eisai Co. Ltd, Gilead Sciences, and Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — The antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) does not improve survival outcomes compared with the standard of care in older patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) breast cancer, although toxicity is much lower, results from the HERB TEA study show.

Overall, the standard-of-care triple regimen of monoclonal antibodies pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel remains the “first-line treatment for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, regardless of age,” said study author Akihiko Shimomura, MD, PhD, who presented the findings (abstract RF02-04) on December 7 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

However, he noted that the standard-of-care regimen appears to be “intolerable mentally and physically” in those older than 65 years, and “impairs” quality of life. 

Therefore a “new standard treatment with less toxicity and noninferior efficacy for older patients is needed,” said Dr. Shimomura, Department of Breast and Medical Oncology, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo.

Dr. Shimomura and colleagues recruited patients aged 65 years or older with advanced HER2+ breast cancer who had received no prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer and had a good performance status.

Patients were randomly assigned to either pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel or T-DM1 until disease progression. The planned sample size was 250 patients, but the study was terminated after 148 participants were recruited because an interim analysis showed that T-DM1 failed to show noninferiority.

Among 75 patients assigned to the standard-of-care regimen, the mean age was 71 years, with 64% aged 65-74 years. Sixty-five percent had stage IV disease, and 35% had relapsed. These baseline characteristics were similar among the 73 patients given T-DM1.

At the data cutoff of June 15, 2023, the median progression-free survival was comparable between the two groups, at 15.6 months with the triple therapy vs 11.3 months with T-DM1 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.358; P =.1236).

There was also no significant difference in overall survival between the two groups (HR, 1.263; P =.95322).

However, T-DM1 failed to meet its primary endpoint of noninferiority to pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel, defined as a hazard ratio for overall survival of 1.35.

Nevertheless, T-DM1 was associated with significantly less toxicity than the standard-of care-regimen, with rates of grade 3 or worse adverse events of 36.1% vs 56.8%, Shimomura reported.

The most common hematologic adverse events with the triple therapy were leukopenia (34.2%) and neutropenia (52.0%), whereas thrombocytopenia was the most common event with T-DM1 (16.7%).

Liver toxicities were also increased with the antibody-drug conjugate, whereas fatigue, diarrhea, and appetite loss were more frequently seen with the standard-of-care regimen.

Although T-DM1 did not achieve noninferiority, given its lower toxicity profile, a “detailed analysis, including geriatric assessment, is needed to identify the patient population for whom T-DM1 may be used as first line treatment,” said Shimomura.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, codirector of the SABCS and leader of the Breast Cancer Program at the UT Health San Antonio Cancer Center, Texas, said in an interview that the trial shows T-DM1 could be “a good alternative to our first line therapy in HER2+ metastatic breast cancer” for some patients.

“It is, however, unlikely to change the standard of care due to several changes in the field including the results from the KATHERINE trial and the DESTINY-Breast trials,” she said. 

The study was funded by the Japanese National Cancer Center. Dr. Shimomura declares relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, AstraZeneca K.K., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Eli Lilly Japan K.K., MSD Co. Ltd, Eisai Co. Ltd, Gilead Sciences, and Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bass-heavy rock music applied directly to the abdomen of diabetic mice implanted with music-sensitive insulin-releasing cells attenuates postprandial glycemic excursions and restores normoglycemia, reveals a series of experiments.

The research was published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

After developing a cell line in which music-sensitive calcium channels triggered the release of insulin-containing vesicles, the researchers conducted a series of studies identifying the optimal frequency, pitch, and volume of sounds for triggering release.

After settling on low-bass heavy popular music, they tested their system on mice with type 1 diabetes that had the insulin-releasing cells implanted in their abdomen. Applying the music directly at 60 dB led to near wild-type levels of insulin in the blood within 15 minutes.

“With only 4 hours required for a full refill, [the system] can provide several therapeutic doses a day,” says Martin Fussenegger, PhD, professor of biotechnology and bioengineering, Department of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, Basel, Switzerland, and colleagues.

“This would match the typical needs of people with type 2 diabetes consuming three meals a day, and for whom administration of prandial insulin is an established treatment option, as they do not have capability for early postprandial insulin secretion from preformed insulin.”

As the system requires nothing more than portable battery-powered commercially available loudspeakers, the multiple daily dosing of biopharmaceuticals becomes “straightforward in the absence of medical infrastructure or staff, simply by having the patient listen to the prescribed music.”

It therefore “could be an interesting option for cell-based therapies, especially where the need for frequent dosing raises compliance issues.”

It is a “very exciting piece of work, no doubt,” said Anandwardhan A. Hardikar, PhD, group leader, Diabetes and Islet Biology Group, Translational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Penrith NSW, Australia.

He pointed out that the concept of using music to drive gene expression “is something we’ve known for the last 20 years,” but bringing the different strands of research together to generate cells that can be implanted into mice is “an amazing idea.”

Dr. Hardikar, who was not involved in the study, said, however, the publication of the study as a correspondence “does not allow for a lot of the detail that I would have expected as an academic,” and consequently some questions remain.

The most important is whether the music itself is required to trigger the insulin release, as opposed simply to sounds in general.

Is Music or Sound the “Trigger?”

Music is “frequency, it’s the amplitude of the waveform, and it’s the duration for which those waveforms are present,” he noted, but the same profile can be achieved by cutting up and editing the melody so it becomes a jumble of sounds.

For Dr. Hardikar, the “best control” for the study would be to have no music as well as the edited song, with “bits of pieces” played randomly so “it sounds like it’s the same frequency and amplitude.”

Then it would be clear whether the effect is owing to the “noise, or we have to appreciate the melody.”

The other outstanding question is whether the results “can directly translate to larger animals,” such as humans, Dr. Hardikar said.

The authors point out that when translated into mechanical vibrations in the middle ear, the acoustic waves of music activate mechanosensitive ion channels, a form of trigger that is seen across the animal kingdom.

They go on to highlight that while gene switches have been developed for use in next-generation cell-based therapies for a range of conditions, small-molecular trigger compounds face a number of challenges and may cause adverse effects.

With “traceless triggers” such as light, ultrasound, magnetic fields, radio waves, electricity, and heat also facing issues, there is a “need for new switching modalities.”

The researchers therefore developed a music-inducible cellular control (MUSIC) system, which leverages the known intracellular calcium surge in response to music, via calcium-permeable mechanosensitive channels, to drive the release of biopharmaceuticals from vesicles.

They then generated MUSIC-controlled insulin-releasing cell lines, finding that, using a customized box containing off-the-shelf loudspeakers, they could induce channel activation and insulin release with 60 dB at 50 Hz, which is “within the safe range for the human ear.”

Further experiments revealed that insulin release was greatest at 50-100 Hz, and higher than that seen with potassium chloride, the “gold-standard” depolarization control for calcium channels.

The researchers then showed that with optimal stimulation at 50 Hz and 60 dB, channel activation and subsequent insulin release required at least 3 seconds of continuous music, “which might protect the cellular device from inadvertent activation during everyday activities.”

Next, they examined the impact of different musical genres on insulin release, finding that low-bass heavy popular music and movie soundtracks induced maximum release, while the responses were more diverse to classical and guitar-based music.

Specifically, “We Will Rock You,” by the British rock band Queen, induced the release of 70% of available insulin within 5 minutes and 100% within 15 minutes. This, the team notes, is “similar to the dynamics of glucose-triggered insulin release by human pancreatic islets.”

Exposing the cells to a second music session at different intervals revealed that full insulin refill was achieved within 4 hours, which “would be appropriate to attenuate glycemic excursions associated with typical dietary habits.”

Finally, the researchers tested the system in vivo, constructing a box with two off-the-shelf loudspeakers that focuses acoustic waves, via deflectors, onto the abdomens of mice with type 1 diabetes.

Exposing the mice, which had been implanted with microencapsulated MUSIC cells in the peritoneum, to low-bass acoustic waves at 60 dB (50 m/s2) for 15 minutes allowed them to achieve near wild-type levels of insulin in the blood and restored normoglycemia.

Moreover, “Queen’s song ‘We Will Rock You’ generated sufficient insulin to rapidly attenuate postprandial glycemic excursions during glucose tolerance tests,” the team says.

In contrast, animals without implants, or those that had implants but did not have music immersion, remained severely hyperglycemic, they add.

They also note that the effect was seen only when the sound waves “directly impinge on the skin just above the implantation site” for at least 15 minutes, with no increase in insulin release observed with commercially available headphones or ear plugs, such as Apple AirPods, or with loud environmental noises.

Consequently, “therapeutic MUSIC sessions would still be compatible with listening to other types of music or listening to all types of music via headphones,” the researchers write, and are “compatible with standard drug administration schemes.”

The study was supported by a European Research Council advanced grant and in part by the Swiss National Science Foundation NCCR Molecular Systems Engineering. One author acknowledges the support of the Chinese Scholarship Council.

No relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bass-heavy rock music applied directly to the abdomen of diabetic mice implanted with music-sensitive insulin-releasing cells attenuates postprandial glycemic excursions and restores normoglycemia, reveals a series of experiments.

The research was published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

After developing a cell line in which music-sensitive calcium channels triggered the release of insulin-containing vesicles, the researchers conducted a series of studies identifying the optimal frequency, pitch, and volume of sounds for triggering release.

After settling on low-bass heavy popular music, they tested their system on mice with type 1 diabetes that had the insulin-releasing cells implanted in their abdomen. Applying the music directly at 60 dB led to near wild-type levels of insulin in the blood within 15 minutes.

“With only 4 hours required for a full refill, [the system] can provide several therapeutic doses a day,” says Martin Fussenegger, PhD, professor of biotechnology and bioengineering, Department of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, Basel, Switzerland, and colleagues.

“This would match the typical needs of people with type 2 diabetes consuming three meals a day, and for whom administration of prandial insulin is an established treatment option, as they do not have capability for early postprandial insulin secretion from preformed insulin.”

As the system requires nothing more than portable battery-powered commercially available loudspeakers, the multiple daily dosing of biopharmaceuticals becomes “straightforward in the absence of medical infrastructure or staff, simply by having the patient listen to the prescribed music.”

It therefore “could be an interesting option for cell-based therapies, especially where the need for frequent dosing raises compliance issues.”

It is a “very exciting piece of work, no doubt,” said Anandwardhan A. Hardikar, PhD, group leader, Diabetes and Islet Biology Group, Translational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Penrith NSW, Australia.

He pointed out that the concept of using music to drive gene expression “is something we’ve known for the last 20 years,” but bringing the different strands of research together to generate cells that can be implanted into mice is “an amazing idea.”

Dr. Hardikar, who was not involved in the study, said, however, the publication of the study as a correspondence “does not allow for a lot of the detail that I would have expected as an academic,” and consequently some questions remain.

The most important is whether the music itself is required to trigger the insulin release, as opposed simply to sounds in general.

Is Music or Sound the “Trigger?”

Music is “frequency, it’s the amplitude of the waveform, and it’s the duration for which those waveforms are present,” he noted, but the same profile can be achieved by cutting up and editing the melody so it becomes a jumble of sounds.

For Dr. Hardikar, the “best control” for the study would be to have no music as well as the edited song, with “bits of pieces” played randomly so “it sounds like it’s the same frequency and amplitude.”

Then it would be clear whether the effect is owing to the “noise, or we have to appreciate the melody.”

The other outstanding question is whether the results “can directly translate to larger animals,” such as humans, Dr. Hardikar said.

The authors point out that when translated into mechanical vibrations in the middle ear, the acoustic waves of music activate mechanosensitive ion channels, a form of trigger that is seen across the animal kingdom.

They go on to highlight that while gene switches have been developed for use in next-generation cell-based therapies for a range of conditions, small-molecular trigger compounds face a number of challenges and may cause adverse effects.

With “traceless triggers” such as light, ultrasound, magnetic fields, radio waves, electricity, and heat also facing issues, there is a “need for new switching modalities.”

The researchers therefore developed a music-inducible cellular control (MUSIC) system, which leverages the known intracellular calcium surge in response to music, via calcium-permeable mechanosensitive channels, to drive the release of biopharmaceuticals from vesicles.

They then generated MUSIC-controlled insulin-releasing cell lines, finding that, using a customized box containing off-the-shelf loudspeakers, they could induce channel activation and insulin release with 60 dB at 50 Hz, which is “within the safe range for the human ear.”

Further experiments revealed that insulin release was greatest at 50-100 Hz, and higher than that seen with potassium chloride, the “gold-standard” depolarization control for calcium channels.

The researchers then showed that with optimal stimulation at 50 Hz and 60 dB, channel activation and subsequent insulin release required at least 3 seconds of continuous music, “which might protect the cellular device from inadvertent activation during everyday activities.”

Next, they examined the impact of different musical genres on insulin release, finding that low-bass heavy popular music and movie soundtracks induced maximum release, while the responses were more diverse to classical and guitar-based music.

Specifically, “We Will Rock You,” by the British rock band Queen, induced the release of 70% of available insulin within 5 minutes and 100% within 15 minutes. This, the team notes, is “similar to the dynamics of glucose-triggered insulin release by human pancreatic islets.”

Exposing the cells to a second music session at different intervals revealed that full insulin refill was achieved within 4 hours, which “would be appropriate to attenuate glycemic excursions associated with typical dietary habits.”

Finally, the researchers tested the system in vivo, constructing a box with two off-the-shelf loudspeakers that focuses acoustic waves, via deflectors, onto the abdomens of mice with type 1 diabetes.

Exposing the mice, which had been implanted with microencapsulated MUSIC cells in the peritoneum, to low-bass acoustic waves at 60 dB (50 m/s2) for 15 minutes allowed them to achieve near wild-type levels of insulin in the blood and restored normoglycemia.

Moreover, “Queen’s song ‘We Will Rock You’ generated sufficient insulin to rapidly attenuate postprandial glycemic excursions during glucose tolerance tests,” the team says.

In contrast, animals without implants, or those that had implants but did not have music immersion, remained severely hyperglycemic, they add.

They also note that the effect was seen only when the sound waves “directly impinge on the skin just above the implantation site” for at least 15 minutes, with no increase in insulin release observed with commercially available headphones or ear plugs, such as Apple AirPods, or with loud environmental noises.

Consequently, “therapeutic MUSIC sessions would still be compatible with listening to other types of music or listening to all types of music via headphones,” the researchers write, and are “compatible with standard drug administration schemes.”

The study was supported by a European Research Council advanced grant and in part by the Swiss National Science Foundation NCCR Molecular Systems Engineering. One author acknowledges the support of the Chinese Scholarship Council.

No relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bass-heavy rock music applied directly to the abdomen of diabetic mice implanted with music-sensitive insulin-releasing cells attenuates postprandial glycemic excursions and restores normoglycemia, reveals a series of experiments.

The research was published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

After developing a cell line in which music-sensitive calcium channels triggered the release of insulin-containing vesicles, the researchers conducted a series of studies identifying the optimal frequency, pitch, and volume of sounds for triggering release.

After settling on low-bass heavy popular music, they tested their system on mice with type 1 diabetes that had the insulin-releasing cells implanted in their abdomen. Applying the music directly at 60 dB led to near wild-type levels of insulin in the blood within 15 minutes.

“With only 4 hours required for a full refill, [the system] can provide several therapeutic doses a day,” says Martin Fussenegger, PhD, professor of biotechnology and bioengineering, Department of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, Basel, Switzerland, and colleagues.

“This would match the typical needs of people with type 2 diabetes consuming three meals a day, and for whom administration of prandial insulin is an established treatment option, as they do not have capability for early postprandial insulin secretion from preformed insulin.”

As the system requires nothing more than portable battery-powered commercially available loudspeakers, the multiple daily dosing of biopharmaceuticals becomes “straightforward in the absence of medical infrastructure or staff, simply by having the patient listen to the prescribed music.”

It therefore “could be an interesting option for cell-based therapies, especially where the need for frequent dosing raises compliance issues.”

It is a “very exciting piece of work, no doubt,” said Anandwardhan A. Hardikar, PhD, group leader, Diabetes and Islet Biology Group, Translational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Penrith NSW, Australia.

He pointed out that the concept of using music to drive gene expression “is something we’ve known for the last 20 years,” but bringing the different strands of research together to generate cells that can be implanted into mice is “an amazing idea.”

Dr. Hardikar, who was not involved in the study, said, however, the publication of the study as a correspondence “does not allow for a lot of the detail that I would have expected as an academic,” and consequently some questions remain.

The most important is whether the music itself is required to trigger the insulin release, as opposed simply to sounds in general.

Is Music or Sound the “Trigger?”

Music is “frequency, it’s the amplitude of the waveform, and it’s the duration for which those waveforms are present,” he noted, but the same profile can be achieved by cutting up and editing the melody so it becomes a jumble of sounds.

For Dr. Hardikar, the “best control” for the study would be to have no music as well as the edited song, with “bits of pieces” played randomly so “it sounds like it’s the same frequency and amplitude.”

Then it would be clear whether the effect is owing to the “noise, or we have to appreciate the melody.”

The other outstanding question is whether the results “can directly translate to larger animals,” such as humans, Dr. Hardikar said.

The authors point out that when translated into mechanical vibrations in the middle ear, the acoustic waves of music activate mechanosensitive ion channels, a form of trigger that is seen across the animal kingdom.

They go on to highlight that while gene switches have been developed for use in next-generation cell-based therapies for a range of conditions, small-molecular trigger compounds face a number of challenges and may cause adverse effects.

With “traceless triggers” such as light, ultrasound, magnetic fields, radio waves, electricity, and heat also facing issues, there is a “need for new switching modalities.”

The researchers therefore developed a music-inducible cellular control (MUSIC) system, which leverages the known intracellular calcium surge in response to music, via calcium-permeable mechanosensitive channels, to drive the release of biopharmaceuticals from vesicles.

They then generated MUSIC-controlled insulin-releasing cell lines, finding that, using a customized box containing off-the-shelf loudspeakers, they could induce channel activation and insulin release with 60 dB at 50 Hz, which is “within the safe range for the human ear.”

Further experiments revealed that insulin release was greatest at 50-100 Hz, and higher than that seen with potassium chloride, the “gold-standard” depolarization control for calcium channels.

The researchers then showed that with optimal stimulation at 50 Hz and 60 dB, channel activation and subsequent insulin release required at least 3 seconds of continuous music, “which might protect the cellular device from inadvertent activation during everyday activities.”

Next, they examined the impact of different musical genres on insulin release, finding that low-bass heavy popular music and movie soundtracks induced maximum release, while the responses were more diverse to classical and guitar-based music.

Specifically, “We Will Rock You,” by the British rock band Queen, induced the release of 70% of available insulin within 5 minutes and 100% within 15 minutes. This, the team notes, is “similar to the dynamics of glucose-triggered insulin release by human pancreatic islets.”

Exposing the cells to a second music session at different intervals revealed that full insulin refill was achieved within 4 hours, which “would be appropriate to attenuate glycemic excursions associated with typical dietary habits.”

Finally, the researchers tested the system in vivo, constructing a box with two off-the-shelf loudspeakers that focuses acoustic waves, via deflectors, onto the abdomens of mice with type 1 diabetes.

Exposing the mice, which had been implanted with microencapsulated MUSIC cells in the peritoneum, to low-bass acoustic waves at 60 dB (50 m/s2) for 15 minutes allowed them to achieve near wild-type levels of insulin in the blood and restored normoglycemia.

Moreover, “Queen’s song ‘We Will Rock You’ generated sufficient insulin to rapidly attenuate postprandial glycemic excursions during glucose tolerance tests,” the team says.

In contrast, animals without implants, or those that had implants but did not have music immersion, remained severely hyperglycemic, they add.

They also note that the effect was seen only when the sound waves “directly impinge on the skin just above the implantation site” for at least 15 minutes, with no increase in insulin release observed with commercially available headphones or ear plugs, such as Apple AirPods, or with loud environmental noises.

Consequently, “therapeutic MUSIC sessions would still be compatible with listening to other types of music or listening to all types of music via headphones,” the researchers write, and are “compatible with standard drug administration schemes.”

The study was supported by a European Research Council advanced grant and in part by the Swiss National Science Foundation NCCR Molecular Systems Engineering. One author acknowledges the support of the Chinese Scholarship Council.

No relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Women with early breast cancer who have less extensive axillary surgery see no effect on their 10-year rates of locoregional recurrence and mortality than do those who have more extensive surgery, according to findings from a large meta-analysis.

Less extensive surgery also reduced patients’ risk for lymphedema, according to research (abstract GS02-05) presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

These results, which included data from more than 20,000 women, may “reassure” patients and clinicians that more extensive axillary lymph node dissection “does not improve outcomes in many women with early-stage breast cancer,” said Andrea V. Barrio, MD, a breast surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, who was not involved in the study.

Gurdeep S. Mannu, DPhil, of the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, who presented the findings at SABCS, explained that the optimal surgical management of the axilla remains uncertain in this patient population. 

To better understand the long-term risks and benefits of more vs less aggressive axillary surgery in early breast cancer, Dr. Mannu and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 29 randomized trials conducted over six decades, which included data on 20,285 women. The trials compared more vs less extensive axillary surgery as well as axillary surgery vs axillary radiotherapy.

In trials comparing more vs less extensive axillary surgery, researchers found that 83% of locoregional recurrences occurred in the breast or in multiple sites/unspecified locations, and the remaining 17% occurred in isolated axilla or other local recurrences, such as in the supraclavicular fossa or internal mammary chain. 

Those with recurrences in the breast or multiple sites/unspecified locations did not benefit from more extensive surgery, demonstrating similar recurrence rates (RR) (RR for breast, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.92-1.40; RR for other, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.67-1.18).

The group with recurrences in isolated axilla or other local recurrences tended to do better with more extensive surgery (RR, 0.43 and 0.41, respectively).

Overall though, after a median follow-up of 10 years, differences in locoregional recurrence rates at any site did not differ among patients who had more vs less extensive axillary surgery (RR, 0.91; P = .22). This finding held even when restricting the analysis to women with node-positive disease/unknown nodal status (RR, 1.00; P = .98) and for node-negative women (RR, 0.88; P = .15).

Dr. Mannu and colleagues observed similar findings for distant recurrence, breast cancer mortality, and death from any cause.

“But where there was quite a striking difference was in morbidity,” said Dr. Mannu.

To examine rates of lymphedema — the surgical complication that has been “one of the main motivations” for the deescalation trials of the past few decades — the researchers focused on more recent trials, which “are most relevant to women treated today,” Dr. Mannu explained. 

These showed that more extensive axillary surgery was associated with almost 2.5-times the rate of lymphedema compared with less extensive treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.43).

Finally, the team compared axillary dissection with axillary radiotherapy across five trials and found no significant differences in the treatment approaches in terms of locoregional occurrence, distant recurrence, breast cancer mortality, and death from any cause.

However, once again, a notable difference in rates of lymphedema occurred, with axillary dissection associated with higher rates compared with radiotherapy (OR, 1.79).

This is “probably the largest meta-analysis comparing more vs less axillary surgery,” Dr. Barrio said in an interview. 

“When we have one or two positive sentinel nodes, anywhere from 30%-50% of women will have additional positive lymph nodes that we’re not removing” with less extensive surgery, she explained. This study shows that, even then, this “doesn’t seem to impact on survival.”

This is “likely related to better medical treatment and radiation techniques that can treat that disease just as well as big surgery, but with less lymphedema,” she added. 

Nevertheless, Dr. Barrio believes that there are “situations where we still feel that axillary lymph node dissection is important: in women with advanced cancer, like inflammatory breast cancer, and in women who’ve received chemotherapy upfront, then had surgery, and still have positive nodes after the chemo.”

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council.

No relevant financial relationships have been declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Women with early breast cancer who have less extensive axillary surgery see no effect on their 10-year rates of locoregional recurrence and mortality than do those who have more extensive surgery, according to findings from a large meta-analysis.

Less extensive surgery also reduced patients’ risk for lymphedema, according to research (abstract GS02-05) presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

These results, which included data from more than 20,000 women, may “reassure” patients and clinicians that more extensive axillary lymph node dissection “does not improve outcomes in many women with early-stage breast cancer,” said Andrea V. Barrio, MD, a breast surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, who was not involved in the study.

Gurdeep S. Mannu, DPhil, of the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, who presented the findings at SABCS, explained that the optimal surgical management of the axilla remains uncertain in this patient population. 

To better understand the long-term risks and benefits of more vs less aggressive axillary surgery in early breast cancer, Dr. Mannu and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 29 randomized trials conducted over six decades, which included data on 20,285 women. The trials compared more vs less extensive axillary surgery as well as axillary surgery vs axillary radiotherapy.

In trials comparing more vs less extensive axillary surgery, researchers found that 83% of locoregional recurrences occurred in the breast or in multiple sites/unspecified locations, and the remaining 17% occurred in isolated axilla or other local recurrences, such as in the supraclavicular fossa or internal mammary chain. 

Those with recurrences in the breast or multiple sites/unspecified locations did not benefit from more extensive surgery, demonstrating similar recurrence rates (RR) (RR for breast, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.92-1.40; RR for other, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.67-1.18).

The group with recurrences in isolated axilla or other local recurrences tended to do better with more extensive surgery (RR, 0.43 and 0.41, respectively).

Overall though, after a median follow-up of 10 years, differences in locoregional recurrence rates at any site did not differ among patients who had more vs less extensive axillary surgery (RR, 0.91; P = .22). This finding held even when restricting the analysis to women with node-positive disease/unknown nodal status (RR, 1.00; P = .98) and for node-negative women (RR, 0.88; P = .15).

Dr. Mannu and colleagues observed similar findings for distant recurrence, breast cancer mortality, and death from any cause.

“But where there was quite a striking difference was in morbidity,” said Dr. Mannu.

To examine rates of lymphedema — the surgical complication that has been “one of the main motivations” for the deescalation trials of the past few decades — the researchers focused on more recent trials, which “are most relevant to women treated today,” Dr. Mannu explained. 

These showed that more extensive axillary surgery was associated with almost 2.5-times the rate of lymphedema compared with less extensive treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.43).

Finally, the team compared axillary dissection with axillary radiotherapy across five trials and found no significant differences in the treatment approaches in terms of locoregional occurrence, distant recurrence, breast cancer mortality, and death from any cause.

However, once again, a notable difference in rates of lymphedema occurred, with axillary dissection associated with higher rates compared with radiotherapy (OR, 1.79).

This is “probably the largest meta-analysis comparing more vs less axillary surgery,” Dr. Barrio said in an interview. 

“When we have one or two positive sentinel nodes, anywhere from 30%-50% of women will have additional positive lymph nodes that we’re not removing” with less extensive surgery, she explained. This study shows that, even then, this “doesn’t seem to impact on survival.”

This is “likely related to better medical treatment and radiation techniques that can treat that disease just as well as big surgery, but with less lymphedema,” she added. 

Nevertheless, Dr. Barrio believes that there are “situations where we still feel that axillary lymph node dissection is important: in women with advanced cancer, like inflammatory breast cancer, and in women who’ve received chemotherapy upfront, then had surgery, and still have positive nodes after the chemo.”

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council.

No relevant financial relationships have been declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Women with early breast cancer who have less extensive axillary surgery see no effect on their 10-year rates of locoregional recurrence and mortality than do those who have more extensive surgery, according to findings from a large meta-analysis.

Less extensive surgery also reduced patients’ risk for lymphedema, according to research (abstract GS02-05) presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

These results, which included data from more than 20,000 women, may “reassure” patients and clinicians that more extensive axillary lymph node dissection “does not improve outcomes in many women with early-stage breast cancer,” said Andrea V. Barrio, MD, a breast surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, who was not involved in the study.

Gurdeep S. Mannu, DPhil, of the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, who presented the findings at SABCS, explained that the optimal surgical management of the axilla remains uncertain in this patient population. 

To better understand the long-term risks and benefits of more vs less aggressive axillary surgery in early breast cancer, Dr. Mannu and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 29 randomized trials conducted over six decades, which included data on 20,285 women. The trials compared more vs less extensive axillary surgery as well as axillary surgery vs axillary radiotherapy.

In trials comparing more vs less extensive axillary surgery, researchers found that 83% of locoregional recurrences occurred in the breast or in multiple sites/unspecified locations, and the remaining 17% occurred in isolated axilla or other local recurrences, such as in the supraclavicular fossa or internal mammary chain. 

Those with recurrences in the breast or multiple sites/unspecified locations did not benefit from more extensive surgery, demonstrating similar recurrence rates (RR) (RR for breast, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.92-1.40; RR for other, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.67-1.18).

The group with recurrences in isolated axilla or other local recurrences tended to do better with more extensive surgery (RR, 0.43 and 0.41, respectively).

Overall though, after a median follow-up of 10 years, differences in locoregional recurrence rates at any site did not differ among patients who had more vs less extensive axillary surgery (RR, 0.91; P = .22). This finding held even when restricting the analysis to women with node-positive disease/unknown nodal status (RR, 1.00; P = .98) and for node-negative women (RR, 0.88; P = .15).

Dr. Mannu and colleagues observed similar findings for distant recurrence, breast cancer mortality, and death from any cause.

“But where there was quite a striking difference was in morbidity,” said Dr. Mannu.

To examine rates of lymphedema — the surgical complication that has been “one of the main motivations” for the deescalation trials of the past few decades — the researchers focused on more recent trials, which “are most relevant to women treated today,” Dr. Mannu explained. 

These showed that more extensive axillary surgery was associated with almost 2.5-times the rate of lymphedema compared with less extensive treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.43).

Finally, the team compared axillary dissection with axillary radiotherapy across five trials and found no significant differences in the treatment approaches in terms of locoregional occurrence, distant recurrence, breast cancer mortality, and death from any cause.

However, once again, a notable difference in rates of lymphedema occurred, with axillary dissection associated with higher rates compared with radiotherapy (OR, 1.79).

This is “probably the largest meta-analysis comparing more vs less axillary surgery,” Dr. Barrio said in an interview. 

“When we have one or two positive sentinel nodes, anywhere from 30%-50% of women will have additional positive lymph nodes that we’re not removing” with less extensive surgery, she explained. This study shows that, even then, this “doesn’t seem to impact on survival.”

This is “likely related to better medical treatment and radiation techniques that can treat that disease just as well as big surgery, but with less lymphedema,” she added. 

Nevertheless, Dr. Barrio believes that there are “situations where we still feel that axillary lymph node dissection is important: in women with advanced cancer, like inflammatory breast cancer, and in women who’ve received chemotherapy upfront, then had surgery, and still have positive nodes after the chemo.”

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council.

No relevant financial relationships have been declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For pregnant women with breast cancer, exposure to HER2-targeted therapies increases the risk of severe adverse outcomes to the fetus or newborn, according to a recent analysis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Current guidelines do not recommend treating pregnant women with trastuzumab, given documented safety concerns. Other anti-HER2 agents are also discouraged in this setting because of a lack of safety data. However, when considering the efficacy of these drugs in HER2-positive breast cancer, having a better understanding of the potential toxicities in pregnant patients is important.
• In the current case-control analysis, the team explored the risk for adverse effects among pregnant women exposed to anti-HER2 agents vs other anticancer drugs.
• The researchers leveraged the World Health Organization’s pharmacovigilance database, VigiBase, to identify reports with at least one pregnancy-related complication and one suspected anticancer drug.
• The researchers classified exposure to the drugs as occurring before pregnancy, during pregnancy, or via breast milk, semen, or skin. The team then examined 30 maternal and fetal or neonatal adverse outcomes and grouped them into seven categories: abortions, stillbirths, congenital malformations, pregnancy complications, preterm birth, neonatal complications, and delivery complications.
• The most used anti-HER2 agent was trastuzumab (n = 302), followed by pertuzumab (n = 55), trastuzumab-emtansine (n = 20), and lapatinib (n = 18).

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 3,558 reports included in the analysis, 328 patients were exposed to anti-HER2 drugs compared with 3,230 patients who received other anticancer agents.
• Pregnancy, fetal, or newborn adverse outcomes were reported in 61.3% of women treated with anti-HER2 agents and 56.3% of those receiving other anticancer drugs.
• The five most frequently reported complications in the anti-HER2 group were oligohydramnios (23.8%), preterm birth (17.4%), intrauterine growth restriction (9.8%), neonatal respiratory disorder (7.3%), and spontaneous abortion (7.3%).
• Adverse outcomes overreported in women who received anti-HER2 agents included oligohydramnios (reporting odds ratio [ROR], 17.68), congenital tract disorders (ROR, 9.98), and neonatal kidney failure (ROR, 9.15). Cardiovascular malformations were also overreported among women receiving trastuzumab-emtansine (ROR, 4.46), as were intrauterine growth restrictions for those treated with lapatinib (ROR, 7.68).

IN PRACTICE:

Exposure to anti-HER2 agents was associated with “severe specific adverse pregnancy and fetal or newborn outcomes compared with exposure to other anticancer treatments,” with a “strong, highly significant overreporting of congenital respiratory tract disorders and neonatal kidney failure,” which can lead to oligohydramnios, the authors wrote. The authors also noted that when delaying anti-HER2 therapy is not possible, it’s imperative to monitor patients closely for oligohydramnios.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Paul Gougis, MD, Institut Curie Centre de Recherche, Paris, , was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Potential inconsistencies in the collection of pharmacovigilance data could limit the generalizability of the results in the general population. The group of women exposed to other anticancer therapies may also constitute a different patient population from that given anti-HER2 therapies.

DISCLOSURES:

Coauthor Jean-Philippe Spano, MD, PhD, declared relationships Gilead, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, and GSK.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For pregnant women with breast cancer, exposure to HER2-targeted therapies increases the risk of severe adverse outcomes to the fetus or newborn, according to a recent analysis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Current guidelines do not recommend treating pregnant women with trastuzumab, given documented safety concerns. Other anti-HER2 agents are also discouraged in this setting because of a lack of safety data. However, when considering the efficacy of these drugs in HER2-positive breast cancer, having a better understanding of the potential toxicities in pregnant patients is important.
• In the current case-control analysis, the team explored the risk for adverse effects among pregnant women exposed to anti-HER2 agents vs other anticancer drugs.
• The researchers leveraged the World Health Organization’s pharmacovigilance database, VigiBase, to identify reports with at least one pregnancy-related complication and one suspected anticancer drug.
• The researchers classified exposure to the drugs as occurring before pregnancy, during pregnancy, or via breast milk, semen, or skin. The team then examined 30 maternal and fetal or neonatal adverse outcomes and grouped them into seven categories: abortions, stillbirths, congenital malformations, pregnancy complications, preterm birth, neonatal complications, and delivery complications.
• The most used anti-HER2 agent was trastuzumab (n = 302), followed by pertuzumab (n = 55), trastuzumab-emtansine (n = 20), and lapatinib (n = 18).

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 3,558 reports included in the analysis, 328 patients were exposed to anti-HER2 drugs compared with 3,230 patients who received other anticancer agents.
• Pregnancy, fetal, or newborn adverse outcomes were reported in 61.3% of women treated with anti-HER2 agents and 56.3% of those receiving other anticancer drugs.
• The five most frequently reported complications in the anti-HER2 group were oligohydramnios (23.8%), preterm birth (17.4%), intrauterine growth restriction (9.8%), neonatal respiratory disorder (7.3%), and spontaneous abortion (7.3%).
• Adverse outcomes overreported in women who received anti-HER2 agents included oligohydramnios (reporting odds ratio [ROR], 17.68), congenital tract disorders (ROR, 9.98), and neonatal kidney failure (ROR, 9.15). Cardiovascular malformations were also overreported among women receiving trastuzumab-emtansine (ROR, 4.46), as were intrauterine growth restrictions for those treated with lapatinib (ROR, 7.68).

IN PRACTICE:

Exposure to anti-HER2 agents was associated with “severe specific adverse pregnancy and fetal or newborn outcomes compared with exposure to other anticancer treatments,” with a “strong, highly significant overreporting of congenital respiratory tract disorders and neonatal kidney failure,” which can lead to oligohydramnios, the authors wrote. The authors also noted that when delaying anti-HER2 therapy is not possible, it’s imperative to monitor patients closely for oligohydramnios.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Paul Gougis, MD, Institut Curie Centre de Recherche, Paris, , was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Potential inconsistencies in the collection of pharmacovigilance data could limit the generalizability of the results in the general population. The group of women exposed to other anticancer therapies may also constitute a different patient population from that given anti-HER2 therapies.

DISCLOSURES:

Coauthor Jean-Philippe Spano, MD, PhD, declared relationships Gilead, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, and GSK.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For pregnant women with breast cancer, exposure to HER2-targeted therapies increases the risk of severe adverse outcomes to the fetus or newborn, according to a recent analysis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Current guidelines do not recommend treating pregnant women with trastuzumab, given documented safety concerns. Other anti-HER2 agents are also discouraged in this setting because of a lack of safety data. However, when considering the efficacy of these drugs in HER2-positive breast cancer, having a better understanding of the potential toxicities in pregnant patients is important.
• In the current case-control analysis, the team explored the risk for adverse effects among pregnant women exposed to anti-HER2 agents vs other anticancer drugs.
• The researchers leveraged the World Health Organization’s pharmacovigilance database, VigiBase, to identify reports with at least one pregnancy-related complication and one suspected anticancer drug.
• The researchers classified exposure to the drugs as occurring before pregnancy, during pregnancy, or via breast milk, semen, or skin. The team then examined 30 maternal and fetal or neonatal adverse outcomes and grouped them into seven categories: abortions, stillbirths, congenital malformations, pregnancy complications, preterm birth, neonatal complications, and delivery complications.
• The most used anti-HER2 agent was trastuzumab (n = 302), followed by pertuzumab (n = 55), trastuzumab-emtansine (n = 20), and lapatinib (n = 18).

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 3,558 reports included in the analysis, 328 patients were exposed to anti-HER2 drugs compared with 3,230 patients who received other anticancer agents.
• Pregnancy, fetal, or newborn adverse outcomes were reported in 61.3% of women treated with anti-HER2 agents and 56.3% of those receiving other anticancer drugs.
• The five most frequently reported complications in the anti-HER2 group were oligohydramnios (23.8%), preterm birth (17.4%), intrauterine growth restriction (9.8%), neonatal respiratory disorder (7.3%), and spontaneous abortion (7.3%).
• Adverse outcomes overreported in women who received anti-HER2 agents included oligohydramnios (reporting odds ratio [ROR], 17.68), congenital tract disorders (ROR, 9.98), and neonatal kidney failure (ROR, 9.15). Cardiovascular malformations were also overreported among women receiving trastuzumab-emtansine (ROR, 4.46), as were intrauterine growth restrictions for those treated with lapatinib (ROR, 7.68).

IN PRACTICE:

Exposure to anti-HER2 agents was associated with “severe specific adverse pregnancy and fetal or newborn outcomes compared with exposure to other anticancer treatments,” with a “strong, highly significant overreporting of congenital respiratory tract disorders and neonatal kidney failure,” which can lead to oligohydramnios, the authors wrote. The authors also noted that when delaying anti-HER2 therapy is not possible, it’s imperative to monitor patients closely for oligohydramnios.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Paul Gougis, MD, Institut Curie Centre de Recherche, Paris, , was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Potential inconsistencies in the collection of pharmacovigilance data could limit the generalizability of the results in the general population. The group of women exposed to other anticancer therapies may also constitute a different patient population from that given anti-HER2 therapies.

DISCLOSURES:

Coauthor Jean-Philippe Spano, MD, PhD, declared relationships Gilead, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, and GSK.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women, particularly those who are postmenopausal, who sleep less than the recommended 7 hours per night may have impaired insulin sensitivity regardless of their degree of adiposity, a randomized crossover trial reveals.

The research was published recently in Diabetes Care.

Nearly 40 women were randomly assigned to either restricted sleep or adequate sleep for 6 weeks, then crossed over to the other sleep condition. During sleep restriction, women slept an average of 6.2 hours per night versus 7-9 hours per night.

Both fasting insulin levels and insulin resistance were significantly increased during sleep restriction, with the effect on insulin resistance particularly notable in postmenopausal women. This was independent of adiposity and changes in adiposity.

“What we’re seeing is that more insulin is needed to normalize glucose levels in the women under conditions of sleep restriction,” said senior author Marie-Pierre St-Onge, PhD, director of the Center of Excellence for Sleep and Circadian Research at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, in a release.

“Even then, the insulin may not have been doing enough to counteract rising blood glucose levels of postmenopausal women,” she stated.
 

Prolonged lack of sleep may accelerate diabetes progression

Dr. St-Onge added, “If that’s sustained over time, it is possible that prolonged insufficient sleep among individuals with prediabetes could accelerate the progression to type 2 diabetes.”

Dr. St-Onge said in an interview that it was crucial to show the impact of sleep restriction in a randomized study, because “observational studies don’t provide information on causality.”

The study did not rely on people “living in our clinical research facility,” but instead enrolled individuals who were “living their lives,” and the reduction in sleep achieved was “similar to what is seen in the general population with sleep,” she said.

Dr. St-Onge therefore believes the findings indicate that sleep has been overlooked as a contributory factor in insulin sensitivity.

Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer at the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview that this is an “important study [that] builds on what we have seen on the importance of sleep for metabolic outcomes and diabetes.”

Gabbay_Robert_A_Mass_CROP_web.jpg

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women, particularly those who are postmenopausal, who sleep less than the recommended 7 hours per night may have impaired insulin sensitivity regardless of their degree of adiposity, a randomized crossover trial reveals.

The research was published recently in Diabetes Care.

Nearly 40 women were randomly assigned to either restricted sleep or adequate sleep for 6 weeks, then crossed over to the other sleep condition. During sleep restriction, women slept an average of 6.2 hours per night versus 7-9 hours per night.

Both fasting insulin levels and insulin resistance were significantly increased during sleep restriction, with the effect on insulin resistance particularly notable in postmenopausal women. This was independent of adiposity and changes in adiposity.

“What we’re seeing is that more insulin is needed to normalize glucose levels in the women under conditions of sleep restriction,” said senior author Marie-Pierre St-Onge, PhD, director of the Center of Excellence for Sleep and Circadian Research at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, in a release.

“Even then, the insulin may not have been doing enough to counteract rising blood glucose levels of postmenopausal women,” she stated.
 

Prolonged lack of sleep may accelerate diabetes progression

Dr. St-Onge added, “If that’s sustained over time, it is possible that prolonged insufficient sleep among individuals with prediabetes could accelerate the progression to type 2 diabetes.”

Dr. St-Onge said in an interview that it was crucial to show the impact of sleep restriction in a randomized study, because “observational studies don’t provide information on causality.”

The study did not rely on people “living in our clinical research facility,” but instead enrolled individuals who were “living their lives,” and the reduction in sleep achieved was “similar to what is seen in the general population with sleep,” she said.

Dr. St-Onge therefore believes the findings indicate that sleep has been overlooked as a contributory factor in insulin sensitivity.

Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer at the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview that this is an “important study [that] builds on what we have seen on the importance of sleep for metabolic outcomes and diabetes.”

Gabbay_Robert_A_Mass_CROP_web.jpg

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women, particularly those who are postmenopausal, who sleep less than the recommended 7 hours per night may have impaired insulin sensitivity regardless of their degree of adiposity, a randomized crossover trial reveals.

The research was published recently in Diabetes Care.

Nearly 40 women were randomly assigned to either restricted sleep or adequate sleep for 6 weeks, then crossed over to the other sleep condition. During sleep restriction, women slept an average of 6.2 hours per night versus 7-9 hours per night.

Both fasting insulin levels and insulin resistance were significantly increased during sleep restriction, with the effect on insulin resistance particularly notable in postmenopausal women. This was independent of adiposity and changes in adiposity.

“What we’re seeing is that more insulin is needed to normalize glucose levels in the women under conditions of sleep restriction,” said senior author Marie-Pierre St-Onge, PhD, director of the Center of Excellence for Sleep and Circadian Research at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, in a release.

“Even then, the insulin may not have been doing enough to counteract rising blood glucose levels of postmenopausal women,” she stated.
 

Prolonged lack of sleep may accelerate diabetes progression

Dr. St-Onge added, “If that’s sustained over time, it is possible that prolonged insufficient sleep among individuals with prediabetes could accelerate the progression to type 2 diabetes.”

Dr. St-Onge said in an interview that it was crucial to show the impact of sleep restriction in a randomized study, because “observational studies don’t provide information on causality.”

The study did not rely on people “living in our clinical research facility,” but instead enrolled individuals who were “living their lives,” and the reduction in sleep achieved was “similar to what is seen in the general population with sleep,” she said.

Dr. St-Onge therefore believes the findings indicate that sleep has been overlooked as a contributory factor in insulin sensitivity.

Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer at the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview that this is an “important study [that] builds on what we have seen on the importance of sleep for metabolic outcomes and diabetes.”

Gabbay_Robert_A_Mass_CROP_web.jpg

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.