Genitourinary Cancer

Not too long ago, prostate-cancer genetics didn’t mean much to patient care. But in recent years, the landscape of therapy has transformed as researchers have discovered links between multiple genes and aggressive tumors. 

Now, as a hematologist-oncologist explained to attendees at an Association of VA Hematology/Oncology regional meeting in Detroit, genetic tests can guide treatment for some—but not all—men with prostate cancer.

For patients with mutations, appropriate supplemental medications “can improve overall outcomes and have a long-standing impact on patients” said Scott J. Dawsey, MD, of the John D. Dingell Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Detroit in an interview following the AVAHO meeting, which focused on the management of prostate cancer.

As Dawsey explained, about 10% of patients with prostate cancer appear to have genetic mutations, although the exact percentage is unclear. The mutations are especially common in metastatic forms of prostate cancer. They’re estimated to be present in 11.8%-16.2% of those cases.

While these proportions are relatively small, the number of overall prostate-cancer cases with mutations is large due to the high burden of the disease, Dawsey said. Prostate cancer is by far the most common cancer in men, and estimated 299,010 cases will be diagnosed in the United States this year.

According to Dawsey, genetic mutations seem to boost the risk of more aggressive disease—and the risk of other malignancies—by disrupting DNA repair. This process can lead to even more mutations that may “make the cancer behave and grow more aggressively.”

But not all prostate cancer patients need to undergo genetic testing. Dawsey urged colleagues to figure out which patients should be tested by consulting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and the newly updated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prostate cancer clinical pathway.

The two sets of recommendations agree on germline testing in patients with cases that are metastatic, very high risk, and high risk. Lower-risk cases should only be tested if patients meet family history criteria. The sets of guidelines also recommend somatic testing in patients with metastatic cancer.

In addition to providing guidance about treatment, genetic test results can have implications regarding other potential malignancies that may affect patients, Dawsey said. The results may also have implications for cancer risk in family members.

Several drugs are now available for patients with genetic mutations, including checkpoint inhibitors and PARP inhibitors. The drugs, which have unique mechanisms of action, are given in addition to standard prostate cancer treatments, he said.

“If a patient doesn’t have one of these genetic changes,” he said, “these drugs aren’t an option.”

A long list of drugs or combinations of drugs are in clinical trials, including the poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib, abiraterone, and niraparib and the checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and cemiplimab.

The drugs generally improve response rates and progression-free survival, Dawsey said, and patients are generally able to tolerate them. In regard to which drugs to choose, he suggested consulting the and NCCN guidelines and the VA oncology clinical pathway for prostate cancer.

Not too long ago, prostate-cancer genetics didn’t mean much to patient care. But in recent years, the landscape of therapy has transformed as researchers have discovered links between multiple genes and aggressive tumors. 

Now, as a hematologist-oncologist explained to attendees at an Association of VA Hematology/Oncology regional meeting in Detroit, genetic tests can guide treatment for some—but not all—men with prostate cancer.

For patients with mutations, appropriate supplemental medications “can improve overall outcomes and have a long-standing impact on patients” said Scott J. Dawsey, MD, of the John D. Dingell Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Detroit in an interview following the AVAHO meeting, which focused on the management of prostate cancer.

As Dawsey explained, about 10% of patients with prostate cancer appear to have genetic mutations, although the exact percentage is unclear. The mutations are especially common in metastatic forms of prostate cancer. They’re estimated to be present in 11.8%-16.2% of those cases.

While these proportions are relatively small, the number of overall prostate-cancer cases with mutations is large due to the high burden of the disease, Dawsey said. Prostate cancer is by far the most common cancer in men, and estimated 299,010 cases will be diagnosed in the United States this year.

According to Dawsey, genetic mutations seem to boost the risk of more aggressive disease—and the risk of other malignancies—by disrupting DNA repair. This process can lead to even more mutations that may “make the cancer behave and grow more aggressively.”

But not all prostate cancer patients need to undergo genetic testing. Dawsey urged colleagues to figure out which patients should be tested by consulting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and the newly updated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prostate cancer clinical pathway.

The two sets of recommendations agree on germline testing in patients with cases that are metastatic, very high risk, and high risk. Lower-risk cases should only be tested if patients meet family history criteria. The sets of guidelines also recommend somatic testing in patients with metastatic cancer.

In addition to providing guidance about treatment, genetic test results can have implications regarding other potential malignancies that may affect patients, Dawsey said. The results may also have implications for cancer risk in family members.

Several drugs are now available for patients with genetic mutations, including checkpoint inhibitors and PARP inhibitors. The drugs, which have unique mechanisms of action, are given in addition to standard prostate cancer treatments, he said.

“If a patient doesn’t have one of these genetic changes,” he said, “these drugs aren’t an option.”

A long list of drugs or combinations of drugs are in clinical trials, including the poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib, abiraterone, and niraparib and the checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and cemiplimab.

The drugs generally improve response rates and progression-free survival, Dawsey said, and patients are generally able to tolerate them. In regard to which drugs to choose, he suggested consulting the and NCCN guidelines and the VA oncology clinical pathway for prostate cancer.

Not too long ago, prostate-cancer genetics didn’t mean much to patient care. But in recent years, the landscape of therapy has transformed as researchers have discovered links between multiple genes and aggressive tumors. 

Now, as a hematologist-oncologist explained to attendees at an Association of VA Hematology/Oncology regional meeting in Detroit, genetic tests can guide treatment for some—but not all—men with prostate cancer.

For patients with mutations, appropriate supplemental medications “can improve overall outcomes and have a long-standing impact on patients” said Scott J. Dawsey, MD, of the John D. Dingell Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Detroit in an interview following the AVAHO meeting, which focused on the management of prostate cancer.

As Dawsey explained, about 10% of patients with prostate cancer appear to have genetic mutations, although the exact percentage is unclear. The mutations are especially common in metastatic forms of prostate cancer. They’re estimated to be present in 11.8%-16.2% of those cases.

While these proportions are relatively small, the number of overall prostate-cancer cases with mutations is large due to the high burden of the disease, Dawsey said. Prostate cancer is by far the most common cancer in men, and estimated 299,010 cases will be diagnosed in the United States this year.

According to Dawsey, genetic mutations seem to boost the risk of more aggressive disease—and the risk of other malignancies—by disrupting DNA repair. This process can lead to even more mutations that may “make the cancer behave and grow more aggressively.”

But not all prostate cancer patients need to undergo genetic testing. Dawsey urged colleagues to figure out which patients should be tested by consulting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and the newly updated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prostate cancer clinical pathway.

The two sets of recommendations agree on germline testing in patients with cases that are metastatic, very high risk, and high risk. Lower-risk cases should only be tested if patients meet family history criteria. The sets of guidelines also recommend somatic testing in patients with metastatic cancer.

In addition to providing guidance about treatment, genetic test results can have implications regarding other potential malignancies that may affect patients, Dawsey said. The results may also have implications for cancer risk in family members.

Several drugs are now available for patients with genetic mutations, including checkpoint inhibitors and PARP inhibitors. The drugs, which have unique mechanisms of action, are given in addition to standard prostate cancer treatments, he said.

“If a patient doesn’t have one of these genetic changes,” he said, “these drugs aren’t an option.”

A long list of drugs or combinations of drugs are in clinical trials, including the poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib, abiraterone, and niraparib and the checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and cemiplimab.

The drugs generally improve response rates and progression-free survival, Dawsey said, and patients are generally able to tolerate them. In regard to which drugs to choose, he suggested consulting the and NCCN guidelines and the VA oncology clinical pathway for prostate cancer.

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

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

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

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

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

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

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early-onset cancer—diagnosed in adults aged ≤ 50 years—is on the rise. Researchers have studied a variety of factors driving the trend, such as type of cancer. However, geographic locality might have as much, if not more, to do with it, according to a study by researchers at Fox Chase Cancer Center, a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center research facility.

Using the US Cancer Statistics Public Use Research Database, the researchers collected data from adults aged 20 to 49 years with invasive cancer (excluding in situ cases) diagnosed from 2015 through 2020. They calculated the incidence for each state using the national rate as the reference. Then, they calculated a second set of rates, comparing each state to the US in terms of overall incidence and advanced-stage incidence for all early-onset cancers.

The resulting maps indicated that early-onset cancer cases are not evenly distributed. States with worse-than-national rates are frequently near each other geographically. For instance, the rate of early-onset female breast cancer was worse than the national rate in 17 states, 16 of which were located in the eastern half of the US (Hawaii was the 17th state). Similarly, most states with worse-than-national rates of digestive cancers were located in the eastern half of the US, with a concentration in the South. Rates of male genital cancers were worse than national rates in 18 states, primarily in the eastern half of the country (plus Montana, Nebraska, and Puerto Rico).

Three states in the Southeast, 7 in the Northeast, and Puerto Rico had the highest incidence of lymphohematopoietic cancers. Incidence rates of endocrine cancers were worse than national rates in 25 states, which the researchers found formed “a horizontal core of the country running from east to west,” plus Puerto Rico. Rates of urinary system cancers were worse than national rates in 17 contiguous states, from New Mexico to Pennsylvania.

Rates of female genital cancers were worse than national rates in 16 states, largely in the Midwest and South, plus California and Puerto Rico. Skin cancer, on the other hand, was a great leveler, with worse-than-national rates in 32 states, mostly in the northern portion of the country.

Kentucky and West Virginia had the highest overall and advanced-stage incidence rates of early-onset cancer for all cancer sites combined. They were followed by Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

According to the researchers, this study provides the first analysis of age-adjusted rates of early-onset cancer based on state-level population and case numbers. Geographic patterns in early-onset cancer, they suggest, indicate possible similarities that could relate to demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral, or environmental risks. “Focusing prevention efforts on the highest-incidence states for the most prevalent sites may reduce the rate of early-onset cancer nationally.”

Early-onset cancer—diagnosed in adults aged ≤ 50 years—is on the rise. Researchers have studied a variety of factors driving the trend, such as type of cancer. However, geographic locality might have as much, if not more, to do with it, according to a study by researchers at Fox Chase Cancer Center, a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center research facility.

Using the US Cancer Statistics Public Use Research Database, the researchers collected data from adults aged 20 to 49 years with invasive cancer (excluding in situ cases) diagnosed from 2015 through 2020. They calculated the incidence for each state using the national rate as the reference. Then, they calculated a second set of rates, comparing each state to the US in terms of overall incidence and advanced-stage incidence for all early-onset cancers.

The resulting maps indicated that early-onset cancer cases are not evenly distributed. States with worse-than-national rates are frequently near each other geographically. For instance, the rate of early-onset female breast cancer was worse than the national rate in 17 states, 16 of which were located in the eastern half of the US (Hawaii was the 17th state). Similarly, most states with worse-than-national rates of digestive cancers were located in the eastern half of the US, with a concentration in the South. Rates of male genital cancers were worse than national rates in 18 states, primarily in the eastern half of the country (plus Montana, Nebraska, and Puerto Rico).

Three states in the Southeast, 7 in the Northeast, and Puerto Rico had the highest incidence of lymphohematopoietic cancers. Incidence rates of endocrine cancers were worse than national rates in 25 states, which the researchers found formed “a horizontal core of the country running from east to west,” plus Puerto Rico. Rates of urinary system cancers were worse than national rates in 17 contiguous states, from New Mexico to Pennsylvania.

Rates of female genital cancers were worse than national rates in 16 states, largely in the Midwest and South, plus California and Puerto Rico. Skin cancer, on the other hand, was a great leveler, with worse-than-national rates in 32 states, mostly in the northern portion of the country.

Kentucky and West Virginia had the highest overall and advanced-stage incidence rates of early-onset cancer for all cancer sites combined. They were followed by Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

According to the researchers, this study provides the first analysis of age-adjusted rates of early-onset cancer based on state-level population and case numbers. Geographic patterns in early-onset cancer, they suggest, indicate possible similarities that could relate to demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral, or environmental risks. “Focusing prevention efforts on the highest-incidence states for the most prevalent sites may reduce the rate of early-onset cancer nationally.”

Early-onset cancer—diagnosed in adults aged ≤ 50 years—is on the rise. Researchers have studied a variety of factors driving the trend, such as type of cancer. However, geographic locality might have as much, if not more, to do with it, according to a study by researchers at Fox Chase Cancer Center, a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center research facility.

Using the US Cancer Statistics Public Use Research Database, the researchers collected data from adults aged 20 to 49 years with invasive cancer (excluding in situ cases) diagnosed from 2015 through 2020. They calculated the incidence for each state using the national rate as the reference. Then, they calculated a second set of rates, comparing each state to the US in terms of overall incidence and advanced-stage incidence for all early-onset cancers.

The resulting maps indicated that early-onset cancer cases are not evenly distributed. States with worse-than-national rates are frequently near each other geographically. For instance, the rate of early-onset female breast cancer was worse than the national rate in 17 states, 16 of which were located in the eastern half of the US (Hawaii was the 17th state). Similarly, most states with worse-than-national rates of digestive cancers were located in the eastern half of the US, with a concentration in the South. Rates of male genital cancers were worse than national rates in 18 states, primarily in the eastern half of the country (plus Montana, Nebraska, and Puerto Rico).

Three states in the Southeast, 7 in the Northeast, and Puerto Rico had the highest incidence of lymphohematopoietic cancers. Incidence rates of endocrine cancers were worse than national rates in 25 states, which the researchers found formed “a horizontal core of the country running from east to west,” plus Puerto Rico. Rates of urinary system cancers were worse than national rates in 17 contiguous states, from New Mexico to Pennsylvania.

Rates of female genital cancers were worse than national rates in 16 states, largely in the Midwest and South, plus California and Puerto Rico. Skin cancer, on the other hand, was a great leveler, with worse-than-national rates in 32 states, mostly in the northern portion of the country.

Kentucky and West Virginia had the highest overall and advanced-stage incidence rates of early-onset cancer for all cancer sites combined. They were followed by Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

According to the researchers, this study provides the first analysis of age-adjusted rates of early-onset cancer based on state-level population and case numbers. Geographic patterns in early-onset cancer, they suggest, indicate possible similarities that could relate to demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral, or environmental risks. “Focusing prevention efforts on the highest-incidence states for the most prevalent sites may reduce the rate of early-onset cancer nationally.”

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to repotrectinib (Augtyro, Bristol Myers Squibb) for all locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic solid tumors with an NTRK gene fusion that have progressed after initial treatment or that have no satisfactory alternative therapies.

The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer. 

NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.

The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.

In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.

In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.

Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to repotrectinib (Augtyro, Bristol Myers Squibb) for all locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic solid tumors with an NTRK gene fusion that have progressed after initial treatment or that have no satisfactory alternative therapies.

The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer. 

NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.

The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.

In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.

In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.

Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to repotrectinib (Augtyro, Bristol Myers Squibb) for all locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic solid tumors with an NTRK gene fusion that have progressed after initial treatment or that have no satisfactory alternative therapies.

The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer. 

NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.

The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.

In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.

In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.

Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) is an effective way to prevent HPV infection and cancers typically caused by HPV, including cervical cancer and head and neck cancers, new research showed.

The analysis, featured at a press briefing ahead of the presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting, notably found that men who received the HPV vaccine had a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers.

“We’ve known for a long time that having the HPV vaccine can prevent the development of HPV infection, yes, but importantly, cancer,” primarily cervical cancer, said briefing moderator and ASCO president Lynn Schuchter, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is a really important study that extends the information about the impact.”

Using the US TriNetX database, lead investigator Jefferson DeKloe, BS, a research fellow with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues created a matched cohort of 760,540 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated men and 945,999 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated women.

HPV-vaccinated men had a 54% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P < .001) and a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.44; P < .001) than unvaccinated men. There were not enough cases of anal and penile cancers for analysis.

HPV-vaccinated women had a 27% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (OR, 0.73; P < .05), a 54% lower risk for cervical cancer (OR, 0.46; P < .05), and a 33% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08) than HPV-unvaccinated women, but this finding was not significant. There were not enough cases of anal cancers for analysis, and the odds of developing vulvar or vaginal cancer was not significantly different in HPV-vaccinated vs unvaccinated women.

Vaccinated women, however, were less likely than unvaccinated women to develop high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR, 0.44), cervical carcinoma in situ (OR, 0.42), or abnormal Pap findings (OR, 0.87), and were less likely to undergo cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision (OR, 0.45).

“This study really highlights the importance of getting the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing.

“HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Glenn Hanna, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an ASCO statement.

Still, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain relatively low. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2022, only about 58% of adolescents aged 13-15 years had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended.

“The goal,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing, “is that younger girls and young boys get vaccinated to prevent development of HPV infection, and that should decrease the risk of cancer, which is what we’ve seen.”

Mr. DeKloe agreed and highlighted the importance of improving vaccination rates. “Identifying effective interventions that increase HPV vaccination rates is critical in reducing undue cancer burden in the United States,” Mr. DeKloe said in a statement.

The study had no funding source. Mr. DeKloe had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hanna has disclosed relationships with Bicara Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coherus BioSciences, and others. Dr. Schuchter had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) is an effective way to prevent HPV infection and cancers typically caused by HPV, including cervical cancer and head and neck cancers, new research showed.

The analysis, featured at a press briefing ahead of the presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting, notably found that men who received the HPV vaccine had a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers.

“We’ve known for a long time that having the HPV vaccine can prevent the development of HPV infection, yes, but importantly, cancer,” primarily cervical cancer, said briefing moderator and ASCO president Lynn Schuchter, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is a really important study that extends the information about the impact.”

Using the US TriNetX database, lead investigator Jefferson DeKloe, BS, a research fellow with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues created a matched cohort of 760,540 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated men and 945,999 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated women.

HPV-vaccinated men had a 54% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P < .001) and a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.44; P < .001) than unvaccinated men. There were not enough cases of anal and penile cancers for analysis.

HPV-vaccinated women had a 27% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (OR, 0.73; P < .05), a 54% lower risk for cervical cancer (OR, 0.46; P < .05), and a 33% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08) than HPV-unvaccinated women, but this finding was not significant. There were not enough cases of anal cancers for analysis, and the odds of developing vulvar or vaginal cancer was not significantly different in HPV-vaccinated vs unvaccinated women.

Vaccinated women, however, were less likely than unvaccinated women to develop high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR, 0.44), cervical carcinoma in situ (OR, 0.42), or abnormal Pap findings (OR, 0.87), and were less likely to undergo cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision (OR, 0.45).

“This study really highlights the importance of getting the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing.

“HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Glenn Hanna, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an ASCO statement.

Still, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain relatively low. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2022, only about 58% of adolescents aged 13-15 years had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended.

“The goal,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing, “is that younger girls and young boys get vaccinated to prevent development of HPV infection, and that should decrease the risk of cancer, which is what we’ve seen.”

Mr. DeKloe agreed and highlighted the importance of improving vaccination rates. “Identifying effective interventions that increase HPV vaccination rates is critical in reducing undue cancer burden in the United States,” Mr. DeKloe said in a statement.

The study had no funding source. Mr. DeKloe had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hanna has disclosed relationships with Bicara Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coherus BioSciences, and others. Dr. Schuchter had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) is an effective way to prevent HPV infection and cancers typically caused by HPV, including cervical cancer and head and neck cancers, new research showed.

The analysis, featured at a press briefing ahead of the presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting, notably found that men who received the HPV vaccine had a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers.

“We’ve known for a long time that having the HPV vaccine can prevent the development of HPV infection, yes, but importantly, cancer,” primarily cervical cancer, said briefing moderator and ASCO president Lynn Schuchter, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is a really important study that extends the information about the impact.”

Using the US TriNetX database, lead investigator Jefferson DeKloe, BS, a research fellow with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues created a matched cohort of 760,540 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated men and 945,999 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated women.

HPV-vaccinated men had a 54% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P < .001) and a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.44; P < .001) than unvaccinated men. There were not enough cases of anal and penile cancers for analysis.

HPV-vaccinated women had a 27% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (OR, 0.73; P < .05), a 54% lower risk for cervical cancer (OR, 0.46; P < .05), and a 33% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08) than HPV-unvaccinated women, but this finding was not significant. There were not enough cases of anal cancers for analysis, and the odds of developing vulvar or vaginal cancer was not significantly different in HPV-vaccinated vs unvaccinated women.

Vaccinated women, however, were less likely than unvaccinated women to develop high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR, 0.44), cervical carcinoma in situ (OR, 0.42), or abnormal Pap findings (OR, 0.87), and were less likely to undergo cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision (OR, 0.45).

“This study really highlights the importance of getting the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing.

“HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Glenn Hanna, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an ASCO statement.

Still, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain relatively low. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2022, only about 58% of adolescents aged 13-15 years had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended.

“The goal,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing, “is that younger girls and young boys get vaccinated to prevent development of HPV infection, and that should decrease the risk of cancer, which is what we’ve seen.”

Mr. DeKloe agreed and highlighted the importance of improving vaccination rates. “Identifying effective interventions that increase HPV vaccination rates is critical in reducing undue cancer burden in the United States,” Mr. DeKloe said in a statement.

The study had no funding source. Mr. DeKloe had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hanna has disclosed relationships with Bicara Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coherus BioSciences, and others. Dr. Schuchter had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.

Motivations for the Study

ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.

No Overall Increase

In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, this study did not show an increased risk for cancer (of all types combined) in children conceived through ART. Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.

Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.

This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.

Motivations for the Study

ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.

No Overall Increase

In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, this study did not show an increased risk for cancer (of all types combined) in children conceived through ART. Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.

Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.

This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.

Motivations for the Study

ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.

No Overall Increase

In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, this study did not show an increased risk for cancer (of all types combined) in children conceived through ART. Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.

Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.

This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

About 45,000 people will descend on Chicago for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, starting May 31.

From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.

More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.

This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.

The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.

This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.” 

Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.

Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2. 

Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.

ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.

A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.

ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.

In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.

As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.

As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

About 45,000 people will descend on Chicago for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, starting May 31.

From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.

More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.

This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.

The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.

This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.” 

Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.

Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2. 

Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.

ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.

A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.

ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.

In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.

As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.

As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

About 45,000 people will descend on Chicago for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, starting May 31.

From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.

More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.

This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.

The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.

This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.” 

Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.

Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2. 

Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.

ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.

A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.

ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.

In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.

As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.

As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .