User login
CTCs predict overall survival in metastatic breast cancer
The CTC results are available about 4 weeks after start of therapy. Conventional imaging is carried out after about 3 months.
But an expert is not convinced that this approach is currently ready for clinical use and suggests that, for now, it should remain a tool for use in research.
The new meta-analysis, which involved data on more than 4000 patients, showed that the presence or the absence of CTCs “strongly” predicts overall survival (OS).
Median OS was greatest (47 months) for patients who had no CTCs at baseline and at follow-up. In contrast, the median OS was shortest (17.8 months) for patients who had CTCs at both time points.
The risk for death was more than 200% greater for patients in the latter group than in the former group.
The results “suggest the potential for clinical utility” of CTC monitoring as an early response marker in metastatic breast cancer, said lead author Wolfgang Janni, MD, PhD, of the Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany. He was speaking at an online press conference for the virtual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2020, where the new study will be presented this week.
The investigators say the findings from this meta-analysis add to literature in which “several studies suggest clinical utility” of measuring CTC levels as a means of assessing response status for patients with metastatic breast cancer.
Unfortunately, the new study does not show that assessing CTCs over time improves clinical outcomes, which is an ongoing problem in the literature, said Virginia Kaklamani, MD, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, Texas, who is also a meeting co-director.
“Previous randomized clinical trial data have shown that assessing CTCs does not benefit patients (vs not assessing),” Kaklamani told Medscape Medical News.
Kaklamani explained how CTC assessments have worked in practice. “You do these circulating tumor cell tests and you find, for example, that the number increases. The assumption is the treatment’s not working. So you switch treatments around,” she explained. That pattern can be repeated every 3 to 4 weeks, resulting in more toxicity, which, in turn, may nullify any treatment benefit.
However, she noted that, so far, key data have come from the era of chemotherapy and do not reflect targeted therapies, which may make a difference. In addition, the more recent ability to assess and identify circulating tumor DNA may allow clinicians to match drugs to mutations, which may have greater impact on cancer outcomes.
Currently, CTCs are best used by researchers, Kaklamani said during the press conference, because they have not been definitively proven to improve patient results.
Investigator Janni did not object to that description.
But in a press statement, he suggested that CTCs can be used currently by clinicians.
“These data indicate that CTC dynamics can predict the trajectory of the disease a little more than four weeks after initiating treatment,” Janni said in the press statement. “This provides an advantage over conventional imaging methods and can help physicians determine very early on whether a treatment should be continued.”
But, to Kaklamani’s point, an article published in November in JAMA Oncology showed that use of CTCs did not yield significant clinical benefit in comparison with use of other clinical factors in determining whether to choose endocrine therapy or chemotherapy. In that randomized trial, which was conducted in Europe and included women with HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, progression-free survival was similar in both arms, as reported by Medscape Medical News. However, use of chemotherapy (and attendant toxicity) was greater among women in the CTC arm, which was considered an undesirable outcome by experts not involved with the trial.
Details of the study results
For their study, Janni and colleagues conducted a comprehensive pooled analysis of globally available data. They identified 4079 metastatic breast cancer patients who had undergone baseline and follow-up CTC measurements (at least one, at a median of 29 days later) in previous clinical trials.
The investigators analyzed changes in CTC levels between baseline and follow-up to determine whether they were associated with OS.
Of the 2961 patients who were CTC-positive at baseline, 1855 remained CTC-positive after treatment was initiated (positive/positive), and 1106 patients had converted to CTC-negative status (positive/negative).
Of the 1118 patients who were CTC-negative at baseline, 813 remained CTC-negative (negative/negative), and 305 had become CTC-positive (negative/positive).
As noted above, median OS was greatest for patients who were negative/negative (47 months), followed by patients who were positive/negative (32.2 months), negative/positive (29.6 months), and positive/positive (17.8 months).
Hazard ratios in which the reference group was negative/negative were 1.52 for the positive/negative group, 1.74 for the negative/positive group, and 3.15 for the positive/positive group (P < .0001 for all groups).
These CTC dynamics were found across all breast cancer subtypes, said Janni.
“These data indicate that CTC dynamics can predict the trajectory of the disease a little more than four weeks after initiating treatment,” said Janni in the press statement. “This provides an advantage over conventional imaging methods and can help physicians determine very early on whether a treatment should be continued. It is also very reassuring that CTC dynamics predicted outcomes for all breast cancer subtypes.”
The study was supported by Menarini Silicon Biosystems, the makers of CellSearch, the CTC test used for all of the patients and studies in the meta-analysis. Janni received a research grant from Menarini Silicon Biosystems. Other study authors have financial ties to healthcare industries. Kaklamani has received consulting fees from Amgen, Eisai, Puma, Celldex, AstraZeneca, and Athenex; fees for non-CME services received directly from commercial interest or their agents from Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, Genomic Health, Puma, Eisai, and Novartis; and has contracted research with Eisai.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The CTC results are available about 4 weeks after start of therapy. Conventional imaging is carried out after about 3 months.
But an expert is not convinced that this approach is currently ready for clinical use and suggests that, for now, it should remain a tool for use in research.
The new meta-analysis, which involved data on more than 4000 patients, showed that the presence or the absence of CTCs “strongly” predicts overall survival (OS).
Median OS was greatest (47 months) for patients who had no CTCs at baseline and at follow-up. In contrast, the median OS was shortest (17.8 months) for patients who had CTCs at both time points.
The risk for death was more than 200% greater for patients in the latter group than in the former group.
The results “suggest the potential for clinical utility” of CTC monitoring as an early response marker in metastatic breast cancer, said lead author Wolfgang Janni, MD, PhD, of the Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany. He was speaking at an online press conference for the virtual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2020, where the new study will be presented this week.
The investigators say the findings from this meta-analysis add to literature in which “several studies suggest clinical utility” of measuring CTC levels as a means of assessing response status for patients with metastatic breast cancer.
Unfortunately, the new study does not show that assessing CTCs over time improves clinical outcomes, which is an ongoing problem in the literature, said Virginia Kaklamani, MD, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, Texas, who is also a meeting co-director.
“Previous randomized clinical trial data have shown that assessing CTCs does not benefit patients (vs not assessing),” Kaklamani told Medscape Medical News.
Kaklamani explained how CTC assessments have worked in practice. “You do these circulating tumor cell tests and you find, for example, that the number increases. The assumption is the treatment’s not working. So you switch treatments around,” she explained. That pattern can be repeated every 3 to 4 weeks, resulting in more toxicity, which, in turn, may nullify any treatment benefit.
However, she noted that, so far, key data have come from the era of chemotherapy and do not reflect targeted therapies, which may make a difference. In addition, the more recent ability to assess and identify circulating tumor DNA may allow clinicians to match drugs to mutations, which may have greater impact on cancer outcomes.
Currently, CTCs are best used by researchers, Kaklamani said during the press conference, because they have not been definitively proven to improve patient results.
Investigator Janni did not object to that description.
But in a press statement, he suggested that CTCs can be used currently by clinicians.
“These data indicate that CTC dynamics can predict the trajectory of the disease a little more than four weeks after initiating treatment,” Janni said in the press statement. “This provides an advantage over conventional imaging methods and can help physicians determine very early on whether a treatment should be continued.”
But, to Kaklamani’s point, an article published in November in JAMA Oncology showed that use of CTCs did not yield significant clinical benefit in comparison with use of other clinical factors in determining whether to choose endocrine therapy or chemotherapy. In that randomized trial, which was conducted in Europe and included women with HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, progression-free survival was similar in both arms, as reported by Medscape Medical News. However, use of chemotherapy (and attendant toxicity) was greater among women in the CTC arm, which was considered an undesirable outcome by experts not involved with the trial.
Details of the study results
For their study, Janni and colleagues conducted a comprehensive pooled analysis of globally available data. They identified 4079 metastatic breast cancer patients who had undergone baseline and follow-up CTC measurements (at least one, at a median of 29 days later) in previous clinical trials.
The investigators analyzed changes in CTC levels between baseline and follow-up to determine whether they were associated with OS.
Of the 2961 patients who were CTC-positive at baseline, 1855 remained CTC-positive after treatment was initiated (positive/positive), and 1106 patients had converted to CTC-negative status (positive/negative).
Of the 1118 patients who were CTC-negative at baseline, 813 remained CTC-negative (negative/negative), and 305 had become CTC-positive (negative/positive).
As noted above, median OS was greatest for patients who were negative/negative (47 months), followed by patients who were positive/negative (32.2 months), negative/positive (29.6 months), and positive/positive (17.8 months).
Hazard ratios in which the reference group was negative/negative were 1.52 for the positive/negative group, 1.74 for the negative/positive group, and 3.15 for the positive/positive group (P < .0001 for all groups).
These CTC dynamics were found across all breast cancer subtypes, said Janni.
“These data indicate that CTC dynamics can predict the trajectory of the disease a little more than four weeks after initiating treatment,” said Janni in the press statement. “This provides an advantage over conventional imaging methods and can help physicians determine very early on whether a treatment should be continued. It is also very reassuring that CTC dynamics predicted outcomes for all breast cancer subtypes.”
The study was supported by Menarini Silicon Biosystems, the makers of CellSearch, the CTC test used for all of the patients and studies in the meta-analysis. Janni received a research grant from Menarini Silicon Biosystems. Other study authors have financial ties to healthcare industries. Kaklamani has received consulting fees from Amgen, Eisai, Puma, Celldex, AstraZeneca, and Athenex; fees for non-CME services received directly from commercial interest or their agents from Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, Genomic Health, Puma, Eisai, and Novartis; and has contracted research with Eisai.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The CTC results are available about 4 weeks after start of therapy. Conventional imaging is carried out after about 3 months.
But an expert is not convinced that this approach is currently ready for clinical use and suggests that, for now, it should remain a tool for use in research.
The new meta-analysis, which involved data on more than 4000 patients, showed that the presence or the absence of CTCs “strongly” predicts overall survival (OS).
Median OS was greatest (47 months) for patients who had no CTCs at baseline and at follow-up. In contrast, the median OS was shortest (17.8 months) for patients who had CTCs at both time points.
The risk for death was more than 200% greater for patients in the latter group than in the former group.
The results “suggest the potential for clinical utility” of CTC monitoring as an early response marker in metastatic breast cancer, said lead author Wolfgang Janni, MD, PhD, of the Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany. He was speaking at an online press conference for the virtual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2020, where the new study will be presented this week.
The investigators say the findings from this meta-analysis add to literature in which “several studies suggest clinical utility” of measuring CTC levels as a means of assessing response status for patients with metastatic breast cancer.
Unfortunately, the new study does not show that assessing CTCs over time improves clinical outcomes, which is an ongoing problem in the literature, said Virginia Kaklamani, MD, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, Texas, who is also a meeting co-director.
“Previous randomized clinical trial data have shown that assessing CTCs does not benefit patients (vs not assessing),” Kaklamani told Medscape Medical News.
Kaklamani explained how CTC assessments have worked in practice. “You do these circulating tumor cell tests and you find, for example, that the number increases. The assumption is the treatment’s not working. So you switch treatments around,” she explained. That pattern can be repeated every 3 to 4 weeks, resulting in more toxicity, which, in turn, may nullify any treatment benefit.
However, she noted that, so far, key data have come from the era of chemotherapy and do not reflect targeted therapies, which may make a difference. In addition, the more recent ability to assess and identify circulating tumor DNA may allow clinicians to match drugs to mutations, which may have greater impact on cancer outcomes.
Currently, CTCs are best used by researchers, Kaklamani said during the press conference, because they have not been definitively proven to improve patient results.
Investigator Janni did not object to that description.
But in a press statement, he suggested that CTCs can be used currently by clinicians.
“These data indicate that CTC dynamics can predict the trajectory of the disease a little more than four weeks after initiating treatment,” Janni said in the press statement. “This provides an advantage over conventional imaging methods and can help physicians determine very early on whether a treatment should be continued.”
But, to Kaklamani’s point, an article published in November in JAMA Oncology showed that use of CTCs did not yield significant clinical benefit in comparison with use of other clinical factors in determining whether to choose endocrine therapy or chemotherapy. In that randomized trial, which was conducted in Europe and included women with HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, progression-free survival was similar in both arms, as reported by Medscape Medical News. However, use of chemotherapy (and attendant toxicity) was greater among women in the CTC arm, which was considered an undesirable outcome by experts not involved with the trial.
Details of the study results
For their study, Janni and colleagues conducted a comprehensive pooled analysis of globally available data. They identified 4079 metastatic breast cancer patients who had undergone baseline and follow-up CTC measurements (at least one, at a median of 29 days later) in previous clinical trials.
The investigators analyzed changes in CTC levels between baseline and follow-up to determine whether they were associated with OS.
Of the 2961 patients who were CTC-positive at baseline, 1855 remained CTC-positive after treatment was initiated (positive/positive), and 1106 patients had converted to CTC-negative status (positive/negative).
Of the 1118 patients who were CTC-negative at baseline, 813 remained CTC-negative (negative/negative), and 305 had become CTC-positive (negative/positive).
As noted above, median OS was greatest for patients who were negative/negative (47 months), followed by patients who were positive/negative (32.2 months), negative/positive (29.6 months), and positive/positive (17.8 months).
Hazard ratios in which the reference group was negative/negative were 1.52 for the positive/negative group, 1.74 for the negative/positive group, and 3.15 for the positive/positive group (P < .0001 for all groups).
These CTC dynamics were found across all breast cancer subtypes, said Janni.
“These data indicate that CTC dynamics can predict the trajectory of the disease a little more than four weeks after initiating treatment,” said Janni in the press statement. “This provides an advantage over conventional imaging methods and can help physicians determine very early on whether a treatment should be continued. It is also very reassuring that CTC dynamics predicted outcomes for all breast cancer subtypes.”
The study was supported by Menarini Silicon Biosystems, the makers of CellSearch, the CTC test used for all of the patients and studies in the meta-analysis. Janni received a research grant from Menarini Silicon Biosystems. Other study authors have financial ties to healthcare industries. Kaklamani has received consulting fees from Amgen, Eisai, Puma, Celldex, AstraZeneca, and Athenex; fees for non-CME services received directly from commercial interest or their agents from Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, Genomic Health, Puma, Eisai, and Novartis; and has contracted research with Eisai.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SABCS 2020
SABCS 2020: What’s hot, including a major chemotherapy trial
That’s the word from Virginia Kaklamani, MD, from the University of Texas Health Sciences Center San Antonio. Dr. Kaklamani, a professor of medicine in the division of hematology/oncology, is codirector of the meeting that runs online Dec. 8-11.
If the new trial sounds familiar, that’s because it’s a lot like the TAILORx trial, the results of which were first presented in 2018 and have changed practice in women with early-stage disease and no lymph node involvement.
“This is the lymph-node positive TAILORx. It’s extremely important,” Dr. Kaklamani said in an interview, adding that both trials involved women with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative disease.
If the RxPONDER trial shows similar outcomes between women randomized to adjuvant endocrine therapy alone versus endocrine therapy plus chemotherapy, then clinicians “can potentially avoid giving chemotherapy to a large number of women who are currently receiving it,” she explained.
Because women with nodal involvement (one to three positive axillary nodes) are at a higher risk of recurrence, RxPONDER may provide needed insight on the management of these types of breast cancers, Dr. Kaklamani suggested.
Both trials have used the 21-tumor gene expression assay (Oncotype Dx) to determine recurrence-risk status.
Dr. Kaklamani also spotlighted the phase 3 CONTESSA trial (abstract GS4-01) in 600+ patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer that is HR positive and HER2 negative and has been previously treated with a taxane.
The trial features an experimental oral taxane, tesetaxel. The primary objective is to compare the efficacy of tesetaxel plus a reduced dose of capecitabine (Xeloda) versus the approved dose of capecitabine alone. Presented data will include progression-free survival results, indicating about a 3-month PFS advantage with tesetaxel, which is taken once every 3 weeks.
“Oral drugs are convenient for patients and, despite limitations, they are, all in all, a revolution in cancer treatment,” noted Dr. Kaklamani, adding that they beneficially eliminate the need for time-consuming infusions and related clinic visits as well as drug ports.
It will be interesting to see what Steven Vogl, MD, a private practitioner in New Yorky, has to say about CONTESSA and the rest of the SABCS.
He is usually a commentator from the meeting floor, whose self-introduction, “Vogl, New York,” is well known to perennial meeting attendees, according to a profile piece published some years ago.
This year the medical oncologist will also serve as the chair of the “View from the Trenches” session, which is devoted to summarizing the meeting’s most important findings for everyday practitioners.
A number of years ago, Dr. Vogl proposed the idea of this where-the-rubber-meets-the-road session to SABCS meeting planners, which they then adopted. This year, Dr. Kaklamani invited Dr. Vogl to run the session and he accepted.
Dr. Vogl is a “really smart guy who is always right on” with his comments and questions, and he will be the first-ever independent, community-based oncologist to chair a meeting session, said Dr. Kaklamani.
Other hot topics
Another hot topic featured at the meeting will be the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the adjuvant treatment of HR-positive and HER2-negative disease that has a high risk of recurrence, Dr. Kaklamani said. New data from two trials, monarchE and PENELOPE-B, will be presented.
First, there will be an update from the monarchE trial (abstract GS1-01). The first results from this trial were reported in September at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020. They showed that adding abemaciclib (Verzenio) to endocrine therapy reduced the risk of early recurrence. The positive outcome represented the first treatment improvement in this high-risk setting in more than 20 years, according to experts.
A similar trial, PENELOPE-B (abstract GS1-02), looks at palbociclib (Ibrance) in a somewhat different population – those patients with high relapse risk after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. “These are even higher risk ER+ patients [than those in monarchE], which is why they received chemotherapy before surgery,” commented Dr. Kaklamani.
In triple-negative disease, there will be overall survival (OS) results from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-355 study (abstract GS3-01) of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) versus placebo (plus chemotherapy for all patients) as first-line therapy for locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. “It’s potentially a huge deal,” said Dr. Kaklamani about the OS data, if they are statistically significant.
A meta-analysis (abstract GS4-08) of data on circulating tumor cells (CTCs), which are shed from the primary tumor into the bloodstream, may point to their value as a tool to determine whether or not a breast cancer treatment is effective. “CTCs allow you to assess how a treatment is doing before you do scans, which typically occur 3 months or so later,” explained Dr. Kaklamani.
CTC results can be assessed in 3-4 weeks and allow clinicians to change treatments if CTC volume increases. However, a previous study of CTCs did not show a clinical benefit with the tool among patients treated mainly with chemotherapies. What’s different about the new study, which is from an international group of investigators, is in the treatments patients with metastatic breast cancer received. “This study is from a different era – with targeted therapies,” said Dr. Kaklamani.
In the new study, changes in CTC levels (with a reduction being a good result) between baseline (pretreatment) and follow-up were analyzed to determine whether they were associated with overall survival.
COVID sessions
On the meeting’s first day, SABCS will feature a special session on COVID-19 and breast cancer. The meeting organizers sought to separate the wheat from the chaff in this subject, as much has already been written, published, or presented.
“We received a lot of abstracts on COVID that were studies that were poorly done. We tried to tease through them and select the well-researched ones,” acknowledged Dr. Kaklamani.
The organizers included two patient advocates who have had COVID-19, including during treatment for breast cancer, as participants in the meeting session. The session will also feature global perspectives, with presenters from Brazil, Italy, and the Netherlands.
Plenary lectures
The meeting’s two plenary lectures will focus, respectively, on the increasingly used clinical approach of neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer, and research in the time of a pandemic.
Elizabeth Mittendorf, MD, PhD, a surgical oncologist and director of the Breast lmmuno-Oncology program and co-director of the Breast Cancer Clinical Research Program at the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston, will present “Local regional management following neoadjuvant therapy: Minding the knowledge gaps.”
Ned Sharpless, MD, director of the National Cancer Institute, will present “Advancing cancer research during challenging times.”
Dr. Kaklamani disclosed recieving consulting fees with Amgen, Eisai, Puma, Celldex, AstraZeneca, and Athenex; receiving fees for non-CME services received directly from commercial interest or their agents from Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, Genomic Health, Puma, Eisai, and Novartis; and contracted research with Eisai.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
That’s the word from Virginia Kaklamani, MD, from the University of Texas Health Sciences Center San Antonio. Dr. Kaklamani, a professor of medicine in the division of hematology/oncology, is codirector of the meeting that runs online Dec. 8-11.
If the new trial sounds familiar, that’s because it’s a lot like the TAILORx trial, the results of which were first presented in 2018 and have changed practice in women with early-stage disease and no lymph node involvement.
“This is the lymph-node positive TAILORx. It’s extremely important,” Dr. Kaklamani said in an interview, adding that both trials involved women with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative disease.
If the RxPONDER trial shows similar outcomes between women randomized to adjuvant endocrine therapy alone versus endocrine therapy plus chemotherapy, then clinicians “can potentially avoid giving chemotherapy to a large number of women who are currently receiving it,” she explained.
Because women with nodal involvement (one to three positive axillary nodes) are at a higher risk of recurrence, RxPONDER may provide needed insight on the management of these types of breast cancers, Dr. Kaklamani suggested.
Both trials have used the 21-tumor gene expression assay (Oncotype Dx) to determine recurrence-risk status.
Dr. Kaklamani also spotlighted the phase 3 CONTESSA trial (abstract GS4-01) in 600+ patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer that is HR positive and HER2 negative and has been previously treated with a taxane.
The trial features an experimental oral taxane, tesetaxel. The primary objective is to compare the efficacy of tesetaxel plus a reduced dose of capecitabine (Xeloda) versus the approved dose of capecitabine alone. Presented data will include progression-free survival results, indicating about a 3-month PFS advantage with tesetaxel, which is taken once every 3 weeks.
“Oral drugs are convenient for patients and, despite limitations, they are, all in all, a revolution in cancer treatment,” noted Dr. Kaklamani, adding that they beneficially eliminate the need for time-consuming infusions and related clinic visits as well as drug ports.
It will be interesting to see what Steven Vogl, MD, a private practitioner in New Yorky, has to say about CONTESSA and the rest of the SABCS.
He is usually a commentator from the meeting floor, whose self-introduction, “Vogl, New York,” is well known to perennial meeting attendees, according to a profile piece published some years ago.
This year the medical oncologist will also serve as the chair of the “View from the Trenches” session, which is devoted to summarizing the meeting’s most important findings for everyday practitioners.
A number of years ago, Dr. Vogl proposed the idea of this where-the-rubber-meets-the-road session to SABCS meeting planners, which they then adopted. This year, Dr. Kaklamani invited Dr. Vogl to run the session and he accepted.
Dr. Vogl is a “really smart guy who is always right on” with his comments and questions, and he will be the first-ever independent, community-based oncologist to chair a meeting session, said Dr. Kaklamani.
Other hot topics
Another hot topic featured at the meeting will be the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the adjuvant treatment of HR-positive and HER2-negative disease that has a high risk of recurrence, Dr. Kaklamani said. New data from two trials, monarchE and PENELOPE-B, will be presented.
First, there will be an update from the monarchE trial (abstract GS1-01). The first results from this trial were reported in September at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020. They showed that adding abemaciclib (Verzenio) to endocrine therapy reduced the risk of early recurrence. The positive outcome represented the first treatment improvement in this high-risk setting in more than 20 years, according to experts.
A similar trial, PENELOPE-B (abstract GS1-02), looks at palbociclib (Ibrance) in a somewhat different population – those patients with high relapse risk after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. “These are even higher risk ER+ patients [than those in monarchE], which is why they received chemotherapy before surgery,” commented Dr. Kaklamani.
In triple-negative disease, there will be overall survival (OS) results from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-355 study (abstract GS3-01) of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) versus placebo (plus chemotherapy for all patients) as first-line therapy for locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. “It’s potentially a huge deal,” said Dr. Kaklamani about the OS data, if they are statistically significant.
A meta-analysis (abstract GS4-08) of data on circulating tumor cells (CTCs), which are shed from the primary tumor into the bloodstream, may point to their value as a tool to determine whether or not a breast cancer treatment is effective. “CTCs allow you to assess how a treatment is doing before you do scans, which typically occur 3 months or so later,” explained Dr. Kaklamani.
CTC results can be assessed in 3-4 weeks and allow clinicians to change treatments if CTC volume increases. However, a previous study of CTCs did not show a clinical benefit with the tool among patients treated mainly with chemotherapies. What’s different about the new study, which is from an international group of investigators, is in the treatments patients with metastatic breast cancer received. “This study is from a different era – with targeted therapies,” said Dr. Kaklamani.
In the new study, changes in CTC levels (with a reduction being a good result) between baseline (pretreatment) and follow-up were analyzed to determine whether they were associated with overall survival.
COVID sessions
On the meeting’s first day, SABCS will feature a special session on COVID-19 and breast cancer. The meeting organizers sought to separate the wheat from the chaff in this subject, as much has already been written, published, or presented.
“We received a lot of abstracts on COVID that were studies that were poorly done. We tried to tease through them and select the well-researched ones,” acknowledged Dr. Kaklamani.
The organizers included two patient advocates who have had COVID-19, including during treatment for breast cancer, as participants in the meeting session. The session will also feature global perspectives, with presenters from Brazil, Italy, and the Netherlands.
Plenary lectures
The meeting’s two plenary lectures will focus, respectively, on the increasingly used clinical approach of neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer, and research in the time of a pandemic.
Elizabeth Mittendorf, MD, PhD, a surgical oncologist and director of the Breast lmmuno-Oncology program and co-director of the Breast Cancer Clinical Research Program at the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston, will present “Local regional management following neoadjuvant therapy: Minding the knowledge gaps.”
Ned Sharpless, MD, director of the National Cancer Institute, will present “Advancing cancer research during challenging times.”
Dr. Kaklamani disclosed recieving consulting fees with Amgen, Eisai, Puma, Celldex, AstraZeneca, and Athenex; receiving fees for non-CME services received directly from commercial interest or their agents from Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, Genomic Health, Puma, Eisai, and Novartis; and contracted research with Eisai.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
That’s the word from Virginia Kaklamani, MD, from the University of Texas Health Sciences Center San Antonio. Dr. Kaklamani, a professor of medicine in the division of hematology/oncology, is codirector of the meeting that runs online Dec. 8-11.
If the new trial sounds familiar, that’s because it’s a lot like the TAILORx trial, the results of which were first presented in 2018 and have changed practice in women with early-stage disease and no lymph node involvement.
“This is the lymph-node positive TAILORx. It’s extremely important,” Dr. Kaklamani said in an interview, adding that both trials involved women with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative disease.
If the RxPONDER trial shows similar outcomes between women randomized to adjuvant endocrine therapy alone versus endocrine therapy plus chemotherapy, then clinicians “can potentially avoid giving chemotherapy to a large number of women who are currently receiving it,” she explained.
Because women with nodal involvement (one to three positive axillary nodes) are at a higher risk of recurrence, RxPONDER may provide needed insight on the management of these types of breast cancers, Dr. Kaklamani suggested.
Both trials have used the 21-tumor gene expression assay (Oncotype Dx) to determine recurrence-risk status.
Dr. Kaklamani also spotlighted the phase 3 CONTESSA trial (abstract GS4-01) in 600+ patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer that is HR positive and HER2 negative and has been previously treated with a taxane.
The trial features an experimental oral taxane, tesetaxel. The primary objective is to compare the efficacy of tesetaxel plus a reduced dose of capecitabine (Xeloda) versus the approved dose of capecitabine alone. Presented data will include progression-free survival results, indicating about a 3-month PFS advantage with tesetaxel, which is taken once every 3 weeks.
“Oral drugs are convenient for patients and, despite limitations, they are, all in all, a revolution in cancer treatment,” noted Dr. Kaklamani, adding that they beneficially eliminate the need for time-consuming infusions and related clinic visits as well as drug ports.
It will be interesting to see what Steven Vogl, MD, a private practitioner in New Yorky, has to say about CONTESSA and the rest of the SABCS.
He is usually a commentator from the meeting floor, whose self-introduction, “Vogl, New York,” is well known to perennial meeting attendees, according to a profile piece published some years ago.
This year the medical oncologist will also serve as the chair of the “View from the Trenches” session, which is devoted to summarizing the meeting’s most important findings for everyday practitioners.
A number of years ago, Dr. Vogl proposed the idea of this where-the-rubber-meets-the-road session to SABCS meeting planners, which they then adopted. This year, Dr. Kaklamani invited Dr. Vogl to run the session and he accepted.
Dr. Vogl is a “really smart guy who is always right on” with his comments and questions, and he will be the first-ever independent, community-based oncologist to chair a meeting session, said Dr. Kaklamani.
Other hot topics
Another hot topic featured at the meeting will be the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the adjuvant treatment of HR-positive and HER2-negative disease that has a high risk of recurrence, Dr. Kaklamani said. New data from two trials, monarchE and PENELOPE-B, will be presented.
First, there will be an update from the monarchE trial (abstract GS1-01). The first results from this trial were reported in September at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020. They showed that adding abemaciclib (Verzenio) to endocrine therapy reduced the risk of early recurrence. The positive outcome represented the first treatment improvement in this high-risk setting in more than 20 years, according to experts.
A similar trial, PENELOPE-B (abstract GS1-02), looks at palbociclib (Ibrance) in a somewhat different population – those patients with high relapse risk after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. “These are even higher risk ER+ patients [than those in monarchE], which is why they received chemotherapy before surgery,” commented Dr. Kaklamani.
In triple-negative disease, there will be overall survival (OS) results from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-355 study (abstract GS3-01) of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) versus placebo (plus chemotherapy for all patients) as first-line therapy for locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. “It’s potentially a huge deal,” said Dr. Kaklamani about the OS data, if they are statistically significant.
A meta-analysis (abstract GS4-08) of data on circulating tumor cells (CTCs), which are shed from the primary tumor into the bloodstream, may point to their value as a tool to determine whether or not a breast cancer treatment is effective. “CTCs allow you to assess how a treatment is doing before you do scans, which typically occur 3 months or so later,” explained Dr. Kaklamani.
CTC results can be assessed in 3-4 weeks and allow clinicians to change treatments if CTC volume increases. However, a previous study of CTCs did not show a clinical benefit with the tool among patients treated mainly with chemotherapies. What’s different about the new study, which is from an international group of investigators, is in the treatments patients with metastatic breast cancer received. “This study is from a different era – with targeted therapies,” said Dr. Kaklamani.
In the new study, changes in CTC levels (with a reduction being a good result) between baseline (pretreatment) and follow-up were analyzed to determine whether they were associated with overall survival.
COVID sessions
On the meeting’s first day, SABCS will feature a special session on COVID-19 and breast cancer. The meeting organizers sought to separate the wheat from the chaff in this subject, as much has already been written, published, or presented.
“We received a lot of abstracts on COVID that were studies that were poorly done. We tried to tease through them and select the well-researched ones,” acknowledged Dr. Kaklamani.
The organizers included two patient advocates who have had COVID-19, including during treatment for breast cancer, as participants in the meeting session. The session will also feature global perspectives, with presenters from Brazil, Italy, and the Netherlands.
Plenary lectures
The meeting’s two plenary lectures will focus, respectively, on the increasingly used clinical approach of neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer, and research in the time of a pandemic.
Elizabeth Mittendorf, MD, PhD, a surgical oncologist and director of the Breast lmmuno-Oncology program and co-director of the Breast Cancer Clinical Research Program at the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston, will present “Local regional management following neoadjuvant therapy: Minding the knowledge gaps.”
Ned Sharpless, MD, director of the National Cancer Institute, will present “Advancing cancer research during challenging times.”
Dr. Kaklamani disclosed recieving consulting fees with Amgen, Eisai, Puma, Celldex, AstraZeneca, and Athenex; receiving fees for non-CME services received directly from commercial interest or their agents from Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, Genomic Health, Puma, Eisai, and Novartis; and contracted research with Eisai.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SABCS 2020
Testicular cancer link to below-the-waist scans, x-rays?
Over the last 40 years, there has been a doubling in the incidence of testicular cancer. Over the same period, there has been a 20-fold increase in the use of diagnostic radiation, and the doses of radiation used have increased sevenfold. Perhaps the two are related?
The suggestion comes from researchers reporting a new case-control study in which they show that repeated diagnostic radiation below the waist was associated with an increase in the risk of testicular germ cell tumor (TGCT).
The study involved 315 men with TGCT and 931 controls from hospital and population-based settings. Researchers analyzed medical records and individuals’ recall of diagnostic radiation, such as CT scans, x-rays, and barium enema.
Compared with men who did not undergo any diagnostic radiation, the risk of testicular cancer was nearly twofold higher among men who had undergone three or more diagnostic x-rays and CT scans, and more than fourfold higher among men who had undergone three or more lower gastrointestinal series or barium enema.
The study was published online Nov. 11 in PLoS ONE.
Testicular cancer, the most common cancer in white men aged 15-44 years, has steadily increased in incidence in the United States over the past 3 or 4 decades. The rate has jumped from 3 out of 100,000 men in 1975 to 6 out of 100,000 men today, said senior author Katherine Nathanson, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
“Our data suggests that the increased use of diagnostic radiation below the waist in men over that same time may contribute to the increase in incidence,” Dr. Nathanson said in a press statement.
Reducing diagnostic radiation doses to the testes “should be prioritized,” said the investigators, if these results are validated by additional research.
It’s “undoubtedly prudent” to reduce those doses “as much as possible,” said David Brenner, PhD, director of the Center for Radiological Research, Columbia University Medical Center, New York.
However, Dr. Brenner also had reservations about the new study. “I do find the results quite surprising,” given what is known historically about testicular cancer and radiation exposure.
Higher radiation doses (than in the current study) in two other settings (among post–atomic bomb survivors and in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis) are not associated with an increased risk of testicular cancer, Dr. Brenner said in an interview.
“Underlying conditions for which the individual received radiation imaging,” may be one potential explanation for the increased testicular cancer risk seen in this study, he added.
Dr. Nathanson responded to Dr. Brenner’s critique by focusing on atomic bomb survivors and pointing out that the baseline rate of testicular cancer in Asia, including Japan, is “very, very low” and therefore that population, including bomb survivors, is not a highly applicable comparison.
Take-home message: Testicular shielding
Dr. Nathanson noted that diagnostic imaging below the waist is most commonly administered as a result of GI tract complaints such as constipation and abdominal pain. For clinicians, the study’s take-home message supports testicular shielding.
Testicular shielding during diagnostic imaging can be protective, but audits show that correct use and positioning occurs in just 25% of pediatric diagnostic scans, the authors commented.
Recent epidemiologic studies support a tie between diagnostic radiation and other cancers, the authors also pointed out.
For example, women undergoing frequent x-rays for scoliosis may have an increased risk of breast cancer, and likewise for individuals undergoing repeat routine dental x-rays and thyroid cancer. Additionally, a National Health Service study among 175,000 children revealed an excess risk of subsequent brain tumors and leukemia tied to CT scans, said Dr. Nathanson and coauthors.
Total dose and number of exposures were associated with an increasing cancer risk in each of the aforementioned studies.
Dr. Nathanson pointed out that Penn researchers have collected testicular cancer data since 2001 for the sake of research on related, inherited risk. The new study is an outgrowth of those efforts and is a rare effort in this subject area, in part, because testicular cancer is a very treatable rare cancer, with a 95% survival rate at 5 years.
A larger prospective study of the association between diagnostic radiation and testicular cancer would be better for determining causality, but is impractical given the needed time and associated costs. “A case-control design is a methodology that is ideally suited for studies investigating rare disease outcomes such as TGCT,” the authors comment.
The study was supported with grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. The study authors and Dr. Brenner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Over the last 40 years, there has been a doubling in the incidence of testicular cancer. Over the same period, there has been a 20-fold increase in the use of diagnostic radiation, and the doses of radiation used have increased sevenfold. Perhaps the two are related?
The suggestion comes from researchers reporting a new case-control study in which they show that repeated diagnostic radiation below the waist was associated with an increase in the risk of testicular germ cell tumor (TGCT).
The study involved 315 men with TGCT and 931 controls from hospital and population-based settings. Researchers analyzed medical records and individuals’ recall of diagnostic radiation, such as CT scans, x-rays, and barium enema.
Compared with men who did not undergo any diagnostic radiation, the risk of testicular cancer was nearly twofold higher among men who had undergone three or more diagnostic x-rays and CT scans, and more than fourfold higher among men who had undergone three or more lower gastrointestinal series or barium enema.
The study was published online Nov. 11 in PLoS ONE.
Testicular cancer, the most common cancer in white men aged 15-44 years, has steadily increased in incidence in the United States over the past 3 or 4 decades. The rate has jumped from 3 out of 100,000 men in 1975 to 6 out of 100,000 men today, said senior author Katherine Nathanson, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
“Our data suggests that the increased use of diagnostic radiation below the waist in men over that same time may contribute to the increase in incidence,” Dr. Nathanson said in a press statement.
Reducing diagnostic radiation doses to the testes “should be prioritized,” said the investigators, if these results are validated by additional research.
It’s “undoubtedly prudent” to reduce those doses “as much as possible,” said David Brenner, PhD, director of the Center for Radiological Research, Columbia University Medical Center, New York.
However, Dr. Brenner also had reservations about the new study. “I do find the results quite surprising,” given what is known historically about testicular cancer and radiation exposure.
Higher radiation doses (than in the current study) in two other settings (among post–atomic bomb survivors and in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis) are not associated with an increased risk of testicular cancer, Dr. Brenner said in an interview.
“Underlying conditions for which the individual received radiation imaging,” may be one potential explanation for the increased testicular cancer risk seen in this study, he added.
Dr. Nathanson responded to Dr. Brenner’s critique by focusing on atomic bomb survivors and pointing out that the baseline rate of testicular cancer in Asia, including Japan, is “very, very low” and therefore that population, including bomb survivors, is not a highly applicable comparison.
Take-home message: Testicular shielding
Dr. Nathanson noted that diagnostic imaging below the waist is most commonly administered as a result of GI tract complaints such as constipation and abdominal pain. For clinicians, the study’s take-home message supports testicular shielding.
Testicular shielding during diagnostic imaging can be protective, but audits show that correct use and positioning occurs in just 25% of pediatric diagnostic scans, the authors commented.
Recent epidemiologic studies support a tie between diagnostic radiation and other cancers, the authors also pointed out.
For example, women undergoing frequent x-rays for scoliosis may have an increased risk of breast cancer, and likewise for individuals undergoing repeat routine dental x-rays and thyroid cancer. Additionally, a National Health Service study among 175,000 children revealed an excess risk of subsequent brain tumors and leukemia tied to CT scans, said Dr. Nathanson and coauthors.
Total dose and number of exposures were associated with an increasing cancer risk in each of the aforementioned studies.
Dr. Nathanson pointed out that Penn researchers have collected testicular cancer data since 2001 for the sake of research on related, inherited risk. The new study is an outgrowth of those efforts and is a rare effort in this subject area, in part, because testicular cancer is a very treatable rare cancer, with a 95% survival rate at 5 years.
A larger prospective study of the association between diagnostic radiation and testicular cancer would be better for determining causality, but is impractical given the needed time and associated costs. “A case-control design is a methodology that is ideally suited for studies investigating rare disease outcomes such as TGCT,” the authors comment.
The study was supported with grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. The study authors and Dr. Brenner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Over the last 40 years, there has been a doubling in the incidence of testicular cancer. Over the same period, there has been a 20-fold increase in the use of diagnostic radiation, and the doses of radiation used have increased sevenfold. Perhaps the two are related?
The suggestion comes from researchers reporting a new case-control study in which they show that repeated diagnostic radiation below the waist was associated with an increase in the risk of testicular germ cell tumor (TGCT).
The study involved 315 men with TGCT and 931 controls from hospital and population-based settings. Researchers analyzed medical records and individuals’ recall of diagnostic radiation, such as CT scans, x-rays, and barium enema.
Compared with men who did not undergo any diagnostic radiation, the risk of testicular cancer was nearly twofold higher among men who had undergone three or more diagnostic x-rays and CT scans, and more than fourfold higher among men who had undergone three or more lower gastrointestinal series or barium enema.
The study was published online Nov. 11 in PLoS ONE.
Testicular cancer, the most common cancer in white men aged 15-44 years, has steadily increased in incidence in the United States over the past 3 or 4 decades. The rate has jumped from 3 out of 100,000 men in 1975 to 6 out of 100,000 men today, said senior author Katherine Nathanson, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
“Our data suggests that the increased use of diagnostic radiation below the waist in men over that same time may contribute to the increase in incidence,” Dr. Nathanson said in a press statement.
Reducing diagnostic radiation doses to the testes “should be prioritized,” said the investigators, if these results are validated by additional research.
It’s “undoubtedly prudent” to reduce those doses “as much as possible,” said David Brenner, PhD, director of the Center for Radiological Research, Columbia University Medical Center, New York.
However, Dr. Brenner also had reservations about the new study. “I do find the results quite surprising,” given what is known historically about testicular cancer and radiation exposure.
Higher radiation doses (than in the current study) in two other settings (among post–atomic bomb survivors and in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis) are not associated with an increased risk of testicular cancer, Dr. Brenner said in an interview.
“Underlying conditions for which the individual received radiation imaging,” may be one potential explanation for the increased testicular cancer risk seen in this study, he added.
Dr. Nathanson responded to Dr. Brenner’s critique by focusing on atomic bomb survivors and pointing out that the baseline rate of testicular cancer in Asia, including Japan, is “very, very low” and therefore that population, including bomb survivors, is not a highly applicable comparison.
Take-home message: Testicular shielding
Dr. Nathanson noted that diagnostic imaging below the waist is most commonly administered as a result of GI tract complaints such as constipation and abdominal pain. For clinicians, the study’s take-home message supports testicular shielding.
Testicular shielding during diagnostic imaging can be protective, but audits show that correct use and positioning occurs in just 25% of pediatric diagnostic scans, the authors commented.
Recent epidemiologic studies support a tie between diagnostic radiation and other cancers, the authors also pointed out.
For example, women undergoing frequent x-rays for scoliosis may have an increased risk of breast cancer, and likewise for individuals undergoing repeat routine dental x-rays and thyroid cancer. Additionally, a National Health Service study among 175,000 children revealed an excess risk of subsequent brain tumors and leukemia tied to CT scans, said Dr. Nathanson and coauthors.
Total dose and number of exposures were associated with an increasing cancer risk in each of the aforementioned studies.
Dr. Nathanson pointed out that Penn researchers have collected testicular cancer data since 2001 for the sake of research on related, inherited risk. The new study is an outgrowth of those efforts and is a rare effort in this subject area, in part, because testicular cancer is a very treatable rare cancer, with a 95% survival rate at 5 years.
A larger prospective study of the association between diagnostic radiation and testicular cancer would be better for determining causality, but is impractical given the needed time and associated costs. “A case-control design is a methodology that is ideally suited for studies investigating rare disease outcomes such as TGCT,” the authors comment.
The study was supported with grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. The study authors and Dr. Brenner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HHS extends deadline for patient access to your clinical notes
The Department of Health & Human Services on Oct. 29 extended the deadline for health care groups to provide patients with immediate electronic access to their doctors’ clinical notes as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.
The mandate, called “open notes” by many, is part of the 21st Century Cures Act, and will now go into effect April 5.
The announcement comes just 4 days before the previously established Nov. 2 deadline and gives the pandemic as the reason for the delay.
“We are hearing that, while there is strong support for advancing patient access … stakeholders also must manage the needs being experienced during the current pandemic,” Don Rucker, MD, national coordinator for health information technology at HHS, said in a press statement.
“To be clear, the Office of the National Coordinator is not removing the requirements advancing patient access to their health information,” he added.
‘What you make of it’
Scott MacDonald, MD, electronic health record medical director at the University of California, Davis, said his organization is proceeding anyway. “UC Davis is going to start releasing notes and test results on Nov. 12,” he said in an interview.
Other organizations and practices now have more time, he said, but the law stays the same. “There’s no change to the what or why – only to the when,” Dr. MacDonald pointed out.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., will take advantage of the extra time, Trent Rosenbloom, MD, MPH, director of patient portals, said in an interview.
“Given the super-short time frame we had to work under as this emerged out from dealing with COVID, we feel that we have not addressed all the potential legal-edge cases such as dealing with adolescent medicine and child abuse,” he said.
On Oct. 21, this news organization reported on the then-imminent start of the new law, which irked many readers. They cited, among other things, the likelihood of patient confusion with fast patient access to all clinical notes.
“To me, the biggest issue is that we speak a foreign language that most outside of medicine don’t speak. Our job is to explain it to the patient at a level they can understand. What will 100% happen now is that a patient will not be able to reconcile what is in the note to what they’ve been told,” Andrew White, MD, wrote in a reader comment.
But benefits of open notes outweigh the risks, say proponents, who claim that doctor-patient communication and trust actually improve with information access and that research indicates other benefits such as improved medication adherence.
Open notes are “what you make of it,” said Marlene Millen, MD, an internist at UC San Diego Health, which has had a pilot open-notes program for 3 years.
“I actually end all of my appointments with: ‘Don’t forget to read your note later,’ ” she said in an interview.
Dr. Millen feared open notes initially but, within the first 3 months of usage, about 15 patients gave her direct feedback on how much they appreciated her notes. “It seemed to really reassure them that they were getting good care.”
Dr. MacDonald and Dr. Millen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Department of Health & Human Services on Oct. 29 extended the deadline for health care groups to provide patients with immediate electronic access to their doctors’ clinical notes as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.
The mandate, called “open notes” by many, is part of the 21st Century Cures Act, and will now go into effect April 5.
The announcement comes just 4 days before the previously established Nov. 2 deadline and gives the pandemic as the reason for the delay.
“We are hearing that, while there is strong support for advancing patient access … stakeholders also must manage the needs being experienced during the current pandemic,” Don Rucker, MD, national coordinator for health information technology at HHS, said in a press statement.
“To be clear, the Office of the National Coordinator is not removing the requirements advancing patient access to their health information,” he added.
‘What you make of it’
Scott MacDonald, MD, electronic health record medical director at the University of California, Davis, said his organization is proceeding anyway. “UC Davis is going to start releasing notes and test results on Nov. 12,” he said in an interview.
Other organizations and practices now have more time, he said, but the law stays the same. “There’s no change to the what or why – only to the when,” Dr. MacDonald pointed out.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., will take advantage of the extra time, Trent Rosenbloom, MD, MPH, director of patient portals, said in an interview.
“Given the super-short time frame we had to work under as this emerged out from dealing with COVID, we feel that we have not addressed all the potential legal-edge cases such as dealing with adolescent medicine and child abuse,” he said.
On Oct. 21, this news organization reported on the then-imminent start of the new law, which irked many readers. They cited, among other things, the likelihood of patient confusion with fast patient access to all clinical notes.
“To me, the biggest issue is that we speak a foreign language that most outside of medicine don’t speak. Our job is to explain it to the patient at a level they can understand. What will 100% happen now is that a patient will not be able to reconcile what is in the note to what they’ve been told,” Andrew White, MD, wrote in a reader comment.
But benefits of open notes outweigh the risks, say proponents, who claim that doctor-patient communication and trust actually improve with information access and that research indicates other benefits such as improved medication adherence.
Open notes are “what you make of it,” said Marlene Millen, MD, an internist at UC San Diego Health, which has had a pilot open-notes program for 3 years.
“I actually end all of my appointments with: ‘Don’t forget to read your note later,’ ” she said in an interview.
Dr. Millen feared open notes initially but, within the first 3 months of usage, about 15 patients gave her direct feedback on how much they appreciated her notes. “It seemed to really reassure them that they were getting good care.”
Dr. MacDonald and Dr. Millen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Department of Health & Human Services on Oct. 29 extended the deadline for health care groups to provide patients with immediate electronic access to their doctors’ clinical notes as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.
The mandate, called “open notes” by many, is part of the 21st Century Cures Act, and will now go into effect April 5.
The announcement comes just 4 days before the previously established Nov. 2 deadline and gives the pandemic as the reason for the delay.
“We are hearing that, while there is strong support for advancing patient access … stakeholders also must manage the needs being experienced during the current pandemic,” Don Rucker, MD, national coordinator for health information technology at HHS, said in a press statement.
“To be clear, the Office of the National Coordinator is not removing the requirements advancing patient access to their health information,” he added.
‘What you make of it’
Scott MacDonald, MD, electronic health record medical director at the University of California, Davis, said his organization is proceeding anyway. “UC Davis is going to start releasing notes and test results on Nov. 12,” he said in an interview.
Other organizations and practices now have more time, he said, but the law stays the same. “There’s no change to the what or why – only to the when,” Dr. MacDonald pointed out.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., will take advantage of the extra time, Trent Rosenbloom, MD, MPH, director of patient portals, said in an interview.
“Given the super-short time frame we had to work under as this emerged out from dealing with COVID, we feel that we have not addressed all the potential legal-edge cases such as dealing with adolescent medicine and child abuse,” he said.
On Oct. 21, this news organization reported on the then-imminent start of the new law, which irked many readers. They cited, among other things, the likelihood of patient confusion with fast patient access to all clinical notes.
“To me, the biggest issue is that we speak a foreign language that most outside of medicine don’t speak. Our job is to explain it to the patient at a level they can understand. What will 100% happen now is that a patient will not be able to reconcile what is in the note to what they’ve been told,” Andrew White, MD, wrote in a reader comment.
But benefits of open notes outweigh the risks, say proponents, who claim that doctor-patient communication and trust actually improve with information access and that research indicates other benefits such as improved medication adherence.
Open notes are “what you make of it,” said Marlene Millen, MD, an internist at UC San Diego Health, which has had a pilot open-notes program for 3 years.
“I actually end all of my appointments with: ‘Don’t forget to read your note later,’ ” she said in an interview.
Dr. Millen feared open notes initially but, within the first 3 months of usage, about 15 patients gave her direct feedback on how much they appreciated her notes. “It seemed to really reassure them that they were getting good care.”
Dr. MacDonald and Dr. Millen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients can read your clinical notes starting Nov. 2
Starting Nov. 2, all patients in the United States will have immediate access to clinical notes and thus will be able to read their doctors’ writings, as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.
The 21st Century Cures Act mandates that patients have fast, electronic access to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, history, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes.
But this federal mandate, called “open notes” by many, is potentially confusing and frightening for patients, say some physicians. Others worry that the change will increase workload as clinicians tailor notes for patients and answer related questions.
The law means that inpatient and outpatient notes will be released immediately and that patients will have immediate access to testing and imaging results, including results from sexually transmitted disease tests, Pap tests, cancer biopsies, CT and PET scans, fetal ultrasounds, pneumonia cultures, and mammograms.
Such notes could contain sensitive information, and there is concern that patients could be shocked, confused, or annoyed by what they read, even with more run-of-the-mill notes.
Champions of open notes say that the benefits, including better provider-patient communication, greatly outweigh such risks.
“This is about convenience – a bit like online banking,” commented Charlotte Blease, PhD, resident scholar at OpenNotes, an advocacy nonprofit organization headquartered at the Beth Israel–Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “But it’s a culture shift for doctors,” she said in an interview.
“It turns physician paternalism on its head,” said C. T. Lin, MD, chief medical information officer, UCHealth, Denver. The change requires “some letting go of old traditions” in medicine, he wrote in an August blog post, referring to the fact that a computer screen – and not a physician – may tell patients about a new health problem.
Dr. Lin summarized the experience at the University of Colorado Cancer Center, which has allowed patients to have access to oncology notes for the past 5 years: “No issues and highly appreciated by patients. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
A new audience
Other institutions have also been voluntarily implementing open notes.
UC Davis Health in Sacramento, Calif., has run an optional program for the past year. However, only about two dozen of approximately 1,000 staff physicians opted in to the program.
“This illustrates the point that it’s a new thing that physicians aren’t used to doing. They’ve traditionally written notes for the benefit of their colleagues, for billing, for their own reference,” Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at UC Davis Health, told this news organization.
“They’ve never –until recently – had the patient as one of the audiences for a note,” he said.
Liam Keating, MD, an otolaryngologist in Martinez, Calif., recalls that he once wrote “globus hystericus,” and the patient wanted to sue him for saying that the patient was hysterical. “I now just code ‘Globus’ (if I don’t jump straight to LPD [lateral pharyngeal diverticulum]),” he commented in response to a commentary on open notes.
Sensitive information occurs more often in certain specialties, for example, psychiatry, genetics, adolescent medicine, and oncology, experts say.
“Cancer is an area that is highly charged for patients and doctors alike,” Dr. MacDonald pointed out. When reading pathology or imaging notes, patients may learn that they have been diagnosed with cancer or that they have a recurrence “without the physician being able to contextualize it and explain things – that’s just new and scary,” he said.
California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first, said Dr. MacDonald, but not all states have such laws.
Adjustments needed – or not – with open notes
At UCHealth in Aurora, Colo., Robert Breeze, MD, vice-chair of neurosurgery, said he has adjusted his practice to accommodate open notes and to anticipate trouble spots.*
“When I order imaging or send pathology specimens, I have already discussed with the patient the possibilities, including cancer, and what we will do next. Patients deeply appreciate these discussions, before they see the results,” he commented in an institutional white paper issued in anticipation of the changes on Nov. 2.
This is called precounseling, said Trent Rosenbloom, MD, MPH, director of patient portals at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., which has been a pioneer in information sharing with patients. Their system does delay the release of information in the case of “complicated” results, such as from cancer biopsies, he said in an interview.
However, Christiaan Hoff, MD, PhD, a surgeon at the Medical Center Leeuwarden (the Netherlands), wonders how important it is for the physician to be present when the patient receives bad news, including news about cancer. “We may overestimate our added value in these situations,” he suggested.
“Our empathy may not outweigh” the disadvantages of the situation, and the “finer points of our explanation will often go unnoticed” by the stressed patient, he commented. Dr. Hoff was also responding to the commentary about open notes.
In that commentary, Jack West, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., was concerned about misunderstandings. Oncology is complex, and patients can struggle to understand their prognosis and planned treatment efficacy, especially in cases of metastatic disease, he wrote.
This concern is somewhat refuted by a study published Oct. 5 in Cancer Cell. Responses to two surveys involving 96 oncology clinicians at three U.S. centers found that almost half (44%) believed that their patients “would be confused” by open notes.
However, only 4% of the 3,418 cancer patients from the same surveys reported being confused by open notes. (A majority of participants had more than a high school education, and English was their primary language.)
“Patient and clinician views about open notes in oncology are not aligned, with patients expressing considerably more enthusiasm,” wrote the authors, led by Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who has been treated for brain cancer.
“All clinicians are anxious at first,” Ms. Salmi told this news organization. “Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions … are more likely to read their notes.”
The survey results echo the early experience reported from Sweden, where open notes was launched in 2012. “Patients have loved it from the beginning,” said Maria Haggland, PhD, of Uppsala MedTech Science Innovation Center.
However, when the scheme first launched, it was considered to be “very controversial,” and “there were a lot of complaints, from health care professionals, especially,” she added.
Over time, clinicians have embraced open notes, and the program has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, she observed during an Oct. 5 webinar on open notes.
More work for already overworked clinicians?
An outstanding concern about open notes is that it will cause more work for health care professionals.
Traditionally, doctors have written notes using medical lexicon, including a lot of abbreviations and jargon for efficiency’s sake. Now that patients will read the notes, will clinicians have to spell out things in lay terms, alter their writing so as not to offend, and generally do more work?
William Harvey, MD, chief medical information officer, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, acknowledged that that may be the case.
In a forthcoming note to staff about the Nov. 2 start of open notes, Dr. Harvey will include a reminder to accommodate the patient as a reader. But that may or may not mean an increase in work volume, depending on the provider. “Clinical note writing is highly personal. There’s an art to it,” he said in an interview. “So it’s hard to give standard advice.”
Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco and a lecturer at California Pacific Medical Center, is particularly concerned about the impact of open notes on progress notes, which he calls a tool to develop strategies and make observations while working with a patient.
By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” he told this news organization.
“These notes serve many masters already,” he said, referring to purposes such as utilization review and billing. “The more masters they serve, the less useful they are to get medical work done.”
Dr. MacDonald, the medical information officer, said the new law doesn’t mandate a change in writing style.
In a study published last year, researchers analyzed notes written by oncologists before and after adoption of open notes. They found that, on average, clinicians did not change their note writing. The investigators analyzed more than 100,000 clinical notes written by 35 oncologists at a single center.
Advocates for open notes emphasize that there are benefits for clinicians.
“Doctors are overworked. They’re overburdened. But empowered patients can help the doctor,” said OpenNotes’ Dr. Blease. She cited survey data that show that patients better understand their treatment plan and medication, which can cut down on physician workload.
Open notes are “what you make of it,” said Marlene Millen, MD, an internist at UC San Diego Health, which has had a pilot program for 3 years. Each day, Dr. Millen discusses a shared note with two or three patients. “I actually end all of my appointments with, ‘Don’t forget to read your note later,’ ” she told this news organization.
“I was a little afraid of this initially,” she said, but within the first 3 months of the pilot, about 15 patients gave her direct feedback on how much they appreciated her notes. “It seemed to really reassure them that they were getting good care.”
The persons quoted in this article have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Correction, 10/23/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the campus' location.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Starting Nov. 2, all patients in the United States will have immediate access to clinical notes and thus will be able to read their doctors’ writings, as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.
The 21st Century Cures Act mandates that patients have fast, electronic access to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, history, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes.
But this federal mandate, called “open notes” by many, is potentially confusing and frightening for patients, say some physicians. Others worry that the change will increase workload as clinicians tailor notes for patients and answer related questions.
The law means that inpatient and outpatient notes will be released immediately and that patients will have immediate access to testing and imaging results, including results from sexually transmitted disease tests, Pap tests, cancer biopsies, CT and PET scans, fetal ultrasounds, pneumonia cultures, and mammograms.
Such notes could contain sensitive information, and there is concern that patients could be shocked, confused, or annoyed by what they read, even with more run-of-the-mill notes.
Champions of open notes say that the benefits, including better provider-patient communication, greatly outweigh such risks.
“This is about convenience – a bit like online banking,” commented Charlotte Blease, PhD, resident scholar at OpenNotes, an advocacy nonprofit organization headquartered at the Beth Israel–Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “But it’s a culture shift for doctors,” she said in an interview.
“It turns physician paternalism on its head,” said C. T. Lin, MD, chief medical information officer, UCHealth, Denver. The change requires “some letting go of old traditions” in medicine, he wrote in an August blog post, referring to the fact that a computer screen – and not a physician – may tell patients about a new health problem.
Dr. Lin summarized the experience at the University of Colorado Cancer Center, which has allowed patients to have access to oncology notes for the past 5 years: “No issues and highly appreciated by patients. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
A new audience
Other institutions have also been voluntarily implementing open notes.
UC Davis Health in Sacramento, Calif., has run an optional program for the past year. However, only about two dozen of approximately 1,000 staff physicians opted in to the program.
“This illustrates the point that it’s a new thing that physicians aren’t used to doing. They’ve traditionally written notes for the benefit of their colleagues, for billing, for their own reference,” Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at UC Davis Health, told this news organization.
“They’ve never –until recently – had the patient as one of the audiences for a note,” he said.
Liam Keating, MD, an otolaryngologist in Martinez, Calif., recalls that he once wrote “globus hystericus,” and the patient wanted to sue him for saying that the patient was hysterical. “I now just code ‘Globus’ (if I don’t jump straight to LPD [lateral pharyngeal diverticulum]),” he commented in response to a commentary on open notes.
Sensitive information occurs more often in certain specialties, for example, psychiatry, genetics, adolescent medicine, and oncology, experts say.
“Cancer is an area that is highly charged for patients and doctors alike,” Dr. MacDonald pointed out. When reading pathology or imaging notes, patients may learn that they have been diagnosed with cancer or that they have a recurrence “without the physician being able to contextualize it and explain things – that’s just new and scary,” he said.
California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first, said Dr. MacDonald, but not all states have such laws.
Adjustments needed – or not – with open notes
At UCHealth in Aurora, Colo., Robert Breeze, MD, vice-chair of neurosurgery, said he has adjusted his practice to accommodate open notes and to anticipate trouble spots.*
“When I order imaging or send pathology specimens, I have already discussed with the patient the possibilities, including cancer, and what we will do next. Patients deeply appreciate these discussions, before they see the results,” he commented in an institutional white paper issued in anticipation of the changes on Nov. 2.
This is called precounseling, said Trent Rosenbloom, MD, MPH, director of patient portals at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., which has been a pioneer in information sharing with patients. Their system does delay the release of information in the case of “complicated” results, such as from cancer biopsies, he said in an interview.
However, Christiaan Hoff, MD, PhD, a surgeon at the Medical Center Leeuwarden (the Netherlands), wonders how important it is for the physician to be present when the patient receives bad news, including news about cancer. “We may overestimate our added value in these situations,” he suggested.
“Our empathy may not outweigh” the disadvantages of the situation, and the “finer points of our explanation will often go unnoticed” by the stressed patient, he commented. Dr. Hoff was also responding to the commentary about open notes.
In that commentary, Jack West, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., was concerned about misunderstandings. Oncology is complex, and patients can struggle to understand their prognosis and planned treatment efficacy, especially in cases of metastatic disease, he wrote.
This concern is somewhat refuted by a study published Oct. 5 in Cancer Cell. Responses to two surveys involving 96 oncology clinicians at three U.S. centers found that almost half (44%) believed that their patients “would be confused” by open notes.
However, only 4% of the 3,418 cancer patients from the same surveys reported being confused by open notes. (A majority of participants had more than a high school education, and English was their primary language.)
“Patient and clinician views about open notes in oncology are not aligned, with patients expressing considerably more enthusiasm,” wrote the authors, led by Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who has been treated for brain cancer.
“All clinicians are anxious at first,” Ms. Salmi told this news organization. “Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions … are more likely to read their notes.”
The survey results echo the early experience reported from Sweden, where open notes was launched in 2012. “Patients have loved it from the beginning,” said Maria Haggland, PhD, of Uppsala MedTech Science Innovation Center.
However, when the scheme first launched, it was considered to be “very controversial,” and “there were a lot of complaints, from health care professionals, especially,” she added.
Over time, clinicians have embraced open notes, and the program has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, she observed during an Oct. 5 webinar on open notes.
More work for already overworked clinicians?
An outstanding concern about open notes is that it will cause more work for health care professionals.
Traditionally, doctors have written notes using medical lexicon, including a lot of abbreviations and jargon for efficiency’s sake. Now that patients will read the notes, will clinicians have to spell out things in lay terms, alter their writing so as not to offend, and generally do more work?
William Harvey, MD, chief medical information officer, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, acknowledged that that may be the case.
In a forthcoming note to staff about the Nov. 2 start of open notes, Dr. Harvey will include a reminder to accommodate the patient as a reader. But that may or may not mean an increase in work volume, depending on the provider. “Clinical note writing is highly personal. There’s an art to it,” he said in an interview. “So it’s hard to give standard advice.”
Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco and a lecturer at California Pacific Medical Center, is particularly concerned about the impact of open notes on progress notes, which he calls a tool to develop strategies and make observations while working with a patient.
By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” he told this news organization.
“These notes serve many masters already,” he said, referring to purposes such as utilization review and billing. “The more masters they serve, the less useful they are to get medical work done.”
Dr. MacDonald, the medical information officer, said the new law doesn’t mandate a change in writing style.
In a study published last year, researchers analyzed notes written by oncologists before and after adoption of open notes. They found that, on average, clinicians did not change their note writing. The investigators analyzed more than 100,000 clinical notes written by 35 oncologists at a single center.
Advocates for open notes emphasize that there are benefits for clinicians.
“Doctors are overworked. They’re overburdened. But empowered patients can help the doctor,” said OpenNotes’ Dr. Blease. She cited survey data that show that patients better understand their treatment plan and medication, which can cut down on physician workload.
Open notes are “what you make of it,” said Marlene Millen, MD, an internist at UC San Diego Health, which has had a pilot program for 3 years. Each day, Dr. Millen discusses a shared note with two or three patients. “I actually end all of my appointments with, ‘Don’t forget to read your note later,’ ” she told this news organization.
“I was a little afraid of this initially,” she said, but within the first 3 months of the pilot, about 15 patients gave her direct feedback on how much they appreciated her notes. “It seemed to really reassure them that they were getting good care.”
The persons quoted in this article have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Correction, 10/23/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the campus' location.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Starting Nov. 2, all patients in the United States will have immediate access to clinical notes and thus will be able to read their doctors’ writings, as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.
The 21st Century Cures Act mandates that patients have fast, electronic access to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, history, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes.
But this federal mandate, called “open notes” by many, is potentially confusing and frightening for patients, say some physicians. Others worry that the change will increase workload as clinicians tailor notes for patients and answer related questions.
The law means that inpatient and outpatient notes will be released immediately and that patients will have immediate access to testing and imaging results, including results from sexually transmitted disease tests, Pap tests, cancer biopsies, CT and PET scans, fetal ultrasounds, pneumonia cultures, and mammograms.
Such notes could contain sensitive information, and there is concern that patients could be shocked, confused, or annoyed by what they read, even with more run-of-the-mill notes.
Champions of open notes say that the benefits, including better provider-patient communication, greatly outweigh such risks.
“This is about convenience – a bit like online banking,” commented Charlotte Blease, PhD, resident scholar at OpenNotes, an advocacy nonprofit organization headquartered at the Beth Israel–Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “But it’s a culture shift for doctors,” she said in an interview.
“It turns physician paternalism on its head,” said C. T. Lin, MD, chief medical information officer, UCHealth, Denver. The change requires “some letting go of old traditions” in medicine, he wrote in an August blog post, referring to the fact that a computer screen – and not a physician – may tell patients about a new health problem.
Dr. Lin summarized the experience at the University of Colorado Cancer Center, which has allowed patients to have access to oncology notes for the past 5 years: “No issues and highly appreciated by patients. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
A new audience
Other institutions have also been voluntarily implementing open notes.
UC Davis Health in Sacramento, Calif., has run an optional program for the past year. However, only about two dozen of approximately 1,000 staff physicians opted in to the program.
“This illustrates the point that it’s a new thing that physicians aren’t used to doing. They’ve traditionally written notes for the benefit of their colleagues, for billing, for their own reference,” Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at UC Davis Health, told this news organization.
“They’ve never –until recently – had the patient as one of the audiences for a note,” he said.
Liam Keating, MD, an otolaryngologist in Martinez, Calif., recalls that he once wrote “globus hystericus,” and the patient wanted to sue him for saying that the patient was hysterical. “I now just code ‘Globus’ (if I don’t jump straight to LPD [lateral pharyngeal diverticulum]),” he commented in response to a commentary on open notes.
Sensitive information occurs more often in certain specialties, for example, psychiatry, genetics, adolescent medicine, and oncology, experts say.
“Cancer is an area that is highly charged for patients and doctors alike,” Dr. MacDonald pointed out. When reading pathology or imaging notes, patients may learn that they have been diagnosed with cancer or that they have a recurrence “without the physician being able to contextualize it and explain things – that’s just new and scary,” he said.
California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first, said Dr. MacDonald, but not all states have such laws.
Adjustments needed – or not – with open notes
At UCHealth in Aurora, Colo., Robert Breeze, MD, vice-chair of neurosurgery, said he has adjusted his practice to accommodate open notes and to anticipate trouble spots.*
“When I order imaging or send pathology specimens, I have already discussed with the patient the possibilities, including cancer, and what we will do next. Patients deeply appreciate these discussions, before they see the results,” he commented in an institutional white paper issued in anticipation of the changes on Nov. 2.
This is called precounseling, said Trent Rosenbloom, MD, MPH, director of patient portals at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., which has been a pioneer in information sharing with patients. Their system does delay the release of information in the case of “complicated” results, such as from cancer biopsies, he said in an interview.
However, Christiaan Hoff, MD, PhD, a surgeon at the Medical Center Leeuwarden (the Netherlands), wonders how important it is for the physician to be present when the patient receives bad news, including news about cancer. “We may overestimate our added value in these situations,” he suggested.
“Our empathy may not outweigh” the disadvantages of the situation, and the “finer points of our explanation will often go unnoticed” by the stressed patient, he commented. Dr. Hoff was also responding to the commentary about open notes.
In that commentary, Jack West, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., was concerned about misunderstandings. Oncology is complex, and patients can struggle to understand their prognosis and planned treatment efficacy, especially in cases of metastatic disease, he wrote.
This concern is somewhat refuted by a study published Oct. 5 in Cancer Cell. Responses to two surveys involving 96 oncology clinicians at three U.S. centers found that almost half (44%) believed that their patients “would be confused” by open notes.
However, only 4% of the 3,418 cancer patients from the same surveys reported being confused by open notes. (A majority of participants had more than a high school education, and English was their primary language.)
“Patient and clinician views about open notes in oncology are not aligned, with patients expressing considerably more enthusiasm,” wrote the authors, led by Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who has been treated for brain cancer.
“All clinicians are anxious at first,” Ms. Salmi told this news organization. “Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions … are more likely to read their notes.”
The survey results echo the early experience reported from Sweden, where open notes was launched in 2012. “Patients have loved it from the beginning,” said Maria Haggland, PhD, of Uppsala MedTech Science Innovation Center.
However, when the scheme first launched, it was considered to be “very controversial,” and “there were a lot of complaints, from health care professionals, especially,” she added.
Over time, clinicians have embraced open notes, and the program has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, she observed during an Oct. 5 webinar on open notes.
More work for already overworked clinicians?
An outstanding concern about open notes is that it will cause more work for health care professionals.
Traditionally, doctors have written notes using medical lexicon, including a lot of abbreviations and jargon for efficiency’s sake. Now that patients will read the notes, will clinicians have to spell out things in lay terms, alter their writing so as not to offend, and generally do more work?
William Harvey, MD, chief medical information officer, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, acknowledged that that may be the case.
In a forthcoming note to staff about the Nov. 2 start of open notes, Dr. Harvey will include a reminder to accommodate the patient as a reader. But that may or may not mean an increase in work volume, depending on the provider. “Clinical note writing is highly personal. There’s an art to it,” he said in an interview. “So it’s hard to give standard advice.”
Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco and a lecturer at California Pacific Medical Center, is particularly concerned about the impact of open notes on progress notes, which he calls a tool to develop strategies and make observations while working with a patient.
By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” he told this news organization.
“These notes serve many masters already,” he said, referring to purposes such as utilization review and billing. “The more masters they serve, the less useful they are to get medical work done.”
Dr. MacDonald, the medical information officer, said the new law doesn’t mandate a change in writing style.
In a study published last year, researchers analyzed notes written by oncologists before and after adoption of open notes. They found that, on average, clinicians did not change their note writing. The investigators analyzed more than 100,000 clinical notes written by 35 oncologists at a single center.
Advocates for open notes emphasize that there are benefits for clinicians.
“Doctors are overworked. They’re overburdened. But empowered patients can help the doctor,” said OpenNotes’ Dr. Blease. She cited survey data that show that patients better understand their treatment plan and medication, which can cut down on physician workload.
Open notes are “what you make of it,” said Marlene Millen, MD, an internist at UC San Diego Health, which has had a pilot program for 3 years. Each day, Dr. Millen discusses a shared note with two or three patients. “I actually end all of my appointments with, ‘Don’t forget to read your note later,’ ” she told this news organization.
“I was a little afraid of this initially,” she said, but within the first 3 months of the pilot, about 15 patients gave her direct feedback on how much they appreciated her notes. “It seemed to really reassure them that they were getting good care.”
The persons quoted in this article have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Correction, 10/23/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the campus' location.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
NCI may ‘kill’ major mammography trial, says adviser
Reevaluation comes after Medscape report
In September, an advisory board to the National Cancer Institute overwhelmingly voted to form a working group to review the continued funding and running of its largest cancer screening trial. But the lone abstaining board member suggested that the reevaluation was a smoke screen for ending the $100 million Tomosynthesis Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST).
“We’re going to have a working group to kill the trial,” Peter Adamson, MD, of Sanofi, commented in an interpretation of the NCI’s intent. The randomized trial, which began enrolling women in 2017, is comparing tomosynthesis, or three-dimensional (3-D) mammography, with older, less expensive 2-D technology.
The NCI’s move to reevaluate TMIST comes 6 months after Medscape Medical News reported that the projected 165,000-women study was lagging in enrollment of both patients and participating sites/physicians.
Enlisting sites is difficult, in part because radiologists – informed by their experience and previous research results – already believe that the 3-D technology is superior, commented two TMIST study investigators at that time.
Furthermore, experts who were quoted in the Medscape story said that radiology practice in the United States has substantially transitioned to 3-D and will continue to do so. This point was supported by a review of imaging market data.
At the September virtual meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board, which was first reported by the Cancer Letter, Philip Castle, PhD, MPH, director of the NCI’s division of cancer prevention, said it was “time to reevaluate TMIST’s feasibility and relevance.”
There is also a need to “examine the utility of TMIST, given the unanticipated challenges due to the pandemic,” he said, referring to low accrual of patients in 2020.
TMIST is “a huge budget item,” and accrual has been a problem “for years – essentially since the trial began,” added Ned Sharpless, MD, director of the NCI.
Fourteen advisory board members voted in favor of creating the working group to review the trial. The lone abstention, as noted above, was from Dr. Adamson, who is global head of oncology development and pediatric innovation at Sanofi and is also professor emeritus, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dr. Adamson said that he was “not denying the impact” of COVID-19 but speculated that other clinical trials have had the same problem.
He also wondered whether COVID-19 was an “excuse” for bringing TMIST to a “public forum” and objected to the fact that TMIST investigators were not present and had not been invited to offer “an action plan” to remedy their trial’s woes.
Dr. Castle explained that COVID-19 had reduced TMIST’s monthly patient accrual by 50% from March to August, compared with recent preceding months. The underaccrual “will likely result in delayed outcomes and escalating costs.”
However, TMIST was staggeringly behind in accrual even before COVID-19. The trial has averaged less than 1,500 women a month over the past 2 years, yet it needed to average 5,500 a month to meet accrual goals, Dr. Castle noted.
Further, Dr. Castle suggested that TMIST’s contribution to mammography practice may be negligible, citing three factors: changes in the imaging market, earlier research results, and other ongoing major trials of 3-D mammography.
“[The] relevance of the [TMIST] data by the completion of the trial is uncertain because of 3-D market ... penetrance by the conclusion of the trial,” Dr. Castle said. Even with optimistic accrual projections, study completion and reporting would occur somewhere between 2029 and 2032 – not in 2025, as originally planned.
Currently, 68% of certified mammography facilities in the United States have one or more 3-D units, and 40% of all units are 3-D, he noted. (However, as previously reported, this latter statistic on total units is likely an undercount because all 3-D units have a built-in 2-D function, but the two components in a single machine are equally counted by the Food and Drug Administration – even when 3-D is exclusively used.)
Dr. Castle also summarized earlier observational and randomized trial data on tomosynthesis mammography: “Evidence is already available suggesting that 3-D is no worse and probably better than 2-D.”
Additionally, he reviewed three other European mammography trials involving 3-D technology (in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway) and said that they will contribute “additional informative data.”
Notably, Dr. Adamson did not object to these critical points but said the “approach” taken by the NCI advisory board at this meeting was “incredibly disturbing.”
Dr. Castle defended himself, saying “nowhere” in his presentation was there any mention that the trial would be “shut down.”
Dr. Sharpless then interjected: “There is no easy way to do this. TMIST is the most troubled of our trials [in prevention and screening] from an accrual point of view.”
TMIST investigators respond
A pair of TMIST investigators commented about the NCI’s planned reevaluation – and what it means.
Etta D. Pisano, MD, the study’s principal investigator, accented the positive: “We have heard nothing of suspending TMIST and are ready to work with NCI to reach TMIST endpoints more efficiently,” she said in an interview.
She also offered a positive spin on TMIST enrollment and trial site enlistment. “Enrollment quadrupled and trial sites doubled in the 14 months prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. An unheard of 19% of the 30,000 women enrolled at 99 sites are African American.”
The trial has “momentum,” said Dr. Pisano, who is also chief research officer at the American College of Radiology.
Dr. Castle, however, noted that enrollment is far behind schedule; the 30,000 women who have been enrolled so far represent less than a quarter of the planned enrollment of 165,000 women, due by the end of 2020.
TMIST is designed to learn whether 3-D mammography is better at finding – and reducing the rate of – potentially lethal cancers than older 2-D technology.
Most 3-D systems are used in conjunction with 2-D. First, two static images of the breast are taken (2-D), and then the unit moves in an arc, taking multiple images of the breast (3-D). This allows radiologists to flip through the images like pages in a book and is considered to offer a superior read of the breast.
TMIST uses “advanced” breast cancers as a novel surrogate outcome. The trial period is 4.5 years, during which women are screened annually to determine which imaging technology results in fewer advanced cancers. These include larger HER2-positive and triple-negative malignancies; those associated with positive nodes; and metastatic disease.
These malignancies correlate with breast cancer mortality, Dr. Pisano said.
“We need this trial to help us learn how to improve the process for identifying high-risk patients and how to utilize both of these technologies better,” said Mitchell Schnall, MD, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania. He is cochair of the ECOG-ACRIN trial group, which is corunning TMIST.
“Look, we all know that 3-D sees more lesions, but consequently, more women are having additional procedures, including biopsies and excisions. The question that TMIST asks is whether that huge expenditure of time, money, and psychological stress is worth it in terms of better outcomes for each person who has the experience,” Dr. Schnall said in an interview.
“One size should not fit all in breast cancer screening, and the TMIST trial can show the way to a precision approach to screening,” he said.
But, earlier this year, Daniel Kopans, MD, professor of radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview that TMIST is a “huge waste of money.”
He believes that “radiologists who are experienced in using [3-D] for screening will not go back.
“It would be malpractice since they know there are cancers that they will miss on [2-D] that they can find on tomosynthesis,” said Dr. Kopans. He was involved in the development of the first 3-D unit but no longer profits from its sales because his group’s patent has expired.
TMIST was conceived before 3-D mammogram took off clinically, which may explain the trial’s enrollment and site participation woes. In the lag time between the initial trial design (2012) and study start date (2017), clinical practice in the United States and Canada shifted quickly to embrace the newer technology.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Reevaluation comes after Medscape report
Reevaluation comes after Medscape report
In September, an advisory board to the National Cancer Institute overwhelmingly voted to form a working group to review the continued funding and running of its largest cancer screening trial. But the lone abstaining board member suggested that the reevaluation was a smoke screen for ending the $100 million Tomosynthesis Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST).
“We’re going to have a working group to kill the trial,” Peter Adamson, MD, of Sanofi, commented in an interpretation of the NCI’s intent. The randomized trial, which began enrolling women in 2017, is comparing tomosynthesis, or three-dimensional (3-D) mammography, with older, less expensive 2-D technology.
The NCI’s move to reevaluate TMIST comes 6 months after Medscape Medical News reported that the projected 165,000-women study was lagging in enrollment of both patients and participating sites/physicians.
Enlisting sites is difficult, in part because radiologists – informed by their experience and previous research results – already believe that the 3-D technology is superior, commented two TMIST study investigators at that time.
Furthermore, experts who were quoted in the Medscape story said that radiology practice in the United States has substantially transitioned to 3-D and will continue to do so. This point was supported by a review of imaging market data.
At the September virtual meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board, which was first reported by the Cancer Letter, Philip Castle, PhD, MPH, director of the NCI’s division of cancer prevention, said it was “time to reevaluate TMIST’s feasibility and relevance.”
There is also a need to “examine the utility of TMIST, given the unanticipated challenges due to the pandemic,” he said, referring to low accrual of patients in 2020.
TMIST is “a huge budget item,” and accrual has been a problem “for years – essentially since the trial began,” added Ned Sharpless, MD, director of the NCI.
Fourteen advisory board members voted in favor of creating the working group to review the trial. The lone abstention, as noted above, was from Dr. Adamson, who is global head of oncology development and pediatric innovation at Sanofi and is also professor emeritus, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dr. Adamson said that he was “not denying the impact” of COVID-19 but speculated that other clinical trials have had the same problem.
He also wondered whether COVID-19 was an “excuse” for bringing TMIST to a “public forum” and objected to the fact that TMIST investigators were not present and had not been invited to offer “an action plan” to remedy their trial’s woes.
Dr. Castle explained that COVID-19 had reduced TMIST’s monthly patient accrual by 50% from March to August, compared with recent preceding months. The underaccrual “will likely result in delayed outcomes and escalating costs.”
However, TMIST was staggeringly behind in accrual even before COVID-19. The trial has averaged less than 1,500 women a month over the past 2 years, yet it needed to average 5,500 a month to meet accrual goals, Dr. Castle noted.
Further, Dr. Castle suggested that TMIST’s contribution to mammography practice may be negligible, citing three factors: changes in the imaging market, earlier research results, and other ongoing major trials of 3-D mammography.
“[The] relevance of the [TMIST] data by the completion of the trial is uncertain because of 3-D market ... penetrance by the conclusion of the trial,” Dr. Castle said. Even with optimistic accrual projections, study completion and reporting would occur somewhere between 2029 and 2032 – not in 2025, as originally planned.
Currently, 68% of certified mammography facilities in the United States have one or more 3-D units, and 40% of all units are 3-D, he noted. (However, as previously reported, this latter statistic on total units is likely an undercount because all 3-D units have a built-in 2-D function, but the two components in a single machine are equally counted by the Food and Drug Administration – even when 3-D is exclusively used.)
Dr. Castle also summarized earlier observational and randomized trial data on tomosynthesis mammography: “Evidence is already available suggesting that 3-D is no worse and probably better than 2-D.”
Additionally, he reviewed three other European mammography trials involving 3-D technology (in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway) and said that they will contribute “additional informative data.”
Notably, Dr. Adamson did not object to these critical points but said the “approach” taken by the NCI advisory board at this meeting was “incredibly disturbing.”
Dr. Castle defended himself, saying “nowhere” in his presentation was there any mention that the trial would be “shut down.”
Dr. Sharpless then interjected: “There is no easy way to do this. TMIST is the most troubled of our trials [in prevention and screening] from an accrual point of view.”
TMIST investigators respond
A pair of TMIST investigators commented about the NCI’s planned reevaluation – and what it means.
Etta D. Pisano, MD, the study’s principal investigator, accented the positive: “We have heard nothing of suspending TMIST and are ready to work with NCI to reach TMIST endpoints more efficiently,” she said in an interview.
She also offered a positive spin on TMIST enrollment and trial site enlistment. “Enrollment quadrupled and trial sites doubled in the 14 months prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. An unheard of 19% of the 30,000 women enrolled at 99 sites are African American.”
The trial has “momentum,” said Dr. Pisano, who is also chief research officer at the American College of Radiology.
Dr. Castle, however, noted that enrollment is far behind schedule; the 30,000 women who have been enrolled so far represent less than a quarter of the planned enrollment of 165,000 women, due by the end of 2020.
TMIST is designed to learn whether 3-D mammography is better at finding – and reducing the rate of – potentially lethal cancers than older 2-D technology.
Most 3-D systems are used in conjunction with 2-D. First, two static images of the breast are taken (2-D), and then the unit moves in an arc, taking multiple images of the breast (3-D). This allows radiologists to flip through the images like pages in a book and is considered to offer a superior read of the breast.
TMIST uses “advanced” breast cancers as a novel surrogate outcome. The trial period is 4.5 years, during which women are screened annually to determine which imaging technology results in fewer advanced cancers. These include larger HER2-positive and triple-negative malignancies; those associated with positive nodes; and metastatic disease.
These malignancies correlate with breast cancer mortality, Dr. Pisano said.
“We need this trial to help us learn how to improve the process for identifying high-risk patients and how to utilize both of these technologies better,” said Mitchell Schnall, MD, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania. He is cochair of the ECOG-ACRIN trial group, which is corunning TMIST.
“Look, we all know that 3-D sees more lesions, but consequently, more women are having additional procedures, including biopsies and excisions. The question that TMIST asks is whether that huge expenditure of time, money, and psychological stress is worth it in terms of better outcomes for each person who has the experience,” Dr. Schnall said in an interview.
“One size should not fit all in breast cancer screening, and the TMIST trial can show the way to a precision approach to screening,” he said.
But, earlier this year, Daniel Kopans, MD, professor of radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview that TMIST is a “huge waste of money.”
He believes that “radiologists who are experienced in using [3-D] for screening will not go back.
“It would be malpractice since they know there are cancers that they will miss on [2-D] that they can find on tomosynthesis,” said Dr. Kopans. He was involved in the development of the first 3-D unit but no longer profits from its sales because his group’s patent has expired.
TMIST was conceived before 3-D mammogram took off clinically, which may explain the trial’s enrollment and site participation woes. In the lag time between the initial trial design (2012) and study start date (2017), clinical practice in the United States and Canada shifted quickly to embrace the newer technology.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In September, an advisory board to the National Cancer Institute overwhelmingly voted to form a working group to review the continued funding and running of its largest cancer screening trial. But the lone abstaining board member suggested that the reevaluation was a smoke screen for ending the $100 million Tomosynthesis Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST).
“We’re going to have a working group to kill the trial,” Peter Adamson, MD, of Sanofi, commented in an interpretation of the NCI’s intent. The randomized trial, which began enrolling women in 2017, is comparing tomosynthesis, or three-dimensional (3-D) mammography, with older, less expensive 2-D technology.
The NCI’s move to reevaluate TMIST comes 6 months after Medscape Medical News reported that the projected 165,000-women study was lagging in enrollment of both patients and participating sites/physicians.
Enlisting sites is difficult, in part because radiologists – informed by their experience and previous research results – already believe that the 3-D technology is superior, commented two TMIST study investigators at that time.
Furthermore, experts who were quoted in the Medscape story said that radiology practice in the United States has substantially transitioned to 3-D and will continue to do so. This point was supported by a review of imaging market data.
At the September virtual meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board, which was first reported by the Cancer Letter, Philip Castle, PhD, MPH, director of the NCI’s division of cancer prevention, said it was “time to reevaluate TMIST’s feasibility and relevance.”
There is also a need to “examine the utility of TMIST, given the unanticipated challenges due to the pandemic,” he said, referring to low accrual of patients in 2020.
TMIST is “a huge budget item,” and accrual has been a problem “for years – essentially since the trial began,” added Ned Sharpless, MD, director of the NCI.
Fourteen advisory board members voted in favor of creating the working group to review the trial. The lone abstention, as noted above, was from Dr. Adamson, who is global head of oncology development and pediatric innovation at Sanofi and is also professor emeritus, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dr. Adamson said that he was “not denying the impact” of COVID-19 but speculated that other clinical trials have had the same problem.
He also wondered whether COVID-19 was an “excuse” for bringing TMIST to a “public forum” and objected to the fact that TMIST investigators were not present and had not been invited to offer “an action plan” to remedy their trial’s woes.
Dr. Castle explained that COVID-19 had reduced TMIST’s monthly patient accrual by 50% from March to August, compared with recent preceding months. The underaccrual “will likely result in delayed outcomes and escalating costs.”
However, TMIST was staggeringly behind in accrual even before COVID-19. The trial has averaged less than 1,500 women a month over the past 2 years, yet it needed to average 5,500 a month to meet accrual goals, Dr. Castle noted.
Further, Dr. Castle suggested that TMIST’s contribution to mammography practice may be negligible, citing three factors: changes in the imaging market, earlier research results, and other ongoing major trials of 3-D mammography.
“[The] relevance of the [TMIST] data by the completion of the trial is uncertain because of 3-D market ... penetrance by the conclusion of the trial,” Dr. Castle said. Even with optimistic accrual projections, study completion and reporting would occur somewhere between 2029 and 2032 – not in 2025, as originally planned.
Currently, 68% of certified mammography facilities in the United States have one or more 3-D units, and 40% of all units are 3-D, he noted. (However, as previously reported, this latter statistic on total units is likely an undercount because all 3-D units have a built-in 2-D function, but the two components in a single machine are equally counted by the Food and Drug Administration – even when 3-D is exclusively used.)
Dr. Castle also summarized earlier observational and randomized trial data on tomosynthesis mammography: “Evidence is already available suggesting that 3-D is no worse and probably better than 2-D.”
Additionally, he reviewed three other European mammography trials involving 3-D technology (in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway) and said that they will contribute “additional informative data.”
Notably, Dr. Adamson did not object to these critical points but said the “approach” taken by the NCI advisory board at this meeting was “incredibly disturbing.”
Dr. Castle defended himself, saying “nowhere” in his presentation was there any mention that the trial would be “shut down.”
Dr. Sharpless then interjected: “There is no easy way to do this. TMIST is the most troubled of our trials [in prevention and screening] from an accrual point of view.”
TMIST investigators respond
A pair of TMIST investigators commented about the NCI’s planned reevaluation – and what it means.
Etta D. Pisano, MD, the study’s principal investigator, accented the positive: “We have heard nothing of suspending TMIST and are ready to work with NCI to reach TMIST endpoints more efficiently,” she said in an interview.
She also offered a positive spin on TMIST enrollment and trial site enlistment. “Enrollment quadrupled and trial sites doubled in the 14 months prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. An unheard of 19% of the 30,000 women enrolled at 99 sites are African American.”
The trial has “momentum,” said Dr. Pisano, who is also chief research officer at the American College of Radiology.
Dr. Castle, however, noted that enrollment is far behind schedule; the 30,000 women who have been enrolled so far represent less than a quarter of the planned enrollment of 165,000 women, due by the end of 2020.
TMIST is designed to learn whether 3-D mammography is better at finding – and reducing the rate of – potentially lethal cancers than older 2-D technology.
Most 3-D systems are used in conjunction with 2-D. First, two static images of the breast are taken (2-D), and then the unit moves in an arc, taking multiple images of the breast (3-D). This allows radiologists to flip through the images like pages in a book and is considered to offer a superior read of the breast.
TMIST uses “advanced” breast cancers as a novel surrogate outcome. The trial period is 4.5 years, during which women are screened annually to determine which imaging technology results in fewer advanced cancers. These include larger HER2-positive and triple-negative malignancies; those associated with positive nodes; and metastatic disease.
These malignancies correlate with breast cancer mortality, Dr. Pisano said.
“We need this trial to help us learn how to improve the process for identifying high-risk patients and how to utilize both of these technologies better,” said Mitchell Schnall, MD, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania. He is cochair of the ECOG-ACRIN trial group, which is corunning TMIST.
“Look, we all know that 3-D sees more lesions, but consequently, more women are having additional procedures, including biopsies and excisions. The question that TMIST asks is whether that huge expenditure of time, money, and psychological stress is worth it in terms of better outcomes for each person who has the experience,” Dr. Schnall said in an interview.
“One size should not fit all in breast cancer screening, and the TMIST trial can show the way to a precision approach to screening,” he said.
But, earlier this year, Daniel Kopans, MD, professor of radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview that TMIST is a “huge waste of money.”
He believes that “radiologists who are experienced in using [3-D] for screening will not go back.
“It would be malpractice since they know there are cancers that they will miss on [2-D] that they can find on tomosynthesis,” said Dr. Kopans. He was involved in the development of the first 3-D unit but no longer profits from its sales because his group’s patent has expired.
TMIST was conceived before 3-D mammogram took off clinically, which may explain the trial’s enrollment and site participation woes. In the lag time between the initial trial design (2012) and study start date (2017), clinical practice in the United States and Canada shifted quickly to embrace the newer technology.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hair dye and cancer study ‘offers some reassurance’
Findings limited to White women in United States
The largest study of its kind has found no positive association between personal use of permanent hair dye and the risk for most cancers and cancer mortality.
The findings come from the Nurses’ Health Study, an ongoing prospective cohort study of more than 117,000 women who have been followed for 36 years and who did not have cancer at baseline.
The findings were published online on September 2 in the BMJ.
The results “offer some reassurance against concerns that personal use of permanent hair dyes might be associated with increased cancer risk or mortality,” write the investigators, with first author Yin Zhang, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.
The findings, which are limited to White women in the United States, indicate correlation, not causation, the authors emphasize.
Nevertheless, the researchers found an increased risk for some cancers among hair dye users, especially with greater cumulative dose (200 or more uses during the study period). The risk was increased for basal cell carcinoma, breast cancer (specifically, estrogen receptor negative [ER–], progesterone receptor negative [PR–], and hormone receptor negative [ER–, PR–]), and ovarian cancer.
A British expert not involved in the study dismissed these findings. “The reported associations are very weak, and, given the number of associations reported in this manuscript, they are very likely to be chance findings,” commented Paul Pharoah, PhD, professor of cancer epidemiology at the University of Cambridge (England).
“For the cancers where an increase in risk is reported, the results are not compelling. Even if they were real findings, the associations may not be cause-and-effect, and, even if they were causal associations, the magnitude of the effects are so small that any risk would be trivial.
“In short, none of the findings reported in this manuscript suggest that women who use hair dye are putting themselves at increased risk of cancer,” he stated.
A U.S. researcher who has previously coauthored a study suggesting an association between hair dye and breast cancer agreed that the increases in risk reported in this current study are “small.” But they are “of interest,” especially for breast and ovarian cancer, said Alexandra White, PhD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Hair dyes include compounds that “are not just potential carcinogens but also act as endocrine disruptors,” she said in an interview.
“In both breast and ovarian cancer, we know that hormones play an important part in the etiology ... so it’s biologically plausible that you would see [these associations in the current study],” added Dr. White, who was approached for comment.
However, she added that, even with the “modest” 20%-28% increase in the relative risk for certain breast cancers linked to a heavy cumulative dose of dyes in the current study, “there doesn’t seem to be any strong association with any cancer type.”
But she also pointed out that the most outstanding risk association was among ER–/PR– breast cancers, which are the “most aggressive and difficult to treat,” and thus the new findings are “important.”
Dr. White is the lead author of a 2019 study that received a lot of media attention because it rang an alarm bell about hair dyes and breast cancer risk.
That study concluded that ever using permanent hair dye or hair straighteners was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer than never using them and that this higher risk was especially associated with Black women. However, the study participants were from the prospective Sister Study. The participants in that study had no history of breast cancer, but they each had at least one sister who did. This family history of breast cancer may represent selection bias.
With changes in the 1980s, even safer now?
The study of hair dyes and cancer has “major public health implications” because the use of hair dye is widespread, Dr. Zhang and colleagues write in their article. They estimate that 50% to 80% of women and 10% of men aged 40 years and older in the United States and Europe use hair dye.
Permanent hair dyes “pose the greatest potential concern,” they stated, adding that these account for approximately 80% of hair dyes used in the United States and Europe and an even higher percentage in Asia.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies occupational exposure to hair dyes as probably carcinogenic, but the carcinogenicity resulting from personal use of hair dyes is not classifiable – thus, there is no warning about at-home usage.
Notably, there was “a huge and very important” change in hair dye ingredients in the 1980s after the Food and Drug Administration warned about some chemicals in permanent hair dyes and the cosmetic industry altered their formulas, lead author Dr. Zhang said.
However, the researchers could not analyze use before and after the changes because not enough women reported first use of permanent hair dye after 1980 (only 1890 of 117,200 participants).
“We could expect that the current ingredients should make it safer,” Dr. Zhang said.
Study details
The researchers report that ever-users of permanent hair dyes had no significant increases in risk for solid cancers (n = 20,805; hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.01) or hematopoietic cancers overall (n = 1,807; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91-1.10) compared with nonusers.
Additionally, ever-users did not have an increased risk for most specific cancers or cancer-related death (n = 4,860; HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.02).
As noted above, there were some exceptions.
Basal cell carcinoma risk was slightly increased for ever-users (n = 22,560; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08). Cumulative dose (a calculation of duration and frequency) was positively associated with risk for ER– breast cancer, PR– breast cancer, ER–/PR– breast cancer, and ovarian cancer, with risk rising in accordance with the total amount of dye.
Notably, at a cumulative dose of ≥200 uses, there was a 20% increase in the relative risk for ER- breast cancer (n = 1521; HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41; P value for trend, .03). At the same cumulative dose, there was a 28% increase in the relative risk for ER-/PR- breast cancer (n = 1287; HR, 1.28, 95% CI, 1.08-1.52; P value for trend, .006).
In addition, an increased risk for Hodgkin lymphoma was observed, but only for women with naturally dark hair (the calculation was based on 70 women, 24 of whom had dark hair).
In a press statement, senior author Eva Schernhammer, PhD, of Harvard and the Medical University of Vienna, said the results “justify further prospective validation.”
She also explained that there are many variables to consider in this research, including different populations and countries, different susceptibility genotypes, different exposure settings (personal use vs. occupational exposure), and different colors of the permanent hair dyes used (dark dyes vs. light dyes).
Geographic location is a particularly important variable, suggested the study authors.
They pointed out that Europe, but not the United States, banned some individual hair dye ingredients that were considered carcinogenic during both the 1980s and 2000s. One country has even tighter oversight: “The most restrictive regulation of hair dyes exists in Japan, where cosmetic products are considered equivalent to drugs.”
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The study authors and Dr. White have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Findings limited to White women in United States
Findings limited to White women in United States
The largest study of its kind has found no positive association between personal use of permanent hair dye and the risk for most cancers and cancer mortality.
The findings come from the Nurses’ Health Study, an ongoing prospective cohort study of more than 117,000 women who have been followed for 36 years and who did not have cancer at baseline.
The findings were published online on September 2 in the BMJ.
The results “offer some reassurance against concerns that personal use of permanent hair dyes might be associated with increased cancer risk or mortality,” write the investigators, with first author Yin Zhang, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.
The findings, which are limited to White women in the United States, indicate correlation, not causation, the authors emphasize.
Nevertheless, the researchers found an increased risk for some cancers among hair dye users, especially with greater cumulative dose (200 or more uses during the study period). The risk was increased for basal cell carcinoma, breast cancer (specifically, estrogen receptor negative [ER–], progesterone receptor negative [PR–], and hormone receptor negative [ER–, PR–]), and ovarian cancer.
A British expert not involved in the study dismissed these findings. “The reported associations are very weak, and, given the number of associations reported in this manuscript, they are very likely to be chance findings,” commented Paul Pharoah, PhD, professor of cancer epidemiology at the University of Cambridge (England).
“For the cancers where an increase in risk is reported, the results are not compelling. Even if they were real findings, the associations may not be cause-and-effect, and, even if they were causal associations, the magnitude of the effects are so small that any risk would be trivial.
“In short, none of the findings reported in this manuscript suggest that women who use hair dye are putting themselves at increased risk of cancer,” he stated.
A U.S. researcher who has previously coauthored a study suggesting an association between hair dye and breast cancer agreed that the increases in risk reported in this current study are “small.” But they are “of interest,” especially for breast and ovarian cancer, said Alexandra White, PhD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Hair dyes include compounds that “are not just potential carcinogens but also act as endocrine disruptors,” she said in an interview.
“In both breast and ovarian cancer, we know that hormones play an important part in the etiology ... so it’s biologically plausible that you would see [these associations in the current study],” added Dr. White, who was approached for comment.
However, she added that, even with the “modest” 20%-28% increase in the relative risk for certain breast cancers linked to a heavy cumulative dose of dyes in the current study, “there doesn’t seem to be any strong association with any cancer type.”
But she also pointed out that the most outstanding risk association was among ER–/PR– breast cancers, which are the “most aggressive and difficult to treat,” and thus the new findings are “important.”
Dr. White is the lead author of a 2019 study that received a lot of media attention because it rang an alarm bell about hair dyes and breast cancer risk.
That study concluded that ever using permanent hair dye or hair straighteners was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer than never using them and that this higher risk was especially associated with Black women. However, the study participants were from the prospective Sister Study. The participants in that study had no history of breast cancer, but they each had at least one sister who did. This family history of breast cancer may represent selection bias.
With changes in the 1980s, even safer now?
The study of hair dyes and cancer has “major public health implications” because the use of hair dye is widespread, Dr. Zhang and colleagues write in their article. They estimate that 50% to 80% of women and 10% of men aged 40 years and older in the United States and Europe use hair dye.
Permanent hair dyes “pose the greatest potential concern,” they stated, adding that these account for approximately 80% of hair dyes used in the United States and Europe and an even higher percentage in Asia.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies occupational exposure to hair dyes as probably carcinogenic, but the carcinogenicity resulting from personal use of hair dyes is not classifiable – thus, there is no warning about at-home usage.
Notably, there was “a huge and very important” change in hair dye ingredients in the 1980s after the Food and Drug Administration warned about some chemicals in permanent hair dyes and the cosmetic industry altered their formulas, lead author Dr. Zhang said.
However, the researchers could not analyze use before and after the changes because not enough women reported first use of permanent hair dye after 1980 (only 1890 of 117,200 participants).
“We could expect that the current ingredients should make it safer,” Dr. Zhang said.
Study details
The researchers report that ever-users of permanent hair dyes had no significant increases in risk for solid cancers (n = 20,805; hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.01) or hematopoietic cancers overall (n = 1,807; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91-1.10) compared with nonusers.
Additionally, ever-users did not have an increased risk for most specific cancers or cancer-related death (n = 4,860; HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.02).
As noted above, there were some exceptions.
Basal cell carcinoma risk was slightly increased for ever-users (n = 22,560; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08). Cumulative dose (a calculation of duration and frequency) was positively associated with risk for ER– breast cancer, PR– breast cancer, ER–/PR– breast cancer, and ovarian cancer, with risk rising in accordance with the total amount of dye.
Notably, at a cumulative dose of ≥200 uses, there was a 20% increase in the relative risk for ER- breast cancer (n = 1521; HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41; P value for trend, .03). At the same cumulative dose, there was a 28% increase in the relative risk for ER-/PR- breast cancer (n = 1287; HR, 1.28, 95% CI, 1.08-1.52; P value for trend, .006).
In addition, an increased risk for Hodgkin lymphoma was observed, but only for women with naturally dark hair (the calculation was based on 70 women, 24 of whom had dark hair).
In a press statement, senior author Eva Schernhammer, PhD, of Harvard and the Medical University of Vienna, said the results “justify further prospective validation.”
She also explained that there are many variables to consider in this research, including different populations and countries, different susceptibility genotypes, different exposure settings (personal use vs. occupational exposure), and different colors of the permanent hair dyes used (dark dyes vs. light dyes).
Geographic location is a particularly important variable, suggested the study authors.
They pointed out that Europe, but not the United States, banned some individual hair dye ingredients that were considered carcinogenic during both the 1980s and 2000s. One country has even tighter oversight: “The most restrictive regulation of hair dyes exists in Japan, where cosmetic products are considered equivalent to drugs.”
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The study authors and Dr. White have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The largest study of its kind has found no positive association between personal use of permanent hair dye and the risk for most cancers and cancer mortality.
The findings come from the Nurses’ Health Study, an ongoing prospective cohort study of more than 117,000 women who have been followed for 36 years and who did not have cancer at baseline.
The findings were published online on September 2 in the BMJ.
The results “offer some reassurance against concerns that personal use of permanent hair dyes might be associated with increased cancer risk or mortality,” write the investigators, with first author Yin Zhang, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.
The findings, which are limited to White women in the United States, indicate correlation, not causation, the authors emphasize.
Nevertheless, the researchers found an increased risk for some cancers among hair dye users, especially with greater cumulative dose (200 or more uses during the study period). The risk was increased for basal cell carcinoma, breast cancer (specifically, estrogen receptor negative [ER–], progesterone receptor negative [PR–], and hormone receptor negative [ER–, PR–]), and ovarian cancer.
A British expert not involved in the study dismissed these findings. “The reported associations are very weak, and, given the number of associations reported in this manuscript, they are very likely to be chance findings,” commented Paul Pharoah, PhD, professor of cancer epidemiology at the University of Cambridge (England).
“For the cancers where an increase in risk is reported, the results are not compelling. Even if they were real findings, the associations may not be cause-and-effect, and, even if they were causal associations, the magnitude of the effects are so small that any risk would be trivial.
“In short, none of the findings reported in this manuscript suggest that women who use hair dye are putting themselves at increased risk of cancer,” he stated.
A U.S. researcher who has previously coauthored a study suggesting an association between hair dye and breast cancer agreed that the increases in risk reported in this current study are “small.” But they are “of interest,” especially for breast and ovarian cancer, said Alexandra White, PhD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Hair dyes include compounds that “are not just potential carcinogens but also act as endocrine disruptors,” she said in an interview.
“In both breast and ovarian cancer, we know that hormones play an important part in the etiology ... so it’s biologically plausible that you would see [these associations in the current study],” added Dr. White, who was approached for comment.
However, she added that, even with the “modest” 20%-28% increase in the relative risk for certain breast cancers linked to a heavy cumulative dose of dyes in the current study, “there doesn’t seem to be any strong association with any cancer type.”
But she also pointed out that the most outstanding risk association was among ER–/PR– breast cancers, which are the “most aggressive and difficult to treat,” and thus the new findings are “important.”
Dr. White is the lead author of a 2019 study that received a lot of media attention because it rang an alarm bell about hair dyes and breast cancer risk.
That study concluded that ever using permanent hair dye or hair straighteners was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer than never using them and that this higher risk was especially associated with Black women. However, the study participants were from the prospective Sister Study. The participants in that study had no history of breast cancer, but they each had at least one sister who did. This family history of breast cancer may represent selection bias.
With changes in the 1980s, even safer now?
The study of hair dyes and cancer has “major public health implications” because the use of hair dye is widespread, Dr. Zhang and colleagues write in their article. They estimate that 50% to 80% of women and 10% of men aged 40 years and older in the United States and Europe use hair dye.
Permanent hair dyes “pose the greatest potential concern,” they stated, adding that these account for approximately 80% of hair dyes used in the United States and Europe and an even higher percentage in Asia.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies occupational exposure to hair dyes as probably carcinogenic, but the carcinogenicity resulting from personal use of hair dyes is not classifiable – thus, there is no warning about at-home usage.
Notably, there was “a huge and very important” change in hair dye ingredients in the 1980s after the Food and Drug Administration warned about some chemicals in permanent hair dyes and the cosmetic industry altered their formulas, lead author Dr. Zhang said.
However, the researchers could not analyze use before and after the changes because not enough women reported first use of permanent hair dye after 1980 (only 1890 of 117,200 participants).
“We could expect that the current ingredients should make it safer,” Dr. Zhang said.
Study details
The researchers report that ever-users of permanent hair dyes had no significant increases in risk for solid cancers (n = 20,805; hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.01) or hematopoietic cancers overall (n = 1,807; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91-1.10) compared with nonusers.
Additionally, ever-users did not have an increased risk for most specific cancers or cancer-related death (n = 4,860; HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.02).
As noted above, there were some exceptions.
Basal cell carcinoma risk was slightly increased for ever-users (n = 22,560; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08). Cumulative dose (a calculation of duration and frequency) was positively associated with risk for ER– breast cancer, PR– breast cancer, ER–/PR– breast cancer, and ovarian cancer, with risk rising in accordance with the total amount of dye.
Notably, at a cumulative dose of ≥200 uses, there was a 20% increase in the relative risk for ER- breast cancer (n = 1521; HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41; P value for trend, .03). At the same cumulative dose, there was a 28% increase in the relative risk for ER-/PR- breast cancer (n = 1287; HR, 1.28, 95% CI, 1.08-1.52; P value for trend, .006).
In addition, an increased risk for Hodgkin lymphoma was observed, but only for women with naturally dark hair (the calculation was based on 70 women, 24 of whom had dark hair).
In a press statement, senior author Eva Schernhammer, PhD, of Harvard and the Medical University of Vienna, said the results “justify further prospective validation.”
She also explained that there are many variables to consider in this research, including different populations and countries, different susceptibility genotypes, different exposure settings (personal use vs. occupational exposure), and different colors of the permanent hair dyes used (dark dyes vs. light dyes).
Geographic location is a particularly important variable, suggested the study authors.
They pointed out that Europe, but not the United States, banned some individual hair dye ingredients that were considered carcinogenic during both the 1980s and 2000s. One country has even tighter oversight: “The most restrictive regulation of hair dyes exists in Japan, where cosmetic products are considered equivalent to drugs.”
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The study authors and Dr. White have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ASCO says ‘no’ to home infusions of cancer treatment, with exceptions
in a new policy statement issued July 31.
At the same time, it supports exceptions: namely, when individual physicians and patients, having jointly discussed risks and benefits, agree to have treatments administered in the home.
The new policy is limited to intravenous infusions of anticancer agents such as chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies, and other drugs — administered by health care personnel. It does not refer to injections.
The policy was prompted by regulatory flexibilities from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services made in response to the accelerating COVID-19 pandemic. “Among these flexibilities were new provisions that enabled providers to deliver care in a setting most appropriate – and safest – for individual patient circumstances,” which has “opened the path for potential increases in use of home infusion for anticancer therapy,” says ASCO.
“We’re not ready to endorse [chemo at home] as a general policy until we have evidence that it’s safe. At the same time, the policy gives physicians and patients autonomy to respond to whatever situation they find themselves in,” Stephen Grubbs, MD, ASCO’s senior director of clinical affairs, said in an interview.
“Antineoplastic drugs are effective at treating cancer but can be extremely toxic to normal human cells,” reads the statement, which was written by a group of about 25 professionals, including Grubbs and other ASCO staff as well as independent advisers.
“There is a paucity of evidence directly comparing the safety of chemotherapy infusions in the home and outpatient settings,” the ASCO policy explains.
ASCO’s policy acknowledges that there are data “from other countries demonstrating that ... home infusion can be safe, well-tolerated, and may be preferred by some patients.” But such data are limited and only apply “to certain circumstances and for specific agents,” it adds.
One US cancer center (in Philadelphia) already has an established chemo-at-home program and has seen an increase in its use during the pandemic, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Approached for comment, Justin Bekelman, MD, director of the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation in Philadelphia, interpreted the new ASCO policy in a positive light.
“Physicians at the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania and ASCO agree – home-based cancer therapy with oncologist oversight and well-designed safety protocols can be a safe option for patients with cancer,” he said in a statement.
ASCO says its existing safety standards “may be difficult to satisfy in the home infusion context,” including for safely resolving life-threatening emergencies.
Grubbs said that in the worst-case scenario, such as anaphylaxis, “you can die from [it] if you don’t manage it quickly and properly.”
“When I was practicing, we always had a physician present right next to the infusion area because these are severe reactions that happen very quickly,” he said, adding that “several a year” occurred when he practiced full-time.
Also, chemotherapy spills are a “big deal” in the home, as clean-up may be complex and difficult, added Grubbs.
Data from ASCO’s PracticeNET program show that in the first months (March and April) of the COVID-19 pandemic, chemotherapy visits to infusion suites were not reduced in a dataset of 16 US practices, he noted. However, there are exceptions and variance based on location, Grubbs said, such as “hot spots” including New York City in April.
While the pandemic has no end in sight, ASCO issued a set of six recommendations for use of anticancer therapies infused in the home. First, they call for independent, publicly funded research to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of home infusion of anticancer therapy.
Next in importance, ASCO wants the current temporary regulation change from CMS due to the pandemic to end.
“CMS should not extend the temporary flexibility related to home infusion for Part B cancer drugs that was approved as part of their response to the public health emergency,” they state.
Even before the pandemic, changes were afoot. Under the 21st Century Cures Act, which was passed in 2019 and will be implemented in 2021, CMS instituted a permanent home infusion therapy services benefit, which includes anticancer therapies. It “remains to be seen what, if any, shift away from outpatient infusion facilities will occur,” observes ASCO in its policy statement.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in a new policy statement issued July 31.
At the same time, it supports exceptions: namely, when individual physicians and patients, having jointly discussed risks and benefits, agree to have treatments administered in the home.
The new policy is limited to intravenous infusions of anticancer agents such as chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies, and other drugs — administered by health care personnel. It does not refer to injections.
The policy was prompted by regulatory flexibilities from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services made in response to the accelerating COVID-19 pandemic. “Among these flexibilities were new provisions that enabled providers to deliver care in a setting most appropriate – and safest – for individual patient circumstances,” which has “opened the path for potential increases in use of home infusion for anticancer therapy,” says ASCO.
“We’re not ready to endorse [chemo at home] as a general policy until we have evidence that it’s safe. At the same time, the policy gives physicians and patients autonomy to respond to whatever situation they find themselves in,” Stephen Grubbs, MD, ASCO’s senior director of clinical affairs, said in an interview.
“Antineoplastic drugs are effective at treating cancer but can be extremely toxic to normal human cells,” reads the statement, which was written by a group of about 25 professionals, including Grubbs and other ASCO staff as well as independent advisers.
“There is a paucity of evidence directly comparing the safety of chemotherapy infusions in the home and outpatient settings,” the ASCO policy explains.
ASCO’s policy acknowledges that there are data “from other countries demonstrating that ... home infusion can be safe, well-tolerated, and may be preferred by some patients.” But such data are limited and only apply “to certain circumstances and for specific agents,” it adds.
One US cancer center (in Philadelphia) already has an established chemo-at-home program and has seen an increase in its use during the pandemic, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Approached for comment, Justin Bekelman, MD, director of the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation in Philadelphia, interpreted the new ASCO policy in a positive light.
“Physicians at the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania and ASCO agree – home-based cancer therapy with oncologist oversight and well-designed safety protocols can be a safe option for patients with cancer,” he said in a statement.
ASCO says its existing safety standards “may be difficult to satisfy in the home infusion context,” including for safely resolving life-threatening emergencies.
Grubbs said that in the worst-case scenario, such as anaphylaxis, “you can die from [it] if you don’t manage it quickly and properly.”
“When I was practicing, we always had a physician present right next to the infusion area because these are severe reactions that happen very quickly,” he said, adding that “several a year” occurred when he practiced full-time.
Also, chemotherapy spills are a “big deal” in the home, as clean-up may be complex and difficult, added Grubbs.
Data from ASCO’s PracticeNET program show that in the first months (March and April) of the COVID-19 pandemic, chemotherapy visits to infusion suites were not reduced in a dataset of 16 US practices, he noted. However, there are exceptions and variance based on location, Grubbs said, such as “hot spots” including New York City in April.
While the pandemic has no end in sight, ASCO issued a set of six recommendations for use of anticancer therapies infused in the home. First, they call for independent, publicly funded research to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of home infusion of anticancer therapy.
Next in importance, ASCO wants the current temporary regulation change from CMS due to the pandemic to end.
“CMS should not extend the temporary flexibility related to home infusion for Part B cancer drugs that was approved as part of their response to the public health emergency,” they state.
Even before the pandemic, changes were afoot. Under the 21st Century Cures Act, which was passed in 2019 and will be implemented in 2021, CMS instituted a permanent home infusion therapy services benefit, which includes anticancer therapies. It “remains to be seen what, if any, shift away from outpatient infusion facilities will occur,” observes ASCO in its policy statement.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in a new policy statement issued July 31.
At the same time, it supports exceptions: namely, when individual physicians and patients, having jointly discussed risks and benefits, agree to have treatments administered in the home.
The new policy is limited to intravenous infusions of anticancer agents such as chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies, and other drugs — administered by health care personnel. It does not refer to injections.
The policy was prompted by regulatory flexibilities from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services made in response to the accelerating COVID-19 pandemic. “Among these flexibilities were new provisions that enabled providers to deliver care in a setting most appropriate – and safest – for individual patient circumstances,” which has “opened the path for potential increases in use of home infusion for anticancer therapy,” says ASCO.
“We’re not ready to endorse [chemo at home] as a general policy until we have evidence that it’s safe. At the same time, the policy gives physicians and patients autonomy to respond to whatever situation they find themselves in,” Stephen Grubbs, MD, ASCO’s senior director of clinical affairs, said in an interview.
“Antineoplastic drugs are effective at treating cancer but can be extremely toxic to normal human cells,” reads the statement, which was written by a group of about 25 professionals, including Grubbs and other ASCO staff as well as independent advisers.
“There is a paucity of evidence directly comparing the safety of chemotherapy infusions in the home and outpatient settings,” the ASCO policy explains.
ASCO’s policy acknowledges that there are data “from other countries demonstrating that ... home infusion can be safe, well-tolerated, and may be preferred by some patients.” But such data are limited and only apply “to certain circumstances and for specific agents,” it adds.
One US cancer center (in Philadelphia) already has an established chemo-at-home program and has seen an increase in its use during the pandemic, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Approached for comment, Justin Bekelman, MD, director of the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation in Philadelphia, interpreted the new ASCO policy in a positive light.
“Physicians at the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania and ASCO agree – home-based cancer therapy with oncologist oversight and well-designed safety protocols can be a safe option for patients with cancer,” he said in a statement.
ASCO says its existing safety standards “may be difficult to satisfy in the home infusion context,” including for safely resolving life-threatening emergencies.
Grubbs said that in the worst-case scenario, such as anaphylaxis, “you can die from [it] if you don’t manage it quickly and properly.”
“When I was practicing, we always had a physician present right next to the infusion area because these are severe reactions that happen very quickly,” he said, adding that “several a year” occurred when he practiced full-time.
Also, chemotherapy spills are a “big deal” in the home, as clean-up may be complex and difficult, added Grubbs.
Data from ASCO’s PracticeNET program show that in the first months (March and April) of the COVID-19 pandemic, chemotherapy visits to infusion suites were not reduced in a dataset of 16 US practices, he noted. However, there are exceptions and variance based on location, Grubbs said, such as “hot spots” including New York City in April.
While the pandemic has no end in sight, ASCO issued a set of six recommendations for use of anticancer therapies infused in the home. First, they call for independent, publicly funded research to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of home infusion of anticancer therapy.
Next in importance, ASCO wants the current temporary regulation change from CMS due to the pandemic to end.
“CMS should not extend the temporary flexibility related to home infusion for Part B cancer drugs that was approved as part of their response to the public health emergency,” they state.
Even before the pandemic, changes were afoot. Under the 21st Century Cures Act, which was passed in 2019 and will be implemented in 2021, CMS instituted a permanent home infusion therapy services benefit, which includes anticancer therapies. It “remains to be seen what, if any, shift away from outpatient infusion facilities will occur,” observes ASCO in its policy statement.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves triple drug combo for melanoma
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the triple-therapy combination of atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus cobimetinib (Cotellic) and vemurafenib (Zelboraf) for the treatment of BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma, according to a press statement from Genentech, which owns all three drugs.
This is the first melanoma indication for the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab; the other two drugs, cobimetinib and vemurafenib, are a MEK- plus BRAF-inhibitor combination previously approved for BRAF-mutated melanoma.
The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the randomized, phase 3 IMspire150 study from patients with previously untreated BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic or unresectable locally advanced melanoma.
Progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was improved by 4.5 months with the triple therapy compared to the doublet.
The addition of atezolizumab to cobimetinib and vemurafenib led to a longer median PFS of 15.1 months, compared to 10.6 months with placebo plus cobimetinib and vemurafenib (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 – 0.97; P = .025).
The most common adverse reactions (rate ≥ 20%) in patients who received the triple combination were rash (75%), musculoskeletal pain (62%), fatigue (51%), hepatotoxicity (50%), pyrexia (49%), nausea (30%), pruritus (26%), edema (26%), stomatitis (23%), hypothyroidism (22%), and photosensitivity reaction (21%).
The review was conducted under Project Orbis, an initiative of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence that facilitates concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the triple-therapy combination of atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus cobimetinib (Cotellic) and vemurafenib (Zelboraf) for the treatment of BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma, according to a press statement from Genentech, which owns all three drugs.
This is the first melanoma indication for the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab; the other two drugs, cobimetinib and vemurafenib, are a MEK- plus BRAF-inhibitor combination previously approved for BRAF-mutated melanoma.
The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the randomized, phase 3 IMspire150 study from patients with previously untreated BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic or unresectable locally advanced melanoma.
Progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was improved by 4.5 months with the triple therapy compared to the doublet.
The addition of atezolizumab to cobimetinib and vemurafenib led to a longer median PFS of 15.1 months, compared to 10.6 months with placebo plus cobimetinib and vemurafenib (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 – 0.97; P = .025).
The most common adverse reactions (rate ≥ 20%) in patients who received the triple combination were rash (75%), musculoskeletal pain (62%), fatigue (51%), hepatotoxicity (50%), pyrexia (49%), nausea (30%), pruritus (26%), edema (26%), stomatitis (23%), hypothyroidism (22%), and photosensitivity reaction (21%).
The review was conducted under Project Orbis, an initiative of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence that facilitates concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the triple-therapy combination of atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus cobimetinib (Cotellic) and vemurafenib (Zelboraf) for the treatment of BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma, according to a press statement from Genentech, which owns all three drugs.
This is the first melanoma indication for the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab; the other two drugs, cobimetinib and vemurafenib, are a MEK- plus BRAF-inhibitor combination previously approved for BRAF-mutated melanoma.
The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the randomized, phase 3 IMspire150 study from patients with previously untreated BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic or unresectable locally advanced melanoma.
Progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was improved by 4.5 months with the triple therapy compared to the doublet.
The addition of atezolizumab to cobimetinib and vemurafenib led to a longer median PFS of 15.1 months, compared to 10.6 months with placebo plus cobimetinib and vemurafenib (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 – 0.97; P = .025).
The most common adverse reactions (rate ≥ 20%) in patients who received the triple combination were rash (75%), musculoskeletal pain (62%), fatigue (51%), hepatotoxicity (50%), pyrexia (49%), nausea (30%), pruritus (26%), edema (26%), stomatitis (23%), hypothyroidism (22%), and photosensitivity reaction (21%).
The review was conducted under Project Orbis, an initiative of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence that facilitates concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a first, proton therapy bests radiotherapy in an RCT
Less toxicity in esophageal cancer
The results, from 107 evaluable patients, were published online July 25 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Proton therapy significantly reduced the total toxicity burden (TTB), a coprimary endpoint, report the study authors, led by Steven Lin, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
However, the investigators of the single-center trial acknowledge that the better toxicity outcome is accompanied by a caveat: TTB, which combines 11 adverse effects, was not a previously validated endpoint.
Efficacy was similar. Proton therapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) had nearly identical 3-year rates of progression-free survival (50.8% vs 51.2%), the other coprimary endpoint, as well as overall survival (44.5% vs 44.5%). Median follow-up was 44.1 months.
Quality of life outcomes were also not significantly different in the phase 2B trial, which was underpowered due to protocol anomalies, including 22 patients who were randomized to proton therapy but then denied insurance coverage, and thus participation in the trial.
Lack of validation of TTB “dampens the enthusiasm of a positive primary endpoint,” writes Charles Simone, MD, of the New York Proton Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, in an accompanying editorial.
TTB encompasses seven postoperative complications measured up to 30 days after surgery (such as reintubation) and six toxicities measured up to 12 months from randomization (such as pleural effusion and radiation pneumonitis); two of the adverse events — atrial fibrillation and pneumonia — were included in both categories, depending on the timing of the event.
The posterior mean TTB, which is a synthesis of the cumulative severity of adverse events, was 2.3 times higher for IMRT (39.9) than for proton therapy (17.4), the investigators report.
Simone believes the TTB measure — and associated significant reduction in events with protons compared to IMRT in the current study — has value, especially in “high-stakes malignancies” such as esophageal and lung cancers.
“They are two of only a few cancers where there is an expected mortality rate from treatment,” he told Medscape Medical News. “For proton therapy to reduce those toxicities [measured by TTB in esophageal patients] may be a real benefit.”
Asked for independent comment, Mark Langer, MD, IU Health Simon Cancer Center, Indiana, Indianapolis, said “the novel TTB was well put together and is a credit to the investigators.”
He explained that the esophagus is typically the focus of complications, but that events like atrial fibrillation are important because the esophagus runs down to the stomach and passes by the lungs and heart. “The investigators call attention to morbidities that we may not have previously recognized,” said Langer, a radiation oncologist who does not use protons, as Indiana does not have a unit.
Reduced toxicity is the main claim for superiority for proton therapy over conventional radiotherapy, but to date there has been little clinical evidence.
For example, a randomized trial in inoperable lung cancer published 2 years ago showed that proton therapy was not superior in reducing serious lung toxicity compared with IMRT.
“That trial really disillusioned a lot of people,” Simone commented.
But he points out that protons have been found to be superior compared with photon radiation in terms of toxicity in a variety of observational studies, including multicenter retrospective comparative analyses.
Trial closed early
The RCT conducted by Lin and colleagues, which began in 2012, randomly assigned 145 patients with newly diagnosed locally advanced esophageal cancer to one of the two modalities (72 IMRT and 73 proton therapy). The investigators allowed a wide variety of patients, including those with ECOG performance status 2, differing tumor locations, squamous cell and adenocarcinoma histologies, and unresectable and potentially resectable cases. However, only 107 patients were evaluable (61 IMRT and 46 proton therapy), as the trial did not report on those afore-mentioned patients denied insurance coverage for proton therapy after randomization and those patients in the IMRT group who refused that treatment and wanted proton therapy.
Patients received 50.4 Gy (CGE) with concurrent chemotherapy and 51 patients underwent surgery, generally 8-10 weeks following chemoradiation.
The full list of adverse events for the TTB measure for toxicities was atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, pericardial effusion, pleural effusion, pneumonia, and radiation pneumonitis. For post-op complications, the list was acute respiratory distress syndrome, anastomotic leak, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary embolism, reintubation, stroke, and pneumonia.
The most common toxicity was pleural effusion (in 24 patients on IMRT and 13 on proton therapy). The most common post-op complication was atrial fibrillation (in seven patients on IMRT and two on proton therapy).
Simone points out that combining these adverse events in the TTB measure allowed a relatively small number of participants and events to show statistically significant results “without statistically apparent differences for [some] individual events.”
The investigators highlight the fact that 80% of patients in the proton group received passive scattering proton therapy, an older technology that increases normal tissue exposure relative to more modern intensity-modulated proton therapy.
The trial closed early because of the start of the phase 3 NRG-GI006 trial. The stoppage was just before the preplanned third and final interim analysis, which would have exceeded the trial’s stopping boundary (due to a positive result for TTB).
“The now-activated NRG-GI006 phase 3 randomized trial should prove to be the gold standard comparison of protons versus IMRT for esophageal cancer,” writes Simone in his editorial.
The trial was supported by National Cancer Institute. Multiple study authors have financial ties to industry, including radiation therapy manufacturers. Simone has reported financial ties to Varian Medical Systems. Langer has reported no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Less toxicity in esophageal cancer
Less toxicity in esophageal cancer
The results, from 107 evaluable patients, were published online July 25 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Proton therapy significantly reduced the total toxicity burden (TTB), a coprimary endpoint, report the study authors, led by Steven Lin, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
However, the investigators of the single-center trial acknowledge that the better toxicity outcome is accompanied by a caveat: TTB, which combines 11 adverse effects, was not a previously validated endpoint.
Efficacy was similar. Proton therapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) had nearly identical 3-year rates of progression-free survival (50.8% vs 51.2%), the other coprimary endpoint, as well as overall survival (44.5% vs 44.5%). Median follow-up was 44.1 months.
Quality of life outcomes were also not significantly different in the phase 2B trial, which was underpowered due to protocol anomalies, including 22 patients who were randomized to proton therapy but then denied insurance coverage, and thus participation in the trial.
Lack of validation of TTB “dampens the enthusiasm of a positive primary endpoint,” writes Charles Simone, MD, of the New York Proton Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, in an accompanying editorial.
TTB encompasses seven postoperative complications measured up to 30 days after surgery (such as reintubation) and six toxicities measured up to 12 months from randomization (such as pleural effusion and radiation pneumonitis); two of the adverse events — atrial fibrillation and pneumonia — were included in both categories, depending on the timing of the event.
The posterior mean TTB, which is a synthesis of the cumulative severity of adverse events, was 2.3 times higher for IMRT (39.9) than for proton therapy (17.4), the investigators report.
Simone believes the TTB measure — and associated significant reduction in events with protons compared to IMRT in the current study — has value, especially in “high-stakes malignancies” such as esophageal and lung cancers.
“They are two of only a few cancers where there is an expected mortality rate from treatment,” he told Medscape Medical News. “For proton therapy to reduce those toxicities [measured by TTB in esophageal patients] may be a real benefit.”
Asked for independent comment, Mark Langer, MD, IU Health Simon Cancer Center, Indiana, Indianapolis, said “the novel TTB was well put together and is a credit to the investigators.”
He explained that the esophagus is typically the focus of complications, but that events like atrial fibrillation are important because the esophagus runs down to the stomach and passes by the lungs and heart. “The investigators call attention to morbidities that we may not have previously recognized,” said Langer, a radiation oncologist who does not use protons, as Indiana does not have a unit.
Reduced toxicity is the main claim for superiority for proton therapy over conventional radiotherapy, but to date there has been little clinical evidence.
For example, a randomized trial in inoperable lung cancer published 2 years ago showed that proton therapy was not superior in reducing serious lung toxicity compared with IMRT.
“That trial really disillusioned a lot of people,” Simone commented.
But he points out that protons have been found to be superior compared with photon radiation in terms of toxicity in a variety of observational studies, including multicenter retrospective comparative analyses.
Trial closed early
The RCT conducted by Lin and colleagues, which began in 2012, randomly assigned 145 patients with newly diagnosed locally advanced esophageal cancer to one of the two modalities (72 IMRT and 73 proton therapy). The investigators allowed a wide variety of patients, including those with ECOG performance status 2, differing tumor locations, squamous cell and adenocarcinoma histologies, and unresectable and potentially resectable cases. However, only 107 patients were evaluable (61 IMRT and 46 proton therapy), as the trial did not report on those afore-mentioned patients denied insurance coverage for proton therapy after randomization and those patients in the IMRT group who refused that treatment and wanted proton therapy.
Patients received 50.4 Gy (CGE) with concurrent chemotherapy and 51 patients underwent surgery, generally 8-10 weeks following chemoradiation.
The full list of adverse events for the TTB measure for toxicities was atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, pericardial effusion, pleural effusion, pneumonia, and radiation pneumonitis. For post-op complications, the list was acute respiratory distress syndrome, anastomotic leak, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary embolism, reintubation, stroke, and pneumonia.
The most common toxicity was pleural effusion (in 24 patients on IMRT and 13 on proton therapy). The most common post-op complication was atrial fibrillation (in seven patients on IMRT and two on proton therapy).
Simone points out that combining these adverse events in the TTB measure allowed a relatively small number of participants and events to show statistically significant results “without statistically apparent differences for [some] individual events.”
The investigators highlight the fact that 80% of patients in the proton group received passive scattering proton therapy, an older technology that increases normal tissue exposure relative to more modern intensity-modulated proton therapy.
The trial closed early because of the start of the phase 3 NRG-GI006 trial. The stoppage was just before the preplanned third and final interim analysis, which would have exceeded the trial’s stopping boundary (due to a positive result for TTB).
“The now-activated NRG-GI006 phase 3 randomized trial should prove to be the gold standard comparison of protons versus IMRT for esophageal cancer,” writes Simone in his editorial.
The trial was supported by National Cancer Institute. Multiple study authors have financial ties to industry, including radiation therapy manufacturers. Simone has reported financial ties to Varian Medical Systems. Langer has reported no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The results, from 107 evaluable patients, were published online July 25 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Proton therapy significantly reduced the total toxicity burden (TTB), a coprimary endpoint, report the study authors, led by Steven Lin, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
However, the investigators of the single-center trial acknowledge that the better toxicity outcome is accompanied by a caveat: TTB, which combines 11 adverse effects, was not a previously validated endpoint.
Efficacy was similar. Proton therapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) had nearly identical 3-year rates of progression-free survival (50.8% vs 51.2%), the other coprimary endpoint, as well as overall survival (44.5% vs 44.5%). Median follow-up was 44.1 months.
Quality of life outcomes were also not significantly different in the phase 2B trial, which was underpowered due to protocol anomalies, including 22 patients who were randomized to proton therapy but then denied insurance coverage, and thus participation in the trial.
Lack of validation of TTB “dampens the enthusiasm of a positive primary endpoint,” writes Charles Simone, MD, of the New York Proton Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, in an accompanying editorial.
TTB encompasses seven postoperative complications measured up to 30 days after surgery (such as reintubation) and six toxicities measured up to 12 months from randomization (such as pleural effusion and radiation pneumonitis); two of the adverse events — atrial fibrillation and pneumonia — were included in both categories, depending on the timing of the event.
The posterior mean TTB, which is a synthesis of the cumulative severity of adverse events, was 2.3 times higher for IMRT (39.9) than for proton therapy (17.4), the investigators report.
Simone believes the TTB measure — and associated significant reduction in events with protons compared to IMRT in the current study — has value, especially in “high-stakes malignancies” such as esophageal and lung cancers.
“They are two of only a few cancers where there is an expected mortality rate from treatment,” he told Medscape Medical News. “For proton therapy to reduce those toxicities [measured by TTB in esophageal patients] may be a real benefit.”
Asked for independent comment, Mark Langer, MD, IU Health Simon Cancer Center, Indiana, Indianapolis, said “the novel TTB was well put together and is a credit to the investigators.”
He explained that the esophagus is typically the focus of complications, but that events like atrial fibrillation are important because the esophagus runs down to the stomach and passes by the lungs and heart. “The investigators call attention to morbidities that we may not have previously recognized,” said Langer, a radiation oncologist who does not use protons, as Indiana does not have a unit.
Reduced toxicity is the main claim for superiority for proton therapy over conventional radiotherapy, but to date there has been little clinical evidence.
For example, a randomized trial in inoperable lung cancer published 2 years ago showed that proton therapy was not superior in reducing serious lung toxicity compared with IMRT.
“That trial really disillusioned a lot of people,” Simone commented.
But he points out that protons have been found to be superior compared with photon radiation in terms of toxicity in a variety of observational studies, including multicenter retrospective comparative analyses.
Trial closed early
The RCT conducted by Lin and colleagues, which began in 2012, randomly assigned 145 patients with newly diagnosed locally advanced esophageal cancer to one of the two modalities (72 IMRT and 73 proton therapy). The investigators allowed a wide variety of patients, including those with ECOG performance status 2, differing tumor locations, squamous cell and adenocarcinoma histologies, and unresectable and potentially resectable cases. However, only 107 patients were evaluable (61 IMRT and 46 proton therapy), as the trial did not report on those afore-mentioned patients denied insurance coverage for proton therapy after randomization and those patients in the IMRT group who refused that treatment and wanted proton therapy.
Patients received 50.4 Gy (CGE) with concurrent chemotherapy and 51 patients underwent surgery, generally 8-10 weeks following chemoradiation.
The full list of adverse events for the TTB measure for toxicities was atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, pericardial effusion, pleural effusion, pneumonia, and radiation pneumonitis. For post-op complications, the list was acute respiratory distress syndrome, anastomotic leak, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary embolism, reintubation, stroke, and pneumonia.
The most common toxicity was pleural effusion (in 24 patients on IMRT and 13 on proton therapy). The most common post-op complication was atrial fibrillation (in seven patients on IMRT and two on proton therapy).
Simone points out that combining these adverse events in the TTB measure allowed a relatively small number of participants and events to show statistically significant results “without statistically apparent differences for [some] individual events.”
The investigators highlight the fact that 80% of patients in the proton group received passive scattering proton therapy, an older technology that increases normal tissue exposure relative to more modern intensity-modulated proton therapy.
The trial closed early because of the start of the phase 3 NRG-GI006 trial. The stoppage was just before the preplanned third and final interim analysis, which would have exceeded the trial’s stopping boundary (due to a positive result for TTB).
“The now-activated NRG-GI006 phase 3 randomized trial should prove to be the gold standard comparison of protons versus IMRT for esophageal cancer,” writes Simone in his editorial.
The trial was supported by National Cancer Institute. Multiple study authors have financial ties to industry, including radiation therapy manufacturers. Simone has reported financial ties to Varian Medical Systems. Langer has reported no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.