Patient & Survivor Care

“Exercise is medicine” has become something of a mantra, with good reason. There’s no doubt that regular physical activity has a broad range of health benefits. Exercise can improve circulation, help control weight, reduce stress, and boost mood — take your pick.

Lower cancer risk is also on the list — with exercise promoted as a risk-cutting strategy in government guidelines and in recommendations from professional groups such as the American Cancer Society.

Despite confidently worded recommendations, the relationship between exercise and cancer risk is much less certain than the guidelines would suggest. The bulk of the data hangs on less rigorous, observational studies that have linked physical activity to lower risks for certain cancers, but plenty of questions remain.

What are the cancer types where exercise makes a difference? How significant is that impact? And what, exactly, defines a physical activity pattern powerful enough to move the needle on cancer risk?

Here’s an overview of the state of the evidence.

Exercise and Cancer Types: A Mixed Bag

When it comes to cancer prevention strategies, guidelines uniformly endorse less couch time and more movement. But a deeper look at the science reveals a complex and often poorly understood connection between exercise and cancer risk.

For certain cancer types, the benefits of exercise on cancer risk seem fairly well established.

The latest edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published in 2018, cites “strong evidence” that regular exercise might curb the risks for breast and colon cancers as well as bladder, endometrial, esophageal, kidney, and gastric cancers. These guidelines also point to “moderate”-strength evidence of a protective association with lung cancer.

The evidence of a protective effect, however, is strongest for breast and colon cancers, said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, senior physician in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, . “But,” she pointed out, “that may be because they’re some of the most common cancers, and it’s been easier to detect an association.”

Guidelines from the American Cancer Society, published in 2020, align with the 2018 recommendations. 

“We believe there’s strong evidence to suggest at least eight different types of cancer are associated with physical activity,” said Erika Rees-Punia, PhD, MPH, senior principal scientist, epidemiology and behavioral research at the American Cancer Society.

That view is not universal, however. Current recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, for example, are more circumspect, citing only three cancers with good evidence of a protective effect from exercise: Breast (postmenopausal), colon, and endometrial.

“We definitely can’t say exercise reduces the risk of all cancers,” said Lee Jones, PhD, head of the Exercise Oncology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “The data suggest it’s just not that simple.”

And it’s challenging to put all the evidence together, Dr. Jones added.

The physical activity guidelines are based on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses of data from observational studies that examined the relationship between physical activity — aerobic exercise, specifically — and cancer incidence. That means the evidence comes with all the limitations observational studies entail, such as how they collect information on participants’ exercise habits — which, Dr. Jones noted, is typically done via “monster questionnaires” that gauge physical activity in broad strokes.

Pooling all those findings into a meta-analysis is tricky, Dr. Jones added, because individual studies vary in important ways — from follow-up periods to how they quantify exercise and track cancer incidence.

In a study published in February in Cancer Cell, Dr. Jones and his colleagues attempted to address some of those issues by leveraging data from the PLCO screening trial.

The PLCO was a prospective study of over 60,000 US adults that compared the effects of annual screening vs usual care on cancer mortality. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included an assessment of “vigorous” exercise. Based on that, Dr. Jones and his colleagues classified 55% as “exercisers” — meaning they reported 2 or more hours of vigorous exercise per week. The remaining 45%, who were in the 0 to 1 hour per week range, were deemed non-exercisers.

Over a median of 18 years, nearly 16,000 first-time invasive cancers were diagnosed, and some interesting differences between exercisers and non-exercisers emerged. The active group had lower risks for three cancers: Head and neck, with a 26% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), lung (a 20% lower risk), and breast (an 11% lower risk).

What was striking, however, was the lack of connection between exercise and many cancers cited in the guidelines, including colon, gastric, bladder, endometrial, and renal cancers.

Perhaps even more surprising — exercisers had higher risks for prostate cancer (12%) and melanoma (20%). This finding, Dr. Jones said, is in line with a previous pooled analysis of data from 12 US and European prospective cohorts. In this study, the most physically active participants (90th percentile) had higher risks for melanoma and prostate cancer, compared with the least active group (10th percentile).

The melanoma findings do make sense, Dr. Jones said, given that highly active people may spend a lot of time in the sun. “My advice,” Dr. Jones said, “is, if you’re exercising outside, wear sunscreen.” The prostate cancer findings, however, are more puzzling and warrant further research, he noted.

But the bottom line is that the relationship between exercise and cancer types is mixed and far from nailed down.

How Big Is the Effect?

Even if exercise reduces the risk for only certain cancers, that’s still important, particularly when those links appear strongest for common cancer types, such as breast and colon.

But how much of a difference can exercise make?

Based on the evidence, it may only be a modest one. A 2019 systematic review by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee provided a rough estimate: Across hundreds of epidemiological studies, people with the highest physical activity levels had a 10%-20% lower risk for the cancers cited in the 2018 exercise guidelines compared with people who were least active.

These figures, however, are probably an underestimate, said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a member of the advisory committee and professor of epidemiology, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

“This is what we usually see when a factor is not measured very well,” said Dr. McTiernan, explaining that the individual studies differed in their categories of “highest” and “lowest” physical activity, such that one study’s “highest” could be another’s mid-range.

“In other words, the effects of physical activity are likely larger” than the review found, Dr. McTiernan said.

The next logical question is whether a bigger exercise “dose” — more time or higher intensity — would have a greater impact on cancer risk. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to clarify that by pooling data on over 750,000 participants from nine prospective cohorts.

Overall, people meeting government recommendations for exercise — equivalent to about 2.5-5 hours of weekly moderate activity, such as a brisk walk, or about 1.25-2.5 hours of more vigorous activities, like running — had lower risks for seven of 15 cancer types studied compared with less active people.

For cancers with positive findings, being on the higher end of the recommended 2.5- to 5-hour weekly range was better. Risk reductions for breast cancer, for instance, were 6% at 2.5 hours of physical activity per week and 10% at 5 hours per week. Similar trends emerged for other cancer types, including colon (8%-14%), endometrial (10%-18%), liver cancer (18%-27%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women (11%-18%).

But there may be an exercise sweet spot that maximizes the cancer risk benefit.

Among people who surpassed the recommendations — exercising for more time or more intensely — the risk reduction benefit did not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. For certain cancer types, such as colon and endometrial, the benefits of more vigorous exercise “eroded at higher levels of activity,” the authors said.

The issue here is that most studies have not dug deeply into aerobic exercise habits. Often, studies present participants with a list of activities — walking, biking, and running — and ask them to estimate how often and for what duration they do each.

Plus, “we’ve usually lumped moderate and vigorous activities together,” Dr. Rees-Punia said, which means there’s a lack of “granular data” to say whether certain intensities or frequencies of exercise are optimal and for whom.

Why Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk

Exercise habits do not, of course, exist in a vacuum. Highly active people, Dr. Ligibel said, tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, leaner, and have generally healthier lifestyles than sedentary people.

Body weight is a big confounder as well. However, Dr. Rees-Punia noted, it’s also probably a reason that exercise is linked to lower cancer risks, particularly by preventing weight gain. Still, studies have found that the association between exercise and many cancers remains significant after adjusting for body mass index.

The why remains unclear, though some studies offer clues.

“There’s been some really interesting mechanistic research, suggesting that exercise may help inhibit tumor growth or upregulate the immune system,” Dr. Ligibel said.

That includes not only lab research but small intervention studies. While these studies have largely involved people who already have cancer, some have also focused on healthy individuals.

A 2019 study from Dr. Ligibel and her colleagues, which randomly assigned 49 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer to start either an exercise program or mind-body practices ahead of surgery, found exercisers, who had been active for about a month at the time of surgery, showed signs of immune system upregulation in their tumors, while the control group did not.

Among healthy postmenopausal women, a meta-analysis of six clinical trials from Dr. McTiernan and her colleagues found that exercise plus calorie reduction can reduce levels of breast cancer-related endogenous hormones, more so than calorie-cutting alone. And a 2023 study found that high-intensity exercise boosted the ranks of certain immune cells and reduced inflammation in the colon among people at high risk for colon and endometrial cancers due to Lynch syndrome.

Defining an Exercise ‘Prescription’

Despite the gaps and uncertainties in the research, government guidelines as well as those from the American Cancer Society and other medical groups are in lockstep in their exercise recommendations: Adults should strive for 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (like brisk walking), 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity (like running), or some combination each week.

The guidelines also encourage strength training twice a week — advice that’s based on research tying those activity levels to lower risks for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.

But there’s no “best” exercise prescription for lowering cancer risk specifically. Most epidemiological studies have examined only aerobic activity, Dr. Rees-Punia said, and there’s very little known about whether strength conditioning or other moderate heart rate-elevating activities, such as daily household chores, may reduce the risk for cancer.

Given the lack of nuance in the literature, it’s hard to say what intensities, types, or amounts of exercise are best for each individual.

Going forward, device-based measurements of physical activity could “help us sort out the effects of different intensities of exercise and possibly types,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

But overall, Dr. McTiernan said, the data do show that the risks for several cancers are lower at the widely recommended activity levels.

“The bottom-line advice is still to exercise at least 150 minutes per week at a moderate-intensity level or greater,” Dr. McTiernan said.

Or put another way, moving beats being sedentary. It’s probably wise for everyone to sit less, noted Dr. Rees-Punia, for overall health and based on evidence tying sedentary time to the risks for certain cancers, including colon, endometrial, and lung.

There’s a practical element to consider in all of this: What physical activities will people actually do on the regular? In the big epidemiological studies, Dr. McTiernan noted, middle-aged and older adults most often report walking, suggesting that’s the preferred, or most accessible activity, for many.

“You can only benefit from the physical activity you’ll actually do,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

Dr. Ligibel echoed that sentiment, saying she encourages patients to think about physical activity as a process: “You need to find things you like to do and work them into your daily life, in a sustainable way.

“People often talk about exercise being medicine,” Dr. Ligibel said. “But I think you could take that too far. If we get too prescriptive about it, that could take the joy away.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Exercise is medicine” has become something of a mantra, with good reason. There’s no doubt that regular physical activity has a broad range of health benefits. Exercise can improve circulation, help control weight, reduce stress, and boost mood — take your pick.

Lower cancer risk is also on the list — with exercise promoted as a risk-cutting strategy in government guidelines and in recommendations from professional groups such as the American Cancer Society.

Despite confidently worded recommendations, the relationship between exercise and cancer risk is much less certain than the guidelines would suggest. The bulk of the data hangs on less rigorous, observational studies that have linked physical activity to lower risks for certain cancers, but plenty of questions remain.

What are the cancer types where exercise makes a difference? How significant is that impact? And what, exactly, defines a physical activity pattern powerful enough to move the needle on cancer risk?

Here’s an overview of the state of the evidence.

Exercise and Cancer Types: A Mixed Bag

When it comes to cancer prevention strategies, guidelines uniformly endorse less couch time and more movement. But a deeper look at the science reveals a complex and often poorly understood connection between exercise and cancer risk.

For certain cancer types, the benefits of exercise on cancer risk seem fairly well established.

The latest edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published in 2018, cites “strong evidence” that regular exercise might curb the risks for breast and colon cancers as well as bladder, endometrial, esophageal, kidney, and gastric cancers. These guidelines also point to “moderate”-strength evidence of a protective association with lung cancer.

The evidence of a protective effect, however, is strongest for breast and colon cancers, said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, senior physician in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, . “But,” she pointed out, “that may be because they’re some of the most common cancers, and it’s been easier to detect an association.”

Guidelines from the American Cancer Society, published in 2020, align with the 2018 recommendations. 

“We believe there’s strong evidence to suggest at least eight different types of cancer are associated with physical activity,” said Erika Rees-Punia, PhD, MPH, senior principal scientist, epidemiology and behavioral research at the American Cancer Society.

That view is not universal, however. Current recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, for example, are more circumspect, citing only three cancers with good evidence of a protective effect from exercise: Breast (postmenopausal), colon, and endometrial.

“We definitely can’t say exercise reduces the risk of all cancers,” said Lee Jones, PhD, head of the Exercise Oncology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “The data suggest it’s just not that simple.”

And it’s challenging to put all the evidence together, Dr. Jones added.

The physical activity guidelines are based on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses of data from observational studies that examined the relationship between physical activity — aerobic exercise, specifically — and cancer incidence. That means the evidence comes with all the limitations observational studies entail, such as how they collect information on participants’ exercise habits — which, Dr. Jones noted, is typically done via “monster questionnaires” that gauge physical activity in broad strokes.

Pooling all those findings into a meta-analysis is tricky, Dr. Jones added, because individual studies vary in important ways — from follow-up periods to how they quantify exercise and track cancer incidence.

In a study published in February in Cancer Cell, Dr. Jones and his colleagues attempted to address some of those issues by leveraging data from the PLCO screening trial.

The PLCO was a prospective study of over 60,000 US adults that compared the effects of annual screening vs usual care on cancer mortality. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included an assessment of “vigorous” exercise. Based on that, Dr. Jones and his colleagues classified 55% as “exercisers” — meaning they reported 2 or more hours of vigorous exercise per week. The remaining 45%, who were in the 0 to 1 hour per week range, were deemed non-exercisers.

Over a median of 18 years, nearly 16,000 first-time invasive cancers were diagnosed, and some interesting differences between exercisers and non-exercisers emerged. The active group had lower risks for three cancers: Head and neck, with a 26% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), lung (a 20% lower risk), and breast (an 11% lower risk).

What was striking, however, was the lack of connection between exercise and many cancers cited in the guidelines, including colon, gastric, bladder, endometrial, and renal cancers.

Perhaps even more surprising — exercisers had higher risks for prostate cancer (12%) and melanoma (20%). This finding, Dr. Jones said, is in line with a previous pooled analysis of data from 12 US and European prospective cohorts. In this study, the most physically active participants (90th percentile) had higher risks for melanoma and prostate cancer, compared with the least active group (10th percentile).

The melanoma findings do make sense, Dr. Jones said, given that highly active people may spend a lot of time in the sun. “My advice,” Dr. Jones said, “is, if you’re exercising outside, wear sunscreen.” The prostate cancer findings, however, are more puzzling and warrant further research, he noted.

But the bottom line is that the relationship between exercise and cancer types is mixed and far from nailed down.

How Big Is the Effect?

Even if exercise reduces the risk for only certain cancers, that’s still important, particularly when those links appear strongest for common cancer types, such as breast and colon.

But how much of a difference can exercise make?

Based on the evidence, it may only be a modest one. A 2019 systematic review by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee provided a rough estimate: Across hundreds of epidemiological studies, people with the highest physical activity levels had a 10%-20% lower risk for the cancers cited in the 2018 exercise guidelines compared with people who were least active.

These figures, however, are probably an underestimate, said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a member of the advisory committee and professor of epidemiology, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

“This is what we usually see when a factor is not measured very well,” said Dr. McTiernan, explaining that the individual studies differed in their categories of “highest” and “lowest” physical activity, such that one study’s “highest” could be another’s mid-range.

“In other words, the effects of physical activity are likely larger” than the review found, Dr. McTiernan said.

The next logical question is whether a bigger exercise “dose” — more time or higher intensity — would have a greater impact on cancer risk. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to clarify that by pooling data on over 750,000 participants from nine prospective cohorts.

Overall, people meeting government recommendations for exercise — equivalent to about 2.5-5 hours of weekly moderate activity, such as a brisk walk, or about 1.25-2.5 hours of more vigorous activities, like running — had lower risks for seven of 15 cancer types studied compared with less active people.

For cancers with positive findings, being on the higher end of the recommended 2.5- to 5-hour weekly range was better. Risk reductions for breast cancer, for instance, were 6% at 2.5 hours of physical activity per week and 10% at 5 hours per week. Similar trends emerged for other cancer types, including colon (8%-14%), endometrial (10%-18%), liver cancer (18%-27%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women (11%-18%).

But there may be an exercise sweet spot that maximizes the cancer risk benefit.

Among people who surpassed the recommendations — exercising for more time or more intensely — the risk reduction benefit did not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. For certain cancer types, such as colon and endometrial, the benefits of more vigorous exercise “eroded at higher levels of activity,” the authors said.

The issue here is that most studies have not dug deeply into aerobic exercise habits. Often, studies present participants with a list of activities — walking, biking, and running — and ask them to estimate how often and for what duration they do each.

Plus, “we’ve usually lumped moderate and vigorous activities together,” Dr. Rees-Punia said, which means there’s a lack of “granular data” to say whether certain intensities or frequencies of exercise are optimal and for whom.

Why Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk

Exercise habits do not, of course, exist in a vacuum. Highly active people, Dr. Ligibel said, tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, leaner, and have generally healthier lifestyles than sedentary people.

Body weight is a big confounder as well. However, Dr. Rees-Punia noted, it’s also probably a reason that exercise is linked to lower cancer risks, particularly by preventing weight gain. Still, studies have found that the association between exercise and many cancers remains significant after adjusting for body mass index.

The why remains unclear, though some studies offer clues.

“There’s been some really interesting mechanistic research, suggesting that exercise may help inhibit tumor growth or upregulate the immune system,” Dr. Ligibel said.

That includes not only lab research but small intervention studies. While these studies have largely involved people who already have cancer, some have also focused on healthy individuals.

A 2019 study from Dr. Ligibel and her colleagues, which randomly assigned 49 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer to start either an exercise program or mind-body practices ahead of surgery, found exercisers, who had been active for about a month at the time of surgery, showed signs of immune system upregulation in their tumors, while the control group did not.

Among healthy postmenopausal women, a meta-analysis of six clinical trials from Dr. McTiernan and her colleagues found that exercise plus calorie reduction can reduce levels of breast cancer-related endogenous hormones, more so than calorie-cutting alone. And a 2023 study found that high-intensity exercise boosted the ranks of certain immune cells and reduced inflammation in the colon among people at high risk for colon and endometrial cancers due to Lynch syndrome.

Defining an Exercise ‘Prescription’

Despite the gaps and uncertainties in the research, government guidelines as well as those from the American Cancer Society and other medical groups are in lockstep in their exercise recommendations: Adults should strive for 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (like brisk walking), 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity (like running), or some combination each week.

The guidelines also encourage strength training twice a week — advice that’s based on research tying those activity levels to lower risks for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.

But there’s no “best” exercise prescription for lowering cancer risk specifically. Most epidemiological studies have examined only aerobic activity, Dr. Rees-Punia said, and there’s very little known about whether strength conditioning or other moderate heart rate-elevating activities, such as daily household chores, may reduce the risk for cancer.

Given the lack of nuance in the literature, it’s hard to say what intensities, types, or amounts of exercise are best for each individual.

Going forward, device-based measurements of physical activity could “help us sort out the effects of different intensities of exercise and possibly types,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

But overall, Dr. McTiernan said, the data do show that the risks for several cancers are lower at the widely recommended activity levels.

“The bottom-line advice is still to exercise at least 150 minutes per week at a moderate-intensity level or greater,” Dr. McTiernan said.

Or put another way, moving beats being sedentary. It’s probably wise for everyone to sit less, noted Dr. Rees-Punia, for overall health and based on evidence tying sedentary time to the risks for certain cancers, including colon, endometrial, and lung.

There’s a practical element to consider in all of this: What physical activities will people actually do on the regular? In the big epidemiological studies, Dr. McTiernan noted, middle-aged and older adults most often report walking, suggesting that’s the preferred, or most accessible activity, for many.

“You can only benefit from the physical activity you’ll actually do,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

Dr. Ligibel echoed that sentiment, saying she encourages patients to think about physical activity as a process: “You need to find things you like to do and work them into your daily life, in a sustainable way.

“People often talk about exercise being medicine,” Dr. Ligibel said. “But I think you could take that too far. If we get too prescriptive about it, that could take the joy away.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Exercise is medicine” has become something of a mantra, with good reason. There’s no doubt that regular physical activity has a broad range of health benefits. Exercise can improve circulation, help control weight, reduce stress, and boost mood — take your pick.

Lower cancer risk is also on the list — with exercise promoted as a risk-cutting strategy in government guidelines and in recommendations from professional groups such as the American Cancer Society.

Despite confidently worded recommendations, the relationship between exercise and cancer risk is much less certain than the guidelines would suggest. The bulk of the data hangs on less rigorous, observational studies that have linked physical activity to lower risks for certain cancers, but plenty of questions remain.

What are the cancer types where exercise makes a difference? How significant is that impact? And what, exactly, defines a physical activity pattern powerful enough to move the needle on cancer risk?

Here’s an overview of the state of the evidence.

Exercise and Cancer Types: A Mixed Bag

When it comes to cancer prevention strategies, guidelines uniformly endorse less couch time and more movement. But a deeper look at the science reveals a complex and often poorly understood connection between exercise and cancer risk.

For certain cancer types, the benefits of exercise on cancer risk seem fairly well established.

The latest edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published in 2018, cites “strong evidence” that regular exercise might curb the risks for breast and colon cancers as well as bladder, endometrial, esophageal, kidney, and gastric cancers. These guidelines also point to “moderate”-strength evidence of a protective association with lung cancer.

The evidence of a protective effect, however, is strongest for breast and colon cancers, said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, senior physician in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, . “But,” she pointed out, “that may be because they’re some of the most common cancers, and it’s been easier to detect an association.”

Guidelines from the American Cancer Society, published in 2020, align with the 2018 recommendations. 

“We believe there’s strong evidence to suggest at least eight different types of cancer are associated with physical activity,” said Erika Rees-Punia, PhD, MPH, senior principal scientist, epidemiology and behavioral research at the American Cancer Society.

That view is not universal, however. Current recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, for example, are more circumspect, citing only three cancers with good evidence of a protective effect from exercise: Breast (postmenopausal), colon, and endometrial.

“We definitely can’t say exercise reduces the risk of all cancers,” said Lee Jones, PhD, head of the Exercise Oncology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “The data suggest it’s just not that simple.”

And it’s challenging to put all the evidence together, Dr. Jones added.

The physical activity guidelines are based on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses of data from observational studies that examined the relationship between physical activity — aerobic exercise, specifically — and cancer incidence. That means the evidence comes with all the limitations observational studies entail, such as how they collect information on participants’ exercise habits — which, Dr. Jones noted, is typically done via “monster questionnaires” that gauge physical activity in broad strokes.

Pooling all those findings into a meta-analysis is tricky, Dr. Jones added, because individual studies vary in important ways — from follow-up periods to how they quantify exercise and track cancer incidence.

In a study published in February in Cancer Cell, Dr. Jones and his colleagues attempted to address some of those issues by leveraging data from the PLCO screening trial.

The PLCO was a prospective study of over 60,000 US adults that compared the effects of annual screening vs usual care on cancer mortality. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included an assessment of “vigorous” exercise. Based on that, Dr. Jones and his colleagues classified 55% as “exercisers” — meaning they reported 2 or more hours of vigorous exercise per week. The remaining 45%, who were in the 0 to 1 hour per week range, were deemed non-exercisers.

Over a median of 18 years, nearly 16,000 first-time invasive cancers were diagnosed, and some interesting differences between exercisers and non-exercisers emerged. The active group had lower risks for three cancers: Head and neck, with a 26% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), lung (a 20% lower risk), and breast (an 11% lower risk).

What was striking, however, was the lack of connection between exercise and many cancers cited in the guidelines, including colon, gastric, bladder, endometrial, and renal cancers.

Perhaps even more surprising — exercisers had higher risks for prostate cancer (12%) and melanoma (20%). This finding, Dr. Jones said, is in line with a previous pooled analysis of data from 12 US and European prospective cohorts. In this study, the most physically active participants (90th percentile) had higher risks for melanoma and prostate cancer, compared with the least active group (10th percentile).

The melanoma findings do make sense, Dr. Jones said, given that highly active people may spend a lot of time in the sun. “My advice,” Dr. Jones said, “is, if you’re exercising outside, wear sunscreen.” The prostate cancer findings, however, are more puzzling and warrant further research, he noted.

But the bottom line is that the relationship between exercise and cancer types is mixed and far from nailed down.

How Big Is the Effect?

Even if exercise reduces the risk for only certain cancers, that’s still important, particularly when those links appear strongest for common cancer types, such as breast and colon.

But how much of a difference can exercise make?

Based on the evidence, it may only be a modest one. A 2019 systematic review by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee provided a rough estimate: Across hundreds of epidemiological studies, people with the highest physical activity levels had a 10%-20% lower risk for the cancers cited in the 2018 exercise guidelines compared with people who were least active.

These figures, however, are probably an underestimate, said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a member of the advisory committee and professor of epidemiology, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

“This is what we usually see when a factor is not measured very well,” said Dr. McTiernan, explaining that the individual studies differed in their categories of “highest” and “lowest” physical activity, such that one study’s “highest” could be another’s mid-range.

“In other words, the effects of physical activity are likely larger” than the review found, Dr. McTiernan said.

The next logical question is whether a bigger exercise “dose” — more time or higher intensity — would have a greater impact on cancer risk. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to clarify that by pooling data on over 750,000 participants from nine prospective cohorts.

Overall, people meeting government recommendations for exercise — equivalent to about 2.5-5 hours of weekly moderate activity, such as a brisk walk, or about 1.25-2.5 hours of more vigorous activities, like running — had lower risks for seven of 15 cancer types studied compared with less active people.

For cancers with positive findings, being on the higher end of the recommended 2.5- to 5-hour weekly range was better. Risk reductions for breast cancer, for instance, were 6% at 2.5 hours of physical activity per week and 10% at 5 hours per week. Similar trends emerged for other cancer types, including colon (8%-14%), endometrial (10%-18%), liver cancer (18%-27%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women (11%-18%).

But there may be an exercise sweet spot that maximizes the cancer risk benefit.

Among people who surpassed the recommendations — exercising for more time or more intensely — the risk reduction benefit did not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. For certain cancer types, such as colon and endometrial, the benefits of more vigorous exercise “eroded at higher levels of activity,” the authors said.

The issue here is that most studies have not dug deeply into aerobic exercise habits. Often, studies present participants with a list of activities — walking, biking, and running — and ask them to estimate how often and for what duration they do each.

Plus, “we’ve usually lumped moderate and vigorous activities together,” Dr. Rees-Punia said, which means there’s a lack of “granular data” to say whether certain intensities or frequencies of exercise are optimal and for whom.

Why Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk

Exercise habits do not, of course, exist in a vacuum. Highly active people, Dr. Ligibel said, tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, leaner, and have generally healthier lifestyles than sedentary people.

Body weight is a big confounder as well. However, Dr. Rees-Punia noted, it’s also probably a reason that exercise is linked to lower cancer risks, particularly by preventing weight gain. Still, studies have found that the association between exercise and many cancers remains significant after adjusting for body mass index.

The why remains unclear, though some studies offer clues.

“There’s been some really interesting mechanistic research, suggesting that exercise may help inhibit tumor growth or upregulate the immune system,” Dr. Ligibel said.

That includes not only lab research but small intervention studies. While these studies have largely involved people who already have cancer, some have also focused on healthy individuals.

A 2019 study from Dr. Ligibel and her colleagues, which randomly assigned 49 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer to start either an exercise program or mind-body practices ahead of surgery, found exercisers, who had been active for about a month at the time of surgery, showed signs of immune system upregulation in their tumors, while the control group did not.

Among healthy postmenopausal women, a meta-analysis of six clinical trials from Dr. McTiernan and her colleagues found that exercise plus calorie reduction can reduce levels of breast cancer-related endogenous hormones, more so than calorie-cutting alone. And a 2023 study found that high-intensity exercise boosted the ranks of certain immune cells and reduced inflammation in the colon among people at high risk for colon and endometrial cancers due to Lynch syndrome.

Defining an Exercise ‘Prescription’

Despite the gaps and uncertainties in the research, government guidelines as well as those from the American Cancer Society and other medical groups are in lockstep in their exercise recommendations: Adults should strive for 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (like brisk walking), 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity (like running), or some combination each week.

The guidelines also encourage strength training twice a week — advice that’s based on research tying those activity levels to lower risks for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.

But there’s no “best” exercise prescription for lowering cancer risk specifically. Most epidemiological studies have examined only aerobic activity, Dr. Rees-Punia said, and there’s very little known about whether strength conditioning or other moderate heart rate-elevating activities, such as daily household chores, may reduce the risk for cancer.

Given the lack of nuance in the literature, it’s hard to say what intensities, types, or amounts of exercise are best for each individual.

Going forward, device-based measurements of physical activity could “help us sort out the effects of different intensities of exercise and possibly types,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

But overall, Dr. McTiernan said, the data do show that the risks for several cancers are lower at the widely recommended activity levels.

“The bottom-line advice is still to exercise at least 150 minutes per week at a moderate-intensity level or greater,” Dr. McTiernan said.

Or put another way, moving beats being sedentary. It’s probably wise for everyone to sit less, noted Dr. Rees-Punia, for overall health and based on evidence tying sedentary time to the risks for certain cancers, including colon, endometrial, and lung.

There’s a practical element to consider in all of this: What physical activities will people actually do on the regular? In the big epidemiological studies, Dr. McTiernan noted, middle-aged and older adults most often report walking, suggesting that’s the preferred, or most accessible activity, for many.

“You can only benefit from the physical activity you’ll actually do,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

Dr. Ligibel echoed that sentiment, saying she encourages patients to think about physical activity as a process: “You need to find things you like to do and work them into your daily life, in a sustainable way.

“People often talk about exercise being medicine,” Dr. Ligibel said. “But I think you could take that too far. If we get too prescriptive about it, that could take the joy away.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb) in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine for first-line treatment of adults with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Approval was based on the CHECKMATE-901 trial in 608 patients randomized equally to either cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles or nivolumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles, followed by nivolumab alone for ≤ 2 years. 

Median overall survival was 21.7 months with nivolumab add-on vs 18.9 months with cisplatin/gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .0171). The nivolumab group had a slightly higher median progression-free survival of 7.9 months vs 7.6 months in the cisplatin and gemcitabine group (HR, 0.72; P = .0012).

The most common adverse events, occurring in ≥ 15% of nivolumab patients, were nausea, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, decreased appetite, rash, vomiting, peripheral neuropathy, urinary tract infection, diarrhea, edema, hypothyroidism, and pruritus.

Among numerous other oncology indications, nivolumab was previously approved for adjuvant treatment following urothelial carcinoma resection and for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that progresses during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb) in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine for first-line treatment of adults with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Approval was based on the CHECKMATE-901 trial in 608 patients randomized equally to either cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles or nivolumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles, followed by nivolumab alone for ≤ 2 years. 

Median overall survival was 21.7 months with nivolumab add-on vs 18.9 months with cisplatin/gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .0171). The nivolumab group had a slightly higher median progression-free survival of 7.9 months vs 7.6 months in the cisplatin and gemcitabine group (HR, 0.72; P = .0012).

The most common adverse events, occurring in ≥ 15% of nivolumab patients, were nausea, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, decreased appetite, rash, vomiting, peripheral neuropathy, urinary tract infection, diarrhea, edema, hypothyroidism, and pruritus.

Among numerous other oncology indications, nivolumab was previously approved for adjuvant treatment following urothelial carcinoma resection and for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that progresses during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb) in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine for first-line treatment of adults with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Approval was based on the CHECKMATE-901 trial in 608 patients randomized equally to either cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles or nivolumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles, followed by nivolumab alone for ≤ 2 years. 

Median overall survival was 21.7 months with nivolumab add-on vs 18.9 months with cisplatin/gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .0171). The nivolumab group had a slightly higher median progression-free survival of 7.9 months vs 7.6 months in the cisplatin and gemcitabine group (HR, 0.72; P = .0012).

The most common adverse events, occurring in ≥ 15% of nivolumab patients, were nausea, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, decreased appetite, rash, vomiting, peripheral neuropathy, urinary tract infection, diarrhea, edema, hypothyroidism, and pruritus.

Among numerous other oncology indications, nivolumab was previously approved for adjuvant treatment following urothelial carcinoma resection and for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that progresses during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Clinicians are navigating how to begin treating their patients with lifileucel (Amtagvi, Iovance Biotherapeutics Inc.), a new treatment for melanoma with a hefty price tag.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy (TIL) for use in certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. This marks the first time the FDA has allowed a cellular therapy to be marketed for a solid tumor cancer.

Lifileucel is made from a patient’s surgically removed tumor. Tissue from that tumor is then sent to a manufacturing center. Turnaround time to when the drug is ready to be sent back to the cancer center for use is approximately 34 days, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Iovance.
 

Insurance Adjustments

The cost of the one-time lifileucel treatment is $515,000, according to the manufacturer.

Two investigators in the clinical trials of lifileucel, Allison Betof Warner, MD, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, and Igor Puzanov, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, shared their expectations regarding factors that would contribute to how much a patient paid for the drug.

Given the drug’s recent approval, the logistical details are still being worked out between cancer centers and insurers regarding how much patients will pay out of pocket for lifileucel, said Dr. Betof Warner, who is assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology at Stanford University.

The associated costs, including the surgery that is needed to procure the TIL cells for expansion into the final drug product, will be different for each patient, she told this publication.

Patients’ costs for lifileucel will vary based on their insurance, explained Dr. Puzanov, chief of melanoma and professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.

At Roswell Park, “we will work with our regionally-based payers on a case-by-case basis to seek approval for those patients we believe can most benefit from lifileucel,” he said in an interview. Preauthorization will be required, as is standard for many cancer treatments, he added.

Once payer approval is in place, Dr. Puzanov said, he did not anticipate significant delays in access for patients.

Certified centers such as the multidisciplinary team at Roswell Park are ready to treat patients now. Other centers are similarly prepared, especially those involved in the clinical trials of lifileucel, he said.

 

Logistics and Infrastructure

A position article and guidelines on the management of and best practices for TIL was published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer on February 29. The paper, of which both Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as authors, noted that one of the barriers to the use of TIL cell therapy in clinical practice is the need for state-of-the art infrastructure at centers that want to offer the treatment. Scheduling, patient referrals, and surgery, as well as the production and infusion of TIL, must be organized and streamlined for successful treatment, the authors wrote.

The two supply chains involved in TIL — the transportation of the tumor tissue from the treatment center to the manufacturer and transport of the TIL infusion product back to the treatment center — must be timely and precise, they emphasized.
 

Docs Hope TIL Improves in Several Ways

Although the TIL technology is a breakthrough, “we hope to see even better efficacy and lower toxicity as further research looks at ways to improve on the current TIL standard,” Dr. Puzanov said.

More research and dose adjustments may impact patient costs and side effects, he noted. “I am looking to see TILs used in the front line, with or without checkpoint inhibitors.”

Research is needed to explore how to lower the chemotherapy doses and possibly the associated toxicity, he added. Finally, researchers must consider whether high-dose IL-2 therapy — given as part of the TIL cell therapy — could be replaced with other cytokines, or whether the number of doses could be lowered. Another avenue of exploration is engineering genes for cytokines into TILs, he said.

“The key is to think about TIL therapy before you need it — ideally, when the patient is still doing well on their frontline checkpoint inhibition immunotherapy,” Dr. Puzanov said in an interview. That is the time for evaluation, and specialty centers can provide an expert assessment, he said.

“We are constantly working to improve TIL therapy,” Dr. Betof Warner told this publication. More research is needed optimize the regimen to reduce side effects, which would not only make treatment easier for currently eligible patients, but might allow treatment for patients not currently eligible.

“For example, we are looking for ways to reduce the dose of preparative chemotherapy, which prepares the body for the cells to maximize their longevity and efficacy, and to reduce or eliminate the need to give IL-2 after the cell administration,” continued Dr. Betof Warner, who is also Director of Melanoma Medical Oncology, Director of Solid Tumor Cellular Therapy, and Codirector of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University. “We are also actively studying next-generation TIL therapies to try to increase the efficacy.”

“Lifileucel has about a 30% success rate for melanoma that has progressed after standard therapy; we are working hard to do better than that,” she noted.  

In a press release, Iovance summarized the results of the trial that supported the FDA’s accelerated approval of lifileucel. In an open-label single-arm study, including multiple sites worldwide, 73 adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had received at least one previous systemic therapy underwent a lymphodepleting regimen followed by treatments with fludarabine and aldesleukin. Patients then received lifileucel at a median dose of 21.1 x 109 viable cells; the recommended dose ranges from 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 cells.

The primary efficacy outcome was objective response rate (ORR). The ORR in the study was 31.5%, and the median time to initial lifileucel response was 1.5 months.

The clinical trials of lifileucel for which Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as investigators were sponsored by Iovance.

Clinicians are navigating how to begin treating their patients with lifileucel (Amtagvi, Iovance Biotherapeutics Inc.), a new treatment for melanoma with a hefty price tag.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy (TIL) for use in certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. This marks the first time the FDA has allowed a cellular therapy to be marketed for a solid tumor cancer.

Lifileucel is made from a patient’s surgically removed tumor. Tissue from that tumor is then sent to a manufacturing center. Turnaround time to when the drug is ready to be sent back to the cancer center for use is approximately 34 days, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Iovance.
 

Insurance Adjustments

The cost of the one-time lifileucel treatment is $515,000, according to the manufacturer.

Two investigators in the clinical trials of lifileucel, Allison Betof Warner, MD, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, and Igor Puzanov, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, shared their expectations regarding factors that would contribute to how much a patient paid for the drug.

Given the drug’s recent approval, the logistical details are still being worked out between cancer centers and insurers regarding how much patients will pay out of pocket for lifileucel, said Dr. Betof Warner, who is assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology at Stanford University.

The associated costs, including the surgery that is needed to procure the TIL cells for expansion into the final drug product, will be different for each patient, she told this publication.

Patients’ costs for lifileucel will vary based on their insurance, explained Dr. Puzanov, chief of melanoma and professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.

At Roswell Park, “we will work with our regionally-based payers on a case-by-case basis to seek approval for those patients we believe can most benefit from lifileucel,” he said in an interview. Preauthorization will be required, as is standard for many cancer treatments, he added.

Once payer approval is in place, Dr. Puzanov said, he did not anticipate significant delays in access for patients.

Certified centers such as the multidisciplinary team at Roswell Park are ready to treat patients now. Other centers are similarly prepared, especially those involved in the clinical trials of lifileucel, he said.

 

Logistics and Infrastructure

A position article and guidelines on the management of and best practices for TIL was published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer on February 29. The paper, of which both Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as authors, noted that one of the barriers to the use of TIL cell therapy in clinical practice is the need for state-of-the art infrastructure at centers that want to offer the treatment. Scheduling, patient referrals, and surgery, as well as the production and infusion of TIL, must be organized and streamlined for successful treatment, the authors wrote.

The two supply chains involved in TIL — the transportation of the tumor tissue from the treatment center to the manufacturer and transport of the TIL infusion product back to the treatment center — must be timely and precise, they emphasized.
 

Docs Hope TIL Improves in Several Ways

Although the TIL technology is a breakthrough, “we hope to see even better efficacy and lower toxicity as further research looks at ways to improve on the current TIL standard,” Dr. Puzanov said.

More research and dose adjustments may impact patient costs and side effects, he noted. “I am looking to see TILs used in the front line, with or without checkpoint inhibitors.”

Research is needed to explore how to lower the chemotherapy doses and possibly the associated toxicity, he added. Finally, researchers must consider whether high-dose IL-2 therapy — given as part of the TIL cell therapy — could be replaced with other cytokines, or whether the number of doses could be lowered. Another avenue of exploration is engineering genes for cytokines into TILs, he said.

“The key is to think about TIL therapy before you need it — ideally, when the patient is still doing well on their frontline checkpoint inhibition immunotherapy,” Dr. Puzanov said in an interview. That is the time for evaluation, and specialty centers can provide an expert assessment, he said.

“We are constantly working to improve TIL therapy,” Dr. Betof Warner told this publication. More research is needed optimize the regimen to reduce side effects, which would not only make treatment easier for currently eligible patients, but might allow treatment for patients not currently eligible.

“For example, we are looking for ways to reduce the dose of preparative chemotherapy, which prepares the body for the cells to maximize their longevity and efficacy, and to reduce or eliminate the need to give IL-2 after the cell administration,” continued Dr. Betof Warner, who is also Director of Melanoma Medical Oncology, Director of Solid Tumor Cellular Therapy, and Codirector of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University. “We are also actively studying next-generation TIL therapies to try to increase the efficacy.”

“Lifileucel has about a 30% success rate for melanoma that has progressed after standard therapy; we are working hard to do better than that,” she noted.  

In a press release, Iovance summarized the results of the trial that supported the FDA’s accelerated approval of lifileucel. In an open-label single-arm study, including multiple sites worldwide, 73 adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had received at least one previous systemic therapy underwent a lymphodepleting regimen followed by treatments with fludarabine and aldesleukin. Patients then received lifileucel at a median dose of 21.1 x 109 viable cells; the recommended dose ranges from 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 cells.

The primary efficacy outcome was objective response rate (ORR). The ORR in the study was 31.5%, and the median time to initial lifileucel response was 1.5 months.

The clinical trials of lifileucel for which Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as investigators were sponsored by Iovance.

Clinicians are navigating how to begin treating their patients with lifileucel (Amtagvi, Iovance Biotherapeutics Inc.), a new treatment for melanoma with a hefty price tag.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy (TIL) for use in certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. This marks the first time the FDA has allowed a cellular therapy to be marketed for a solid tumor cancer.

Lifileucel is made from a patient’s surgically removed tumor. Tissue from that tumor is then sent to a manufacturing center. Turnaround time to when the drug is ready to be sent back to the cancer center for use is approximately 34 days, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Iovance.
 

Insurance Adjustments

The cost of the one-time lifileucel treatment is $515,000, according to the manufacturer.

Two investigators in the clinical trials of lifileucel, Allison Betof Warner, MD, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, and Igor Puzanov, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, shared their expectations regarding factors that would contribute to how much a patient paid for the drug.

Given the drug’s recent approval, the logistical details are still being worked out between cancer centers and insurers regarding how much patients will pay out of pocket for lifileucel, said Dr. Betof Warner, who is assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology at Stanford University.

The associated costs, including the surgery that is needed to procure the TIL cells for expansion into the final drug product, will be different for each patient, she told this publication.

Patients’ costs for lifileucel will vary based on their insurance, explained Dr. Puzanov, chief of melanoma and professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.

At Roswell Park, “we will work with our regionally-based payers on a case-by-case basis to seek approval for those patients we believe can most benefit from lifileucel,” he said in an interview. Preauthorization will be required, as is standard for many cancer treatments, he added.

Once payer approval is in place, Dr. Puzanov said, he did not anticipate significant delays in access for patients.

Certified centers such as the multidisciplinary team at Roswell Park are ready to treat patients now. Other centers are similarly prepared, especially those involved in the clinical trials of lifileucel, he said.

 

Logistics and Infrastructure

A position article and guidelines on the management of and best practices for TIL was published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer on February 29. The paper, of which both Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as authors, noted that one of the barriers to the use of TIL cell therapy in clinical practice is the need for state-of-the art infrastructure at centers that want to offer the treatment. Scheduling, patient referrals, and surgery, as well as the production and infusion of TIL, must be organized and streamlined for successful treatment, the authors wrote.

The two supply chains involved in TIL — the transportation of the tumor tissue from the treatment center to the manufacturer and transport of the TIL infusion product back to the treatment center — must be timely and precise, they emphasized.
 

Docs Hope TIL Improves in Several Ways

Although the TIL technology is a breakthrough, “we hope to see even better efficacy and lower toxicity as further research looks at ways to improve on the current TIL standard,” Dr. Puzanov said.

More research and dose adjustments may impact patient costs and side effects, he noted. “I am looking to see TILs used in the front line, with or without checkpoint inhibitors.”

Research is needed to explore how to lower the chemotherapy doses and possibly the associated toxicity, he added. Finally, researchers must consider whether high-dose IL-2 therapy — given as part of the TIL cell therapy — could be replaced with other cytokines, or whether the number of doses could be lowered. Another avenue of exploration is engineering genes for cytokines into TILs, he said.

“The key is to think about TIL therapy before you need it — ideally, when the patient is still doing well on their frontline checkpoint inhibition immunotherapy,” Dr. Puzanov said in an interview. That is the time for evaluation, and specialty centers can provide an expert assessment, he said.

“We are constantly working to improve TIL therapy,” Dr. Betof Warner told this publication. More research is needed optimize the regimen to reduce side effects, which would not only make treatment easier for currently eligible patients, but might allow treatment for patients not currently eligible.

“For example, we are looking for ways to reduce the dose of preparative chemotherapy, which prepares the body for the cells to maximize their longevity and efficacy, and to reduce or eliminate the need to give IL-2 after the cell administration,” continued Dr. Betof Warner, who is also Director of Melanoma Medical Oncology, Director of Solid Tumor Cellular Therapy, and Codirector of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University. “We are also actively studying next-generation TIL therapies to try to increase the efficacy.”

“Lifileucel has about a 30% success rate for melanoma that has progressed after standard therapy; we are working hard to do better than that,” she noted.  

In a press release, Iovance summarized the results of the trial that supported the FDA’s accelerated approval of lifileucel. In an open-label single-arm study, including multiple sites worldwide, 73 adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had received at least one previous systemic therapy underwent a lymphodepleting regimen followed by treatments with fludarabine and aldesleukin. Patients then received lifileucel at a median dose of 21.1 x 109 viable cells; the recommended dose ranges from 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 cells.

The primary efficacy outcome was objective response rate (ORR). The ORR in the study was 31.5%, and the median time to initial lifileucel response was 1.5 months.

The clinical trials of lifileucel for which Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as investigators were sponsored by Iovance.

TOPLINE:

Resecting the primary colon tumor before chemotherapy does not improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic colon cancer not amenable to curative therapy, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Chemotherapy is the primary treatment in patients with stage IV  (CRC) and unresectable metastases. It’s unclear whether primary tumor resection before chemotherapy prolongs survival.
• Among 393 patients with stage IV colon cancer and unresectable metastases enrolled in the  and  trials, 187 were randomly allocated to undergo primary tumor resection and 206 to upfront chemotherapy.
• The chemotherapy regimen was left up to the treating physician. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Median follow-up time was 36.7 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median overall survival was 16.7 months with primary tumor resection and 18.6 months with upfront chemotherapy (P = .191).
• Comparable overall survival between the study groups was further confirmed on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.944; P = .65) and across all subgroups.
• Serious adverse events were more common with upfront chemo than surgery (18% vs 10%; P = .027), due mainly to a significantly higher incidence of GI-related events (11% vs 5%; P = .031).
• Overall, 24% of the primary tumor resection group did not receive any chemotherapy.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of our study provide compelling data that upfront primary tumor resection in treatment-naive stage IV CRC not amenable for curative treatment does not prolong [overall survival]. A relatively low incidence of serious adverse events in patients with an intact primary tumor together with a considerable number of patients who did not receive any chemotherapy in the primary tumor resection group provides further arguments against resection of the primary tumor in this group of patients,” the authors of the combined analysis concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Neither study completed their planned patient accrual. Although both trials are nearly identical, differences in the individual study cohorts and trial implementation could have introduced bias. Tumor molecular profiling was not performed.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Resecting the primary colon tumor before chemotherapy does not improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic colon cancer not amenable to curative therapy, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Chemotherapy is the primary treatment in patients with stage IV  (CRC) and unresectable metastases. It’s unclear whether primary tumor resection before chemotherapy prolongs survival.
• Among 393 patients with stage IV colon cancer and unresectable metastases enrolled in the  and  trials, 187 were randomly allocated to undergo primary tumor resection and 206 to upfront chemotherapy.
• The chemotherapy regimen was left up to the treating physician. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Median follow-up time was 36.7 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median overall survival was 16.7 months with primary tumor resection and 18.6 months with upfront chemotherapy (P = .191).
• Comparable overall survival between the study groups was further confirmed on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.944; P = .65) and across all subgroups.
• Serious adverse events were more common with upfront chemo than surgery (18% vs 10%; P = .027), due mainly to a significantly higher incidence of GI-related events (11% vs 5%; P = .031).
• Overall, 24% of the primary tumor resection group did not receive any chemotherapy.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of our study provide compelling data that upfront primary tumor resection in treatment-naive stage IV CRC not amenable for curative treatment does not prolong [overall survival]. A relatively low incidence of serious adverse events in patients with an intact primary tumor together with a considerable number of patients who did not receive any chemotherapy in the primary tumor resection group provides further arguments against resection of the primary tumor in this group of patients,” the authors of the combined analysis concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Neither study completed their planned patient accrual. Although both trials are nearly identical, differences in the individual study cohorts and trial implementation could have introduced bias. Tumor molecular profiling was not performed.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Resecting the primary colon tumor before chemotherapy does not improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic colon cancer not amenable to curative therapy, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Chemotherapy is the primary treatment in patients with stage IV  (CRC) and unresectable metastases. It’s unclear whether primary tumor resection before chemotherapy prolongs survival.
• Among 393 patients with stage IV colon cancer and unresectable metastases enrolled in the  and  trials, 187 were randomly allocated to undergo primary tumor resection and 206 to upfront chemotherapy.
• The chemotherapy regimen was left up to the treating physician. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Median follow-up time was 36.7 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median overall survival was 16.7 months with primary tumor resection and 18.6 months with upfront chemotherapy (P = .191).
• Comparable overall survival between the study groups was further confirmed on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.944; P = .65) and across all subgroups.
• Serious adverse events were more common with upfront chemo than surgery (18% vs 10%; P = .027), due mainly to a significantly higher incidence of GI-related events (11% vs 5%; P = .031).
• Overall, 24% of the primary tumor resection group did not receive any chemotherapy.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of our study provide compelling data that upfront primary tumor resection in treatment-naive stage IV CRC not amenable for curative treatment does not prolong [overall survival]. A relatively low incidence of serious adverse events in patients with an intact primary tumor together with a considerable number of patients who did not receive any chemotherapy in the primary tumor resection group provides further arguments against resection of the primary tumor in this group of patients,” the authors of the combined analysis concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Neither study completed their planned patient accrual. Although both trials are nearly identical, differences in the individual study cohorts and trial implementation could have introduced bias. Tumor molecular profiling was not performed.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Breast cancer-specific mortality risk in men with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer persists for at least 20 years, but patterns of breast cancer–specific mortality (BCSM) are distinct from those in women, a new study finds.

Previous studies in women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer have shown a risk of distant recurrence and death for at least 20 years after diagnosis, but data for men are limited, wrote Julieta Leone, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.
 

What is Known About Hormone Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer Mortality in Men vs. Women?

Invasive breast cancer in men is rare and consequently understudied, the researchers wrote. Previous studies of BCSM in men with more than 5 years’ follow-up consist mainly of case series at single institutions, the researchers wrote in JAMA Oncology (2024 Feb 29. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.7194).

“We believed it would be important to study this issue to help inform the management of men with breast cancer,” corresponding author, José P. Leone, MD, said in an interview.

In 2021, Dr. J.P. Leone and colleagues published a study in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment that examined the 20-year risk of BCSM in women that included more than 36,000 individuals who had survived for 5 years, with a median of 14 years’ follow-up.

In that study of women, the BCSM risk at 20 years was significantly higher for those with HR-negative tumors, but the risk was still elevated for both types. Patients with stage IIIC HR-positive disease had four times the risk of BCSM over 20 years and those with stage IIIC HR-negative disease had seven times the risk of BCSM over 20 years compared with the risk of death not related to breast cancer, the researchers wrote.

Another study of nearly 2,400 men with breast cancer (mainly HR+) by Dr. J.P. Leone and colleagues showed that cancer stage, tumor subtype, and race were associated with overall survival and breast cancer-specific survival.
 

What Does the New Study Add?

The current study included 2,836 men diagnosed with stage I to stage III HR+ breast cancer between 1990 and 2008, using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.

“We found that in men with breast cancer, the risk of breast cancer mortality persists for at least 20 years and that [the risk] depends on traditional clinicopathologic factors, such as age, tumor size, nodal status and tumor grade,” Dr. J.P. Leone said in an interview.

“The prolonged risk [of breast-cancer specific mortality] over 20 years that we observed in our study is similar to that previously reported in women; however, the kinetics of the risk over the 20-year period appears different in men,” he emphasized.

The men in the study, especially those with a higher stage of disease, appeared to have a bimodal distribution of the BRCA mortality risk, he said.

Two peaks were identified, he explained; an early peak in mortality risk at approximately 4 years from diagnosis and another at approximately 11 years after diagnosis.

Although women with breast cancer had a prolonged risk of breast cancer mortality, “the kinetics of the risk does not include 2 peaks, even in women with higher stage of disease.” In women with higher stage breast cancer, the peak mortality risk occurs approximately 5 years after diagnosis, he said.

The reasons for the later peak in men remain unclear, the researchers wrote in the study, but possible explanations include nonadherence to endocrine therapy, differences in tumor biologic factors, and differences in the tumor microenvironment between men and women, they noted, in the discussion section.
 

What Drives the Risk?

Key factors for breast cancer-specific mortality were age, tumor stage, and tumor grade.

The cumulative 20-year risk of BCSM in the current study was 12.4%, 26.2%, and 46.0% for stage I, II, and III, respectively. The adjusted BCSM risk was increased in patients younger than 50 years, those with grade II or III/IV tumors, and those with stage II or III disease.
 

What Are the Limitations?

The current study by Leone and colleagues was limited by the relatively small subgroup sample of men with stage III and N3 disease, lack of data on the use of systemic therapies, and lack of data on human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 gene (ERBB2), the researchers wrote. However, the long-term follow-up strengthened the results, and the study is the first known to assess 20-year BCSM risk in men with nonmetastatic HR+ breast cancer.

What Do Oncologists Need to Know About the Study?

The study findings indicate that the risk of breast cancer mortality persists for 20 years in men with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, Dr. J.P. Leone said in an interview. As in women, the risk depends on traditional clinicopathologic factors, he noted.

“However, the kinetics of that risk appears to be different between men and women. In order to reduce the breast cancer mortality risk in men with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, it will be important for men to consider the benefits of the treatment options that may be indicated for their specific situation,” he said.

“I think early detection is also very important,” he emphasized. To that end, increased awareness of the possibility for breast cancer in men, as well as prompt intervention when breast cancer is suspected, will help to improve early detection when the risk of breast cancer mortality is lower, he added.
 

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

“I think our study underscores the need for additional research to improve our adjuvant therapy options in both men and women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, to reduce the risk of long-term mortality,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Julieta Leone had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. José P. Leone disclosed receiving institutional grants from Kazia Therapeutics and Seagen unrelated to the current study.

Breast cancer-specific mortality risk in men with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer persists for at least 20 years, but patterns of breast cancer–specific mortality (BCSM) are distinct from those in women, a new study finds.

Previous studies in women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer have shown a risk of distant recurrence and death for at least 20 years after diagnosis, but data for men are limited, wrote Julieta Leone, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.
 

What is Known About Hormone Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer Mortality in Men vs. Women?

Invasive breast cancer in men is rare and consequently understudied, the researchers wrote. Previous studies of BCSM in men with more than 5 years’ follow-up consist mainly of case series at single institutions, the researchers wrote in JAMA Oncology (2024 Feb 29. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.7194).

“We believed it would be important to study this issue to help inform the management of men with breast cancer,” corresponding author, José P. Leone, MD, said in an interview.

In 2021, Dr. J.P. Leone and colleagues published a study in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment that examined the 20-year risk of BCSM in women that included more than 36,000 individuals who had survived for 5 years, with a median of 14 years’ follow-up.

In that study of women, the BCSM risk at 20 years was significantly higher for those with HR-negative tumors, but the risk was still elevated for both types. Patients with stage IIIC HR-positive disease had four times the risk of BCSM over 20 years and those with stage IIIC HR-negative disease had seven times the risk of BCSM over 20 years compared with the risk of death not related to breast cancer, the researchers wrote.

Another study of nearly 2,400 men with breast cancer (mainly HR+) by Dr. J.P. Leone and colleagues showed that cancer stage, tumor subtype, and race were associated with overall survival and breast cancer-specific survival.
 

What Does the New Study Add?

The current study included 2,836 men diagnosed with stage I to stage III HR+ breast cancer between 1990 and 2008, using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.

“We found that in men with breast cancer, the risk of breast cancer mortality persists for at least 20 years and that [the risk] depends on traditional clinicopathologic factors, such as age, tumor size, nodal status and tumor grade,” Dr. J.P. Leone said in an interview.

“The prolonged risk [of breast-cancer specific mortality] over 20 years that we observed in our study is similar to that previously reported in women; however, the kinetics of the risk over the 20-year period appears different in men,” he emphasized.

The men in the study, especially those with a higher stage of disease, appeared to have a bimodal distribution of the BRCA mortality risk, he said.

Two peaks were identified, he explained; an early peak in mortality risk at approximately 4 years from diagnosis and another at approximately 11 years after diagnosis.

Although women with breast cancer had a prolonged risk of breast cancer mortality, “the kinetics of the risk does not include 2 peaks, even in women with higher stage of disease.” In women with higher stage breast cancer, the peak mortality risk occurs approximately 5 years after diagnosis, he said.

The reasons for the later peak in men remain unclear, the researchers wrote in the study, but possible explanations include nonadherence to endocrine therapy, differences in tumor biologic factors, and differences in the tumor microenvironment between men and women, they noted, in the discussion section.
 

What Drives the Risk?

Key factors for breast cancer-specific mortality were age, tumor stage, and tumor grade.

The cumulative 20-year risk of BCSM in the current study was 12.4%, 26.2%, and 46.0% for stage I, II, and III, respectively. The adjusted BCSM risk was increased in patients younger than 50 years, those with grade II or III/IV tumors, and those with stage II or III disease.
 

What Are the Limitations?

The current study by Leone and colleagues was limited by the relatively small subgroup sample of men with stage III and N3 disease, lack of data on the use of systemic therapies, and lack of data on human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 gene (ERBB2), the researchers wrote. However, the long-term follow-up strengthened the results, and the study is the first known to assess 20-year BCSM risk in men with nonmetastatic HR+ breast cancer.

What Do Oncologists Need to Know About the Study?

The study findings indicate that the risk of breast cancer mortality persists for 20 years in men with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, Dr. J.P. Leone said in an interview. As in women, the risk depends on traditional clinicopathologic factors, he noted.

“However, the kinetics of that risk appears to be different between men and women. In order to reduce the breast cancer mortality risk in men with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, it will be important for men to consider the benefits of the treatment options that may be indicated for their specific situation,” he said.

“I think early detection is also very important,” he emphasized. To that end, increased awareness of the possibility for breast cancer in men, as well as prompt intervention when breast cancer is suspected, will help to improve early detection when the risk of breast cancer mortality is lower, he added.
 

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

“I think our study underscores the need for additional research to improve our adjuvant therapy options in both men and women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, to reduce the risk of long-term mortality,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Julieta Leone had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. José P. Leone disclosed receiving institutional grants from Kazia Therapeutics and Seagen unrelated to the current study.

Breast cancer-specific mortality risk in men with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer persists for at least 20 years, but patterns of breast cancer–specific mortality (BCSM) are distinct from those in women, a new study finds.

Previous studies in women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer have shown a risk of distant recurrence and death for at least 20 years after diagnosis, but data for men are limited, wrote Julieta Leone, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.
 

What is Known About Hormone Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer Mortality in Men vs. Women?

Invasive breast cancer in men is rare and consequently understudied, the researchers wrote. Previous studies of BCSM in men with more than 5 years’ follow-up consist mainly of case series at single institutions, the researchers wrote in JAMA Oncology (2024 Feb 29. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.7194).

“We believed it would be important to study this issue to help inform the management of men with breast cancer,” corresponding author, José P. Leone, MD, said in an interview.

In 2021, Dr. J.P. Leone and colleagues published a study in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment that examined the 20-year risk of BCSM in women that included more than 36,000 individuals who had survived for 5 years, with a median of 14 years’ follow-up.

In that study of women, the BCSM risk at 20 years was significantly higher for those with HR-negative tumors, but the risk was still elevated for both types. Patients with stage IIIC HR-positive disease had four times the risk of BCSM over 20 years and those with stage IIIC HR-negative disease had seven times the risk of BCSM over 20 years compared with the risk of death not related to breast cancer, the researchers wrote.

Another study of nearly 2,400 men with breast cancer (mainly HR+) by Dr. J.P. Leone and colleagues showed that cancer stage, tumor subtype, and race were associated with overall survival and breast cancer-specific survival.
 

What Does the New Study Add?

The current study included 2,836 men diagnosed with stage I to stage III HR+ breast cancer between 1990 and 2008, using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.

“We found that in men with breast cancer, the risk of breast cancer mortality persists for at least 20 years and that [the risk] depends on traditional clinicopathologic factors, such as age, tumor size, nodal status and tumor grade,” Dr. J.P. Leone said in an interview.

“The prolonged risk [of breast-cancer specific mortality] over 20 years that we observed in our study is similar to that previously reported in women; however, the kinetics of the risk over the 20-year period appears different in men,” he emphasized.

The men in the study, especially those with a higher stage of disease, appeared to have a bimodal distribution of the BRCA mortality risk, he said.

Two peaks were identified, he explained; an early peak in mortality risk at approximately 4 years from diagnosis and another at approximately 11 years after diagnosis.

Although women with breast cancer had a prolonged risk of breast cancer mortality, “the kinetics of the risk does not include 2 peaks, even in women with higher stage of disease.” In women with higher stage breast cancer, the peak mortality risk occurs approximately 5 years after diagnosis, he said.

The reasons for the later peak in men remain unclear, the researchers wrote in the study, but possible explanations include nonadherence to endocrine therapy, differences in tumor biologic factors, and differences in the tumor microenvironment between men and women, they noted, in the discussion section.
 

What Drives the Risk?

Key factors for breast cancer-specific mortality were age, tumor stage, and tumor grade.

The cumulative 20-year risk of BCSM in the current study was 12.4%, 26.2%, and 46.0% for stage I, II, and III, respectively. The adjusted BCSM risk was increased in patients younger than 50 years, those with grade II or III/IV tumors, and those with stage II or III disease.
 

What Are the Limitations?

The current study by Leone and colleagues was limited by the relatively small subgroup sample of men with stage III and N3 disease, lack of data on the use of systemic therapies, and lack of data on human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 gene (ERBB2), the researchers wrote. However, the long-term follow-up strengthened the results, and the study is the first known to assess 20-year BCSM risk in men with nonmetastatic HR+ breast cancer.

What Do Oncologists Need to Know About the Study?

The study findings indicate that the risk of breast cancer mortality persists for 20 years in men with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, Dr. J.P. Leone said in an interview. As in women, the risk depends on traditional clinicopathologic factors, he noted.

“However, the kinetics of that risk appears to be different between men and women. In order to reduce the breast cancer mortality risk in men with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, it will be important for men to consider the benefits of the treatment options that may be indicated for their specific situation,” he said.

“I think early detection is also very important,” he emphasized. To that end, increased awareness of the possibility for breast cancer in men, as well as prompt intervention when breast cancer is suspected, will help to improve early detection when the risk of breast cancer mortality is lower, he added.
 

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

“I think our study underscores the need for additional research to improve our adjuvant therapy options in both men and women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, to reduce the risk of long-term mortality,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Julieta Leone had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. José P. Leone disclosed receiving institutional grants from Kazia Therapeutics and Seagen unrelated to the current study.

TOPLINE:

Treatment modifications, such as dose reductions, schedule changes, or use of less toxic regimens, can improve how well older patients with advanced cancer and aging-related conditions tolerate chemotherapy regimens.

METHODOLOGY:

• Older patients are underrepresented in clinical trials, which means the reported risks associated with standard-of-care regimens typically reflect outcomes in younger, healthier patients. This underrepresentation in clinical trials has also led to uncertainties about the safety of standard chemotherapy regimens in older patients who often have other health conditions to manage, alongside cancer.
• In this secondary analysis, researchers evaluated the association between primary treatment modifications to standard-of-care chemotherapy regimens and treatment tolerability.
• The trial included 609 patients aged ≥ 70 years who had advanced cancer alongside at least one age-related condition, such as impaired cognition, and planned to start a new palliative chemotherapy regimen in the community oncology setting. The most common cancer types were gastrointestinal cancer (37.4%) and lung cancer (28.6%).
• The primary outcome was grade 3-5 adverse events within 3 months of chemotherapy initiation.
• Secondary outcomes included patient-reported functional decline and combined adverse outcomes, which incorporated clinician-rated toxic effects, patient-reported functional decline, and 6-month overall survival.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Overall, 281 patients (46.1%) received a primary treatment modification, most often a dose reduction (71.9%) or a scheduling change (11.7%).
• Patients who received primary treatment modifications had a 15% lower risk for grades 3-5 adverse effects (relative risk [RR], 0.85) and a 20% lower risk for patient-reported functional decline (RR, 0.80) than those who received standard treatment.
• Patients receiving treatment modifications had 32% lower risk for a worse combined adverse outcome (odds ratio, 0.68).
• Cancer type may matter as well. When looking at outcomes by cancer type, patients with gastrointestinal cancers who received a primary treatment modification had a lower risk for toxic effects (RR, 0.82), whereas patients with lung cancer did not (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.20).

IN PRACTICE:

These findings “can help oncologists to choose the optimal drug regimen, select a safe and effective initial dose, and undertake appropriate monitoring strategies to manage the clinical care of older people with advanced cancer,” the authors said. 

SOURCE:

This study, led by Mostafa R. Mohamed from University of Rochester, New York, was published February 15 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

Residual confounding may be present. Extremely healthy older patients may have been excluded due to study criteria, limiting generalizability. There may be variation in toxicities due to inclusion of patients with multiple heterogeneous cancer.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the University of Rochester, New York. The authors disclosed financial relationships outside this work.

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

TOPLINE:

Treatment modifications, such as dose reductions, schedule changes, or use of less toxic regimens, can improve how well older patients with advanced cancer and aging-related conditions tolerate chemotherapy regimens.

METHODOLOGY:

• Older patients are underrepresented in clinical trials, which means the reported risks associated with standard-of-care regimens typically reflect outcomes in younger, healthier patients. This underrepresentation in clinical trials has also led to uncertainties about the safety of standard chemotherapy regimens in older patients who often have other health conditions to manage, alongside cancer.
• In this secondary analysis, researchers evaluated the association between primary treatment modifications to standard-of-care chemotherapy regimens and treatment tolerability.
• The trial included 609 patients aged ≥ 70 years who had advanced cancer alongside at least one age-related condition, such as impaired cognition, and planned to start a new palliative chemotherapy regimen in the community oncology setting. The most common cancer types were gastrointestinal cancer (37.4%) and lung cancer (28.6%).
• The primary outcome was grade 3-5 adverse events within 3 months of chemotherapy initiation.
• Secondary outcomes included patient-reported functional decline and combined adverse outcomes, which incorporated clinician-rated toxic effects, patient-reported functional decline, and 6-month overall survival.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Overall, 281 patients (46.1%) received a primary treatment modification, most often a dose reduction (71.9%) or a scheduling change (11.7%).
• Patients who received primary treatment modifications had a 15% lower risk for grades 3-5 adverse effects (relative risk [RR], 0.85) and a 20% lower risk for patient-reported functional decline (RR, 0.80) than those who received standard treatment.
• Patients receiving treatment modifications had 32% lower risk for a worse combined adverse outcome (odds ratio, 0.68).
• Cancer type may matter as well. When looking at outcomes by cancer type, patients with gastrointestinal cancers who received a primary treatment modification had a lower risk for toxic effects (RR, 0.82), whereas patients with lung cancer did not (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.20).

IN PRACTICE:

These findings “can help oncologists to choose the optimal drug regimen, select a safe and effective initial dose, and undertake appropriate monitoring strategies to manage the clinical care of older people with advanced cancer,” the authors said. 

SOURCE:

This study, led by Mostafa R. Mohamed from University of Rochester, New York, was published February 15 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

Residual confounding may be present. Extremely healthy older patients may have been excluded due to study criteria, limiting generalizability. There may be variation in toxicities due to inclusion of patients with multiple heterogeneous cancer.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the University of Rochester, New York. The authors disclosed financial relationships outside this work.

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

TOPLINE:

Treatment modifications, such as dose reductions, schedule changes, or use of less toxic regimens, can improve how well older patients with advanced cancer and aging-related conditions tolerate chemotherapy regimens.

METHODOLOGY:

• Older patients are underrepresented in clinical trials, which means the reported risks associated with standard-of-care regimens typically reflect outcomes in younger, healthier patients. This underrepresentation in clinical trials has also led to uncertainties about the safety of standard chemotherapy regimens in older patients who often have other health conditions to manage, alongside cancer.
• In this secondary analysis, researchers evaluated the association between primary treatment modifications to standard-of-care chemotherapy regimens and treatment tolerability.
• The trial included 609 patients aged ≥ 70 years who had advanced cancer alongside at least one age-related condition, such as impaired cognition, and planned to start a new palliative chemotherapy regimen in the community oncology setting. The most common cancer types were gastrointestinal cancer (37.4%) and lung cancer (28.6%).
• The primary outcome was grade 3-5 adverse events within 3 months of chemotherapy initiation.
• Secondary outcomes included patient-reported functional decline and combined adverse outcomes, which incorporated clinician-rated toxic effects, patient-reported functional decline, and 6-month overall survival.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Overall, 281 patients (46.1%) received a primary treatment modification, most often a dose reduction (71.9%) or a scheduling change (11.7%).
• Patients who received primary treatment modifications had a 15% lower risk for grades 3-5 adverse effects (relative risk [RR], 0.85) and a 20% lower risk for patient-reported functional decline (RR, 0.80) than those who received standard treatment.
• Patients receiving treatment modifications had 32% lower risk for a worse combined adverse outcome (odds ratio, 0.68).
• Cancer type may matter as well. When looking at outcomes by cancer type, patients with gastrointestinal cancers who received a primary treatment modification had a lower risk for toxic effects (RR, 0.82), whereas patients with lung cancer did not (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.20).

IN PRACTICE:

These findings “can help oncologists to choose the optimal drug regimen, select a safe and effective initial dose, and undertake appropriate monitoring strategies to manage the clinical care of older people with advanced cancer,” the authors said. 

SOURCE:

This study, led by Mostafa R. Mohamed from University of Rochester, New York, was published February 15 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

Residual confounding may be present. Extremely healthy older patients may have been excluded due to study criteria, limiting generalizability. There may be variation in toxicities due to inclusion of patients with multiple heterogeneous cancer.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the University of Rochester, New York. The authors disclosed financial relationships outside this work.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted new approvals for the use of amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant, Janssen Biotech Inc.) in certain patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 

Specifically, the FDA approved the first-line use of the agent in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test. 

The FDA also granted traditional approval for use in these patients after their cancer has progressed on or following platinum-based chemotherapy. The original accelerated approval for this indication occurred in 2021. At that time, the FDA also approved Guardant360^® CDx (Guardant Health, Inc.) as a companion diagnostic test for amivantamab-vmjw. 

The first-line approval, which followed priority review, was based on the randomized, open-label PAPILLON trial, which revealed a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among the 153 patients who received amivantamab-vmjw plus carboplatin and pemetrexed vs the 155 who received the chemotherapy combination alone. Median PFS was 11.4 months in the amivantamab-vmjw arm vs 6.7 months in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.40).

Data for overall survival, a key secondary endpoint of the study, were immature at the time of the latest analysis, but “no trend toward a detriment was observed,” according to an FDA approval announcement.

Common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients in the study, were rash, nail toxicity, stomatitis, infusion-related reaction, fatigue, edema, constipation, decreased appetite, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. Weight-based dosing guidance can be found in the full prescribing information.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted new approvals for the use of amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant, Janssen Biotech Inc.) in certain patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 

Specifically, the FDA approved the first-line use of the agent in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test. 

The FDA also granted traditional approval for use in these patients after their cancer has progressed on or following platinum-based chemotherapy. The original accelerated approval for this indication occurred in 2021. At that time, the FDA also approved Guardant360^® CDx (Guardant Health, Inc.) as a companion diagnostic test for amivantamab-vmjw. 

The first-line approval, which followed priority review, was based on the randomized, open-label PAPILLON trial, which revealed a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among the 153 patients who received amivantamab-vmjw plus carboplatin and pemetrexed vs the 155 who received the chemotherapy combination alone. Median PFS was 11.4 months in the amivantamab-vmjw arm vs 6.7 months in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.40).

Data for overall survival, a key secondary endpoint of the study, were immature at the time of the latest analysis, but “no trend toward a detriment was observed,” according to an FDA approval announcement.

Common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients in the study, were rash, nail toxicity, stomatitis, infusion-related reaction, fatigue, edema, constipation, decreased appetite, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. Weight-based dosing guidance can be found in the full prescribing information.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted new approvals for the use of amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant, Janssen Biotech Inc.) in certain patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 

Specifically, the FDA approved the first-line use of the agent in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test. 

The FDA also granted traditional approval for use in these patients after their cancer has progressed on or following platinum-based chemotherapy. The original accelerated approval for this indication occurred in 2021. At that time, the FDA also approved Guardant360^® CDx (Guardant Health, Inc.) as a companion diagnostic test for amivantamab-vmjw. 

The first-line approval, which followed priority review, was based on the randomized, open-label PAPILLON trial, which revealed a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among the 153 patients who received amivantamab-vmjw plus carboplatin and pemetrexed vs the 155 who received the chemotherapy combination alone. Median PFS was 11.4 months in the amivantamab-vmjw arm vs 6.7 months in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.40).

Data for overall survival, a key secondary endpoint of the study, were immature at the time of the latest analysis, but “no trend toward a detriment was observed,” according to an FDA approval announcement.

Common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients in the study, were rash, nail toxicity, stomatitis, infusion-related reaction, fatigue, edema, constipation, decreased appetite, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. Weight-based dosing guidance can be found in the full prescribing information.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A prognostic tool may facilitate the early identification of older adults in the community who would benefit from palliative care in their final years, new research from Canada suggested.

The analysis of data from close to a quarter million community-dwelling older adults in Ontario with at least one interRAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) home care assessment showed that only half of those with an estimated survival of fewer than 3 months received at least one palliative home care visit before death.

“One of the challenges and a barrier to accessing palliative home care is the difficulty of predicting survival,” Amy Hsu, PhD, an investigator at the Bruyère Research Institute in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization. “Clinicians are good at prognosticating when a patient might be entering their last 3-6 weeks of life, but they have a harder time predicting if someone will survive 6 months or longer.”

The team developed the Risk Evaluation for Support: Predictions for Elder-life in their Communities Tool (RESPECT) to see whether access to predicted survival data could inform conversations about a patient’s status and palliative care needs.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Setting Care Goals

Researchers analyzed population health administrative data from Ontario involving home care clients who received at least one interRAI Home Care assessment between April 2018 and September 2019. The cohort included 247,377 adults (62% women) with a mean age of 80.1 years at the time of assessment. Comorbidities, including congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, as well as symptoms of health instability, were more prevalent among those at higher risk of dying.

The team used an updated, validated version of RESPECT to predict survival.

Only 2.6% of home care clients had received a clinician diagnosis of an end-stage disease, which was more prevalent among those at highest mortality risk (77.9%). Most clients (74.5%) required extensive assistance in performing instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs, score ≤ 4), and half (50.3%) were less able to perform ADLs in the last 3 months of life.

Within the cohort, 75% of patients with a predicted median survival of fewer than 3 months, 55.4% of those with a predicted median survival between 3 and 6 months, and 40.7% of those with a predicted median survival between 6 and 12 months died within 6 months of the home care assessment.

Among decedents, 50.6% of those with a RESPECT-estimated median survival of fewer than 3 months received at least one nonphysician palliative home care visit before death. Less than a third (27.8%) received at least one palliative home care visit from a physician.

The proportion of those who received at least one nonphysician visit fell to 38.7% among those with a median survival of between 3 and 6 months and to 29.5% among those with a median survival of between 6 and 12 months.

Patients who received at least one palliative home care visit (from either physicians or nonphysician home care providers) within 6 months of an assessment had clinical characteristics similar to those who did not receive a visit. However, those who did not receive palliative home care were more likely to not have been identified by a clinician as being in their past 6 months of life.

“These results reinforce the role of clinicians in identifying older adults who may be in their last 6 months of life as an important component for the receipt of palliative home care and highlight the value of RESPECT in supplementing clinicians’ assessments of prognosis,” the authors wrote.

“Our goal is to use data and tools like RESPECT to help individuals living with a life-limiting illness have conversations about what their end-of-life care goals and wishes may be and discuss whether a referral to palliative care is appropriate or needed,” Dr. Hsu added. “Data about life expectancy could be helpful for framing these conversations.”

The researchers are working with partners in home, community care, and long-term care to implement RESPECT in their settings.
 

‘Valuable Tool’

Guohua Li, MD, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and anesthesiology at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City, commented on the findings for this news organization. He noted that the study is “rigorously designed and meticulously analyzed. The findings are of high validity and population health significance.”

The findings are comparable with what is seen in the United States and Canada, he said, where about 50% of terminally ill patients die at home or in hospice. However, palliative care outside of North America “varies greatly, and in many developing countries, [it] is still in its infancy.”

As a mortality risk prediction algorithm, “RESPECT seems to perform reasonably well,” he said. “If incorporated into the electronic health record, it could be a valuable tool for clinicians to identify patients with less than 6 months of life expectancy and deliver palliative care to these patients. RESPECT appears to be particularly beneficial for home care patients without a clinically diagnosed terminal disease.”

That said, he added, “RESPECT should be viewed as a clinical decision support tool. It is no substitute for clinicians or clinical judgment. Based on the data presented in the paper, the algorithm tends to overestimate the short-term mortality risk for home care patients, therefore resulting in many false alarms.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Associated Medical Services. Dr. Hsu is an executive lead on the steering committee of the Ontario Centres for Learning, Research, and Innovation in Long-Term Care. Funding for the centers comes from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Ministry of Long-Term Care and is partially administered by the Bruyère Research Institute. Dr. Li reported no relevant financial interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A prognostic tool may facilitate the early identification of older adults in the community who would benefit from palliative care in their final years, new research from Canada suggested.

The analysis of data from close to a quarter million community-dwelling older adults in Ontario with at least one interRAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) home care assessment showed that only half of those with an estimated survival of fewer than 3 months received at least one palliative home care visit before death.

“One of the challenges and a barrier to accessing palliative home care is the difficulty of predicting survival,” Amy Hsu, PhD, an investigator at the Bruyère Research Institute in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization. “Clinicians are good at prognosticating when a patient might be entering their last 3-6 weeks of life, but they have a harder time predicting if someone will survive 6 months or longer.”

The team developed the Risk Evaluation for Support: Predictions for Elder-life in their Communities Tool (RESPECT) to see whether access to predicted survival data could inform conversations about a patient’s status and palliative care needs.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Setting Care Goals

Researchers analyzed population health administrative data from Ontario involving home care clients who received at least one interRAI Home Care assessment between April 2018 and September 2019. The cohort included 247,377 adults (62% women) with a mean age of 80.1 years at the time of assessment. Comorbidities, including congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, as well as symptoms of health instability, were more prevalent among those at higher risk of dying.

The team used an updated, validated version of RESPECT to predict survival.

Only 2.6% of home care clients had received a clinician diagnosis of an end-stage disease, which was more prevalent among those at highest mortality risk (77.9%). Most clients (74.5%) required extensive assistance in performing instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs, score ≤ 4), and half (50.3%) were less able to perform ADLs in the last 3 months of life.

Within the cohort, 75% of patients with a predicted median survival of fewer than 3 months, 55.4% of those with a predicted median survival between 3 and 6 months, and 40.7% of those with a predicted median survival between 6 and 12 months died within 6 months of the home care assessment.

Among decedents, 50.6% of those with a RESPECT-estimated median survival of fewer than 3 months received at least one nonphysician palliative home care visit before death. Less than a third (27.8%) received at least one palliative home care visit from a physician.

The proportion of those who received at least one nonphysician visit fell to 38.7% among those with a median survival of between 3 and 6 months and to 29.5% among those with a median survival of between 6 and 12 months.

Patients who received at least one palliative home care visit (from either physicians or nonphysician home care providers) within 6 months of an assessment had clinical characteristics similar to those who did not receive a visit. However, those who did not receive palliative home care were more likely to not have been identified by a clinician as being in their past 6 months of life.

“These results reinforce the role of clinicians in identifying older adults who may be in their last 6 months of life as an important component for the receipt of palliative home care and highlight the value of RESPECT in supplementing clinicians’ assessments of prognosis,” the authors wrote.

“Our goal is to use data and tools like RESPECT to help individuals living with a life-limiting illness have conversations about what their end-of-life care goals and wishes may be and discuss whether a referral to palliative care is appropriate or needed,” Dr. Hsu added. “Data about life expectancy could be helpful for framing these conversations.”

The researchers are working with partners in home, community care, and long-term care to implement RESPECT in their settings.
 

‘Valuable Tool’

Guohua Li, MD, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and anesthesiology at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City, commented on the findings for this news organization. He noted that the study is “rigorously designed and meticulously analyzed. The findings are of high validity and population health significance.”

The findings are comparable with what is seen in the United States and Canada, he said, where about 50% of terminally ill patients die at home or in hospice. However, palliative care outside of North America “varies greatly, and in many developing countries, [it] is still in its infancy.”

As a mortality risk prediction algorithm, “RESPECT seems to perform reasonably well,” he said. “If incorporated into the electronic health record, it could be a valuable tool for clinicians to identify patients with less than 6 months of life expectancy and deliver palliative care to these patients. RESPECT appears to be particularly beneficial for home care patients without a clinically diagnosed terminal disease.”

That said, he added, “RESPECT should be viewed as a clinical decision support tool. It is no substitute for clinicians or clinical judgment. Based on the data presented in the paper, the algorithm tends to overestimate the short-term mortality risk for home care patients, therefore resulting in many false alarms.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Associated Medical Services. Dr. Hsu is an executive lead on the steering committee of the Ontario Centres for Learning, Research, and Innovation in Long-Term Care. Funding for the centers comes from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Ministry of Long-Term Care and is partially administered by the Bruyère Research Institute. Dr. Li reported no relevant financial interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A prognostic tool may facilitate the early identification of older adults in the community who would benefit from palliative care in their final years, new research from Canada suggested.

The analysis of data from close to a quarter million community-dwelling older adults in Ontario with at least one interRAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) home care assessment showed that only half of those with an estimated survival of fewer than 3 months received at least one palliative home care visit before death.

“One of the challenges and a barrier to accessing palliative home care is the difficulty of predicting survival,” Amy Hsu, PhD, an investigator at the Bruyère Research Institute in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization. “Clinicians are good at prognosticating when a patient might be entering their last 3-6 weeks of life, but they have a harder time predicting if someone will survive 6 months or longer.”

The team developed the Risk Evaluation for Support: Predictions for Elder-life in their Communities Tool (RESPECT) to see whether access to predicted survival data could inform conversations about a patient’s status and palliative care needs.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Setting Care Goals

Researchers analyzed population health administrative data from Ontario involving home care clients who received at least one interRAI Home Care assessment between April 2018 and September 2019. The cohort included 247,377 adults (62% women) with a mean age of 80.1 years at the time of assessment. Comorbidities, including congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, as well as symptoms of health instability, were more prevalent among those at higher risk of dying.

The team used an updated, validated version of RESPECT to predict survival.

Only 2.6% of home care clients had received a clinician diagnosis of an end-stage disease, which was more prevalent among those at highest mortality risk (77.9%). Most clients (74.5%) required extensive assistance in performing instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs, score ≤ 4), and half (50.3%) were less able to perform ADLs in the last 3 months of life.

Within the cohort, 75% of patients with a predicted median survival of fewer than 3 months, 55.4% of those with a predicted median survival between 3 and 6 months, and 40.7% of those with a predicted median survival between 6 and 12 months died within 6 months of the home care assessment.

Among decedents, 50.6% of those with a RESPECT-estimated median survival of fewer than 3 months received at least one nonphysician palliative home care visit before death. Less than a third (27.8%) received at least one palliative home care visit from a physician.

The proportion of those who received at least one nonphysician visit fell to 38.7% among those with a median survival of between 3 and 6 months and to 29.5% among those with a median survival of between 6 and 12 months.

Patients who received at least one palliative home care visit (from either physicians or nonphysician home care providers) within 6 months of an assessment had clinical characteristics similar to those who did not receive a visit. However, those who did not receive palliative home care were more likely to not have been identified by a clinician as being in their past 6 months of life.

“These results reinforce the role of clinicians in identifying older adults who may be in their last 6 months of life as an important component for the receipt of palliative home care and highlight the value of RESPECT in supplementing clinicians’ assessments of prognosis,” the authors wrote.

“Our goal is to use data and tools like RESPECT to help individuals living with a life-limiting illness have conversations about what their end-of-life care goals and wishes may be and discuss whether a referral to palliative care is appropriate or needed,” Dr. Hsu added. “Data about life expectancy could be helpful for framing these conversations.”

The researchers are working with partners in home, community care, and long-term care to implement RESPECT in their settings.
 

‘Valuable Tool’

Guohua Li, MD, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and anesthesiology at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City, commented on the findings for this news organization. He noted that the study is “rigorously designed and meticulously analyzed. The findings are of high validity and population health significance.”

The findings are comparable with what is seen in the United States and Canada, he said, where about 50% of terminally ill patients die at home or in hospice. However, palliative care outside of North America “varies greatly, and in many developing countries, [it] is still in its infancy.”

As a mortality risk prediction algorithm, “RESPECT seems to perform reasonably well,” he said. “If incorporated into the electronic health record, it could be a valuable tool for clinicians to identify patients with less than 6 months of life expectancy and deliver palliative care to these patients. RESPECT appears to be particularly beneficial for home care patients without a clinically diagnosed terminal disease.”

That said, he added, “RESPECT should be viewed as a clinical decision support tool. It is no substitute for clinicians or clinical judgment. Based on the data presented in the paper, the algorithm tends to overestimate the short-term mortality risk for home care patients, therefore resulting in many false alarms.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Associated Medical Services. Dr. Hsu is an executive lead on the steering committee of the Ontario Centres for Learning, Research, and Innovation in Long-Term Care. Funding for the centers comes from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Ministry of Long-Term Care and is partially administered by the Bruyère Research Institute. Dr. Li reported no relevant financial interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In January 2023, Mark Lewis, MD, stood with the door slammed in his face. His partner in the practice had had enough. She accused him of sugarcoating prognoses and leaving her to tell patients the whole truth.

The reality was he just didn’t know how to grieve.

Dr. Lewis was well acquainted with cancer grief long before he became an oncologist. Dr. Lewis’ father died of a rare, hereditary cancer syndrome when he was only 14. The condition, which causes tumors to grow in the endocrine glands, can be hard to identify and, if found late, deadly.

In some ways, Dr. Lewis’ career caring for patients with advanced cancers was born out of that first loss. He centered his practice around helping patients diagnosed at late stages, like his father.

But that comes at a cost. Many patients will die.

Dr. Lewis’ encounter with his colleague led him to inventory his practice. He found that well over half of his patients died within 2 years following their advanced cancer diagnosis.

To stave off the grief of so many losses, Dr. Lewis became an eternal optimist in the clinic, in search of the Hail Mary chemotherapy, any way to eke out a few more months only to be ambushed by grief when a patient did finally pass.

At funerals — which he made every effort to attend — Dr. Lewis couldn’t help but think, “If I had done my job better, none of us with be here.” His grief started to mingle with this sense of guilt.

It became a cycle: Denial shrouded in optimism, grief, then a toxic guilt. The pattern became untenable for his colleagues. And his partner finally called him out.

Few medical specialties draw physicians as close to their patients as oncology. The long courses of treatment-spanning years can foster an intimacy that is comforting for patients and fulfilling for physicians. But that closeness can also set doctors up for an acute grief when the end of life comes.

Experts agree that no amount of training in medical school prepares an oncologist to navigate the grief that comes with losing patients. Five oncologists spoke with this news organization about the boundaries they rely on to sustain their careers.
 

Don’t Go to Funerals

Don Dizon, MD, who specializes in women’s cancers, established an essential boundary 20 years ago: Never go to funerals. In his early days at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the death of each patient dealt him a crushing blow. He’d go to the funerals in search of closure, but that only added to the weight of his grief.

“When I started in oncology, I just remember the most tragic cases were the ones I was taking care of,” recalled Dr. Dizon, now director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute in Lincoln, Rhode Island.

Dr. Dizon recalled one young mother who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She responded to treatment, but it was short-lived, and her cancer progressed, he said. Multiple treatments followed, but none were effective. Eventually, Dr. Dizon had to tell her that “there’s nothing left to try.”

At her funeral, watching her grieving husband with their daughter who had just started to walk, Dr. Dizon was overwhelmed with despair.

“When you have to do this multiple times a year,” the grief becomes untenable, he said. Sensing the difficulty I was having as a new attending, “my boss stopped sending me patients because he knew I was in trouble emotionally.”

That’s when Dr. Dizon started looking for other ways to get closure.

Today, he tries to say his goodbyes before a patient dies. After the final treatment or before hospice, Dr. Dizon has a parting conversation with his patients to express the privilege of caring for them and all he learned from them. These talks help him and his patient connect in their last moments together.
 

The Price of Wildly Happy Days

Molly Taylor, MD, MS, a pediatric oncologist in Seattle, sees the deeply sad days as the price an oncologist pays to be witness to the “wildly happy ones.”

Dr. Taylor has gone to patients’ funerals, has even been asked to speak at them, but she has also attended patients’ weddings.

To some degree, doctors get good at compartmentalizing, and they become accustomed to tragedy, she said. But there are some patients who stick with you, “and that is a whole other level of grief,” Dr. Taylor said.

Several years into her practice, one of Dr. Taylor’s patients, someone who reminded her of her own child, died. The death came as a surprise, and the finality of it took her breath away, she said. The sadness only deepened as days went by. “I felt that mother’s grief and still do,” she said.

The patient’s funeral was one of the most difficult moments in her career as an oncologist. Even weeks later, she caught herself picturing the family huddled together that day.

Taking long walks, commiserating with colleagues who get it, and watching the occasional cat video can help take the immediate sting away. But the pain of losing a patient can be long lasting and processing that grief can be a lonely endeavor.

“We need space to recognize grief for all providers, all the people that touch these patients’ lives — the nurses, the translators, the cleaning staff,” Dr. Taylor said. Otherwise, you start to believe you’re the only one feeling the weight of the loss.

While it doesn’t make the losses any less poignant, Dr. Taylor finds solace in the good moments: Patient graduations and weddings, survivors who now volunteer at the hospital, and a patient who had a baby of her own this past year. If facing grief daily has taught Dr. Taylor anything, it is to not let the good moments pass unnoticed.
 

Towing the Line

Ten years ago, Tina Rizack, MD, walked into the ICU to see a young mother holding her 6-year-old daughter. The mother had necrotizing fasciitis that had gone undiagnosed.

As Dr. Rizack stood in the doorway watching the embrace, she saw a grim future: A child without her mother. This realization hit too close to home, she said. “I still think about that case.”

In her training, Dr. Rizack, now medical director of hematology/oncology at St. Anne’s in Fall River, Massachusetts, worked with a social worker who taught her how to deal with these tough cases — most importantly, how to not take them home with her.

Over the years, Dr. Rizack learned how to build and sustain a firm barrier between work and outside work.

She doesn’t go to funerals or give out her cell phone number. If charts need to be done, she prefers to stay late at the clinic instead of bringing them home.

And she invests in the simple moments that help her detach from the day-to-day in the clinic — rooting for her kids at their games, carving out time for family meals most days, and having relaxed movie nights on the couch.

“It’s hard sometimes,” she said. But “I really do need the line.” Because without it, she can’t show up for her patients the way she wants and needs to.

Establishing the work-life boundary means that when at work, Dr. Rizack can be all in for her patients. Even after her patients’ treatment ends, she makes sure to check on them at home or in hospice. For her, sticking with patients over the long term offers some closure.

“I want to love work, and if I’m there all the time, I’m not going to love it,” she said.
 

Trading Funerals for the Bedside

Like many other oncologists, Charles Blanke, MD, finds that going to patients’ funerals makes the loss seem more profound. Being at the bedside when they die is not as painful, he said. In fact, being there when his patients die offers him some comfort. He rarely misses a patient’s death because now Dr. Blanke’s patients can schedule their departure.

An oncologist at the Knight Cancer Institute in Portland, Oregon, Dr. Blanke specializes in end-of-life care with an emphasis on death with dignity, also known as medical aid in dying. He admits it’s not a role every physician is comfortable with.

“If you’re paralyzed by grief, you can’t do this for a living,” he said. But he’s able to do the work because he genuinely feels he’s helping patients get “the relief they so strongly desire” in their last moments.

When cancer care can’t give them the life they wanted, he can give them control over when and how they die. And the ability to honor their last wishes offers him some closure as well.

“You know what kind of end they have. You know it was peaceful. You see them achieve the thing that was the most important to them,” he said.

Despite this process, he still encounters some circumstances utterly heart-wrenching — the very young patients who have advanced disease. Some of these patients choose to die because they can’t afford to continue treatment. Others don’t have a support system. In these instances, Dr. Blanke is often the only one in the room.

Believe it or not, he said, the paperwork — and there’s a lot of it in his line of work — helps remind Dr. Blanke that patients’ last wishes are being honored.
 

Making Changes

After Dr. Lewis was confronted by his partner, he began to face the shortcomings of his own coping strategies. His practice hired a social worker to help staff process difficult experiences. After the loss of every patient, the practice comes together to share and process the loss.

For him, funerals remain helpful, providing a sort of solace, so he continues to go when he can. But how to grieve is something each doctor has to figure out, he said.

Deaths still hit hard, especially the ones he doesn’t see coming. The patients who remind him of his dad can also be hard. They restart a cycle of grief from his teenage years.

The difference now is he has space to voice those concerns and someone objective to help his process.

“It’s a privilege to prepare [patients for death] and help them build their legacy,” he said. But it’s also an unrelenting challenge to navigate that grief, he said.

Still, the grief lets Dr. Lewis know he’s still engaged.

“The day I don’t feel something is probably the day I need to take a break or walk away.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In January 2023, Mark Lewis, MD, stood with the door slammed in his face. His partner in the practice had had enough. She accused him of sugarcoating prognoses and leaving her to tell patients the whole truth.

The reality was he just didn’t know how to grieve.

Dr. Lewis was well acquainted with cancer grief long before he became an oncologist. Dr. Lewis’ father died of a rare, hereditary cancer syndrome when he was only 14. The condition, which causes tumors to grow in the endocrine glands, can be hard to identify and, if found late, deadly.

In some ways, Dr. Lewis’ career caring for patients with advanced cancers was born out of that first loss. He centered his practice around helping patients diagnosed at late stages, like his father.

But that comes at a cost. Many patients will die.

Dr. Lewis’ encounter with his colleague led him to inventory his practice. He found that well over half of his patients died within 2 years following their advanced cancer diagnosis.

To stave off the grief of so many losses, Dr. Lewis became an eternal optimist in the clinic, in search of the Hail Mary chemotherapy, any way to eke out a few more months only to be ambushed by grief when a patient did finally pass.

At funerals — which he made every effort to attend — Dr. Lewis couldn’t help but think, “If I had done my job better, none of us with be here.” His grief started to mingle with this sense of guilt.

It became a cycle: Denial shrouded in optimism, grief, then a toxic guilt. The pattern became untenable for his colleagues. And his partner finally called him out.

Few medical specialties draw physicians as close to their patients as oncology. The long courses of treatment-spanning years can foster an intimacy that is comforting for patients and fulfilling for physicians. But that closeness can also set doctors up for an acute grief when the end of life comes.

Experts agree that no amount of training in medical school prepares an oncologist to navigate the grief that comes with losing patients. Five oncologists spoke with this news organization about the boundaries they rely on to sustain their careers.
 

Don’t Go to Funerals

Don Dizon, MD, who specializes in women’s cancers, established an essential boundary 20 years ago: Never go to funerals. In his early days at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the death of each patient dealt him a crushing blow. He’d go to the funerals in search of closure, but that only added to the weight of his grief.

“When I started in oncology, I just remember the most tragic cases were the ones I was taking care of,” recalled Dr. Dizon, now director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute in Lincoln, Rhode Island.

Dr. Dizon recalled one young mother who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She responded to treatment, but it was short-lived, and her cancer progressed, he said. Multiple treatments followed, but none were effective. Eventually, Dr. Dizon had to tell her that “there’s nothing left to try.”

At her funeral, watching her grieving husband with their daughter who had just started to walk, Dr. Dizon was overwhelmed with despair.

“When you have to do this multiple times a year,” the grief becomes untenable, he said. Sensing the difficulty I was having as a new attending, “my boss stopped sending me patients because he knew I was in trouble emotionally.”

That’s when Dr. Dizon started looking for other ways to get closure.

Today, he tries to say his goodbyes before a patient dies. After the final treatment or before hospice, Dr. Dizon has a parting conversation with his patients to express the privilege of caring for them and all he learned from them. These talks help him and his patient connect in their last moments together.
 

The Price of Wildly Happy Days

Molly Taylor, MD, MS, a pediatric oncologist in Seattle, sees the deeply sad days as the price an oncologist pays to be witness to the “wildly happy ones.”

Dr. Taylor has gone to patients’ funerals, has even been asked to speak at them, but she has also attended patients’ weddings.

To some degree, doctors get good at compartmentalizing, and they become accustomed to tragedy, she said. But there are some patients who stick with you, “and that is a whole other level of grief,” Dr. Taylor said.

Several years into her practice, one of Dr. Taylor’s patients, someone who reminded her of her own child, died. The death came as a surprise, and the finality of it took her breath away, she said. The sadness only deepened as days went by. “I felt that mother’s grief and still do,” she said.

The patient’s funeral was one of the most difficult moments in her career as an oncologist. Even weeks later, she caught herself picturing the family huddled together that day.

Taking long walks, commiserating with colleagues who get it, and watching the occasional cat video can help take the immediate sting away. But the pain of losing a patient can be long lasting and processing that grief can be a lonely endeavor.

“We need space to recognize grief for all providers, all the people that touch these patients’ lives — the nurses, the translators, the cleaning staff,” Dr. Taylor said. Otherwise, you start to believe you’re the only one feeling the weight of the loss.

While it doesn’t make the losses any less poignant, Dr. Taylor finds solace in the good moments: Patient graduations and weddings, survivors who now volunteer at the hospital, and a patient who had a baby of her own this past year. If facing grief daily has taught Dr. Taylor anything, it is to not let the good moments pass unnoticed.
 

Towing the Line

Ten years ago, Tina Rizack, MD, walked into the ICU to see a young mother holding her 6-year-old daughter. The mother had necrotizing fasciitis that had gone undiagnosed.

As Dr. Rizack stood in the doorway watching the embrace, she saw a grim future: A child without her mother. This realization hit too close to home, she said. “I still think about that case.”

In her training, Dr. Rizack, now medical director of hematology/oncology at St. Anne’s in Fall River, Massachusetts, worked with a social worker who taught her how to deal with these tough cases — most importantly, how to not take them home with her.

Over the years, Dr. Rizack learned how to build and sustain a firm barrier between work and outside work.

She doesn’t go to funerals or give out her cell phone number. If charts need to be done, she prefers to stay late at the clinic instead of bringing them home.

And she invests in the simple moments that help her detach from the day-to-day in the clinic — rooting for her kids at their games, carving out time for family meals most days, and having relaxed movie nights on the couch.

“It’s hard sometimes,” she said. But “I really do need the line.” Because without it, she can’t show up for her patients the way she wants and needs to.

Establishing the work-life boundary means that when at work, Dr. Rizack can be all in for her patients. Even after her patients’ treatment ends, she makes sure to check on them at home or in hospice. For her, sticking with patients over the long term offers some closure.

“I want to love work, and if I’m there all the time, I’m not going to love it,” she said.
 

Trading Funerals for the Bedside

Like many other oncologists, Charles Blanke, MD, finds that going to patients’ funerals makes the loss seem more profound. Being at the bedside when they die is not as painful, he said. In fact, being there when his patients die offers him some comfort. He rarely misses a patient’s death because now Dr. Blanke’s patients can schedule their departure.

An oncologist at the Knight Cancer Institute in Portland, Oregon, Dr. Blanke specializes in end-of-life care with an emphasis on death with dignity, also known as medical aid in dying. He admits it’s not a role every physician is comfortable with.

“If you’re paralyzed by grief, you can’t do this for a living,” he said. But he’s able to do the work because he genuinely feels he’s helping patients get “the relief they so strongly desire” in their last moments.

When cancer care can’t give them the life they wanted, he can give them control over when and how they die. And the ability to honor their last wishes offers him some closure as well.

“You know what kind of end they have. You know it was peaceful. You see them achieve the thing that was the most important to them,” he said.

Despite this process, he still encounters some circumstances utterly heart-wrenching — the very young patients who have advanced disease. Some of these patients choose to die because they can’t afford to continue treatment. Others don’t have a support system. In these instances, Dr. Blanke is often the only one in the room.

Believe it or not, he said, the paperwork — and there’s a lot of it in his line of work — helps remind Dr. Blanke that patients’ last wishes are being honored.
 

Making Changes

After Dr. Lewis was confronted by his partner, he began to face the shortcomings of his own coping strategies. His practice hired a social worker to help staff process difficult experiences. After the loss of every patient, the practice comes together to share and process the loss.

For him, funerals remain helpful, providing a sort of solace, so he continues to go when he can. But how to grieve is something each doctor has to figure out, he said.

Deaths still hit hard, especially the ones he doesn’t see coming. The patients who remind him of his dad can also be hard. They restart a cycle of grief from his teenage years.

The difference now is he has space to voice those concerns and someone objective to help his process.

“It’s a privilege to prepare [patients for death] and help them build their legacy,” he said. But it’s also an unrelenting challenge to navigate that grief, he said.

Still, the grief lets Dr. Lewis know he’s still engaged.

“The day I don’t feel something is probably the day I need to take a break or walk away.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In January 2023, Mark Lewis, MD, stood with the door slammed in his face. His partner in the practice had had enough. She accused him of sugarcoating prognoses and leaving her to tell patients the whole truth.

The reality was he just didn’t know how to grieve.

Dr. Lewis was well acquainted with cancer grief long before he became an oncologist. Dr. Lewis’ father died of a rare, hereditary cancer syndrome when he was only 14. The condition, which causes tumors to grow in the endocrine glands, can be hard to identify and, if found late, deadly.

In some ways, Dr. Lewis’ career caring for patients with advanced cancers was born out of that first loss. He centered his practice around helping patients diagnosed at late stages, like his father.

But that comes at a cost. Many patients will die.

Dr. Lewis’ encounter with his colleague led him to inventory his practice. He found that well over half of his patients died within 2 years following their advanced cancer diagnosis.

To stave off the grief of so many losses, Dr. Lewis became an eternal optimist in the clinic, in search of the Hail Mary chemotherapy, any way to eke out a few more months only to be ambushed by grief when a patient did finally pass.

At funerals — which he made every effort to attend — Dr. Lewis couldn’t help but think, “If I had done my job better, none of us with be here.” His grief started to mingle with this sense of guilt.

It became a cycle: Denial shrouded in optimism, grief, then a toxic guilt. The pattern became untenable for his colleagues. And his partner finally called him out.

Few medical specialties draw physicians as close to their patients as oncology. The long courses of treatment-spanning years can foster an intimacy that is comforting for patients and fulfilling for physicians. But that closeness can also set doctors up for an acute grief when the end of life comes.

Experts agree that no amount of training in medical school prepares an oncologist to navigate the grief that comes with losing patients. Five oncologists spoke with this news organization about the boundaries they rely on to sustain their careers.
 

Don’t Go to Funerals

Don Dizon, MD, who specializes in women’s cancers, established an essential boundary 20 years ago: Never go to funerals. In his early days at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the death of each patient dealt him a crushing blow. He’d go to the funerals in search of closure, but that only added to the weight of his grief.

“When I started in oncology, I just remember the most tragic cases were the ones I was taking care of,” recalled Dr. Dizon, now director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute in Lincoln, Rhode Island.

Dr. Dizon recalled one young mother who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She responded to treatment, but it was short-lived, and her cancer progressed, he said. Multiple treatments followed, but none were effective. Eventually, Dr. Dizon had to tell her that “there’s nothing left to try.”

At her funeral, watching her grieving husband with their daughter who had just started to walk, Dr. Dizon was overwhelmed with despair.

“When you have to do this multiple times a year,” the grief becomes untenable, he said. Sensing the difficulty I was having as a new attending, “my boss stopped sending me patients because he knew I was in trouble emotionally.”

That’s when Dr. Dizon started looking for other ways to get closure.

Today, he tries to say his goodbyes before a patient dies. After the final treatment or before hospice, Dr. Dizon has a parting conversation with his patients to express the privilege of caring for them and all he learned from them. These talks help him and his patient connect in their last moments together.
 

The Price of Wildly Happy Days

Molly Taylor, MD, MS, a pediatric oncologist in Seattle, sees the deeply sad days as the price an oncologist pays to be witness to the “wildly happy ones.”

Dr. Taylor has gone to patients’ funerals, has even been asked to speak at them, but she has also attended patients’ weddings.

To some degree, doctors get good at compartmentalizing, and they become accustomed to tragedy, she said. But there are some patients who stick with you, “and that is a whole other level of grief,” Dr. Taylor said.

Several years into her practice, one of Dr. Taylor’s patients, someone who reminded her of her own child, died. The death came as a surprise, and the finality of it took her breath away, she said. The sadness only deepened as days went by. “I felt that mother’s grief and still do,” she said.

The patient’s funeral was one of the most difficult moments in her career as an oncologist. Even weeks later, she caught herself picturing the family huddled together that day.

Taking long walks, commiserating with colleagues who get it, and watching the occasional cat video can help take the immediate sting away. But the pain of losing a patient can be long lasting and processing that grief can be a lonely endeavor.

“We need space to recognize grief for all providers, all the people that touch these patients’ lives — the nurses, the translators, the cleaning staff,” Dr. Taylor said. Otherwise, you start to believe you’re the only one feeling the weight of the loss.

While it doesn’t make the losses any less poignant, Dr. Taylor finds solace in the good moments: Patient graduations and weddings, survivors who now volunteer at the hospital, and a patient who had a baby of her own this past year. If facing grief daily has taught Dr. Taylor anything, it is to not let the good moments pass unnoticed.
 

Towing the Line

Ten years ago, Tina Rizack, MD, walked into the ICU to see a young mother holding her 6-year-old daughter. The mother had necrotizing fasciitis that had gone undiagnosed.

As Dr. Rizack stood in the doorway watching the embrace, she saw a grim future: A child without her mother. This realization hit too close to home, she said. “I still think about that case.”

In her training, Dr. Rizack, now medical director of hematology/oncology at St. Anne’s in Fall River, Massachusetts, worked with a social worker who taught her how to deal with these tough cases — most importantly, how to not take them home with her.

Over the years, Dr. Rizack learned how to build and sustain a firm barrier between work and outside work.

She doesn’t go to funerals or give out her cell phone number. If charts need to be done, she prefers to stay late at the clinic instead of bringing them home.

And she invests in the simple moments that help her detach from the day-to-day in the clinic — rooting for her kids at their games, carving out time for family meals most days, and having relaxed movie nights on the couch.

“It’s hard sometimes,” she said. But “I really do need the line.” Because without it, she can’t show up for her patients the way she wants and needs to.

Establishing the work-life boundary means that when at work, Dr. Rizack can be all in for her patients. Even after her patients’ treatment ends, she makes sure to check on them at home or in hospice. For her, sticking with patients over the long term offers some closure.

“I want to love work, and if I’m there all the time, I’m not going to love it,” she said.
 

Trading Funerals for the Bedside

Like many other oncologists, Charles Blanke, MD, finds that going to patients’ funerals makes the loss seem more profound. Being at the bedside when they die is not as painful, he said. In fact, being there when his patients die offers him some comfort. He rarely misses a patient’s death because now Dr. Blanke’s patients can schedule their departure.

An oncologist at the Knight Cancer Institute in Portland, Oregon, Dr. Blanke specializes in end-of-life care with an emphasis on death with dignity, also known as medical aid in dying. He admits it’s not a role every physician is comfortable with.

“If you’re paralyzed by grief, you can’t do this for a living,” he said. But he’s able to do the work because he genuinely feels he’s helping patients get “the relief they so strongly desire” in their last moments.

When cancer care can’t give them the life they wanted, he can give them control over when and how they die. And the ability to honor their last wishes offers him some closure as well.

“You know what kind of end they have. You know it was peaceful. You see them achieve the thing that was the most important to them,” he said.

Despite this process, he still encounters some circumstances utterly heart-wrenching — the very young patients who have advanced disease. Some of these patients choose to die because they can’t afford to continue treatment. Others don’t have a support system. In these instances, Dr. Blanke is often the only one in the room.

Believe it or not, he said, the paperwork — and there’s a lot of it in his line of work — helps remind Dr. Blanke that patients’ last wishes are being honored.
 

Making Changes

After Dr. Lewis was confronted by his partner, he began to face the shortcomings of his own coping strategies. His practice hired a social worker to help staff process difficult experiences. After the loss of every patient, the practice comes together to share and process the loss.

For him, funerals remain helpful, providing a sort of solace, so he continues to go when he can. But how to grieve is something each doctor has to figure out, he said.

Deaths still hit hard, especially the ones he doesn’t see coming. The patients who remind him of his dad can also be hard. They restart a cycle of grief from his teenage years.

The difference now is he has space to voice those concerns and someone objective to help his process.

“It’s a privilege to prepare [patients for death] and help them build their legacy,” he said. But it’s also an unrelenting challenge to navigate that grief, he said.

Still, the grief lets Dr. Lewis know he’s still engaged.

“The day I don’t feel something is probably the day I need to take a break or walk away.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Specific microbes may distinguish the pathogenesis of young-onset colorectal cancer (yoCRC) from average-onset colorectal cancer (aoCRC) and could serve as preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic targets.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study population was drawn from patients who underwent surgical resection of the primary colorectal tumor at a single center from 2000 to 2020.
• yoCRC was defined as CRC diagnosed before age 50 years, and aoCRC was defined as CRC diagnosed after age 60 years. Patients aged between 50 and 60 years at diagnosis were excluded to ensure two distinct cohorts for meaningful comparison.
• Researchers used various gene sequencing technologies to compare tissue samples from 136 patients with yoCRC against samples from 140 patients with aoCRC.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with yoCRC vs those with aoCRC were more likely to have left-sided (72.8% vs 54.3%), rectal (36.7% vs 25%), and stage IV (28% vs 15%) tumors.
• yoCRC and aoCRC tumors had distinct microbial profiles associated with tumor location, sidedness, and stage, and obesity.
• yoCRC tumors had significantly higher microbial alpha diversity and varied beta diversity than aoCRC tumors.
• yoCRC tumors were enriched with Akkermansia and Bacteroides, whereas aoCRC tumors showed greater relative abundances of Bacillus, Staphylococcus, Listeria, Enterococcus, Pseudomonas, Fusobacterium, and Escherichia/Shigella.
• In yoCRC, Fusobacterium and Akkermansia abundance correlated with overall survival.

IN PRACTICE:

“[O]ur findings help to comprehensively define the microbial community that may play a role in young-onset colorectal oncogenesis [and] should encourage the evaluation of environmental and lifestyle risk factors that might contribute to microbial dysbiosis in this patient population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Shimoli V. Barot, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio was published online in eBioMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had several limitations. It was a single-institution retrospective study with limited diversity in terms of race/ethnicity. Smoking and aspirin use were higher among older participants, whereas the yoCRC group had higher rates of neoadjuvant therapy and metastesectomy. Data on factors affecting the microbiome around the time of specimen collection, such as diet, stress, and antibiotic and probiotic use, were limited and not adjusted for in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Sondra and Stephen Hardis Chair in Oncology Research. Two coauthors report fees and research funding from industry. Barot and the other coauthors report no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Specific microbes may distinguish the pathogenesis of young-onset colorectal cancer (yoCRC) from average-onset colorectal cancer (aoCRC) and could serve as preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic targets.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study population was drawn from patients who underwent surgical resection of the primary colorectal tumor at a single center from 2000 to 2020.
• yoCRC was defined as CRC diagnosed before age 50 years, and aoCRC was defined as CRC diagnosed after age 60 years. Patients aged between 50 and 60 years at diagnosis were excluded to ensure two distinct cohorts for meaningful comparison.
• Researchers used various gene sequencing technologies to compare tissue samples from 136 patients with yoCRC against samples from 140 patients with aoCRC.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with yoCRC vs those with aoCRC were more likely to have left-sided (72.8% vs 54.3%), rectal (36.7% vs 25%), and stage IV (28% vs 15%) tumors.
• yoCRC and aoCRC tumors had distinct microbial profiles associated with tumor location, sidedness, and stage, and obesity.
• yoCRC tumors had significantly higher microbial alpha diversity and varied beta diversity than aoCRC tumors.
• yoCRC tumors were enriched with Akkermansia and Bacteroides, whereas aoCRC tumors showed greater relative abundances of Bacillus, Staphylococcus, Listeria, Enterococcus, Pseudomonas, Fusobacterium, and Escherichia/Shigella.
• In yoCRC, Fusobacterium and Akkermansia abundance correlated with overall survival.

IN PRACTICE:

“[O]ur findings help to comprehensively define the microbial community that may play a role in young-onset colorectal oncogenesis [and] should encourage the evaluation of environmental and lifestyle risk factors that might contribute to microbial dysbiosis in this patient population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Shimoli V. Barot, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio was published online in eBioMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had several limitations. It was a single-institution retrospective study with limited diversity in terms of race/ethnicity. Smoking and aspirin use were higher among older participants, whereas the yoCRC group had higher rates of neoadjuvant therapy and metastesectomy. Data on factors affecting the microbiome around the time of specimen collection, such as diet, stress, and antibiotic and probiotic use, were limited and not adjusted for in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Sondra and Stephen Hardis Chair in Oncology Research. Two coauthors report fees and research funding from industry. Barot and the other coauthors report no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Specific microbes may distinguish the pathogenesis of young-onset colorectal cancer (yoCRC) from average-onset colorectal cancer (aoCRC) and could serve as preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic targets.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study population was drawn from patients who underwent surgical resection of the primary colorectal tumor at a single center from 2000 to 2020.
• yoCRC was defined as CRC diagnosed before age 50 years, and aoCRC was defined as CRC diagnosed after age 60 years. Patients aged between 50 and 60 years at diagnosis were excluded to ensure two distinct cohorts for meaningful comparison.
• Researchers used various gene sequencing technologies to compare tissue samples from 136 patients with yoCRC against samples from 140 patients with aoCRC.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with yoCRC vs those with aoCRC were more likely to have left-sided (72.8% vs 54.3%), rectal (36.7% vs 25%), and stage IV (28% vs 15%) tumors.
• yoCRC and aoCRC tumors had distinct microbial profiles associated with tumor location, sidedness, and stage, and obesity.
• yoCRC tumors had significantly higher microbial alpha diversity and varied beta diversity than aoCRC tumors.
• yoCRC tumors were enriched with Akkermansia and Bacteroides, whereas aoCRC tumors showed greater relative abundances of Bacillus, Staphylococcus, Listeria, Enterococcus, Pseudomonas, Fusobacterium, and Escherichia/Shigella.
• In yoCRC, Fusobacterium and Akkermansia abundance correlated with overall survival.

IN PRACTICE:

“[O]ur findings help to comprehensively define the microbial community that may play a role in young-onset colorectal oncogenesis [and] should encourage the evaluation of environmental and lifestyle risk factors that might contribute to microbial dysbiosis in this patient population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Shimoli V. Barot, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio was published online in eBioMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had several limitations. It was a single-institution retrospective study with limited diversity in terms of race/ethnicity. Smoking and aspirin use were higher among older participants, whereas the yoCRC group had higher rates of neoadjuvant therapy and metastesectomy. Data on factors affecting the microbiome around the time of specimen collection, such as diet, stress, and antibiotic and probiotic use, were limited and not adjusted for in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Sondra and Stephen Hardis Chair in Oncology Research. Two coauthors report fees and research funding from industry. Barot and the other coauthors report no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.