Hematology News

In late October, a federal grand jury charged a Detroit-area medical oncologist Naveed Aslam, MD, in an indictment for his part in a scheme to illegally sell cancer drugs.

According to the indictment, Aslam acquired and sold more than $17 million in cancer drugs and personally netted more than $2.5 million during the scheme.

The charges against Aslam, filed on October 23 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, include 10 counts of illegally selling or trading prescription drugs and one count of conspiring to do so.

“Dr. Aslam’s alleged participation in this scheme not only allowed him to profit unlawfully from the sale of cancer drugs but it also posed a serious threat by potentially placing these medications into the wrong hands,” Cheyvoryea Gibson, special agent in charge of the FBI in Michigan, said in a press release announcing the indictment.

The investigation is being conducted jointly by the FBI, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and Homeland Security Investigations.

The indictment alleges that Aslam was recruited by an unnamed operator of a Michigan corporation that engaged in business as a retail pharmacy and in the wholesale distribution of expensive prescription drugs, largely oncology drugs.

According to the indictment, Aslam and the operator came to an agreement where Aslam would purchase these expensive drugs from an authorized distributor under the false pretense that he was going to prescribe them to patients.

Instead, Aslam allegedly “sold and transferred the prescription drugs” to or through the Michigan business, with involvement from the unnamed operator and a second unnamed individual.

The unnamed individuals “identified customers interested in buying prescription cancer drugs” and “communicated with Dr. Aslam about what cancer drugs were requested,” according to the press release. “Dr. Aslam used his access to certain cancer drugs through his medical practice, Somerset Hematology and Oncology, P.C., to order and purchase the cancer drugs from his supplier.”

The indictment lays out that Aslam allegedly profited from this scheme in several ways, which included charging the Michigan business more than he paid the distributor for the drugs, sharing the profits when the business resold the drugs at a markup, and receiving rebates and discounts from the distributor “based on the amount of qualifying drugs he purchased and resold.”

According to the indictment, the scheme ran from early 2019 to mid-2023 and included four antibody drug conjugates — trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), enfortumab vedotin (Padcev), tisotumab vedotin (Tivdak), and sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy) — and the monoclonal antibody mogamulizumab (Poteligeo) for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

By working with Aslam, the operatives “obtained prescription drugs from an authorized distributor that they would not otherwise have been permitted to purchase, and which they were able to sell at a profit,” according to the indictment.

Both the prosecuting assistant US attorney, Andrew Lievense, and Aslam’s defense lawyer, Daniel Dena, declined to comment for this news organization.

The prosecutor is seeking to recoup the more than $2.5 million Aslam allegedly pocketed, according to the indictment. The press release also noted that an “indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt.”
 

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

In late October, a federal grand jury charged a Detroit-area medical oncologist Naveed Aslam, MD, in an indictment for his part in a scheme to illegally sell cancer drugs.

According to the indictment, Aslam acquired and sold more than $17 million in cancer drugs and personally netted more than $2.5 million during the scheme.

The charges against Aslam, filed on October 23 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, include 10 counts of illegally selling or trading prescription drugs and one count of conspiring to do so.

“Dr. Aslam’s alleged participation in this scheme not only allowed him to profit unlawfully from the sale of cancer drugs but it also posed a serious threat by potentially placing these medications into the wrong hands,” Cheyvoryea Gibson, special agent in charge of the FBI in Michigan, said in a press release announcing the indictment.

The investigation is being conducted jointly by the FBI, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and Homeland Security Investigations.

The indictment alleges that Aslam was recruited by an unnamed operator of a Michigan corporation that engaged in business as a retail pharmacy and in the wholesale distribution of expensive prescription drugs, largely oncology drugs.

According to the indictment, Aslam and the operator came to an agreement where Aslam would purchase these expensive drugs from an authorized distributor under the false pretense that he was going to prescribe them to patients.

Instead, Aslam allegedly “sold and transferred the prescription drugs” to or through the Michigan business, with involvement from the unnamed operator and a second unnamed individual.

The unnamed individuals “identified customers interested in buying prescription cancer drugs” and “communicated with Dr. Aslam about what cancer drugs were requested,” according to the press release. “Dr. Aslam used his access to certain cancer drugs through his medical practice, Somerset Hematology and Oncology, P.C., to order and purchase the cancer drugs from his supplier.”

The indictment lays out that Aslam allegedly profited from this scheme in several ways, which included charging the Michigan business more than he paid the distributor for the drugs, sharing the profits when the business resold the drugs at a markup, and receiving rebates and discounts from the distributor “based on the amount of qualifying drugs he purchased and resold.”

According to the indictment, the scheme ran from early 2019 to mid-2023 and included four antibody drug conjugates — trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), enfortumab vedotin (Padcev), tisotumab vedotin (Tivdak), and sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy) — and the monoclonal antibody mogamulizumab (Poteligeo) for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

By working with Aslam, the operatives “obtained prescription drugs from an authorized distributor that they would not otherwise have been permitted to purchase, and which they were able to sell at a profit,” according to the indictment.

Both the prosecuting assistant US attorney, Andrew Lievense, and Aslam’s defense lawyer, Daniel Dena, declined to comment for this news organization.

The prosecutor is seeking to recoup the more than $2.5 million Aslam allegedly pocketed, according to the indictment. The press release also noted that an “indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt.”
 

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

In late October, a federal grand jury charged a Detroit-area medical oncologist Naveed Aslam, MD, in an indictment for his part in a scheme to illegally sell cancer drugs.

According to the indictment, Aslam acquired and sold more than $17 million in cancer drugs and personally netted more than $2.5 million during the scheme.

The charges against Aslam, filed on October 23 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, include 10 counts of illegally selling or trading prescription drugs and one count of conspiring to do so.

“Dr. Aslam’s alleged participation in this scheme not only allowed him to profit unlawfully from the sale of cancer drugs but it also posed a serious threat by potentially placing these medications into the wrong hands,” Cheyvoryea Gibson, special agent in charge of the FBI in Michigan, said in a press release announcing the indictment.

The investigation is being conducted jointly by the FBI, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and Homeland Security Investigations.

The indictment alleges that Aslam was recruited by an unnamed operator of a Michigan corporation that engaged in business as a retail pharmacy and in the wholesale distribution of expensive prescription drugs, largely oncology drugs.

According to the indictment, Aslam and the operator came to an agreement where Aslam would purchase these expensive drugs from an authorized distributor under the false pretense that he was going to prescribe them to patients.

Instead, Aslam allegedly “sold and transferred the prescription drugs” to or through the Michigan business, with involvement from the unnamed operator and a second unnamed individual.

The unnamed individuals “identified customers interested in buying prescription cancer drugs” and “communicated with Dr. Aslam about what cancer drugs were requested,” according to the press release. “Dr. Aslam used his access to certain cancer drugs through his medical practice, Somerset Hematology and Oncology, P.C., to order and purchase the cancer drugs from his supplier.”

The indictment lays out that Aslam allegedly profited from this scheme in several ways, which included charging the Michigan business more than he paid the distributor for the drugs, sharing the profits when the business resold the drugs at a markup, and receiving rebates and discounts from the distributor “based on the amount of qualifying drugs he purchased and resold.”

According to the indictment, the scheme ran from early 2019 to mid-2023 and included four antibody drug conjugates — trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), enfortumab vedotin (Padcev), tisotumab vedotin (Tivdak), and sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy) — and the monoclonal antibody mogamulizumab (Poteligeo) for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

By working with Aslam, the operatives “obtained prescription drugs from an authorized distributor that they would not otherwise have been permitted to purchase, and which they were able to sell at a profit,” according to the indictment.

Both the prosecuting assistant US attorney, Andrew Lievense, and Aslam’s defense lawyer, Daniel Dena, declined to comment for this news organization.

The prosecutor is seeking to recoup the more than $2.5 million Aslam allegedly pocketed, according to the indictment. The press release also noted that an “indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt.”
 

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

In seconds, Ravi Parikh, MD, an oncologist at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, had a summary of his patient’s entire medical history. Normally, Parikh skimmed the cumbersome files before seeing a patient. However, the artificial intelligence (AI) tool his institution was testing could list the highlights he needed in a fraction of the time.

“On the whole, I like it ... it saves me time,” Parikh said of the tool. “But I’d be lying if I told you it was perfect all the time. It’s interpreting the [patient] history in some ways that may be inaccurate,” he said.

Within the first week of testing the tool, Parikh started to notice that the large language model (LLM) made a particular mistake in his patients with prostate cancer. If their prostate-specific antigen test results came back slightly elevated — which is part of normal variation — the LLM recorded it as disease progression. Because Parikh reviews all his notes — with or without using an AI tool — after a visit, he easily caught the mistake before it was added to the chart. “The problem, I think, is if these mistakes go under the hood,” he said.

In the data science world, these mistakes are called hallucinations. And a growing body of research suggests they’re happening more frequently than is safe for healthcare. The industry promised LLMs would alleviate administrative burden and reduce physician burnout. But so far, studies show these AI-tool mistakes often create more work for doctors, not less. To truly help physicians and be safe for patients, some experts say healthcare needs to build its own LLMs from the ground up. And all agree that the field desperately needs a way to vet these algorithms more thoroughly.
 

Prone to Error

Right now, “I think the industry is focused on taking existing LLMs and forcing them into usage for healthcare,” said Nigam H. Shah, MBBS, PhD, chief data scientist for Stanford Health. However, the value of deploying general LLMs in the healthcare space is questionable. “People are starting to wonder if we’re using these tools wrong,” he told this news organization.

In 2023, Shah and his colleagues evaluated seven LLMs on their ability to answer electronic health record–based questions. For realistic tasks, the error rate in the best cases was about 35%, he said. “To me, that rate seems a bit high ... to adopt for routine use.”

A study earlier this year by the UC San Diego School of Medicine showed that using LLMs to respond to patient messages increased the time doctors spent on messages. And this summer, a study by the clinical AI firm Mendel found that when GPT-4o or Llama-3 were used to summarize patient medical records, almost every summary contained at least one type of hallucination.

“We’ve seen cases where a patient does have drug allergies, but the system says ‘no known drug allergies’ ” in the medical history summary, said Wael Salloum, PhD, cofounder and chief science officer at Mendel. “That’s a serious hallucination.” And if physicians have to constantly verify what the system is telling them, that “defeats the purpose [of summarization],” he said.
 

A Higher Quality Diet

Part of the trouble with LLMs is that there’s just not enough high-quality information to feed them. The algorithms are insatiable, requiring vast swaths of data for training. GPT-3.5, for instance, was trained on 570 GB of data from the internet, more than 300 billion words. And to train GPT-4o, OpenAI reportedly transcribed more than 1 million hours of YouTube content.

However, the strategies that built these general LLMs don’t always translate well to healthcare. The internet is full of low-quality or misleading health information from wellness sites and supplement advertisements. And even data that are trustworthy, like the millions of clinical studies and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) statements, can be outdated, Salloum said. And “an LLM in training can’t distinguish good from bad,” he added.

The good news is that clinicians don’t rely on controversial information in the real world. Medical knowledge is standardized. “Healthcare is a domain rich with explicit knowledge,” Salloum said. So there’s potential to build a more reliable LLM that is guided by robust medical standards and guidelines.

It’s possible that healthcare could use small language models, which are LLM’s pocket-sized cousins, and perform tasks needing only bite-sized datasets requiring fewer resources and easier fine-tuning, according to Microsoft’s website. Shah said training these smaller models on real medical data might be an option, like an LLM meant to respond to patient messages that could be trained with real messages sent by physicians.

Several groups are already working on databases of standardized human medical knowledge or real physician responses. “Perhaps that will work better than using LLMs trained on the general internet. Those studies need to be done,” Shah said.

Jon Tamir, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering and co-lead of the AI Health Lab at The University of Texas at Austin, said, “The community has recognized that we are entering a new era of AI where the dataset itself is the most important aspect. We need training sets that are highly curated and highly specialized.

“If the dataset is highly specialized, it will definitely help reduce hallucinations,” he said.
 

Cutting Overconfidence

A major problem with LLM mistakes is that they are often hard to detect. Hallucinations can be highly convincing even if they’re highly inaccurate, according to Tamir.

When Shah, for instance, was recently testing an LLM on de-identified patient data, he asked the LLM which blood test the patient last had. The model responded with “complete blood count [CBC].” But when he asked for the results, the model gave him white blood count and other values. “Turns out that record did not have a CBC done at all! The result was entirely made up,” he said.

Making healthcare LLMs safer and more reliable will mean training AI to acknowledge potential mistakes and uncertainty. Existing LLMs are trained to project confidence and produce a lot of answers, even when there isn’t one, Salloum said. They rarely respond with “I don’t know” even when their prediction has low confidence, he added.

Healthcare stands to benefit from a system that highlights uncertainty and potential errors. For instance, if a patient’s history shows they have smoked, stopped smoking, vaped, and started smoking again. The LLM might call them a smoker but flag the comment as uncertain because the chronology is complicated, Salloum said.

Tamir added that this strategy could improve LLM and doctor collaboration by honing in on where human expertise is needed most.
 

Too Little Evaluation

For any improvement strategy to work, LLMs — and all AI-assisted healthcare tools — first need a better evaluation framework. So far, LLMs have “been used in really exciting ways but not really well-vetted ways,” Tamir said.

While some AI-assisted tools, particularly in medical imaging, have undergone rigorous FDA evaluations and earned approval, most haven’t. And because the FDA only regulates algorithms that are considered medical devices, Parikh said that most LLMs used for administrative tasks and efficiency don’t fall under the regulatory agency’s purview.

But these algorithms still have access to patient information and can directly influence patient and doctor decisions. Third-party regulatory agencies are expected to emerge, but it’s still unclear who those will be. Before developers can build a safer and more efficient LLM for healthcare, they’ll need better guidelines and guardrails. “Unless we figure out evaluation, how would we know whether the healthcare-appropriate large language models are better or worse?” Shah asked.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In seconds, Ravi Parikh, MD, an oncologist at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, had a summary of his patient’s entire medical history. Normally, Parikh skimmed the cumbersome files before seeing a patient. However, the artificial intelligence (AI) tool his institution was testing could list the highlights he needed in a fraction of the time.

“On the whole, I like it ... it saves me time,” Parikh said of the tool. “But I’d be lying if I told you it was perfect all the time. It’s interpreting the [patient] history in some ways that may be inaccurate,” he said.

Within the first week of testing the tool, Parikh started to notice that the large language model (LLM) made a particular mistake in his patients with prostate cancer. If their prostate-specific antigen test results came back slightly elevated — which is part of normal variation — the LLM recorded it as disease progression. Because Parikh reviews all his notes — with or without using an AI tool — after a visit, he easily caught the mistake before it was added to the chart. “The problem, I think, is if these mistakes go under the hood,” he said.

In the data science world, these mistakes are called hallucinations. And a growing body of research suggests they’re happening more frequently than is safe for healthcare. The industry promised LLMs would alleviate administrative burden and reduce physician burnout. But so far, studies show these AI-tool mistakes often create more work for doctors, not less. To truly help physicians and be safe for patients, some experts say healthcare needs to build its own LLMs from the ground up. And all agree that the field desperately needs a way to vet these algorithms more thoroughly.
 

Prone to Error

Right now, “I think the industry is focused on taking existing LLMs and forcing them into usage for healthcare,” said Nigam H. Shah, MBBS, PhD, chief data scientist for Stanford Health. However, the value of deploying general LLMs in the healthcare space is questionable. “People are starting to wonder if we’re using these tools wrong,” he told this news organization.

In 2023, Shah and his colleagues evaluated seven LLMs on their ability to answer electronic health record–based questions. For realistic tasks, the error rate in the best cases was about 35%, he said. “To me, that rate seems a bit high ... to adopt for routine use.”

A study earlier this year by the UC San Diego School of Medicine showed that using LLMs to respond to patient messages increased the time doctors spent on messages. And this summer, a study by the clinical AI firm Mendel found that when GPT-4o or Llama-3 were used to summarize patient medical records, almost every summary contained at least one type of hallucination.

“We’ve seen cases where a patient does have drug allergies, but the system says ‘no known drug allergies’ ” in the medical history summary, said Wael Salloum, PhD, cofounder and chief science officer at Mendel. “That’s a serious hallucination.” And if physicians have to constantly verify what the system is telling them, that “defeats the purpose [of summarization],” he said.
 

A Higher Quality Diet

Part of the trouble with LLMs is that there’s just not enough high-quality information to feed them. The algorithms are insatiable, requiring vast swaths of data for training. GPT-3.5, for instance, was trained on 570 GB of data from the internet, more than 300 billion words. And to train GPT-4o, OpenAI reportedly transcribed more than 1 million hours of YouTube content.

However, the strategies that built these general LLMs don’t always translate well to healthcare. The internet is full of low-quality or misleading health information from wellness sites and supplement advertisements. And even data that are trustworthy, like the millions of clinical studies and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) statements, can be outdated, Salloum said. And “an LLM in training can’t distinguish good from bad,” he added.

The good news is that clinicians don’t rely on controversial information in the real world. Medical knowledge is standardized. “Healthcare is a domain rich with explicit knowledge,” Salloum said. So there’s potential to build a more reliable LLM that is guided by robust medical standards and guidelines.

It’s possible that healthcare could use small language models, which are LLM’s pocket-sized cousins, and perform tasks needing only bite-sized datasets requiring fewer resources and easier fine-tuning, according to Microsoft’s website. Shah said training these smaller models on real medical data might be an option, like an LLM meant to respond to patient messages that could be trained with real messages sent by physicians.

Several groups are already working on databases of standardized human medical knowledge or real physician responses. “Perhaps that will work better than using LLMs trained on the general internet. Those studies need to be done,” Shah said.

Jon Tamir, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering and co-lead of the AI Health Lab at The University of Texas at Austin, said, “The community has recognized that we are entering a new era of AI where the dataset itself is the most important aspect. We need training sets that are highly curated and highly specialized.

“If the dataset is highly specialized, it will definitely help reduce hallucinations,” he said.
 

Cutting Overconfidence

A major problem with LLM mistakes is that they are often hard to detect. Hallucinations can be highly convincing even if they’re highly inaccurate, according to Tamir.

When Shah, for instance, was recently testing an LLM on de-identified patient data, he asked the LLM which blood test the patient last had. The model responded with “complete blood count [CBC].” But when he asked for the results, the model gave him white blood count and other values. “Turns out that record did not have a CBC done at all! The result was entirely made up,” he said.

Making healthcare LLMs safer and more reliable will mean training AI to acknowledge potential mistakes and uncertainty. Existing LLMs are trained to project confidence and produce a lot of answers, even when there isn’t one, Salloum said. They rarely respond with “I don’t know” even when their prediction has low confidence, he added.

Healthcare stands to benefit from a system that highlights uncertainty and potential errors. For instance, if a patient’s history shows they have smoked, stopped smoking, vaped, and started smoking again. The LLM might call them a smoker but flag the comment as uncertain because the chronology is complicated, Salloum said.

Tamir added that this strategy could improve LLM and doctor collaboration by honing in on where human expertise is needed most.
 

Too Little Evaluation

For any improvement strategy to work, LLMs — and all AI-assisted healthcare tools — first need a better evaluation framework. So far, LLMs have “been used in really exciting ways but not really well-vetted ways,” Tamir said.

While some AI-assisted tools, particularly in medical imaging, have undergone rigorous FDA evaluations and earned approval, most haven’t. And because the FDA only regulates algorithms that are considered medical devices, Parikh said that most LLMs used for administrative tasks and efficiency don’t fall under the regulatory agency’s purview.

But these algorithms still have access to patient information and can directly influence patient and doctor decisions. Third-party regulatory agencies are expected to emerge, but it’s still unclear who those will be. Before developers can build a safer and more efficient LLM for healthcare, they’ll need better guidelines and guardrails. “Unless we figure out evaluation, how would we know whether the healthcare-appropriate large language models are better or worse?” Shah asked.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In seconds, Ravi Parikh, MD, an oncologist at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, had a summary of his patient’s entire medical history. Normally, Parikh skimmed the cumbersome files before seeing a patient. However, the artificial intelligence (AI) tool his institution was testing could list the highlights he needed in a fraction of the time.

“On the whole, I like it ... it saves me time,” Parikh said of the tool. “But I’d be lying if I told you it was perfect all the time. It’s interpreting the [patient] history in some ways that may be inaccurate,” he said.

Within the first week of testing the tool, Parikh started to notice that the large language model (LLM) made a particular mistake in his patients with prostate cancer. If their prostate-specific antigen test results came back slightly elevated — which is part of normal variation — the LLM recorded it as disease progression. Because Parikh reviews all his notes — with or without using an AI tool — after a visit, he easily caught the mistake before it was added to the chart. “The problem, I think, is if these mistakes go under the hood,” he said.

In the data science world, these mistakes are called hallucinations. And a growing body of research suggests they’re happening more frequently than is safe for healthcare. The industry promised LLMs would alleviate administrative burden and reduce physician burnout. But so far, studies show these AI-tool mistakes often create more work for doctors, not less. To truly help physicians and be safe for patients, some experts say healthcare needs to build its own LLMs from the ground up. And all agree that the field desperately needs a way to vet these algorithms more thoroughly.
 

Prone to Error

Right now, “I think the industry is focused on taking existing LLMs and forcing them into usage for healthcare,” said Nigam H. Shah, MBBS, PhD, chief data scientist for Stanford Health. However, the value of deploying general LLMs in the healthcare space is questionable. “People are starting to wonder if we’re using these tools wrong,” he told this news organization.

In 2023, Shah and his colleagues evaluated seven LLMs on their ability to answer electronic health record–based questions. For realistic tasks, the error rate in the best cases was about 35%, he said. “To me, that rate seems a bit high ... to adopt for routine use.”

A study earlier this year by the UC San Diego School of Medicine showed that using LLMs to respond to patient messages increased the time doctors spent on messages. And this summer, a study by the clinical AI firm Mendel found that when GPT-4o or Llama-3 were used to summarize patient medical records, almost every summary contained at least one type of hallucination.

“We’ve seen cases where a patient does have drug allergies, but the system says ‘no known drug allergies’ ” in the medical history summary, said Wael Salloum, PhD, cofounder and chief science officer at Mendel. “That’s a serious hallucination.” And if physicians have to constantly verify what the system is telling them, that “defeats the purpose [of summarization],” he said.
 

A Higher Quality Diet

Part of the trouble with LLMs is that there’s just not enough high-quality information to feed them. The algorithms are insatiable, requiring vast swaths of data for training. GPT-3.5, for instance, was trained on 570 GB of data from the internet, more than 300 billion words. And to train GPT-4o, OpenAI reportedly transcribed more than 1 million hours of YouTube content.

However, the strategies that built these general LLMs don’t always translate well to healthcare. The internet is full of low-quality or misleading health information from wellness sites and supplement advertisements. And even data that are trustworthy, like the millions of clinical studies and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) statements, can be outdated, Salloum said. And “an LLM in training can’t distinguish good from bad,” he added.

The good news is that clinicians don’t rely on controversial information in the real world. Medical knowledge is standardized. “Healthcare is a domain rich with explicit knowledge,” Salloum said. So there’s potential to build a more reliable LLM that is guided by robust medical standards and guidelines.

It’s possible that healthcare could use small language models, which are LLM’s pocket-sized cousins, and perform tasks needing only bite-sized datasets requiring fewer resources and easier fine-tuning, according to Microsoft’s website. Shah said training these smaller models on real medical data might be an option, like an LLM meant to respond to patient messages that could be trained with real messages sent by physicians.

Several groups are already working on databases of standardized human medical knowledge or real physician responses. “Perhaps that will work better than using LLMs trained on the general internet. Those studies need to be done,” Shah said.

Jon Tamir, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering and co-lead of the AI Health Lab at The University of Texas at Austin, said, “The community has recognized that we are entering a new era of AI where the dataset itself is the most important aspect. We need training sets that are highly curated and highly specialized.

“If the dataset is highly specialized, it will definitely help reduce hallucinations,” he said.
 

Cutting Overconfidence

A major problem with LLM mistakes is that they are often hard to detect. Hallucinations can be highly convincing even if they’re highly inaccurate, according to Tamir.

When Shah, for instance, was recently testing an LLM on de-identified patient data, he asked the LLM which blood test the patient last had. The model responded with “complete blood count [CBC].” But when he asked for the results, the model gave him white blood count and other values. “Turns out that record did not have a CBC done at all! The result was entirely made up,” he said.

Making healthcare LLMs safer and more reliable will mean training AI to acknowledge potential mistakes and uncertainty. Existing LLMs are trained to project confidence and produce a lot of answers, even when there isn’t one, Salloum said. They rarely respond with “I don’t know” even when their prediction has low confidence, he added.

Healthcare stands to benefit from a system that highlights uncertainty and potential errors. For instance, if a patient’s history shows they have smoked, stopped smoking, vaped, and started smoking again. The LLM might call them a smoker but flag the comment as uncertain because the chronology is complicated, Salloum said.

Tamir added that this strategy could improve LLM and doctor collaboration by honing in on where human expertise is needed most.
 

Too Little Evaluation

For any improvement strategy to work, LLMs — and all AI-assisted healthcare tools — first need a better evaluation framework. So far, LLMs have “been used in really exciting ways but not really well-vetted ways,” Tamir said.

While some AI-assisted tools, particularly in medical imaging, have undergone rigorous FDA evaluations and earned approval, most haven’t. And because the FDA only regulates algorithms that are considered medical devices, Parikh said that most LLMs used for administrative tasks and efficiency don’t fall under the regulatory agency’s purview.

But these algorithms still have access to patient information and can directly influence patient and doctor decisions. Third-party regulatory agencies are expected to emerge, but it’s still unclear who those will be. Before developers can build a safer and more efficient LLM for healthcare, they’ll need better guidelines and guardrails. “Unless we figure out evaluation, how would we know whether the healthcare-appropriate large language models are better or worse?” Shah asked.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

From the largest healthcare companies to solo practices, just every organization in medicine faces a risk for costly cyberattacks. In recent years, hackers have threatened to release the personal information of patients and employees — or paralyze online systems — unless they’re paid a ransom.

Should companies pay? It’s not an easy answer, a pair of experts told colleagues in an American Medical Association (AMA) cybersecurity webinar on October 18. It turns out that each choice — pay or don’t pay — can end up being costly.

This is just one of the new challenges facing the American medical system on the cybersecurity front, the speakers said. Others include the possibility that hackers will manipulate patient data — turning a medical test negative, for example, when it’s actually positive — and take advantage of the powers of artificial intelligence (AI).

The AMA held the webinar to educate physicians about cybersecurity risks and defenses, an especially hot topic in the wake of February’s Change Healthcare hack, which cost UnitedHealth Group an estimated $2.5 billion — so far — and deeply disrupted the American healthcare system.

Cautionary tales abound. Greg Garcia, executive director for cybersecurity of the Health Sector Coordinating Council, a coalition of medical industry organizations, pointed to a Pennsylvania clinic that refused to pay a ransom to prevent the release of hundreds of images of patients with breast cancer undressed from the waist up. Garcia told webinar participants that the ransom was $5 million.
 

Risky Choices

While the Federal Bureau of Investigation recommends against paying a ransom, this can be a risky choice, Garcia said. Hackers released the images, and the center has reportedly agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $65 million. “They traded $5 million for $60 million,” Garcia added, slightly misstating the settlement amount.

Health systems have been cagey about whether they’ve paid ransoms to prevent private data from being made public in cyberattacks. If a ransom is demanded, “it’s every organization for itself,” Garcia said.

He highlighted the case of a chain of psychiatry practices in Finland that suffered a ransomware attack in 2020. The hackers “contacted the patients and said: ‘Hey, call your clinic and tell them to pay the ransom. Otherwise, we’re going to release all your psychiatric notes to the public.’ ”

Cyberattacks continue. In October, Boston Children’s Health Physicians announced that it had suffered a “ recent security incident” involving data — possibly including Social Security numbers and treatment information — regarding patients and employees. A hacker group reportedly claimed responsibility and wants the system, which boasts more than 300 clinicians, to pay a ransom or else it will release the stolen information.
 

Should Paying Ransom Be a Crime?

Christian Dameff, MD, MS, an emergency medicine physician and director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California (UC), San Diego, noted that there are efforts to turn paying ransom into a crime. “If people aren’t paying ransoms, then ransomware operators will move to something else that makes them money.”

Dameff urged colleagues to understand we no longer live in a world where clinicians only bother to think of technology when they call the IT department to help them reset their password.

New challenges face clinicians, he said. “How do we develop better strategies, downtime procedures, and safe clinical care in an era where our vital technology may be gone, not just for an hour or 2, but as is the case with these ransomware attacks, sometimes weeks to months.”

Garcia said “cybersecurity is everybody’s responsibility, including frontline clinicians. Because you’re touching data, you’re touching technology, you’re touching patients, and all of those things combine to present some vulnerabilities in the digital world.”
 

Next Frontier: Hackers May Manipulate Patient Data

Dameff said future hackers may use AI to manipulate individual patient data in ways that threaten patient health. AI makes this easier to accomplish.

“What if I delete your allergies in your electronic health record, or I manipulate your chest x-ray, or I change your lab values so it looks like you’re in diabetic ketoacidosis when you’re not so a clinician gives you insulin when you don’t need it?”

Garcia highlighted another new threat: Phishing efforts that are harder to ignore thanks to AI.

“One of the most successful way that hackers get in, disrupt systems, and steal data is through email phishing, and it’s only going to get better because of artificial intelligence,” he said. “No longer are you going to have typos in that email written by a hacking group in Nigeria or in China. It’s going to be perfect looking.”

What can practices and healthcare systems do? Garcia highlighted federal health agency efforts to encourage organizations to adopt best practices in cybersecurity.

“If you’ve got a data breach, and you can show to the US Department of Health & Human Services [HHS] you have implemented generally recognized cybersecurity controls over the past year, that you have done your best, you did the right thing, and you still got hit, HHS is directed to essentially take it easy on you,” he said. “That’s a positive incentive.”
 

Ransomware Guide in the Works

Dameff said UC San Diego’s Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity plans to publish a free cybersecurity guide in 2025 that will include specific information about ransomware attacks for medical specialties such as cardiology, trauma surgery, and pediatrics.

“Then, should you ever be ransomed, you can pull out this guide. You’ll know what’s going to kind of happen, and you can better prepare for those effects.”

Will the future president prioritize healthcare cybersecurity? That remains to be seen, but crises do have the capacity to concentrate the mind, experts said.

The nation’s capital “has a very short memory, a short attention span. The policymakers tend to be reactive,” Dameff said. “All it takes is yet another Change Healthcare–like attack that disrupts 30% or more of the nation’s healthcare system for the policymakers to sit up, take notice, and try to come up with solutions.”

In addition, he said, an estimated two data breaches/ransomware attacks are occurring per day. “The fact is that we’re all patients, up to the President of the United States and every member of the Congress is a patient.”

There’s a “very existential, very palpable understanding that cyber safety is patient safety and cyber insecurity is patient insecurity,” Dameff said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

From the largest healthcare companies to solo practices, just every organization in medicine faces a risk for costly cyberattacks. In recent years, hackers have threatened to release the personal information of patients and employees — or paralyze online systems — unless they’re paid a ransom.

Should companies pay? It’s not an easy answer, a pair of experts told colleagues in an American Medical Association (AMA) cybersecurity webinar on October 18. It turns out that each choice — pay or don’t pay — can end up being costly.

This is just one of the new challenges facing the American medical system on the cybersecurity front, the speakers said. Others include the possibility that hackers will manipulate patient data — turning a medical test negative, for example, when it’s actually positive — and take advantage of the powers of artificial intelligence (AI).

The AMA held the webinar to educate physicians about cybersecurity risks and defenses, an especially hot topic in the wake of February’s Change Healthcare hack, which cost UnitedHealth Group an estimated $2.5 billion — so far — and deeply disrupted the American healthcare system.

Cautionary tales abound. Greg Garcia, executive director for cybersecurity of the Health Sector Coordinating Council, a coalition of medical industry organizations, pointed to a Pennsylvania clinic that refused to pay a ransom to prevent the release of hundreds of images of patients with breast cancer undressed from the waist up. Garcia told webinar participants that the ransom was $5 million.
 

Risky Choices

While the Federal Bureau of Investigation recommends against paying a ransom, this can be a risky choice, Garcia said. Hackers released the images, and the center has reportedly agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $65 million. “They traded $5 million for $60 million,” Garcia added, slightly misstating the settlement amount.

Health systems have been cagey about whether they’ve paid ransoms to prevent private data from being made public in cyberattacks. If a ransom is demanded, “it’s every organization for itself,” Garcia said.

He highlighted the case of a chain of psychiatry practices in Finland that suffered a ransomware attack in 2020. The hackers “contacted the patients and said: ‘Hey, call your clinic and tell them to pay the ransom. Otherwise, we’re going to release all your psychiatric notes to the public.’ ”

Cyberattacks continue. In October, Boston Children’s Health Physicians announced that it had suffered a “ recent security incident” involving data — possibly including Social Security numbers and treatment information — regarding patients and employees. A hacker group reportedly claimed responsibility and wants the system, which boasts more than 300 clinicians, to pay a ransom or else it will release the stolen information.
 

Should Paying Ransom Be a Crime?

Christian Dameff, MD, MS, an emergency medicine physician and director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California (UC), San Diego, noted that there are efforts to turn paying ransom into a crime. “If people aren’t paying ransoms, then ransomware operators will move to something else that makes them money.”

Dameff urged colleagues to understand we no longer live in a world where clinicians only bother to think of technology when they call the IT department to help them reset their password.

New challenges face clinicians, he said. “How do we develop better strategies, downtime procedures, and safe clinical care in an era where our vital technology may be gone, not just for an hour or 2, but as is the case with these ransomware attacks, sometimes weeks to months.”

Garcia said “cybersecurity is everybody’s responsibility, including frontline clinicians. Because you’re touching data, you’re touching technology, you’re touching patients, and all of those things combine to present some vulnerabilities in the digital world.”
 

Next Frontier: Hackers May Manipulate Patient Data

Dameff said future hackers may use AI to manipulate individual patient data in ways that threaten patient health. AI makes this easier to accomplish.

“What if I delete your allergies in your electronic health record, or I manipulate your chest x-ray, or I change your lab values so it looks like you’re in diabetic ketoacidosis when you’re not so a clinician gives you insulin when you don’t need it?”

Garcia highlighted another new threat: Phishing efforts that are harder to ignore thanks to AI.

“One of the most successful way that hackers get in, disrupt systems, and steal data is through email phishing, and it’s only going to get better because of artificial intelligence,” he said. “No longer are you going to have typos in that email written by a hacking group in Nigeria or in China. It’s going to be perfect looking.”

What can practices and healthcare systems do? Garcia highlighted federal health agency efforts to encourage organizations to adopt best practices in cybersecurity.

“If you’ve got a data breach, and you can show to the US Department of Health & Human Services [HHS] you have implemented generally recognized cybersecurity controls over the past year, that you have done your best, you did the right thing, and you still got hit, HHS is directed to essentially take it easy on you,” he said. “That’s a positive incentive.”
 

Ransomware Guide in the Works

Dameff said UC San Diego’s Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity plans to publish a free cybersecurity guide in 2025 that will include specific information about ransomware attacks for medical specialties such as cardiology, trauma surgery, and pediatrics.

“Then, should you ever be ransomed, you can pull out this guide. You’ll know what’s going to kind of happen, and you can better prepare for those effects.”

Will the future president prioritize healthcare cybersecurity? That remains to be seen, but crises do have the capacity to concentrate the mind, experts said.

The nation’s capital “has a very short memory, a short attention span. The policymakers tend to be reactive,” Dameff said. “All it takes is yet another Change Healthcare–like attack that disrupts 30% or more of the nation’s healthcare system for the policymakers to sit up, take notice, and try to come up with solutions.”

In addition, he said, an estimated two data breaches/ransomware attacks are occurring per day. “The fact is that we’re all patients, up to the President of the United States and every member of the Congress is a patient.”

There’s a “very existential, very palpable understanding that cyber safety is patient safety and cyber insecurity is patient insecurity,” Dameff said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

From the largest healthcare companies to solo practices, just every organization in medicine faces a risk for costly cyberattacks. In recent years, hackers have threatened to release the personal information of patients and employees — or paralyze online systems — unless they’re paid a ransom.

Should companies pay? It’s not an easy answer, a pair of experts told colleagues in an American Medical Association (AMA) cybersecurity webinar on October 18. It turns out that each choice — pay or don’t pay — can end up being costly.

This is just one of the new challenges facing the American medical system on the cybersecurity front, the speakers said. Others include the possibility that hackers will manipulate patient data — turning a medical test negative, for example, when it’s actually positive — and take advantage of the powers of artificial intelligence (AI).

The AMA held the webinar to educate physicians about cybersecurity risks and defenses, an especially hot topic in the wake of February’s Change Healthcare hack, which cost UnitedHealth Group an estimated $2.5 billion — so far — and deeply disrupted the American healthcare system.

Cautionary tales abound. Greg Garcia, executive director for cybersecurity of the Health Sector Coordinating Council, a coalition of medical industry organizations, pointed to a Pennsylvania clinic that refused to pay a ransom to prevent the release of hundreds of images of patients with breast cancer undressed from the waist up. Garcia told webinar participants that the ransom was $5 million.
 

Risky Choices

While the Federal Bureau of Investigation recommends against paying a ransom, this can be a risky choice, Garcia said. Hackers released the images, and the center has reportedly agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $65 million. “They traded $5 million for $60 million,” Garcia added, slightly misstating the settlement amount.

Health systems have been cagey about whether they’ve paid ransoms to prevent private data from being made public in cyberattacks. If a ransom is demanded, “it’s every organization for itself,” Garcia said.

He highlighted the case of a chain of psychiatry practices in Finland that suffered a ransomware attack in 2020. The hackers “contacted the patients and said: ‘Hey, call your clinic and tell them to pay the ransom. Otherwise, we’re going to release all your psychiatric notes to the public.’ ”

Cyberattacks continue. In October, Boston Children’s Health Physicians announced that it had suffered a “ recent security incident” involving data — possibly including Social Security numbers and treatment information — regarding patients and employees. A hacker group reportedly claimed responsibility and wants the system, which boasts more than 300 clinicians, to pay a ransom or else it will release the stolen information.
 

Should Paying Ransom Be a Crime?

Christian Dameff, MD, MS, an emergency medicine physician and director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California (UC), San Diego, noted that there are efforts to turn paying ransom into a crime. “If people aren’t paying ransoms, then ransomware operators will move to something else that makes them money.”

Dameff urged colleagues to understand we no longer live in a world where clinicians only bother to think of technology when they call the IT department to help them reset their password.

New challenges face clinicians, he said. “How do we develop better strategies, downtime procedures, and safe clinical care in an era where our vital technology may be gone, not just for an hour or 2, but as is the case with these ransomware attacks, sometimes weeks to months.”

Garcia said “cybersecurity is everybody’s responsibility, including frontline clinicians. Because you’re touching data, you’re touching technology, you’re touching patients, and all of those things combine to present some vulnerabilities in the digital world.”
 

Next Frontier: Hackers May Manipulate Patient Data

Dameff said future hackers may use AI to manipulate individual patient data in ways that threaten patient health. AI makes this easier to accomplish.

“What if I delete your allergies in your electronic health record, or I manipulate your chest x-ray, or I change your lab values so it looks like you’re in diabetic ketoacidosis when you’re not so a clinician gives you insulin when you don’t need it?”

Garcia highlighted another new threat: Phishing efforts that are harder to ignore thanks to AI.

“One of the most successful way that hackers get in, disrupt systems, and steal data is through email phishing, and it’s only going to get better because of artificial intelligence,” he said. “No longer are you going to have typos in that email written by a hacking group in Nigeria or in China. It’s going to be perfect looking.”

What can practices and healthcare systems do? Garcia highlighted federal health agency efforts to encourage organizations to adopt best practices in cybersecurity.

“If you’ve got a data breach, and you can show to the US Department of Health & Human Services [HHS] you have implemented generally recognized cybersecurity controls over the past year, that you have done your best, you did the right thing, and you still got hit, HHS is directed to essentially take it easy on you,” he said. “That’s a positive incentive.”
 

Ransomware Guide in the Works

Dameff said UC San Diego’s Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity plans to publish a free cybersecurity guide in 2025 that will include specific information about ransomware attacks for medical specialties such as cardiology, trauma surgery, and pediatrics.

“Then, should you ever be ransomed, you can pull out this guide. You’ll know what’s going to kind of happen, and you can better prepare for those effects.”

Will the future president prioritize healthcare cybersecurity? That remains to be seen, but crises do have the capacity to concentrate the mind, experts said.

The nation’s capital “has a very short memory, a short attention span. The policymakers tend to be reactive,” Dameff said. “All it takes is yet another Change Healthcare–like attack that disrupts 30% or more of the nation’s healthcare system for the policymakers to sit up, take notice, and try to come up with solutions.”

In addition, he said, an estimated two data breaches/ransomware attacks are occurring per day. “The fact is that we’re all patients, up to the President of the United States and every member of the Congress is a patient.”

There’s a “very existential, very palpable understanding that cyber safety is patient safety and cyber insecurity is patient insecurity,” Dameff said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a physician, you might be contacted by the media to provide your professional opinion and advice. Or you might be looking for media interview opportunities to market your practice or side project. And if you do research, media interviews can be an effective way to spread the word. It’s important to prepare for a media interview so that you achieve the outcome you are looking for. Here are six tips I learned from writing health articles, interviewing experts, and being interviewed myself. 

Keep your message simple. When you are a subject expert, you might think that the basics are obvious or even boring, and that the nuances are more important. However, most of the audience is looking for big-picture information that they can apply to their lives. Consider a few key takeaways, keeping in mind that your interview is likely to be edited to short sound bites or a few quotes. It may help to jot down notes so that you cover the fundamentals clearly. You could even write and rehearse a script beforehand. If there is something complicated or subtle that you want to convey, you can preface it by saying, “This is confusing but very important …” to let the audience know to give extra consideration to what you are about to say.

Avoid extremes and hyperbole. Sometimes, exaggerated statements make their way into medical discussions. Statements such as “it doesn’t matter how many calories you consume — it’s all about the quality” are common oversimplifications. But you might be upset to see your name next to a comment like this because it is not actually correct. Check the phrasing of your key takeaways to avoid being stuck defending or explaining an inaccurate statement when your patients ask you about it later. 

Ask the interviewers what they are looking for. Many medical topics have some controversial element, so it is good to know what you’re getting into. Find out the purpose of the article or interview before you decide whether it is right for you. It could be about another doctor in town who is being sued; if you don’t want to be associated with that story, it might be best to decline the interview. 

Explain your goals. You might accept or pursue an interview to raise awareness about an underrecognized condition. You might want the public to identify and get help for early symptoms, or you might want to create empathy for people coping with a disease you treat. Consider why you are participating in an interview, and communicate that to the interviewer to ensure that your objective can be part of the final product. 

Know whom you’re dealing with. It is good to learn about the publication/media channel before you agree to participate. It may have a political bias, or perhaps the interview is intended to promote a specific product. If you agree with and support their purposes, then you may be happy to lend your opinion. But learning about the “voice” of the publication in advance allows you to make an informed decision about whether you want to be identified with a particular political ideology or product endorsement.

Ask to see your quotes before publication. It’s good to have the opportunity to make corrections in case you are accidentally misquoted or misunderstood. It is best to ask to see quotes before you agree to the interview. Some reporters may agree to (or even prefer) a written question-and-answer format so that they can directly quote your responses without rephrasing your words. You could suggest this, especially if you are too busy for a call or live meeting.

As a physician, your insights and advice can be highly beneficial to others. You can also use media interviews to propel your career forward. Doing your homework can ensure that you will be pleased with the final product and how your words were used. 
 

Dr. Moawad, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Education, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a physician, you might be contacted by the media to provide your professional opinion and advice. Or you might be looking for media interview opportunities to market your practice or side project. And if you do research, media interviews can be an effective way to spread the word. It’s important to prepare for a media interview so that you achieve the outcome you are looking for. Here are six tips I learned from writing health articles, interviewing experts, and being interviewed myself. 

Keep your message simple. When you are a subject expert, you might think that the basics are obvious or even boring, and that the nuances are more important. However, most of the audience is looking for big-picture information that they can apply to their lives. Consider a few key takeaways, keeping in mind that your interview is likely to be edited to short sound bites or a few quotes. It may help to jot down notes so that you cover the fundamentals clearly. You could even write and rehearse a script beforehand. If there is something complicated or subtle that you want to convey, you can preface it by saying, “This is confusing but very important …” to let the audience know to give extra consideration to what you are about to say.

Avoid extremes and hyperbole. Sometimes, exaggerated statements make their way into medical discussions. Statements such as “it doesn’t matter how many calories you consume — it’s all about the quality” are common oversimplifications. But you might be upset to see your name next to a comment like this because it is not actually correct. Check the phrasing of your key takeaways to avoid being stuck defending or explaining an inaccurate statement when your patients ask you about it later. 

Ask the interviewers what they are looking for. Many medical topics have some controversial element, so it is good to know what you’re getting into. Find out the purpose of the article or interview before you decide whether it is right for you. It could be about another doctor in town who is being sued; if you don’t want to be associated with that story, it might be best to decline the interview. 

Explain your goals. You might accept or pursue an interview to raise awareness about an underrecognized condition. You might want the public to identify and get help for early symptoms, or you might want to create empathy for people coping with a disease you treat. Consider why you are participating in an interview, and communicate that to the interviewer to ensure that your objective can be part of the final product. 

Know whom you’re dealing with. It is good to learn about the publication/media channel before you agree to participate. It may have a political bias, or perhaps the interview is intended to promote a specific product. If you agree with and support their purposes, then you may be happy to lend your opinion. But learning about the “voice” of the publication in advance allows you to make an informed decision about whether you want to be identified with a particular political ideology or product endorsement.

Ask to see your quotes before publication. It’s good to have the opportunity to make corrections in case you are accidentally misquoted or misunderstood. It is best to ask to see quotes before you agree to the interview. Some reporters may agree to (or even prefer) a written question-and-answer format so that they can directly quote your responses without rephrasing your words. You could suggest this, especially if you are too busy for a call or live meeting.

As a physician, your insights and advice can be highly beneficial to others. You can also use media interviews to propel your career forward. Doing your homework can ensure that you will be pleased with the final product and how your words were used. 
 

Dr. Moawad, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Education, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a physician, you might be contacted by the media to provide your professional opinion and advice. Or you might be looking for media interview opportunities to market your practice or side project. And if you do research, media interviews can be an effective way to spread the word. It’s important to prepare for a media interview so that you achieve the outcome you are looking for. Here are six tips I learned from writing health articles, interviewing experts, and being interviewed myself. 

Keep your message simple. When you are a subject expert, you might think that the basics are obvious or even boring, and that the nuances are more important. However, most of the audience is looking for big-picture information that they can apply to their lives. Consider a few key takeaways, keeping in mind that your interview is likely to be edited to short sound bites or a few quotes. It may help to jot down notes so that you cover the fundamentals clearly. You could even write and rehearse a script beforehand. If there is something complicated or subtle that you want to convey, you can preface it by saying, “This is confusing but very important …” to let the audience know to give extra consideration to what you are about to say.

Avoid extremes and hyperbole. Sometimes, exaggerated statements make their way into medical discussions. Statements such as “it doesn’t matter how many calories you consume — it’s all about the quality” are common oversimplifications. But you might be upset to see your name next to a comment like this because it is not actually correct. Check the phrasing of your key takeaways to avoid being stuck defending or explaining an inaccurate statement when your patients ask you about it later. 

Ask the interviewers what they are looking for. Many medical topics have some controversial element, so it is good to know what you’re getting into. Find out the purpose of the article or interview before you decide whether it is right for you. It could be about another doctor in town who is being sued; if you don’t want to be associated with that story, it might be best to decline the interview. 

Explain your goals. You might accept or pursue an interview to raise awareness about an underrecognized condition. You might want the public to identify and get help for early symptoms, or you might want to create empathy for people coping with a disease you treat. Consider why you are participating in an interview, and communicate that to the interviewer to ensure that your objective can be part of the final product. 

Know whom you’re dealing with. It is good to learn about the publication/media channel before you agree to participate. It may have a political bias, or perhaps the interview is intended to promote a specific product. If you agree with and support their purposes, then you may be happy to lend your opinion. But learning about the “voice” of the publication in advance allows you to make an informed decision about whether you want to be identified with a particular political ideology or product endorsement.

Ask to see your quotes before publication. It’s good to have the opportunity to make corrections in case you are accidentally misquoted or misunderstood. It is best to ask to see quotes before you agree to the interview. Some reporters may agree to (or even prefer) a written question-and-answer format so that they can directly quote your responses without rephrasing your words. You could suggest this, especially if you are too busy for a call or live meeting.

As a physician, your insights and advice can be highly beneficial to others. You can also use media interviews to propel your career forward. Doing your homework can ensure that you will be pleased with the final product and how your words were used. 
 

Dr. Moawad, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Education, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO — While the physical toll of cancer is well documented, the financial toll can also be severe and lasting.

Overall, patients with cancer tend to face higher rates of debt collection, medical collections, and bankruptcies, as well as lower credit scores, according to two new studies presented at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress 2024.

“These are the first studies to provide numerical evidence of financial toxicity among cancer survivors,” Benjamin C. James, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts, who worked on both studies, said in a statement. “Previous data on this topic largely relies on subjective survey reviews.”

In one study, researchers used the Massachusetts Cancer Registry to identify 99,175 patients diagnosed with cancer between 2010 and 2019 and matched them with 188,875 control individuals without cancer. Researchers then assessed financial toxicity using Experian credit bureau data for participants.

Overall, patients with cancer faced a range of financial challenges that often lasted years following their diagnosis.

Patients were nearly five times more likely to experience bankruptcy and had average credit scores nearly 80 points lower than control individuals without cancer. The drop in credit scores was more pronounced for survivors of bladder, liver, lung, and colorectal cancer (CRC) and persisted for up to 9.5 years.

For certain cancer types, in particular, “we are looking years after a diagnosis, and we see that the credit score goes down and it never comes back up,” James said.

The other study, which used a sample of 7227 patients with CRC from Massachusetts, identified several factors that correlated with lower credit scores.

Compared with patients who only had surgery, peers who underwent radiation only experienced a 62-point drop in their credit score after their diagnosis, while those who had chemotherapy alone had just over a 14-point drop in their credit score. Among patients who had combination treatments, those who underwent both surgery and radiation experienced a nearly 16-point drop in their credit score and those who had surgery and chemoradiation actually experienced a 2.59 bump, compared with those who had surgery alone.

Financial toxicity was worse for patients younger than 62 years, those identifying as Black or Hispanic individuals, unmarried individuals, those with an annual income below $52,000, and those living in deprived areas.

The studies add to findings from the 2015 North American Thyroid Cancer Survivorship Study, which reported that 50% of thyroid cancer survivors encountered financial toxicity because of their diagnosis.

James said the persistent financial strain of cancer care, even in a state like Massachusetts, which mandates universal healthcare, underscores the need for “broader policy changes and reforms, including reconsidering debt collection practices.”

“Financial security should be a priority in cancer care,” he added.

The studies had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant conflict of interest.

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

SAN FRANCISCO — While the physical toll of cancer is well documented, the financial toll can also be severe and lasting.

Overall, patients with cancer tend to face higher rates of debt collection, medical collections, and bankruptcies, as well as lower credit scores, according to two new studies presented at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress 2024.

“These are the first studies to provide numerical evidence of financial toxicity among cancer survivors,” Benjamin C. James, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts, who worked on both studies, said in a statement. “Previous data on this topic largely relies on subjective survey reviews.”

In one study, researchers used the Massachusetts Cancer Registry to identify 99,175 patients diagnosed with cancer between 2010 and 2019 and matched them with 188,875 control individuals without cancer. Researchers then assessed financial toxicity using Experian credit bureau data for participants.

Overall, patients with cancer faced a range of financial challenges that often lasted years following their diagnosis.

Patients were nearly five times more likely to experience bankruptcy and had average credit scores nearly 80 points lower than control individuals without cancer. The drop in credit scores was more pronounced for survivors of bladder, liver, lung, and colorectal cancer (CRC) and persisted for up to 9.5 years.

For certain cancer types, in particular, “we are looking years after a diagnosis, and we see that the credit score goes down and it never comes back up,” James said.

The other study, which used a sample of 7227 patients with CRC from Massachusetts, identified several factors that correlated with lower credit scores.

Compared with patients who only had surgery, peers who underwent radiation only experienced a 62-point drop in their credit score after their diagnosis, while those who had chemotherapy alone had just over a 14-point drop in their credit score. Among patients who had combination treatments, those who underwent both surgery and radiation experienced a nearly 16-point drop in their credit score and those who had surgery and chemoradiation actually experienced a 2.59 bump, compared with those who had surgery alone.

Financial toxicity was worse for patients younger than 62 years, those identifying as Black or Hispanic individuals, unmarried individuals, those with an annual income below $52,000, and those living in deprived areas.

The studies add to findings from the 2015 North American Thyroid Cancer Survivorship Study, which reported that 50% of thyroid cancer survivors encountered financial toxicity because of their diagnosis.

James said the persistent financial strain of cancer care, even in a state like Massachusetts, which mandates universal healthcare, underscores the need for “broader policy changes and reforms, including reconsidering debt collection practices.”

“Financial security should be a priority in cancer care,” he added.

The studies had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant conflict of interest.

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

SAN FRANCISCO — While the physical toll of cancer is well documented, the financial toll can also be severe and lasting.

Overall, patients with cancer tend to face higher rates of debt collection, medical collections, and bankruptcies, as well as lower credit scores, according to two new studies presented at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress 2024.

“These are the first studies to provide numerical evidence of financial toxicity among cancer survivors,” Benjamin C. James, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts, who worked on both studies, said in a statement. “Previous data on this topic largely relies on subjective survey reviews.”

In one study, researchers used the Massachusetts Cancer Registry to identify 99,175 patients diagnosed with cancer between 2010 and 2019 and matched them with 188,875 control individuals without cancer. Researchers then assessed financial toxicity using Experian credit bureau data for participants.

Overall, patients with cancer faced a range of financial challenges that often lasted years following their diagnosis.

Patients were nearly five times more likely to experience bankruptcy and had average credit scores nearly 80 points lower than control individuals without cancer. The drop in credit scores was more pronounced for survivors of bladder, liver, lung, and colorectal cancer (CRC) and persisted for up to 9.5 years.

For certain cancer types, in particular, “we are looking years after a diagnosis, and we see that the credit score goes down and it never comes back up,” James said.

The other study, which used a sample of 7227 patients with CRC from Massachusetts, identified several factors that correlated with lower credit scores.

Compared with patients who only had surgery, peers who underwent radiation only experienced a 62-point drop in their credit score after their diagnosis, while those who had chemotherapy alone had just over a 14-point drop in their credit score. Among patients who had combination treatments, those who underwent both surgery and radiation experienced a nearly 16-point drop in their credit score and those who had surgery and chemoradiation actually experienced a 2.59 bump, compared with those who had surgery alone.

Financial toxicity was worse for patients younger than 62 years, those identifying as Black or Hispanic individuals, unmarried individuals, those with an annual income below $52,000, and those living in deprived areas.

The studies add to findings from the 2015 North American Thyroid Cancer Survivorship Study, which reported that 50% of thyroid cancer survivors encountered financial toxicity because of their diagnosis.

James said the persistent financial strain of cancer care, even in a state like Massachusetts, which mandates universal healthcare, underscores the need for “broader policy changes and reforms, including reconsidering debt collection practices.”

“Financial security should be a priority in cancer care,” he added.

The studies had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant conflict of interest.

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

NEW YORK — When patients with multiple myeloma (MM) relapse following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, bispecific antibodies (BsABs), or both, likely salvage options remain that are being overlooked, including a second course of immunotherapy. Two independent experts, addressing this issue at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma Congress, offered several practical recommendations for eliciting a therapeutic response after patients with multi-refractory MM have failed everything. One approach they endorsed was allowing patients to recover from T-cell exhaustion.

“We used to think that as soon as multiple myeloma patients progress on a CAR T-cell therapy, it was sort of game over,” said Joseph Mikhael, MD, professor, Translational Genomics Research Institute, City of Hope Cancer Center Phoenix, Arizona.

“But I think we are seeing many ways to salvage these patients, including going back to a CAR T product,” said Mikhael, who also serves as the chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation.

Now that CAR T cells and BsABs are widely available, Mikhael warned that there will be a growing need for other strategies to offer when these therapies fail.

A similar point was made by Jorge Monge, MD, an assistant professor, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City. He largely focused on newer therapies with the potential to provide salvage opportunities in advanced refractory MM, but he pointed out that one application might be to permit T-cell recovery after exhaustion following B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–targeted therapies.

The two talks covered some of the same ground. Both, for example, discussed a potential role for the exportin 1 (XPO1) inhibitor selinexor (Xpovio) in the multidrug refractory setting. In combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone, selinexor was approved in 2020 for treatment-experienced patients but is often overlooked in late-stage disease.

As a strategy to elicit a response following BCMA-targeted therapies, both Mikhael and Monge cited data showing selinexor to be active and that side effects are relatively well managed if antiemetics are offered preemptively to control nausea, one of its most common side effects.

Monge also talked about the promise of cereblon E3 ligase modulatory drugs (CELMoDs) that are now in clinical trials. These drugs, such as mezigdomide and iberdomide, both of which are in advanced stages of clinical testing, are similar to the immunomodulatory agents lenalidomide and pomalidomide. However, their greater potency does not appear to substantially increase risk for adverse events, according to Monge.
 

CELMoDs Active After CAR T-Cell Therapy

Most importantly, from the standpoint of their potential role in multidrug-refractory MM, both mezigdomide and iberdomide have so far shown substantial activity in patients previously exposed to BCMA-targeted therapies, according to Monge. Although the data have been generated in small numbers of patients, he reported that objective response rates have ranged from 37% to 50%.

These rates in treatment-experience patients are lower relative to those achieved in patients with no prior exposure to BCMA-targeted drugs, but Monge said that the durations of response, exceeding 6 months in some studies, might provide enough time for the T-cell recovery needed for a second course of CAR T-cell therapy.

There are other promising therapies on the horizon relevant to controlling multidrug refractory MM, including the likely return of the antibody drug conjugate (ADC) belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep^®). This drug was withdrawn in 2022, when the DREAMM-3 trial failed to show an advantage on the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) for this drug alone over pomalidomide and dexamethasone. The failed results of the DREAMM-3 trial meant that the drug did not meet FDA requirements for confirmatory trials of drugs approved through the agency’s accelerated approval program.

However, recently published results from the phase 3 DREAMM-8 trial did show a PFS advantage for belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone over pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone at 12 months (HR 0.50; P < .0010). On the basis of this result and other positive findings, including a deeper response, Mikhael predicted that this drug will be reintroduced.

It “might take a year or more” to find its way through the approval process, but Mikhael said that he is among those who think it will have value in advanced MM.*

Many of the newer MM drugs, including bispecifics that engage proteins on the surface of the myeloma cell other than BCMA, such as G protein–coupled receptor family C group, might provide alternatives to BCMA-targeted therapies in late stages of disease, but at least some newer drugs, as well as existing drugs in combinations, might play an important role in refractory MM by restoring BCMA as a target.

“The BCMA target is not easily lost, and I think we can leverage it more than once,” Mikhael said.

This potential, which Mikhael acknowledged is mostly supported with relatively small sets of data, involves “a lot of question marks, a lot of maybes,” so the strategies are hard to compared. However, the “incredible evolution in multiple myeloma therapy” over the past few years is not necessarily linear, according to Mikhael.
 

Recycling MM Therapies Deserves Consideration

In other words, CAR T cells and BsABs are not the last stop in the available lines of therapy for MM. The next best therapy is dependent on numerous considerations, including prior therapy exposure, but Mikhael pointed out that many patients in advanced stages have not been exposed to therapies known to be active or are not being considered for therapies to which they were exposed but are not necessarily resistant.

Monge made similar comments. He agreed with Mikhael that clinicians faced with a patient with multitherapy-refractory MM might forget about the XPO1 inhibitor selinexor, the alkylating agent bendamustine, or even the B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor venetoclax.

Any of these agents alone or in combination could be considered to “give the patient some time to improve” T-cell function, Monge said.

This approach will have even more promise if better assays of T-cell function become available, Mikhael said. Although he explained that T-cell exhaustion is clearly one of the reasons that CAR T-cell therapies stop working, this cannot be measured accurately at this time.

“Better T-cell assays may help,” he said.

Mikhael reported financial relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Takeda. Monge disclosed ties with Bristol Myers Squibb and Karyopharm Therapeutics.

*Correction, 10/29/24: We are correcting the name of the DREAMM-3 trial and clarifying that its failed results meant that the drug did not meet the FDA’s requirements for confirmatory trials of drugs to be approved through the agency’s accelerated approval program.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — When patients with multiple myeloma (MM) relapse following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, bispecific antibodies (BsABs), or both, likely salvage options remain that are being overlooked, including a second course of immunotherapy. Two independent experts, addressing this issue at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma Congress, offered several practical recommendations for eliciting a therapeutic response after patients with multi-refractory MM have failed everything. One approach they endorsed was allowing patients to recover from T-cell exhaustion.

“We used to think that as soon as multiple myeloma patients progress on a CAR T-cell therapy, it was sort of game over,” said Joseph Mikhael, MD, professor, Translational Genomics Research Institute, City of Hope Cancer Center Phoenix, Arizona.

“But I think we are seeing many ways to salvage these patients, including going back to a CAR T product,” said Mikhael, who also serves as the chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation.

Now that CAR T cells and BsABs are widely available, Mikhael warned that there will be a growing need for other strategies to offer when these therapies fail.

A similar point was made by Jorge Monge, MD, an assistant professor, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City. He largely focused on newer therapies with the potential to provide salvage opportunities in advanced refractory MM, but he pointed out that one application might be to permit T-cell recovery after exhaustion following B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–targeted therapies.

The two talks covered some of the same ground. Both, for example, discussed a potential role for the exportin 1 (XPO1) inhibitor selinexor (Xpovio) in the multidrug refractory setting. In combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone, selinexor was approved in 2020 for treatment-experienced patients but is often overlooked in late-stage disease.

As a strategy to elicit a response following BCMA-targeted therapies, both Mikhael and Monge cited data showing selinexor to be active and that side effects are relatively well managed if antiemetics are offered preemptively to control nausea, one of its most common side effects.

Monge also talked about the promise of cereblon E3 ligase modulatory drugs (CELMoDs) that are now in clinical trials. These drugs, such as mezigdomide and iberdomide, both of which are in advanced stages of clinical testing, are similar to the immunomodulatory agents lenalidomide and pomalidomide. However, their greater potency does not appear to substantially increase risk for adverse events, according to Monge.
 

CELMoDs Active After CAR T-Cell Therapy

Most importantly, from the standpoint of their potential role in multidrug-refractory MM, both mezigdomide and iberdomide have so far shown substantial activity in patients previously exposed to BCMA-targeted therapies, according to Monge. Although the data have been generated in small numbers of patients, he reported that objective response rates have ranged from 37% to 50%.

These rates in treatment-experience patients are lower relative to those achieved in patients with no prior exposure to BCMA-targeted drugs, but Monge said that the durations of response, exceeding 6 months in some studies, might provide enough time for the T-cell recovery needed for a second course of CAR T-cell therapy.

There are other promising therapies on the horizon relevant to controlling multidrug refractory MM, including the likely return of the antibody drug conjugate (ADC) belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep^®). This drug was withdrawn in 2022, when the DREAMM-3 trial failed to show an advantage on the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) for this drug alone over pomalidomide and dexamethasone. The failed results of the DREAMM-3 trial meant that the drug did not meet FDA requirements for confirmatory trials of drugs approved through the agency’s accelerated approval program.

However, recently published results from the phase 3 DREAMM-8 trial did show a PFS advantage for belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone over pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone at 12 months (HR 0.50; P < .0010). On the basis of this result and other positive findings, including a deeper response, Mikhael predicted that this drug will be reintroduced.

It “might take a year or more” to find its way through the approval process, but Mikhael said that he is among those who think it will have value in advanced MM.*

Many of the newer MM drugs, including bispecifics that engage proteins on the surface of the myeloma cell other than BCMA, such as G protein–coupled receptor family C group, might provide alternatives to BCMA-targeted therapies in late stages of disease, but at least some newer drugs, as well as existing drugs in combinations, might play an important role in refractory MM by restoring BCMA as a target.

“The BCMA target is not easily lost, and I think we can leverage it more than once,” Mikhael said.

This potential, which Mikhael acknowledged is mostly supported with relatively small sets of data, involves “a lot of question marks, a lot of maybes,” so the strategies are hard to compared. However, the “incredible evolution in multiple myeloma therapy” over the past few years is not necessarily linear, according to Mikhael.
 

Recycling MM Therapies Deserves Consideration

In other words, CAR T cells and BsABs are not the last stop in the available lines of therapy for MM. The next best therapy is dependent on numerous considerations, including prior therapy exposure, but Mikhael pointed out that many patients in advanced stages have not been exposed to therapies known to be active or are not being considered for therapies to which they were exposed but are not necessarily resistant.

Monge made similar comments. He agreed with Mikhael that clinicians faced with a patient with multitherapy-refractory MM might forget about the XPO1 inhibitor selinexor, the alkylating agent bendamustine, or even the B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor venetoclax.

Any of these agents alone or in combination could be considered to “give the patient some time to improve” T-cell function, Monge said.

This approach will have even more promise if better assays of T-cell function become available, Mikhael said. Although he explained that T-cell exhaustion is clearly one of the reasons that CAR T-cell therapies stop working, this cannot be measured accurately at this time.

“Better T-cell assays may help,” he said.

Mikhael reported financial relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Takeda. Monge disclosed ties with Bristol Myers Squibb and Karyopharm Therapeutics.

*Correction, 10/29/24: We are correcting the name of the DREAMM-3 trial and clarifying that its failed results meant that the drug did not meet the FDA’s requirements for confirmatory trials of drugs to be approved through the agency’s accelerated approval program.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — When patients with multiple myeloma (MM) relapse following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, bispecific antibodies (BsABs), or both, likely salvage options remain that are being overlooked, including a second course of immunotherapy. Two independent experts, addressing this issue at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma Congress, offered several practical recommendations for eliciting a therapeutic response after patients with multi-refractory MM have failed everything. One approach they endorsed was allowing patients to recover from T-cell exhaustion.

“We used to think that as soon as multiple myeloma patients progress on a CAR T-cell therapy, it was sort of game over,” said Joseph Mikhael, MD, professor, Translational Genomics Research Institute, City of Hope Cancer Center Phoenix, Arizona.

“But I think we are seeing many ways to salvage these patients, including going back to a CAR T product,” said Mikhael, who also serves as the chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation.

Now that CAR T cells and BsABs are widely available, Mikhael warned that there will be a growing need for other strategies to offer when these therapies fail.

A similar point was made by Jorge Monge, MD, an assistant professor, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City. He largely focused on newer therapies with the potential to provide salvage opportunities in advanced refractory MM, but he pointed out that one application might be to permit T-cell recovery after exhaustion following B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–targeted therapies.

The two talks covered some of the same ground. Both, for example, discussed a potential role for the exportin 1 (XPO1) inhibitor selinexor (Xpovio) in the multidrug refractory setting. In combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone, selinexor was approved in 2020 for treatment-experienced patients but is often overlooked in late-stage disease.

As a strategy to elicit a response following BCMA-targeted therapies, both Mikhael and Monge cited data showing selinexor to be active and that side effects are relatively well managed if antiemetics are offered preemptively to control nausea, one of its most common side effects.

Monge also talked about the promise of cereblon E3 ligase modulatory drugs (CELMoDs) that are now in clinical trials. These drugs, such as mezigdomide and iberdomide, both of which are in advanced stages of clinical testing, are similar to the immunomodulatory agents lenalidomide and pomalidomide. However, their greater potency does not appear to substantially increase risk for adverse events, according to Monge.
 

CELMoDs Active After CAR T-Cell Therapy

Most importantly, from the standpoint of their potential role in multidrug-refractory MM, both mezigdomide and iberdomide have so far shown substantial activity in patients previously exposed to BCMA-targeted therapies, according to Monge. Although the data have been generated in small numbers of patients, he reported that objective response rates have ranged from 37% to 50%.

These rates in treatment-experience patients are lower relative to those achieved in patients with no prior exposure to BCMA-targeted drugs, but Monge said that the durations of response, exceeding 6 months in some studies, might provide enough time for the T-cell recovery needed for a second course of CAR T-cell therapy.

There are other promising therapies on the horizon relevant to controlling multidrug refractory MM, including the likely return of the antibody drug conjugate (ADC) belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep^®). This drug was withdrawn in 2022, when the DREAMM-3 trial failed to show an advantage on the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) for this drug alone over pomalidomide and dexamethasone. The failed results of the DREAMM-3 trial meant that the drug did not meet FDA requirements for confirmatory trials of drugs approved through the agency’s accelerated approval program.

However, recently published results from the phase 3 DREAMM-8 trial did show a PFS advantage for belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone over pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone at 12 months (HR 0.50; P < .0010). On the basis of this result and other positive findings, including a deeper response, Mikhael predicted that this drug will be reintroduced.

It “might take a year or more” to find its way through the approval process, but Mikhael said that he is among those who think it will have value in advanced MM.*

Many of the newer MM drugs, including bispecifics that engage proteins on the surface of the myeloma cell other than BCMA, such as G protein–coupled receptor family C group, might provide alternatives to BCMA-targeted therapies in late stages of disease, but at least some newer drugs, as well as existing drugs in combinations, might play an important role in refractory MM by restoring BCMA as a target.

“The BCMA target is not easily lost, and I think we can leverage it more than once,” Mikhael said.

This potential, which Mikhael acknowledged is mostly supported with relatively small sets of data, involves “a lot of question marks, a lot of maybes,” so the strategies are hard to compared. However, the “incredible evolution in multiple myeloma therapy” over the past few years is not necessarily linear, according to Mikhael.
 

Recycling MM Therapies Deserves Consideration

In other words, CAR T cells and BsABs are not the last stop in the available lines of therapy for MM. The next best therapy is dependent on numerous considerations, including prior therapy exposure, but Mikhael pointed out that many patients in advanced stages have not been exposed to therapies known to be active or are not being considered for therapies to which they were exposed but are not necessarily resistant.

Monge made similar comments. He agreed with Mikhael that clinicians faced with a patient with multitherapy-refractory MM might forget about the XPO1 inhibitor selinexor, the alkylating agent bendamustine, or even the B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor venetoclax.

Any of these agents alone or in combination could be considered to “give the patient some time to improve” T-cell function, Monge said.

This approach will have even more promise if better assays of T-cell function become available, Mikhael said. Although he explained that T-cell exhaustion is clearly one of the reasons that CAR T-cell therapies stop working, this cannot be measured accurately at this time.

“Better T-cell assays may help,” he said.

Mikhael reported financial relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Takeda. Monge disclosed ties with Bristol Myers Squibb and Karyopharm Therapeutics.

*Correction, 10/29/24: We are correcting the name of the DREAMM-3 trial and clarifying that its failed results meant that the drug did not meet the FDA’s requirements for confirmatory trials of drugs to be approved through the agency’s accelerated approval program.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — In a three-way debate on whether to prioritize chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, bispecific antibodies (BsAbs), or one of the novel oral targeted therapies for relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL), no expert conceded.

Acknowledging that hers was the weakest position, even the specialist who defended novel targeted therapies mounted a staunch defense of real-world patients being treated outside of tertiary centers.

“I was told by many of my colleagues that I got the short end of the stick in this debate, but I am actually here to convince everybody that targeted therapies continue to play an important role, despite the fact that they are the least sexy of these treatment options,” said Joanna Rhodes, MD, director of the Lymphoma Program at Rutgers Cancer Institute, Hoboken, New Jersey.
 

Targeted Therapies Still Relevant to Advanced FL

Although even the newest or coming targeted therapies, such as the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat or next-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, are not likely to achieve the deep responses and long-term progression-free survival possible with BsAbs or CAR T-cell therapy, the sustained disease control they offer for many patients with R/R FL is not trivial, according to Rhodes.

“The majority of these [advanced follicular lymphoma] patients are being managed in the community,” Rhodes argued at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia, & Myeloma Congress. Access to tertiary centers where the most advanced therapies are available in some cases might not even be feasible. 

Moreover, there are barriers to CAR T cells and BsAbs even at centers where these are available, Rhodes said. On a long list of barriers, lack of caregiver support is an example of one common disqualification at her own institution. 

The experience with CAR T cells in R/R FL has been relatively short, so Rhodes used data on CAR T cells for B-cell lymphoma to make her point. It is not just that the proportion of eligible patients is limited. 

“The majority of B-cell lymphoma patients who are eligible for CAR T cells are not getting them,” she said. “It will be the same for FL.”

In other words, Rhodes indicated that it is premature to count out targeted oral agents or lenalidomide despite the excitement surrounding BsAbs and CAR T cells. The targeted agents and immunomodulatory drugs remain appropriate choices for patients unable or unwilling to travel to tertiary centers for treatment, for frail patients, and for well-informed patients who understand their options and still consider better tolerated therapies to be more consistent with their perception of an adequate risk-benefit ratio. 
 

BsAbs Vie With CAR T Cells in Advanced FL

Hers might be a valid summary, but it did not derail arguments about whether CAR T-cell therapy should be prioritized over BsAbs or the other way around for patients who are candidates for both. 

There are two BsAbs currently approved for R/R FL: glofitamab and mosunetuzumab. More are coming, according to Nina Wagner-Johnston, MD, director of hematologic malignancies at Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. She provided several reasons why BsAbs might be considered before CAR T-cell therapies in at least some individuals. 

“The biggest advantage is that these therapies…are off the shelf,” she said. This avoids the delay of T-cell manufacturing, the potential need for bridging therapies, and the need for conditioning regimens. With more experience, BsAbs offer the potential for treatment even in a community-practice setting, particularly for maintenance dosing.

“I do think this is a safe treatment in patients who are elderly or unfit,” Wagner-Johnston said, suggesting she tends to lean toward prioritizing BsAbs over CAR T cells when the ability to tolerate an aggressive strategy is a concern. She specified that these drugs are associated with a low relative incidence of grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and faster B-cell aplasia recovery. 

The third participant in the debate, who described the efficacy and safety of the three currently approved CAR T-cell therapies for R/R FL, did not agree with this characterization. Daniel J. Landsburg, MD, associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, acknowledged that BsAb agents have an important role to play in the advanced FL setting, but he thinks that CAR T-cell therapies should be prioritized in at least some patients. 

In particular, he would not rule out CAR T-cell therapy in patients with comorbidities or other characteristics that raise questions about fitness for aggressive treatment. 

“In fact, you might want to treat a frail patient just one time with CAR T-cell therapy rather than dose after dose with a bispecific drug,” he said. 
 

No Data to Compare BsAbs and CAR T-Cells Directly

Both agreed that there have been no trials directly comparing a BsAb therapy vs CAR T cells, so there is no definitive answer, and Landsburg was reluctant to take a hard line on reserving BsAbs until after CAR T-cell therapy has been tried.

“Because BsAbs and CAR Ts are approved in the third-line setting, you might consider debulking a patient getting ready for a CAR T with a bispecific,” Landsburg said. However, he acknowledged that the next step becomes complex if patients achieved a complete response after just a few BsAb doses.

“Do you stop what is already working?” Landsburg asked rhetorically, suggesting that the best way forward is not always clear.

For R/R FL, currently there are three approved products: axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), and lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi). The entry criteria and design of the three pivotal trials differed, so their specific indications vary. Looking across the trials, Landsburg suggested that there might be differences in activity as defined by objective response rates or risk for cytokine release syndrome, but these remain theoretical without head-to-head comparisons.

“My suspicion is we are going to see very similar — quote, unquote — long-term survival curves for patients treated with any of these therapies,” he said, noting that progression-free survival at 3 years has been in the vicinity of 50% for the trials that have had long enough follow-up to judge.

Rather than trying to pick the best agent, he suggested that it makes more sense now to concentrate on strategies to improve response irrespective of CAR T-cell product; these include paying attention to total metabolic tumor volume at the time of infusion, optimizing bridging therapies, and thinking about T-cell fitness, which might be impaired in some patients by recent exposure to bendamustine.

Overall, with multiple ongoing studies with both CAR T-cell therapies and BsAbs in R/R FL — as well with targeted small-molecule agents and immunomodulatory drugs — all of the debate participants acknowledged that choices in R/R FL will evolve. 

“I actually think that combinations will be the future,” Wagner-Johnston said. Singling out tazemetostat and a BsAb and one approach that seems promising, she also predicted that some of the therapies in advanced disease are likely to be moved forward to earlier stages of FL therapy.

Rhodes reported ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Epizyme, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, MorphoSys, Pharmacyclics, and Pfizer. Wagner-Johnston disclosed relationships with Cuno Science, Dava Oncology, Epizyme, Grünenthal, Karyopharm, and Seagen. Landsburg reported ties with ADC Therapeutics, Calithera, Curis, Epizyme, Karyopharm, MorphoSys, and Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — In a three-way debate on whether to prioritize chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, bispecific antibodies (BsAbs), or one of the novel oral targeted therapies for relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL), no expert conceded.

Acknowledging that hers was the weakest position, even the specialist who defended novel targeted therapies mounted a staunch defense of real-world patients being treated outside of tertiary centers.

“I was told by many of my colleagues that I got the short end of the stick in this debate, but I am actually here to convince everybody that targeted therapies continue to play an important role, despite the fact that they are the least sexy of these treatment options,” said Joanna Rhodes, MD, director of the Lymphoma Program at Rutgers Cancer Institute, Hoboken, New Jersey.
 

Targeted Therapies Still Relevant to Advanced FL

Although even the newest or coming targeted therapies, such as the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat or next-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, are not likely to achieve the deep responses and long-term progression-free survival possible with BsAbs or CAR T-cell therapy, the sustained disease control they offer for many patients with R/R FL is not trivial, according to Rhodes.

“The majority of these [advanced follicular lymphoma] patients are being managed in the community,” Rhodes argued at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia, & Myeloma Congress. Access to tertiary centers where the most advanced therapies are available in some cases might not even be feasible. 

Moreover, there are barriers to CAR T cells and BsAbs even at centers where these are available, Rhodes said. On a long list of barriers, lack of caregiver support is an example of one common disqualification at her own institution. 

The experience with CAR T cells in R/R FL has been relatively short, so Rhodes used data on CAR T cells for B-cell lymphoma to make her point. It is not just that the proportion of eligible patients is limited. 

“The majority of B-cell lymphoma patients who are eligible for CAR T cells are not getting them,” she said. “It will be the same for FL.”

In other words, Rhodes indicated that it is premature to count out targeted oral agents or lenalidomide despite the excitement surrounding BsAbs and CAR T cells. The targeted agents and immunomodulatory drugs remain appropriate choices for patients unable or unwilling to travel to tertiary centers for treatment, for frail patients, and for well-informed patients who understand their options and still consider better tolerated therapies to be more consistent with their perception of an adequate risk-benefit ratio. 
 

BsAbs Vie With CAR T Cells in Advanced FL

Hers might be a valid summary, but it did not derail arguments about whether CAR T-cell therapy should be prioritized over BsAbs or the other way around for patients who are candidates for both. 

There are two BsAbs currently approved for R/R FL: glofitamab and mosunetuzumab. More are coming, according to Nina Wagner-Johnston, MD, director of hematologic malignancies at Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. She provided several reasons why BsAbs might be considered before CAR T-cell therapies in at least some individuals. 

“The biggest advantage is that these therapies…are off the shelf,” she said. This avoids the delay of T-cell manufacturing, the potential need for bridging therapies, and the need for conditioning regimens. With more experience, BsAbs offer the potential for treatment even in a community-practice setting, particularly for maintenance dosing.

“I do think this is a safe treatment in patients who are elderly or unfit,” Wagner-Johnston said, suggesting she tends to lean toward prioritizing BsAbs over CAR T cells when the ability to tolerate an aggressive strategy is a concern. She specified that these drugs are associated with a low relative incidence of grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and faster B-cell aplasia recovery. 

The third participant in the debate, who described the efficacy and safety of the three currently approved CAR T-cell therapies for R/R FL, did not agree with this characterization. Daniel J. Landsburg, MD, associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, acknowledged that BsAb agents have an important role to play in the advanced FL setting, but he thinks that CAR T-cell therapies should be prioritized in at least some patients. 

In particular, he would not rule out CAR T-cell therapy in patients with comorbidities or other characteristics that raise questions about fitness for aggressive treatment. 

“In fact, you might want to treat a frail patient just one time with CAR T-cell therapy rather than dose after dose with a bispecific drug,” he said. 
 

No Data to Compare BsAbs and CAR T-Cells Directly

Both agreed that there have been no trials directly comparing a BsAb therapy vs CAR T cells, so there is no definitive answer, and Landsburg was reluctant to take a hard line on reserving BsAbs until after CAR T-cell therapy has been tried.

“Because BsAbs and CAR Ts are approved in the third-line setting, you might consider debulking a patient getting ready for a CAR T with a bispecific,” Landsburg said. However, he acknowledged that the next step becomes complex if patients achieved a complete response after just a few BsAb doses.

“Do you stop what is already working?” Landsburg asked rhetorically, suggesting that the best way forward is not always clear.

For R/R FL, currently there are three approved products: axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), and lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi). The entry criteria and design of the three pivotal trials differed, so their specific indications vary. Looking across the trials, Landsburg suggested that there might be differences in activity as defined by objective response rates or risk for cytokine release syndrome, but these remain theoretical without head-to-head comparisons.

“My suspicion is we are going to see very similar — quote, unquote — long-term survival curves for patients treated with any of these therapies,” he said, noting that progression-free survival at 3 years has been in the vicinity of 50% for the trials that have had long enough follow-up to judge.

Rather than trying to pick the best agent, he suggested that it makes more sense now to concentrate on strategies to improve response irrespective of CAR T-cell product; these include paying attention to total metabolic tumor volume at the time of infusion, optimizing bridging therapies, and thinking about T-cell fitness, which might be impaired in some patients by recent exposure to bendamustine.

Overall, with multiple ongoing studies with both CAR T-cell therapies and BsAbs in R/R FL — as well with targeted small-molecule agents and immunomodulatory drugs — all of the debate participants acknowledged that choices in R/R FL will evolve. 

“I actually think that combinations will be the future,” Wagner-Johnston said. Singling out tazemetostat and a BsAb and one approach that seems promising, she also predicted that some of the therapies in advanced disease are likely to be moved forward to earlier stages of FL therapy.

Rhodes reported ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Epizyme, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, MorphoSys, Pharmacyclics, and Pfizer. Wagner-Johnston disclosed relationships with Cuno Science, Dava Oncology, Epizyme, Grünenthal, Karyopharm, and Seagen. Landsburg reported ties with ADC Therapeutics, Calithera, Curis, Epizyme, Karyopharm, MorphoSys, and Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — In a three-way debate on whether to prioritize chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, bispecific antibodies (BsAbs), or one of the novel oral targeted therapies for relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL), no expert conceded.

Acknowledging that hers was the weakest position, even the specialist who defended novel targeted therapies mounted a staunch defense of real-world patients being treated outside of tertiary centers.

“I was told by many of my colleagues that I got the short end of the stick in this debate, but I am actually here to convince everybody that targeted therapies continue to play an important role, despite the fact that they are the least sexy of these treatment options,” said Joanna Rhodes, MD, director of the Lymphoma Program at Rutgers Cancer Institute, Hoboken, New Jersey.
 

Targeted Therapies Still Relevant to Advanced FL

Although even the newest or coming targeted therapies, such as the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat or next-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, are not likely to achieve the deep responses and long-term progression-free survival possible with BsAbs or CAR T-cell therapy, the sustained disease control they offer for many patients with R/R FL is not trivial, according to Rhodes.

“The majority of these [advanced follicular lymphoma] patients are being managed in the community,” Rhodes argued at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia, & Myeloma Congress. Access to tertiary centers where the most advanced therapies are available in some cases might not even be feasible. 

Moreover, there are barriers to CAR T cells and BsAbs even at centers where these are available, Rhodes said. On a long list of barriers, lack of caregiver support is an example of one common disqualification at her own institution. 

The experience with CAR T cells in R/R FL has been relatively short, so Rhodes used data on CAR T cells for B-cell lymphoma to make her point. It is not just that the proportion of eligible patients is limited. 

“The majority of B-cell lymphoma patients who are eligible for CAR T cells are not getting them,” she said. “It will be the same for FL.”

In other words, Rhodes indicated that it is premature to count out targeted oral agents or lenalidomide despite the excitement surrounding BsAbs and CAR T cells. The targeted agents and immunomodulatory drugs remain appropriate choices for patients unable or unwilling to travel to tertiary centers for treatment, for frail patients, and for well-informed patients who understand their options and still consider better tolerated therapies to be more consistent with their perception of an adequate risk-benefit ratio. 
 

BsAbs Vie With CAR T Cells in Advanced FL

Hers might be a valid summary, but it did not derail arguments about whether CAR T-cell therapy should be prioritized over BsAbs or the other way around for patients who are candidates for both. 

There are two BsAbs currently approved for R/R FL: glofitamab and mosunetuzumab. More are coming, according to Nina Wagner-Johnston, MD, director of hematologic malignancies at Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. She provided several reasons why BsAbs might be considered before CAR T-cell therapies in at least some individuals. 

“The biggest advantage is that these therapies…are off the shelf,” she said. This avoids the delay of T-cell manufacturing, the potential need for bridging therapies, and the need for conditioning regimens. With more experience, BsAbs offer the potential for treatment even in a community-practice setting, particularly for maintenance dosing.

“I do think this is a safe treatment in patients who are elderly or unfit,” Wagner-Johnston said, suggesting she tends to lean toward prioritizing BsAbs over CAR T cells when the ability to tolerate an aggressive strategy is a concern. She specified that these drugs are associated with a low relative incidence of grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and faster B-cell aplasia recovery. 

The third participant in the debate, who described the efficacy and safety of the three currently approved CAR T-cell therapies for R/R FL, did not agree with this characterization. Daniel J. Landsburg, MD, associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, acknowledged that BsAb agents have an important role to play in the advanced FL setting, but he thinks that CAR T-cell therapies should be prioritized in at least some patients. 

In particular, he would not rule out CAR T-cell therapy in patients with comorbidities or other characteristics that raise questions about fitness for aggressive treatment. 

“In fact, you might want to treat a frail patient just one time with CAR T-cell therapy rather than dose after dose with a bispecific drug,” he said. 
 

No Data to Compare BsAbs and CAR T-Cells Directly

Both agreed that there have been no trials directly comparing a BsAb therapy vs CAR T cells, so there is no definitive answer, and Landsburg was reluctant to take a hard line on reserving BsAbs until after CAR T-cell therapy has been tried.

“Because BsAbs and CAR Ts are approved in the third-line setting, you might consider debulking a patient getting ready for a CAR T with a bispecific,” Landsburg said. However, he acknowledged that the next step becomes complex if patients achieved a complete response after just a few BsAb doses.

“Do you stop what is already working?” Landsburg asked rhetorically, suggesting that the best way forward is not always clear.

For R/R FL, currently there are three approved products: axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), and lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi). The entry criteria and design of the three pivotal trials differed, so their specific indications vary. Looking across the trials, Landsburg suggested that there might be differences in activity as defined by objective response rates or risk for cytokine release syndrome, but these remain theoretical without head-to-head comparisons.

“My suspicion is we are going to see very similar — quote, unquote — long-term survival curves for patients treated with any of these therapies,” he said, noting that progression-free survival at 3 years has been in the vicinity of 50% for the trials that have had long enough follow-up to judge.

Rather than trying to pick the best agent, he suggested that it makes more sense now to concentrate on strategies to improve response irrespective of CAR T-cell product; these include paying attention to total metabolic tumor volume at the time of infusion, optimizing bridging therapies, and thinking about T-cell fitness, which might be impaired in some patients by recent exposure to bendamustine.

Overall, with multiple ongoing studies with both CAR T-cell therapies and BsAbs in R/R FL — as well with targeted small-molecule agents and immunomodulatory drugs — all of the debate participants acknowledged that choices in R/R FL will evolve. 

“I actually think that combinations will be the future,” Wagner-Johnston said. Singling out tazemetostat and a BsAb and one approach that seems promising, she also predicted that some of the therapies in advanced disease are likely to be moved forward to earlier stages of FL therapy.

Rhodes reported ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Epizyme, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, MorphoSys, Pharmacyclics, and Pfizer. Wagner-Johnston disclosed relationships with Cuno Science, Dava Oncology, Epizyme, Grünenthal, Karyopharm, and Seagen. Landsburg reported ties with ADC Therapeutics, Calithera, Curis, Epizyme, Karyopharm, MorphoSys, and Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — In the wake of details about the molecular pathophysiology of Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), an expert gave an update on current and expanding options for treatment.

Most importantly, determining the mutational status of patients with WM has become a first or early step in guiding first- and second-line therapies, according to Edward A. Stadtmauer, MD, professor of medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Presenting at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma Congress in New York City, Stadtmauer discussed how MYD88 and CXCR4 gene mutations influence his therapeutic choices.

While delivering the Bruce Waterfall Memorial Lecture, funded by the International WM Foundation, he explained that the vast majority of patients with WM have a MYD88 mutation that is highly sensitive to Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors.

Due to greater specificity on the BTK target, which has implications for safety and efficacy, the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib has been largely supplanted by next generation drugs such as zanubrutinib.
 

Deep Responses in WM Remain Elusive

The support for next-generation BTK inhibitors over ibrutinib; bendamustine plus rituximab (BR); or cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CyBorD) is, in his opinion, “a superior toxicity profile, high response rates, and prolonged response.” However, he conceded that the weaknesses of this approach include a low chance of a deep remission and the need for continuous therapy.

On account of these limitations, he typically favors the alkylating agent bendamustine plus the anti-CD20 rituximab over BTK inhibitors in the absence of MYD88 mutations. This once standard approach has become less commonly used in the era of BTK inhibitors, but it is also highly effective, is generally administered in a time-limited regimen, and may be more likely to push patients into a deep remission.

A similar rationale might be considered for CyBorD, but Stadtmauer believes that BR provides a higher rate of PFS with a lower risk for neuropathy, although he admitted this opinion is based on cross-study comparisons, not comparative trials.

While efforts to develop therapies capable of producing a deep response “should not be abandoned,” particularly with the T-cell engager therapies on the horizon, he is not convinced that the benefit-to-risk ratio of aggressive therapies is yet warranted in a disease the often progresses slowly.

“I must admit I am still under the philosophy that Waldenström’s is a chronic disease even if we are seeing a growing list of options for relapsed or poorly responding disease, so I am still not pushing patients too aggressively to knock them into a complete remission,” he said.

MYD88 mutations are not unique to WM, an uncommon, slow-growing form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. They are found in a small proportion of patients with other hematologic disorders, such as marginal zone lymphomas, but Stadtmauer estimated they occur in 90% of patients with WM. They are common enough that they can help with diagnosis.
 

CXCR4 Mutations Predict Worse Outcomes

The CXCR4 mutation occurs in an estimated 40% of patients with WM. When present, they are associated with worse outcomes, including a faster time to progression and a reduced overall survival, according to Stadtmauer.

The prognostic impact of less common mutations, such as TP53 and TERT or deletions in LYN, are less well characterized, but Stadtmauer said that most mutations associated with WM result in constitutive or continuous activation in BTK, which, in turn drives WM cell proliferation and survival.

The importance of BTK in WM progression is the reason targeted inhibitors have assumed such a key role in first-line treatment, but Stadtmauer cautioned that these drugs, like other therapies, should not be initiated in asymptomatic patients. This has been stated in past and current guidelines.

More accurately, therapy should be held until just prior to symptomatic manifestations of disease, Stadtmauer specified.

For an optimal response, “you want to start therapy about 3 or 4 months before the symptoms begin,” said Stadtmauer characterizing efforts to do so as “the art of medicine.” Starting therapy just prior to symptoms is advantageous, but it involves following patients closely. Any single biomarker might not be enough.

“In an asymptomatic patient, the level of monoclonal IgM is not an indication to start therapy,” he said, citing studies showing no effect on subsequent disease control from treating this biomarker alone.

However, he listed the development of moderate peripheral neuropathy (PN) as an exception. Essentially, anything greater than mild PN is “still bad” in Stadtmauer’s opinion, so treatment is warranted.

The growing number of second-line options relieves some of the concern when patients progress. Stadtmauer said he is now using BR more often in the second-line drug now that he is using BTK inhibitor more in the first line.

The Bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax is highly effective and is another first- or second-line option even if this agent, like BTK inhibitors, also appears to require continuous dosing, said Stadtmauer, citing a study that showed patients relapsed relatively rapidly when the drug was stopped.

He now thinks of regimens with proteasome inhibitors as third line.

In selected patients who do not tolerate the non-covalent second-generation BTK inhibitors in the first or second line, he said, “I move quickly to the covalent BTKi pirtobrutinib,” based on data suggesting responses that are at least as good but with a better tolerability profile.
 

T-Cell Engager Data Are Limited

Without spending much time on the T-cell engagers, such as CAR T-cells or bispecific antibodies, Stadtmauer said that the advances he sees on the horizon “are tremendous,” and the “future is bright.” Such approaches could yield deep responses that could extend control or even provide cure, but these are speculations until more patients have been treated and followed long term.

Morton Coleman, MD, director of the Center for Lymphoma and Myeloma at Weill Cornell Medicine and the chairperson of the LLM Congress, called the talk a valuable and practical summary from a knowledgeable source. BTK inhibitors have represented a major evolution in WM management, but Coleman appreciated the underlying concept that treatment still has to be individualized.

“I think one of the most important take home messages is that the characterization of the mutational profile in patients with Waldenström should be considered a standard of care,” Coleman said. Helpful now, the mutational profile is likely to have a more valuable role as treatment is increasingly individualized.

Stadtmauer reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Sorrento. Coleman disclosed ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Loxo Oncology, Janssen, and Pharmacyclics.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — In the wake of details about the molecular pathophysiology of Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), an expert gave an update on current and expanding options for treatment.

Most importantly, determining the mutational status of patients with WM has become a first or early step in guiding first- and second-line therapies, according to Edward A. Stadtmauer, MD, professor of medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Presenting at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma Congress in New York City, Stadtmauer discussed how MYD88 and CXCR4 gene mutations influence his therapeutic choices.

While delivering the Bruce Waterfall Memorial Lecture, funded by the International WM Foundation, he explained that the vast majority of patients with WM have a MYD88 mutation that is highly sensitive to Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors.

Due to greater specificity on the BTK target, which has implications for safety and efficacy, the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib has been largely supplanted by next generation drugs such as zanubrutinib.
 

Deep Responses in WM Remain Elusive

The support for next-generation BTK inhibitors over ibrutinib; bendamustine plus rituximab (BR); or cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CyBorD) is, in his opinion, “a superior toxicity profile, high response rates, and prolonged response.” However, he conceded that the weaknesses of this approach include a low chance of a deep remission and the need for continuous therapy.

On account of these limitations, he typically favors the alkylating agent bendamustine plus the anti-CD20 rituximab over BTK inhibitors in the absence of MYD88 mutations. This once standard approach has become less commonly used in the era of BTK inhibitors, but it is also highly effective, is generally administered in a time-limited regimen, and may be more likely to push patients into a deep remission.

A similar rationale might be considered for CyBorD, but Stadtmauer believes that BR provides a higher rate of PFS with a lower risk for neuropathy, although he admitted this opinion is based on cross-study comparisons, not comparative trials.

While efforts to develop therapies capable of producing a deep response “should not be abandoned,” particularly with the T-cell engager therapies on the horizon, he is not convinced that the benefit-to-risk ratio of aggressive therapies is yet warranted in a disease the often progresses slowly.

“I must admit I am still under the philosophy that Waldenström’s is a chronic disease even if we are seeing a growing list of options for relapsed or poorly responding disease, so I am still not pushing patients too aggressively to knock them into a complete remission,” he said.

MYD88 mutations are not unique to WM, an uncommon, slow-growing form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. They are found in a small proportion of patients with other hematologic disorders, such as marginal zone lymphomas, but Stadtmauer estimated they occur in 90% of patients with WM. They are common enough that they can help with diagnosis.
 

CXCR4 Mutations Predict Worse Outcomes

The CXCR4 mutation occurs in an estimated 40% of patients with WM. When present, they are associated with worse outcomes, including a faster time to progression and a reduced overall survival, according to Stadtmauer.

The prognostic impact of less common mutations, such as TP53 and TERT or deletions in LYN, are less well characterized, but Stadtmauer said that most mutations associated with WM result in constitutive or continuous activation in BTK, which, in turn drives WM cell proliferation and survival.

The importance of BTK in WM progression is the reason targeted inhibitors have assumed such a key role in first-line treatment, but Stadtmauer cautioned that these drugs, like other therapies, should not be initiated in asymptomatic patients. This has been stated in past and current guidelines.

More accurately, therapy should be held until just prior to symptomatic manifestations of disease, Stadtmauer specified.

For an optimal response, “you want to start therapy about 3 or 4 months before the symptoms begin,” said Stadtmauer characterizing efforts to do so as “the art of medicine.” Starting therapy just prior to symptoms is advantageous, but it involves following patients closely. Any single biomarker might not be enough.

“In an asymptomatic patient, the level of monoclonal IgM is not an indication to start therapy,” he said, citing studies showing no effect on subsequent disease control from treating this biomarker alone.

However, he listed the development of moderate peripheral neuropathy (PN) as an exception. Essentially, anything greater than mild PN is “still bad” in Stadtmauer’s opinion, so treatment is warranted.

The growing number of second-line options relieves some of the concern when patients progress. Stadtmauer said he is now using BR more often in the second-line drug now that he is using BTK inhibitor more in the first line.

The Bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax is highly effective and is another first- or second-line option even if this agent, like BTK inhibitors, also appears to require continuous dosing, said Stadtmauer, citing a study that showed patients relapsed relatively rapidly when the drug was stopped.

He now thinks of regimens with proteasome inhibitors as third line.

In selected patients who do not tolerate the non-covalent second-generation BTK inhibitors in the first or second line, he said, “I move quickly to the covalent BTKi pirtobrutinib,” based on data suggesting responses that are at least as good but with a better tolerability profile.
 

T-Cell Engager Data Are Limited

Without spending much time on the T-cell engagers, such as CAR T-cells or bispecific antibodies, Stadtmauer said that the advances he sees on the horizon “are tremendous,” and the “future is bright.” Such approaches could yield deep responses that could extend control or even provide cure, but these are speculations until more patients have been treated and followed long term.

Morton Coleman, MD, director of the Center for Lymphoma and Myeloma at Weill Cornell Medicine and the chairperson of the LLM Congress, called the talk a valuable and practical summary from a knowledgeable source. BTK inhibitors have represented a major evolution in WM management, but Coleman appreciated the underlying concept that treatment still has to be individualized.

“I think one of the most important take home messages is that the characterization of the mutational profile in patients with Waldenström should be considered a standard of care,” Coleman said. Helpful now, the mutational profile is likely to have a more valuable role as treatment is increasingly individualized.

Stadtmauer reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Sorrento. Coleman disclosed ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Loxo Oncology, Janssen, and Pharmacyclics.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — In the wake of details about the molecular pathophysiology of Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), an expert gave an update on current and expanding options for treatment.

Most importantly, determining the mutational status of patients with WM has become a first or early step in guiding first- and second-line therapies, according to Edward A. Stadtmauer, MD, professor of medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Presenting at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma Congress in New York City, Stadtmauer discussed how MYD88 and CXCR4 gene mutations influence his therapeutic choices.

While delivering the Bruce Waterfall Memorial Lecture, funded by the International WM Foundation, he explained that the vast majority of patients with WM have a MYD88 mutation that is highly sensitive to Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors.

Due to greater specificity on the BTK target, which has implications for safety and efficacy, the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib has been largely supplanted by next generation drugs such as zanubrutinib.
 

Deep Responses in WM Remain Elusive

The support for next-generation BTK inhibitors over ibrutinib; bendamustine plus rituximab (BR); or cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CyBorD) is, in his opinion, “a superior toxicity profile, high response rates, and prolonged response.” However, he conceded that the weaknesses of this approach include a low chance of a deep remission and the need for continuous therapy.

On account of these limitations, he typically favors the alkylating agent bendamustine plus the anti-CD20 rituximab over BTK inhibitors in the absence of MYD88 mutations. This once standard approach has become less commonly used in the era of BTK inhibitors, but it is also highly effective, is generally administered in a time-limited regimen, and may be more likely to push patients into a deep remission.

A similar rationale might be considered for CyBorD, but Stadtmauer believes that BR provides a higher rate of PFS with a lower risk for neuropathy, although he admitted this opinion is based on cross-study comparisons, not comparative trials.

While efforts to develop therapies capable of producing a deep response “should not be abandoned,” particularly with the T-cell engager therapies on the horizon, he is not convinced that the benefit-to-risk ratio of aggressive therapies is yet warranted in a disease the often progresses slowly.

“I must admit I am still under the philosophy that Waldenström’s is a chronic disease even if we are seeing a growing list of options for relapsed or poorly responding disease, so I am still not pushing patients too aggressively to knock them into a complete remission,” he said.

MYD88 mutations are not unique to WM, an uncommon, slow-growing form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. They are found in a small proportion of patients with other hematologic disorders, such as marginal zone lymphomas, but Stadtmauer estimated they occur in 90% of patients with WM. They are common enough that they can help with diagnosis.
 

CXCR4 Mutations Predict Worse Outcomes

The CXCR4 mutation occurs in an estimated 40% of patients with WM. When present, they are associated with worse outcomes, including a faster time to progression and a reduced overall survival, according to Stadtmauer.

The prognostic impact of less common mutations, such as TP53 and TERT or deletions in LYN, are less well characterized, but Stadtmauer said that most mutations associated with WM result in constitutive or continuous activation in BTK, which, in turn drives WM cell proliferation and survival.

The importance of BTK in WM progression is the reason targeted inhibitors have assumed such a key role in first-line treatment, but Stadtmauer cautioned that these drugs, like other therapies, should not be initiated in asymptomatic patients. This has been stated in past and current guidelines.

More accurately, therapy should be held until just prior to symptomatic manifestations of disease, Stadtmauer specified.

For an optimal response, “you want to start therapy about 3 or 4 months before the symptoms begin,” said Stadtmauer characterizing efforts to do so as “the art of medicine.” Starting therapy just prior to symptoms is advantageous, but it involves following patients closely. Any single biomarker might not be enough.

“In an asymptomatic patient, the level of monoclonal IgM is not an indication to start therapy,” he said, citing studies showing no effect on subsequent disease control from treating this biomarker alone.

However, he listed the development of moderate peripheral neuropathy (PN) as an exception. Essentially, anything greater than mild PN is “still bad” in Stadtmauer’s opinion, so treatment is warranted.

The growing number of second-line options relieves some of the concern when patients progress. Stadtmauer said he is now using BR more often in the second-line drug now that he is using BTK inhibitor more in the first line.

The Bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax is highly effective and is another first- or second-line option even if this agent, like BTK inhibitors, also appears to require continuous dosing, said Stadtmauer, citing a study that showed patients relapsed relatively rapidly when the drug was stopped.

He now thinks of regimens with proteasome inhibitors as third line.

In selected patients who do not tolerate the non-covalent second-generation BTK inhibitors in the first or second line, he said, “I move quickly to the covalent BTKi pirtobrutinib,” based on data suggesting responses that are at least as good but with a better tolerability profile.
 

T-Cell Engager Data Are Limited

Without spending much time on the T-cell engagers, such as CAR T-cells or bispecific antibodies, Stadtmauer said that the advances he sees on the horizon “are tremendous,” and the “future is bright.” Such approaches could yield deep responses that could extend control or even provide cure, but these are speculations until more patients have been treated and followed long term.

Morton Coleman, MD, director of the Center for Lymphoma and Myeloma at Weill Cornell Medicine and the chairperson of the LLM Congress, called the talk a valuable and practical summary from a knowledgeable source. BTK inhibitors have represented a major evolution in WM management, but Coleman appreciated the underlying concept that treatment still has to be individualized.

“I think one of the most important take home messages is that the characterization of the mutational profile in patients with Waldenström should be considered a standard of care,” Coleman said. Helpful now, the mutational profile is likely to have a more valuable role as treatment is increasingly individualized.

Stadtmauer reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Sorrento. Coleman disclosed ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Loxo Oncology, Janssen, and Pharmacyclics.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For more than three decades, the federal government sought to make amends to countless Americans who developed cancer after being exposed to radiation from nuclear testing in the Southwest or while working in the uranium mining industry.

As of 2022, more than 40,000 patients with cancer successfully applied for $2.6 billion in compensation. Recipients included “downwinders” who were eligible for $50,000 each if they lived in certain areas of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona during specified nuclear testing periods and developed a covered form of cancer.

In June 2024, however, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program expired amid infighting among Republicans in Congress over whether to expand it. For now, no one can make a claim, even though many downwinders are still alive and continue to be diagnosed with covered cancers decades after they were exposed in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.

There’s a glimmer of good news. The federal government continues to support free medical screenings for eligible people, including certain downwinders and uranium workers. Meanwhile, there are still important roles for clinicians across the country to play as politicians figure out what — if anything — to do next regarding those exposed to radiation.

“We are still here. We can still screen people,” Zachary Davis, program director for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program, The University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said in an interview.
 

Still-Unfolding Legacy of Radiation Exposure

No one knew just how far radiation would spread when the first nuclear bomb was tested in New Mexico in July 1945. Would it cover the state? The entire Southwest? The whole nation?

It also wasn’t clear how radiation would affect people’s health. “There was an awareness that some cancers were caused by radiation, but there wasn’t a cohesive understanding of what the problem was,” Joseph Shonka, PhD, a health physicist who studies radiation exposure and has worked for decades in nuclear engineering, said in an interview.

Now, nearly eight decades later, scientists are still figuring out the full extent of radioactive fallout from nuclear testing. Just last year, a study suggested that radiation from 94 nuclear weapon tests in the Southwest from 1945 to 1962 reached 46 states along with Canada and Mexico.

Activists believe the tests triggered untold number of cancer cases in residents who were exposed in downwind areas:

“My brother died of stomach cancer; my mom died of bone cancer. One of my sisters is surviving brain tumors, and the other one is surviving thyroid cancer,” one New Mexico man recently told ABC-TV’s “Nightline.”

In Idaho, a downwinder advocate told Idaho Capital Sun that everyone who attended a reception for her newly married parents in 1952 — just weeks after a nuclear test — developed cancer or “weird medical complications.” That included her parents, who both had cancer. Her two older brothers, born in 1953 and 1955, also developed cancer, and she’s tracked many other cases in the small town of Emmett.

In Utah, another downwinder advocate told Utah News Dispatch that cancer was common in Salt Lake City neighborhood, where she grew up, which was exposed to fallout. She developed thyroid cancer, her younger sister developed stomach cancer, and an older sister died of lupus, which is connected to radiation exposure. But Salt Lake City isn’t in one of the regions of Utah covered by the federal compensation program, so the advocate can’t get a $50,000 payment.

Downwinders who lived in New Mexico, Idaho, and the Salt Lake City area of Utah are not covered by the federal compensation program. That means none of these people or their descendants are eligible for payments — yet.
 

Decades After Nuclear Testing, the Government Responds

In 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which allowed compensation to people with cancer at several levels. It was later expanded. Downwinders — including those who’ve moved elsewhere over the years — were eligible for $50,000. Onsite participants in nuclear testing could get $75,000. Uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters in 11 states west of the Mississippi River could get $100,000.

Among downwinders, eligible cancers included blood cancers (leukemias with the exception of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas) and a long list of solid organ cancers such as thyroid, breast, stomach, brain, lung, colon, and liver cancers.

“When it comes to blood-related cancers, we do see leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma, but these cancers were more likely to occur sooner after fallout exposure,” said Laura Shaw, MD, principal investigator who oversees the radiation exposure screening program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “At this point, we see more pancreatic, thyroid, lung, stomach, bladder, and breast cancer.”

The compensation program had major limitations, critics said. “It left out a lot of communities that were exposed,” said Lilly Adams, senior outreach coordinator with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which supports expanding the program. A national nonprofit organization, UCS was founded more than 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“You have this pretty small amount of one-time compensation, and that’s it,” Adams said in an interview. “You can’t get reimbursed for medical costs or lost wages.” Still, “as flawed as the program is, it’s really valuable for the people who are eligible,” she noted.
 

Now Congress Is Divided on Next Steps

Some lawmakers have recognized the need to do more for those who developed cancer that’s potentially linked to radiation exposure. As the June 2024 expiration of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act loomed, Democrats and Republicans in Congress worked together to extend and expand the program.

They introduced a bill for higher compensation — $100,000 per person — and the widening of covered downwinder areas to all of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah (which had only been partially covered), along with all of Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, and Guam. Under the legislation, the program also would expand to cover some uranium workers who were on the job after 1971 and residents exposed to nuclear waste in Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee.

In March, the new legislation easily passed the US Senate by a vote of 69-30, with support from both political parties — but the Republican-led House hasn’t taken it up. As a result, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act expired in June, and no one can submit new applications for compensation.

A spokesman for House Speaker Mike Johnson told Missouri Independent “unfortunately, the current Senate bill is estimated to cost $50-$60 billion in new mandatory spending with no offsets and was supported by only 20 of 49 Republicans in the Senate.”

Adams rejected these arguments. “The government spends literally trillions of dollars on our nuclear weapons. Whether or not you support that spending, the human cost of building those weapons should be factored in,” she said. She added that she hopes the House will act by the end of the year to pass the bill, but that’s uncertain.
 

As Compensation Is On Hold, Medical Screening Continues

A major benefit is still available for downwinders and uranium workers: Free medical screening and referrals for medical treatment. The Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program’s funding has not been affected by the congressional impasse, so screenings are continuing for eligible people exposed to radiation.

Radiation exposure clinics offer screening in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, and health providers can get funding to offer screening in other affected states.

In Nevada, “we hold screening clinics throughout the state: Caliente, Ely, and Winnemucca. Also, in Reno and Las Vegas, which are not in designated downwind areas, but many downwinders have migrated there,” said Shaw in an interview. Among downwinders, “our youngest patients are in their 60s and range up to a few in their 90s,” she said.

Patients fill out questionnaires that ask about their medical problems, family history, and medications. “Ely patients in particular seem to have extensive family histories of cancer, and this may be due to their location directly downwind of the Nevada Test Site,” Shaw said. (Ely is a remote town in central eastern Nevada near the Utah border.)

The screenings cover both cancer and noncancer conditions. Shaw said clinicians often diagnose problems other than the covered cancers — new cases of atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension. “We see a ton of prostate and skin cancer” but don’t make patients eligible for the compensation program because they’re not covered, she said.

Even as compensation is on hold, doctors can get the word out that screenings are still available, Shaw said. “We continue to get contacted by individuals who in these communities who have never heard of this program, even though we’ve been holding clinics since 2005,” Shaw said. “Despite outreach activities and advertising through newspapers and radio, we find the most successful method of reaching these patients is through word of mouth — either from other patients or their doctors. That is why we feel it is so important to reach other physicians as well.”
 

Affected Patients Don’t Just Live in the West

On the outreach front, clinicians in states outside of the western US region can be helpful, too. Shaw urged oncologists nationwide to ask older patients where they lived in the 1950s and 1960s. “Did they live in Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and other Western states that are downwind? They may qualify for needed services and future compensation.”

With regard to compensation, she noted that applicants need to prove that they lived in affected areas many decades ago. And, of course, they must prove that they’ve had cancer. Locating residency records “has often been an enormous challenge.” Old utility bills, pay stubs, and high school annuals can be helpful, “but these records tend to disappear. People and their families throw stuff away.”

Even proving a cancer diagnosis can be a challenge because records can be missing. In Nevada, the law says clinicians only need to keep medical records for 5 years, Shaw said. “Imaging and pathology reports are destroyed. Patients that have been diagnosed with cancer can’t prove it.”

Shaw said she hopes oncologists will offer these messages to patients: “Be an advocate for your own health and keep copies of your own records. Discuss your diagnosis with your family and contact a cancer registry if you are diagnosed with cancer.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For more than three decades, the federal government sought to make amends to countless Americans who developed cancer after being exposed to radiation from nuclear testing in the Southwest or while working in the uranium mining industry.

As of 2022, more than 40,000 patients with cancer successfully applied for $2.6 billion in compensation. Recipients included “downwinders” who were eligible for $50,000 each if they lived in certain areas of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona during specified nuclear testing periods and developed a covered form of cancer.

In June 2024, however, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program expired amid infighting among Republicans in Congress over whether to expand it. For now, no one can make a claim, even though many downwinders are still alive and continue to be diagnosed with covered cancers decades after they were exposed in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.

There’s a glimmer of good news. The federal government continues to support free medical screenings for eligible people, including certain downwinders and uranium workers. Meanwhile, there are still important roles for clinicians across the country to play as politicians figure out what — if anything — to do next regarding those exposed to radiation.

“We are still here. We can still screen people,” Zachary Davis, program director for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program, The University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said in an interview.
 

Still-Unfolding Legacy of Radiation Exposure

No one knew just how far radiation would spread when the first nuclear bomb was tested in New Mexico in July 1945. Would it cover the state? The entire Southwest? The whole nation?

It also wasn’t clear how radiation would affect people’s health. “There was an awareness that some cancers were caused by radiation, but there wasn’t a cohesive understanding of what the problem was,” Joseph Shonka, PhD, a health physicist who studies radiation exposure and has worked for decades in nuclear engineering, said in an interview.

Now, nearly eight decades later, scientists are still figuring out the full extent of radioactive fallout from nuclear testing. Just last year, a study suggested that radiation from 94 nuclear weapon tests in the Southwest from 1945 to 1962 reached 46 states along with Canada and Mexico.

Activists believe the tests triggered untold number of cancer cases in residents who were exposed in downwind areas:

“My brother died of stomach cancer; my mom died of bone cancer. One of my sisters is surviving brain tumors, and the other one is surviving thyroid cancer,” one New Mexico man recently told ABC-TV’s “Nightline.”

In Idaho, a downwinder advocate told Idaho Capital Sun that everyone who attended a reception for her newly married parents in 1952 — just weeks after a nuclear test — developed cancer or “weird medical complications.” That included her parents, who both had cancer. Her two older brothers, born in 1953 and 1955, also developed cancer, and she’s tracked many other cases in the small town of Emmett.

In Utah, another downwinder advocate told Utah News Dispatch that cancer was common in Salt Lake City neighborhood, where she grew up, which was exposed to fallout. She developed thyroid cancer, her younger sister developed stomach cancer, and an older sister died of lupus, which is connected to radiation exposure. But Salt Lake City isn’t in one of the regions of Utah covered by the federal compensation program, so the advocate can’t get a $50,000 payment.

Downwinders who lived in New Mexico, Idaho, and the Salt Lake City area of Utah are not covered by the federal compensation program. That means none of these people or their descendants are eligible for payments — yet.
 

Decades After Nuclear Testing, the Government Responds

In 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which allowed compensation to people with cancer at several levels. It was later expanded. Downwinders — including those who’ve moved elsewhere over the years — were eligible for $50,000. Onsite participants in nuclear testing could get $75,000. Uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters in 11 states west of the Mississippi River could get $100,000.

Among downwinders, eligible cancers included blood cancers (leukemias with the exception of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas) and a long list of solid organ cancers such as thyroid, breast, stomach, brain, lung, colon, and liver cancers.

“When it comes to blood-related cancers, we do see leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma, but these cancers were more likely to occur sooner after fallout exposure,” said Laura Shaw, MD, principal investigator who oversees the radiation exposure screening program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “At this point, we see more pancreatic, thyroid, lung, stomach, bladder, and breast cancer.”

The compensation program had major limitations, critics said. “It left out a lot of communities that were exposed,” said Lilly Adams, senior outreach coordinator with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which supports expanding the program. A national nonprofit organization, UCS was founded more than 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“You have this pretty small amount of one-time compensation, and that’s it,” Adams said in an interview. “You can’t get reimbursed for medical costs or lost wages.” Still, “as flawed as the program is, it’s really valuable for the people who are eligible,” she noted.
 

Now Congress Is Divided on Next Steps

Some lawmakers have recognized the need to do more for those who developed cancer that’s potentially linked to radiation exposure. As the June 2024 expiration of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act loomed, Democrats and Republicans in Congress worked together to extend and expand the program.

They introduced a bill for higher compensation — $100,000 per person — and the widening of covered downwinder areas to all of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah (which had only been partially covered), along with all of Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, and Guam. Under the legislation, the program also would expand to cover some uranium workers who were on the job after 1971 and residents exposed to nuclear waste in Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee.

In March, the new legislation easily passed the US Senate by a vote of 69-30, with support from both political parties — but the Republican-led House hasn’t taken it up. As a result, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act expired in June, and no one can submit new applications for compensation.

A spokesman for House Speaker Mike Johnson told Missouri Independent “unfortunately, the current Senate bill is estimated to cost $50-$60 billion in new mandatory spending with no offsets and was supported by only 20 of 49 Republicans in the Senate.”

Adams rejected these arguments. “The government spends literally trillions of dollars on our nuclear weapons. Whether or not you support that spending, the human cost of building those weapons should be factored in,” she said. She added that she hopes the House will act by the end of the year to pass the bill, but that’s uncertain.
 

As Compensation Is On Hold, Medical Screening Continues

A major benefit is still available for downwinders and uranium workers: Free medical screening and referrals for medical treatment. The Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program’s funding has not been affected by the congressional impasse, so screenings are continuing for eligible people exposed to radiation.

Radiation exposure clinics offer screening in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, and health providers can get funding to offer screening in other affected states.

In Nevada, “we hold screening clinics throughout the state: Caliente, Ely, and Winnemucca. Also, in Reno and Las Vegas, which are not in designated downwind areas, but many downwinders have migrated there,” said Shaw in an interview. Among downwinders, “our youngest patients are in their 60s and range up to a few in their 90s,” she said.

Patients fill out questionnaires that ask about their medical problems, family history, and medications. “Ely patients in particular seem to have extensive family histories of cancer, and this may be due to their location directly downwind of the Nevada Test Site,” Shaw said. (Ely is a remote town in central eastern Nevada near the Utah border.)

The screenings cover both cancer and noncancer conditions. Shaw said clinicians often diagnose problems other than the covered cancers — new cases of atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension. “We see a ton of prostate and skin cancer” but don’t make patients eligible for the compensation program because they’re not covered, she said.

Even as compensation is on hold, doctors can get the word out that screenings are still available, Shaw said. “We continue to get contacted by individuals who in these communities who have never heard of this program, even though we’ve been holding clinics since 2005,” Shaw said. “Despite outreach activities and advertising through newspapers and radio, we find the most successful method of reaching these patients is through word of mouth — either from other patients or their doctors. That is why we feel it is so important to reach other physicians as well.”
 

Affected Patients Don’t Just Live in the West

On the outreach front, clinicians in states outside of the western US region can be helpful, too. Shaw urged oncologists nationwide to ask older patients where they lived in the 1950s and 1960s. “Did they live in Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and other Western states that are downwind? They may qualify for needed services and future compensation.”

With regard to compensation, she noted that applicants need to prove that they lived in affected areas many decades ago. And, of course, they must prove that they’ve had cancer. Locating residency records “has often been an enormous challenge.” Old utility bills, pay stubs, and high school annuals can be helpful, “but these records tend to disappear. People and their families throw stuff away.”

Even proving a cancer diagnosis can be a challenge because records can be missing. In Nevada, the law says clinicians only need to keep medical records for 5 years, Shaw said. “Imaging and pathology reports are destroyed. Patients that have been diagnosed with cancer can’t prove it.”

Shaw said she hopes oncologists will offer these messages to patients: “Be an advocate for your own health and keep copies of your own records. Discuss your diagnosis with your family and contact a cancer registry if you are diagnosed with cancer.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For more than three decades, the federal government sought to make amends to countless Americans who developed cancer after being exposed to radiation from nuclear testing in the Southwest or while working in the uranium mining industry.

As of 2022, more than 40,000 patients with cancer successfully applied for $2.6 billion in compensation. Recipients included “downwinders” who were eligible for $50,000 each if they lived in certain areas of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona during specified nuclear testing periods and developed a covered form of cancer.

In June 2024, however, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program expired amid infighting among Republicans in Congress over whether to expand it. For now, no one can make a claim, even though many downwinders are still alive and continue to be diagnosed with covered cancers decades after they were exposed in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.

There’s a glimmer of good news. The federal government continues to support free medical screenings for eligible people, including certain downwinders and uranium workers. Meanwhile, there are still important roles for clinicians across the country to play as politicians figure out what — if anything — to do next regarding those exposed to radiation.

“We are still here. We can still screen people,” Zachary Davis, program director for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program, The University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said in an interview.
 

Still-Unfolding Legacy of Radiation Exposure

No one knew just how far radiation would spread when the first nuclear bomb was tested in New Mexico in July 1945. Would it cover the state? The entire Southwest? The whole nation?

It also wasn’t clear how radiation would affect people’s health. “There was an awareness that some cancers were caused by radiation, but there wasn’t a cohesive understanding of what the problem was,” Joseph Shonka, PhD, a health physicist who studies radiation exposure and has worked for decades in nuclear engineering, said in an interview.

Now, nearly eight decades later, scientists are still figuring out the full extent of radioactive fallout from nuclear testing. Just last year, a study suggested that radiation from 94 nuclear weapon tests in the Southwest from 1945 to 1962 reached 46 states along with Canada and Mexico.

Activists believe the tests triggered untold number of cancer cases in residents who were exposed in downwind areas:

“My brother died of stomach cancer; my mom died of bone cancer. One of my sisters is surviving brain tumors, and the other one is surviving thyroid cancer,” one New Mexico man recently told ABC-TV’s “Nightline.”

In Idaho, a downwinder advocate told Idaho Capital Sun that everyone who attended a reception for her newly married parents in 1952 — just weeks after a nuclear test — developed cancer or “weird medical complications.” That included her parents, who both had cancer. Her two older brothers, born in 1953 and 1955, also developed cancer, and she’s tracked many other cases in the small town of Emmett.

In Utah, another downwinder advocate told Utah News Dispatch that cancer was common in Salt Lake City neighborhood, where she grew up, which was exposed to fallout. She developed thyroid cancer, her younger sister developed stomach cancer, and an older sister died of lupus, which is connected to radiation exposure. But Salt Lake City isn’t in one of the regions of Utah covered by the federal compensation program, so the advocate can’t get a $50,000 payment.

Downwinders who lived in New Mexico, Idaho, and the Salt Lake City area of Utah are not covered by the federal compensation program. That means none of these people or their descendants are eligible for payments — yet.
 

Decades After Nuclear Testing, the Government Responds

In 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which allowed compensation to people with cancer at several levels. It was later expanded. Downwinders — including those who’ve moved elsewhere over the years — were eligible for $50,000. Onsite participants in nuclear testing could get $75,000. Uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters in 11 states west of the Mississippi River could get $100,000.

Among downwinders, eligible cancers included blood cancers (leukemias with the exception of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas) and a long list of solid organ cancers such as thyroid, breast, stomach, brain, lung, colon, and liver cancers.

“When it comes to blood-related cancers, we do see leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma, but these cancers were more likely to occur sooner after fallout exposure,” said Laura Shaw, MD, principal investigator who oversees the radiation exposure screening program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “At this point, we see more pancreatic, thyroid, lung, stomach, bladder, and breast cancer.”

The compensation program had major limitations, critics said. “It left out a lot of communities that were exposed,” said Lilly Adams, senior outreach coordinator with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which supports expanding the program. A national nonprofit organization, UCS was founded more than 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“You have this pretty small amount of one-time compensation, and that’s it,” Adams said in an interview. “You can’t get reimbursed for medical costs or lost wages.” Still, “as flawed as the program is, it’s really valuable for the people who are eligible,” she noted.
 

Now Congress Is Divided on Next Steps

Some lawmakers have recognized the need to do more for those who developed cancer that’s potentially linked to radiation exposure. As the June 2024 expiration of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act loomed, Democrats and Republicans in Congress worked together to extend and expand the program.

They introduced a bill for higher compensation — $100,000 per person — and the widening of covered downwinder areas to all of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah (which had only been partially covered), along with all of Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, and Guam. Under the legislation, the program also would expand to cover some uranium workers who were on the job after 1971 and residents exposed to nuclear waste in Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee.

In March, the new legislation easily passed the US Senate by a vote of 69-30, with support from both political parties — but the Republican-led House hasn’t taken it up. As a result, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act expired in June, and no one can submit new applications for compensation.

A spokesman for House Speaker Mike Johnson told Missouri Independent “unfortunately, the current Senate bill is estimated to cost $50-$60 billion in new mandatory spending with no offsets and was supported by only 20 of 49 Republicans in the Senate.”

Adams rejected these arguments. “The government spends literally trillions of dollars on our nuclear weapons. Whether or not you support that spending, the human cost of building those weapons should be factored in,” she said. She added that she hopes the House will act by the end of the year to pass the bill, but that’s uncertain.
 

As Compensation Is On Hold, Medical Screening Continues

A major benefit is still available for downwinders and uranium workers: Free medical screening and referrals for medical treatment. The Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program’s funding has not been affected by the congressional impasse, so screenings are continuing for eligible people exposed to radiation.

Radiation exposure clinics offer screening in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, and health providers can get funding to offer screening in other affected states.

In Nevada, “we hold screening clinics throughout the state: Caliente, Ely, and Winnemucca. Also, in Reno and Las Vegas, which are not in designated downwind areas, but many downwinders have migrated there,” said Shaw in an interview. Among downwinders, “our youngest patients are in their 60s and range up to a few in their 90s,” she said.

Patients fill out questionnaires that ask about their medical problems, family history, and medications. “Ely patients in particular seem to have extensive family histories of cancer, and this may be due to their location directly downwind of the Nevada Test Site,” Shaw said. (Ely is a remote town in central eastern Nevada near the Utah border.)

The screenings cover both cancer and noncancer conditions. Shaw said clinicians often diagnose problems other than the covered cancers — new cases of atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension. “We see a ton of prostate and skin cancer” but don’t make patients eligible for the compensation program because they’re not covered, she said.

Even as compensation is on hold, doctors can get the word out that screenings are still available, Shaw said. “We continue to get contacted by individuals who in these communities who have never heard of this program, even though we’ve been holding clinics since 2005,” Shaw said. “Despite outreach activities and advertising through newspapers and radio, we find the most successful method of reaching these patients is through word of mouth — either from other patients or their doctors. That is why we feel it is so important to reach other physicians as well.”
 

Affected Patients Don’t Just Live in the West

On the outreach front, clinicians in states outside of the western US region can be helpful, too. Shaw urged oncologists nationwide to ask older patients where they lived in the 1950s and 1960s. “Did they live in Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and other Western states that are downwind? They may qualify for needed services and future compensation.”

With regard to compensation, she noted that applicants need to prove that they lived in affected areas many decades ago. And, of course, they must prove that they’ve had cancer. Locating residency records “has often been an enormous challenge.” Old utility bills, pay stubs, and high school annuals can be helpful, “but these records tend to disappear. People and their families throw stuff away.”

Even proving a cancer diagnosis can be a challenge because records can be missing. In Nevada, the law says clinicians only need to keep medical records for 5 years, Shaw said. “Imaging and pathology reports are destroyed. Patients that have been diagnosed with cancer can’t prove it.”

Shaw said she hopes oncologists will offer these messages to patients: “Be an advocate for your own health and keep copies of your own records. Discuss your diagnosis with your family and contact a cancer registry if you are diagnosed with cancer.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.