Related Issues

The first international public survey on cancer perceptions and attitudes in a decade shows that, in spite of progress, low socioeconomic status and lack of education continue to jeopardize the health of the world’s most vulnerable populations.

The survey was commissioned by the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) to mark the 20th anniversary of World Cancer Day on Feb. 4, 2020.

The survey, which was conducted by Ipsos, was taken by more than 15,000 people in 20 countries. It shows that people of lower socioeconomic status are less likely than those in higher-income households to recognize the risk factors for cancer or to make lifestyle changes. With the exception of tobacco use, people with low educational attainment also showed less cancer awareness and were less likely to engage in preventive behaviors than those with a university degree.

It is “unacceptable that millions of people have a greater chance of developing cancer in their lifetime because they are simply not aware of the cancer risks to avoid and the healthy behaviors to adopt – information that many of us take for granted. And this is true around the world,” Cary Adams, MBA, CEO of the UICC, commented in a statement.

The survey was conducted from Oct. 25 to Nov., 2019, and included 15,427 participants from Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States.

The vast majority of those surveyed – 87% – said they were aware of the major risk factors for cancer, while only 6% said they were not.

The cancer risk factors that were most recognized were tobacco use (63%), ultraviolet light exposure (54%), and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke (50%).

The cancer risks that were least recognized included being overweight (29%), a lack of exercise (28%), and exposure to certain viruses or bacteria (28%).

The difference in awareness across the social spectrum was striking. “Emerging from the survey are the apparent and glaring inequities faced by socioeconomically disadvantaged groups,” the authors said.

“Much more must be done to ensure that everyone has an equal chance to reduce their risk of preventable cancer,” commented Sonali Johnson, PhD, head of knowledge, advocacy, and policy at the UICC in Geneva, Switzerland.

“We’ve seen in the results that those surveyed with a lower education and those on lower incomes appear less aware of the main risk factors associated with cancer and thus are less likely to proactively take the steps needed to reduce their cancer risk as compared to those from a high income household or those with a university education,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview.

Does increased cancer awareness translate into behavioral change for the better? This question can only be answered by more research, the survey authors said. They reported that 7 of 10 survey respondents (69%) said they had made a behavioral change to reduce their cancer risk within the past 12 months. Most said they were eating more healthfully.

Slightly fewer than one-quarter reported that they had not taken any preventive measures in the past year.

When it comes to raising cancer awareness, World Cancer Day is “a powerful tool to remind every person that they can play a crucial role in reducing the impact of cancer,” said Dr. Johnson.
 

Health care providers are “crucial”

Reacting to the findings of the survey, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) emphasized the key role that physicians play in cancer prevention.

“Research speaks very clearly for prevention,” said ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD. “With the number of cancer cases expected to rise to 29.5 million by 2040, we must act now. ESMO is committed to educating doctors on all aspects of cancer control, which should begin well before a cancer diagnosis.

“In the face of this emergency, which is rendered even more salient by the results of the report, we must work to enlarge the basis of doctors who are properly educated and trained in key prevention measures,” Dr. Peters added. “General practitioners and organ specialists are in the front line to guide and support patients on their quest for healthy lifestyles and reliable ways to detect cancer early.”

In a comment, Dr. Johnson acknowledged the role physicians play in health promotion and informing patients about noncommunicable disease risks, including those related to cancer. However, she emphasized that nurses, pharmacists, community health workers, midwives, and other health care providers who deliver primary care “are crucial around the world to imparting health information and offering services.”

Frontline health care workers can assess patients’ cancer knowledge and health literacy, determine the barriers to health care, and assess “how best to engage with people across the life course,” Dr. Johnson explained. “Rather than just focusing on physicians, we must work with all those involved in primary care, especially as primary care services are scaled up to achieve universal health coverage.”

Call on governments to do more

The authors noted that, although there is wide awareness of the cancer risks from tobacco use, adults younger than 35 years were less likely than those older than 50 to identify tobacco as a cancer risk factor. They described this finding as “most concerning” and said it “underscores the ongoing need to raise awareness about cancer risk factors in every new generation.”

Almost 60% of survey respondents, regardless of age, education, or income, expressed concern about being diagnosed with cancer in the future or having cancer recur.

In Kenya, where the death toll from cancer rose 30% from 2014 to 2018, people appeared to be the most worried about cancer, with four of five survey respondents (82%) expressing concern.

Survey respondents from Saudi Arabia appeared the least concerned, with one of three people saying they were worried.

Notably, 84% of survey respondents said that governments should be doing more to increase cancer prevention and awareness; 33% demanded that governments improve the affordability of cancer care.

“It is understandable that people turn to their governments for support,” Dr. Johnson commented. “Affordability is a big challenge for low-income settings.”

Data from the World Health Organization show that, for every U.S. $1 invested in low- and middle-income countries, the return is U.S. $3.20, Johnson pointed out. “We really need to convince decision makers ... and see the right investments being made. It is important to ensure that the health system strengthening takes place in tandem with prevention services.”

Governments have begun making commitments to tackle noncommunicable diseases and cancer, Dr. Johnson commented. He highlighted the WHO’s Global Action Plan for Healthy Lives and Well-being for All and the updated cancer resolution adopted at the 2017 World Health Assembly.

“Education, training, and awareness-raising efforts need to be backed by strong and progressive health policies that prioritize prevention and help reduce the consumption of known cancer-causing products such as tobacco, sugary food, and beverages,” she said. “Countries should also invest proactively in national cancer control planning and the establishment of population-based registries to ensure the most effective resource allocation that benefits all groups.”

Up-to-date information on cancer risks and cancer prevention must be delivered to the public in ways that are accessible to those in lower socioeconomic groups, Dr. Johnson added. “Awareness needs to be raised continuously with each new generation,” she noted.

The UICC has relationships with Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Diaceutics, MSD Inventing for Life, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CUBEBIO, the Icon Group, Roche, and Sanofi.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first international public survey on cancer perceptions and attitudes in a decade shows that, in spite of progress, low socioeconomic status and lack of education continue to jeopardize the health of the world’s most vulnerable populations.

The survey was commissioned by the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) to mark the 20th anniversary of World Cancer Day on Feb. 4, 2020.

The survey, which was conducted by Ipsos, was taken by more than 15,000 people in 20 countries. It shows that people of lower socioeconomic status are less likely than those in higher-income households to recognize the risk factors for cancer or to make lifestyle changes. With the exception of tobacco use, people with low educational attainment also showed less cancer awareness and were less likely to engage in preventive behaviors than those with a university degree.

It is “unacceptable that millions of people have a greater chance of developing cancer in their lifetime because they are simply not aware of the cancer risks to avoid and the healthy behaviors to adopt – information that many of us take for granted. And this is true around the world,” Cary Adams, MBA, CEO of the UICC, commented in a statement.

The survey was conducted from Oct. 25 to Nov., 2019, and included 15,427 participants from Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States.

The vast majority of those surveyed – 87% – said they were aware of the major risk factors for cancer, while only 6% said they were not.

The cancer risk factors that were most recognized were tobacco use (63%), ultraviolet light exposure (54%), and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke (50%).

The cancer risks that were least recognized included being overweight (29%), a lack of exercise (28%), and exposure to certain viruses or bacteria (28%).

The difference in awareness across the social spectrum was striking. “Emerging from the survey are the apparent and glaring inequities faced by socioeconomically disadvantaged groups,” the authors said.

“Much more must be done to ensure that everyone has an equal chance to reduce their risk of preventable cancer,” commented Sonali Johnson, PhD, head of knowledge, advocacy, and policy at the UICC in Geneva, Switzerland.

“We’ve seen in the results that those surveyed with a lower education and those on lower incomes appear less aware of the main risk factors associated with cancer and thus are less likely to proactively take the steps needed to reduce their cancer risk as compared to those from a high income household or those with a university education,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview.

Does increased cancer awareness translate into behavioral change for the better? This question can only be answered by more research, the survey authors said. They reported that 7 of 10 survey respondents (69%) said they had made a behavioral change to reduce their cancer risk within the past 12 months. Most said they were eating more healthfully.

Slightly fewer than one-quarter reported that they had not taken any preventive measures in the past year.

When it comes to raising cancer awareness, World Cancer Day is “a powerful tool to remind every person that they can play a crucial role in reducing the impact of cancer,” said Dr. Johnson.
 

Health care providers are “crucial”

Reacting to the findings of the survey, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) emphasized the key role that physicians play in cancer prevention.

“Research speaks very clearly for prevention,” said ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD. “With the number of cancer cases expected to rise to 29.5 million by 2040, we must act now. ESMO is committed to educating doctors on all aspects of cancer control, which should begin well before a cancer diagnosis.

“In the face of this emergency, which is rendered even more salient by the results of the report, we must work to enlarge the basis of doctors who are properly educated and trained in key prevention measures,” Dr. Peters added. “General practitioners and organ specialists are in the front line to guide and support patients on their quest for healthy lifestyles and reliable ways to detect cancer early.”

In a comment, Dr. Johnson acknowledged the role physicians play in health promotion and informing patients about noncommunicable disease risks, including those related to cancer. However, she emphasized that nurses, pharmacists, community health workers, midwives, and other health care providers who deliver primary care “are crucial around the world to imparting health information and offering services.”

Frontline health care workers can assess patients’ cancer knowledge and health literacy, determine the barriers to health care, and assess “how best to engage with people across the life course,” Dr. Johnson explained. “Rather than just focusing on physicians, we must work with all those involved in primary care, especially as primary care services are scaled up to achieve universal health coverage.”

Call on governments to do more

The authors noted that, although there is wide awareness of the cancer risks from tobacco use, adults younger than 35 years were less likely than those older than 50 to identify tobacco as a cancer risk factor. They described this finding as “most concerning” and said it “underscores the ongoing need to raise awareness about cancer risk factors in every new generation.”

Almost 60% of survey respondents, regardless of age, education, or income, expressed concern about being diagnosed with cancer in the future or having cancer recur.

In Kenya, where the death toll from cancer rose 30% from 2014 to 2018, people appeared to be the most worried about cancer, with four of five survey respondents (82%) expressing concern.

Survey respondents from Saudi Arabia appeared the least concerned, with one of three people saying they were worried.

Notably, 84% of survey respondents said that governments should be doing more to increase cancer prevention and awareness; 33% demanded that governments improve the affordability of cancer care.

“It is understandable that people turn to their governments for support,” Dr. Johnson commented. “Affordability is a big challenge for low-income settings.”

Data from the World Health Organization show that, for every U.S. $1 invested in low- and middle-income countries, the return is U.S. $3.20, Johnson pointed out. “We really need to convince decision makers ... and see the right investments being made. It is important to ensure that the health system strengthening takes place in tandem with prevention services.”

Governments have begun making commitments to tackle noncommunicable diseases and cancer, Dr. Johnson commented. He highlighted the WHO’s Global Action Plan for Healthy Lives and Well-being for All and the updated cancer resolution adopted at the 2017 World Health Assembly.

“Education, training, and awareness-raising efforts need to be backed by strong and progressive health policies that prioritize prevention and help reduce the consumption of known cancer-causing products such as tobacco, sugary food, and beverages,” she said. “Countries should also invest proactively in national cancer control planning and the establishment of population-based registries to ensure the most effective resource allocation that benefits all groups.”

Up-to-date information on cancer risks and cancer prevention must be delivered to the public in ways that are accessible to those in lower socioeconomic groups, Dr. Johnson added. “Awareness needs to be raised continuously with each new generation,” she noted.

The UICC has relationships with Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Diaceutics, MSD Inventing for Life, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CUBEBIO, the Icon Group, Roche, and Sanofi.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first international public survey on cancer perceptions and attitudes in a decade shows that, in spite of progress, low socioeconomic status and lack of education continue to jeopardize the health of the world’s most vulnerable populations.

The survey was commissioned by the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) to mark the 20th anniversary of World Cancer Day on Feb. 4, 2020.

The survey, which was conducted by Ipsos, was taken by more than 15,000 people in 20 countries. It shows that people of lower socioeconomic status are less likely than those in higher-income households to recognize the risk factors for cancer or to make lifestyle changes. With the exception of tobacco use, people with low educational attainment also showed less cancer awareness and were less likely to engage in preventive behaviors than those with a university degree.

It is “unacceptable that millions of people have a greater chance of developing cancer in their lifetime because they are simply not aware of the cancer risks to avoid and the healthy behaviors to adopt – information that many of us take for granted. And this is true around the world,” Cary Adams, MBA, CEO of the UICC, commented in a statement.

The survey was conducted from Oct. 25 to Nov., 2019, and included 15,427 participants from Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States.

The vast majority of those surveyed – 87% – said they were aware of the major risk factors for cancer, while only 6% said they were not.

The cancer risk factors that were most recognized were tobacco use (63%), ultraviolet light exposure (54%), and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke (50%).

The cancer risks that were least recognized included being overweight (29%), a lack of exercise (28%), and exposure to certain viruses or bacteria (28%).

The difference in awareness across the social spectrum was striking. “Emerging from the survey are the apparent and glaring inequities faced by socioeconomically disadvantaged groups,” the authors said.

“Much more must be done to ensure that everyone has an equal chance to reduce their risk of preventable cancer,” commented Sonali Johnson, PhD, head of knowledge, advocacy, and policy at the UICC in Geneva, Switzerland.

“We’ve seen in the results that those surveyed with a lower education and those on lower incomes appear less aware of the main risk factors associated with cancer and thus are less likely to proactively take the steps needed to reduce their cancer risk as compared to those from a high income household or those with a university education,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview.

Does increased cancer awareness translate into behavioral change for the better? This question can only be answered by more research, the survey authors said. They reported that 7 of 10 survey respondents (69%) said they had made a behavioral change to reduce their cancer risk within the past 12 months. Most said they were eating more healthfully.

Slightly fewer than one-quarter reported that they had not taken any preventive measures in the past year.

When it comes to raising cancer awareness, World Cancer Day is “a powerful tool to remind every person that they can play a crucial role in reducing the impact of cancer,” said Dr. Johnson.
 

Health care providers are “crucial”

Reacting to the findings of the survey, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) emphasized the key role that physicians play in cancer prevention.

“Research speaks very clearly for prevention,” said ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD. “With the number of cancer cases expected to rise to 29.5 million by 2040, we must act now. ESMO is committed to educating doctors on all aspects of cancer control, which should begin well before a cancer diagnosis.

“In the face of this emergency, which is rendered even more salient by the results of the report, we must work to enlarge the basis of doctors who are properly educated and trained in key prevention measures,” Dr. Peters added. “General practitioners and organ specialists are in the front line to guide and support patients on their quest for healthy lifestyles and reliable ways to detect cancer early.”

In a comment, Dr. Johnson acknowledged the role physicians play in health promotion and informing patients about noncommunicable disease risks, including those related to cancer. However, she emphasized that nurses, pharmacists, community health workers, midwives, and other health care providers who deliver primary care “are crucial around the world to imparting health information and offering services.”

Frontline health care workers can assess patients’ cancer knowledge and health literacy, determine the barriers to health care, and assess “how best to engage with people across the life course,” Dr. Johnson explained. “Rather than just focusing on physicians, we must work with all those involved in primary care, especially as primary care services are scaled up to achieve universal health coverage.”

Call on governments to do more

The authors noted that, although there is wide awareness of the cancer risks from tobacco use, adults younger than 35 years were less likely than those older than 50 to identify tobacco as a cancer risk factor. They described this finding as “most concerning” and said it “underscores the ongoing need to raise awareness about cancer risk factors in every new generation.”

Almost 60% of survey respondents, regardless of age, education, or income, expressed concern about being diagnosed with cancer in the future or having cancer recur.

In Kenya, where the death toll from cancer rose 30% from 2014 to 2018, people appeared to be the most worried about cancer, with four of five survey respondents (82%) expressing concern.

Survey respondents from Saudi Arabia appeared the least concerned, with one of three people saying they were worried.

Notably, 84% of survey respondents said that governments should be doing more to increase cancer prevention and awareness; 33% demanded that governments improve the affordability of cancer care.

“It is understandable that people turn to their governments for support,” Dr. Johnson commented. “Affordability is a big challenge for low-income settings.”

Data from the World Health Organization show that, for every U.S. $1 invested in low- and middle-income countries, the return is U.S. $3.20, Johnson pointed out. “We really need to convince decision makers ... and see the right investments being made. It is important to ensure that the health system strengthening takes place in tandem with prevention services.”

Governments have begun making commitments to tackle noncommunicable diseases and cancer, Dr. Johnson commented. He highlighted the WHO’s Global Action Plan for Healthy Lives and Well-being for All and the updated cancer resolution adopted at the 2017 World Health Assembly.

“Education, training, and awareness-raising efforts need to be backed by strong and progressive health policies that prioritize prevention and help reduce the consumption of known cancer-causing products such as tobacco, sugary food, and beverages,” she said. “Countries should also invest proactively in national cancer control planning and the establishment of population-based registries to ensure the most effective resource allocation that benefits all groups.”

Up-to-date information on cancer risks and cancer prevention must be delivered to the public in ways that are accessible to those in lower socioeconomic groups, Dr. Johnson added. “Awareness needs to be raised continuously with each new generation,” she noted.

The UICC has relationships with Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Diaceutics, MSD Inventing for Life, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CUBEBIO, the Icon Group, Roche, and Sanofi.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A small subpopulation of quiescent hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) that restores the HSC pool and supports hematopoietic regeneration after chemotherapy has been identified, researchers reported.

Li_Linheng_Mo_web.jpg

These “reserve” HSCs were resistant to chemotherapy, whereas “primed” HSCs were sensitive to DNA damage from chemotherapy, the researchers said.

Both reserve and active stem cells were maintained in the bone marrow by specific niches, researchers demonstrated in experiments described in detail in Cell Reports.

Of note, primitive reserve HSCs were maintained in a bone marrow region that enriches N-cadherin expressing (N-cad+) bone and marrow stromal progenitor cells. According to investigators, those N-cad+ cells protected primitive reserve HSCs from chemotherapy-related stress, which survived to support hematopoietic regeneration after myeloablation.

These findings advance understanding of HSC biology, and could open new avenues for treating blood diseases and autoimmune disorders.

“In effect, we showed that hematopoietic stem cells have functionally distinct subpopulations: one that acts under normal conditions, and the other that acts under times of stress,” study senior author Linheng Li, PhD, a researcher at Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, Mo., said in a statement.

Hematopoietic stem cells are heterogeneous, with some maintained in an active state, and others in a quiescent state that is related to their self-renewal capacity and linked to low metabolic activity, sometimes called HSC dormancy or hibernation, Dr. Li and his coinvestigators explained in their report.

However, despite their quiescence, the majority of those HSCs will not survive chemotherapeutic stress, they added.

A small subpopulation of cells termed reserve HSCs can survive stress related to 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy in mice and following transplantation, Dr. Li and his colleagues demonstrated in experiments described in the paper. By contrast, a much larger population of quiescent cells, primed HSCs, were chemotherapy sensitive.

“Most likely, primed HSCs reflect a transitional state between [reserve HSCs] and proliferating [short-term HSCs],” Dr. Li and his colleagues said in their report.

In one key experiment, Dr. Li and his coinvestigators used a cell surface marker to isolate reserve HSCs and primed HSCs, which were transplanted into mice. Following engraftment, the mice were treated with 5-fluorouracil. They found that reserve HSCs, reflected by their derived blood cells, were unaffected by treatment, whereas derivatives of primed HSCs declined.

In another experiment, the researchers labeled HSCs with fluorescent tags to identify their location in the bone marrow. They found reserve cells concentrated in a specific bone marrow niche adjacent to N-cad+ cells.

The N-cad+ cells were bone and marrow stromal progenitor cells (BMSPCs), giving rise to osteoblasts, adipocytes, and chondrocytes, according to investigators.

Ablating the N-cad+ niche cells impaired reserve HSC maintenance in both homeostasis and regeneration, investigators added.

The work was supported by the Stowers Institute for Medical Research, the National Cancer Institute, and other grant support. The researchers reported that they had no competing interests related to the study.

SOURCE: Zhao M et al. Cell Rep. 2019 Jan 15;26(3):652-69.e6.

A small subpopulation of quiescent hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) that restores the HSC pool and supports hematopoietic regeneration after chemotherapy has been identified, researchers reported.

Li_Linheng_Mo_web.jpg

These “reserve” HSCs were resistant to chemotherapy, whereas “primed” HSCs were sensitive to DNA damage from chemotherapy, the researchers said.

Both reserve and active stem cells were maintained in the bone marrow by specific niches, researchers demonstrated in experiments described in detail in Cell Reports.

Of note, primitive reserve HSCs were maintained in a bone marrow region that enriches N-cadherin expressing (N-cad+) bone and marrow stromal progenitor cells. According to investigators, those N-cad+ cells protected primitive reserve HSCs from chemotherapy-related stress, which survived to support hematopoietic regeneration after myeloablation.

These findings advance understanding of HSC biology, and could open new avenues for treating blood diseases and autoimmune disorders.

“In effect, we showed that hematopoietic stem cells have functionally distinct subpopulations: one that acts under normal conditions, and the other that acts under times of stress,” study senior author Linheng Li, PhD, a researcher at Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, Mo., said in a statement.

Hematopoietic stem cells are heterogeneous, with some maintained in an active state, and others in a quiescent state that is related to their self-renewal capacity and linked to low metabolic activity, sometimes called HSC dormancy or hibernation, Dr. Li and his coinvestigators explained in their report.

However, despite their quiescence, the majority of those HSCs will not survive chemotherapeutic stress, they added.

A small subpopulation of cells termed reserve HSCs can survive stress related to 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy in mice and following transplantation, Dr. Li and his colleagues demonstrated in experiments described in the paper. By contrast, a much larger population of quiescent cells, primed HSCs, were chemotherapy sensitive.

“Most likely, primed HSCs reflect a transitional state between [reserve HSCs] and proliferating [short-term HSCs],” Dr. Li and his colleagues said in their report.

In one key experiment, Dr. Li and his coinvestigators used a cell surface marker to isolate reserve HSCs and primed HSCs, which were transplanted into mice. Following engraftment, the mice were treated with 5-fluorouracil. They found that reserve HSCs, reflected by their derived blood cells, were unaffected by treatment, whereas derivatives of primed HSCs declined.

In another experiment, the researchers labeled HSCs with fluorescent tags to identify their location in the bone marrow. They found reserve cells concentrated in a specific bone marrow niche adjacent to N-cad+ cells.

The N-cad+ cells were bone and marrow stromal progenitor cells (BMSPCs), giving rise to osteoblasts, adipocytes, and chondrocytes, according to investigators.

Ablating the N-cad+ niche cells impaired reserve HSC maintenance in both homeostasis and regeneration, investigators added.

The work was supported by the Stowers Institute for Medical Research, the National Cancer Institute, and other grant support. The researchers reported that they had no competing interests related to the study.

SOURCE: Zhao M et al. Cell Rep. 2019 Jan 15;26(3):652-69.e6.

A small subpopulation of quiescent hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) that restores the HSC pool and supports hematopoietic regeneration after chemotherapy has been identified, researchers reported.

Li_Linheng_Mo_web.jpg

These “reserve” HSCs were resistant to chemotherapy, whereas “primed” HSCs were sensitive to DNA damage from chemotherapy, the researchers said.

Both reserve and active stem cells were maintained in the bone marrow by specific niches, researchers demonstrated in experiments described in detail in Cell Reports.

Of note, primitive reserve HSCs were maintained in a bone marrow region that enriches N-cadherin expressing (N-cad+) bone and marrow stromal progenitor cells. According to investigators, those N-cad+ cells protected primitive reserve HSCs from chemotherapy-related stress, which survived to support hematopoietic regeneration after myeloablation.

These findings advance understanding of HSC biology, and could open new avenues for treating blood diseases and autoimmune disorders.

“In effect, we showed that hematopoietic stem cells have functionally distinct subpopulations: one that acts under normal conditions, and the other that acts under times of stress,” study senior author Linheng Li, PhD, a researcher at Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, Mo., said in a statement.

Hematopoietic stem cells are heterogeneous, with some maintained in an active state, and others in a quiescent state that is related to their self-renewal capacity and linked to low metabolic activity, sometimes called HSC dormancy or hibernation, Dr. Li and his coinvestigators explained in their report.

However, despite their quiescence, the majority of those HSCs will not survive chemotherapeutic stress, they added.

A small subpopulation of cells termed reserve HSCs can survive stress related to 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy in mice and following transplantation, Dr. Li and his colleagues demonstrated in experiments described in the paper. By contrast, a much larger population of quiescent cells, primed HSCs, were chemotherapy sensitive.

“Most likely, primed HSCs reflect a transitional state between [reserve HSCs] and proliferating [short-term HSCs],” Dr. Li and his colleagues said in their report.

In one key experiment, Dr. Li and his coinvestigators used a cell surface marker to isolate reserve HSCs and primed HSCs, which were transplanted into mice. Following engraftment, the mice were treated with 5-fluorouracil. They found that reserve HSCs, reflected by their derived blood cells, were unaffected by treatment, whereas derivatives of primed HSCs declined.

In another experiment, the researchers labeled HSCs with fluorescent tags to identify their location in the bone marrow. They found reserve cells concentrated in a specific bone marrow niche adjacent to N-cad+ cells.

The N-cad+ cells were bone and marrow stromal progenitor cells (BMSPCs), giving rise to osteoblasts, adipocytes, and chondrocytes, according to investigators.

Ablating the N-cad+ niche cells impaired reserve HSC maintenance in both homeostasis and regeneration, investigators added.

The work was supported by the Stowers Institute for Medical Research, the National Cancer Institute, and other grant support. The researchers reported that they had no competing interests related to the study.

SOURCE: Zhao M et al. Cell Rep. 2019 Jan 15;26(3):652-69.e6.

money-hand-junior-libby-230.jpg

A recent survey suggests Americans are nearly as worried about the cost of a cancer diagnosis as they are about dying from cancer.

The cost of cancer care was a top concern even among people who had no prior experience with cancer.

At the same time, cancer patients/survivors admitted to delaying or forgoing care due to costs, and caregivers reported taking “dramatic” actions to pay for their loved one’s care.

These are findings from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)’s second annual National Cancer Opinion Survey.

The survey was conducted online by The Harris Poll from July 10, 2018, to August 10, 2018. It included 4,887 U.S. adults age 18 and older—1,001 of whom have or had cancer.

Cost among top concerns

Death and pain/suffering were the top concerns related to a cancer diagnosis. Fifty-four percent of respondents said death would be one of their greatest concerns if they were diagnosed with cancer, and the same percentage rated pain/suffering a top concern.

Forty-four percent of respondents said paying for cancer treatment would be a top concern, and 45% said the same about the financial impact of a cancer diagnosis on their family. When combined, financial issues were a top concern for 57% of respondents.

Paying for treatment was a top concern for:

• 36% of respondents who had/have cancer
• 51% of caregivers
• 43% of people with no prior cancer experience.

The financial impact on family was a top concern for:

• 39% of respondents who had/have cancer
• 55% of caregivers
• 42% of people with no prior cancer experience.

Cutting costs

Sixty-one percent of caregivers surveyed said they or another relative have taken a “dramatic” step to help pay for their loved one’s care, including:

• Dipping into savings accounts (35%)
• Working extra hours (23%)
• Taking an early withdrawal from a retirement account or college fund (14%)
• Postponing retirement (14%)
• Taking out a second mortgage or other type of loan (13%)
• Taking an additional job (13%)
• Selling family heirlooms (9%).

Twenty percent of cancer patients/survivors said they have taken actions to reduce treatment costs, including:

• Delaying scans (7%)
• Skipping or delaying appointments (7%)
• Skipping doses of prescribed treatment (6%)
• Postponing or not filling prescriptions (5%)
• Refusing treatment (3%).

“Patients are right to be concerned about the financial impact of a cancer diagnosis on their families,” said Richard L. Schilsky, MD, ASCO’s chief medical officer.

“It’s clear that high treatment costs are taking a serious toll not only on patients, but also on the people who care for them. If a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, the sole focus should be helping them get well. Instead, Americans are worrying about affording treatment, and, in many cases, they’re making serious personal sacrifices to help pay for their loved ones’ care.”

money-hand-junior-libby-230.jpg

A recent survey suggests Americans are nearly as worried about the cost of a cancer diagnosis as they are about dying from cancer.

The cost of cancer care was a top concern even among people who had no prior experience with cancer.

At the same time, cancer patients/survivors admitted to delaying or forgoing care due to costs, and caregivers reported taking “dramatic” actions to pay for their loved one’s care.

These are findings from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)’s second annual National Cancer Opinion Survey.

The survey was conducted online by The Harris Poll from July 10, 2018, to August 10, 2018. It included 4,887 U.S. adults age 18 and older—1,001 of whom have or had cancer.

Cost among top concerns

Death and pain/suffering were the top concerns related to a cancer diagnosis. Fifty-four percent of respondents said death would be one of their greatest concerns if they were diagnosed with cancer, and the same percentage rated pain/suffering a top concern.

Forty-four percent of respondents said paying for cancer treatment would be a top concern, and 45% said the same about the financial impact of a cancer diagnosis on their family. When combined, financial issues were a top concern for 57% of respondents.

Paying for treatment was a top concern for:

• 36% of respondents who had/have cancer
• 51% of caregivers
• 43% of people with no prior cancer experience.

The financial impact on family was a top concern for:

• 39% of respondents who had/have cancer
• 55% of caregivers
• 42% of people with no prior cancer experience.

Cutting costs

Sixty-one percent of caregivers surveyed said they or another relative have taken a “dramatic” step to help pay for their loved one’s care, including:

• Dipping into savings accounts (35%)
• Working extra hours (23%)
• Taking an early withdrawal from a retirement account or college fund (14%)
• Postponing retirement (14%)
• Taking out a second mortgage or other type of loan (13%)
• Taking an additional job (13%)
• Selling family heirlooms (9%).

Twenty percent of cancer patients/survivors said they have taken actions to reduce treatment costs, including:

• Delaying scans (7%)
• Skipping or delaying appointments (7%)
• Skipping doses of prescribed treatment (6%)
• Postponing or not filling prescriptions (5%)
• Refusing treatment (3%).

“Patients are right to be concerned about the financial impact of a cancer diagnosis on their families,” said Richard L. Schilsky, MD, ASCO’s chief medical officer.

“It’s clear that high treatment costs are taking a serious toll not only on patients, but also on the people who care for them. If a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, the sole focus should be helping them get well. Instead, Americans are worrying about affording treatment, and, in many cases, they’re making serious personal sacrifices to help pay for their loved ones’ care.”

money-hand-junior-libby-230.jpg

A recent survey suggests Americans are nearly as worried about the cost of a cancer diagnosis as they are about dying from cancer.

The cost of cancer care was a top concern even among people who had no prior experience with cancer.

At the same time, cancer patients/survivors admitted to delaying or forgoing care due to costs, and caregivers reported taking “dramatic” actions to pay for their loved one’s care.

These are findings from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)’s second annual National Cancer Opinion Survey.

The survey was conducted online by The Harris Poll from July 10, 2018, to August 10, 2018. It included 4,887 U.S. adults age 18 and older—1,001 of whom have or had cancer.

Cost among top concerns

Death and pain/suffering were the top concerns related to a cancer diagnosis. Fifty-four percent of respondents said death would be one of their greatest concerns if they were diagnosed with cancer, and the same percentage rated pain/suffering a top concern.

Forty-four percent of respondents said paying for cancer treatment would be a top concern, and 45% said the same about the financial impact of a cancer diagnosis on their family. When combined, financial issues were a top concern for 57% of respondents.

Paying for treatment was a top concern for:

• 36% of respondents who had/have cancer
• 51% of caregivers
• 43% of people with no prior cancer experience.

The financial impact on family was a top concern for:

• 39% of respondents who had/have cancer
• 55% of caregivers
• 42% of people with no prior cancer experience.

Cutting costs

Sixty-one percent of caregivers surveyed said they or another relative have taken a “dramatic” step to help pay for their loved one’s care, including:

• Dipping into savings accounts (35%)
• Working extra hours (23%)
• Taking an early withdrawal from a retirement account or college fund (14%)
• Postponing retirement (14%)
• Taking out a second mortgage or other type of loan (13%)
• Taking an additional job (13%)
• Selling family heirlooms (9%).

Twenty percent of cancer patients/survivors said they have taken actions to reduce treatment costs, including:

• Delaying scans (7%)
• Skipping or delaying appointments (7%)
• Skipping doses of prescribed treatment (6%)
• Postponing or not filling prescriptions (5%)
• Refusing treatment (3%).

“Patients are right to be concerned about the financial impact of a cancer diagnosis on their families,” said Richard L. Schilsky, MD, ASCO’s chief medical officer.

“It’s clear that high treatment costs are taking a serious toll not only on patients, but also on the people who care for them. If a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, the sole focus should be helping them get well. Instead, Americans are worrying about affording treatment, and, in many cases, they’re making serious personal sacrifices to help pay for their loved ones’ care.”

malaria_vaccine_Credit_Caitlin_Kleiboer_230_v2.jpg

New research has revealed markers associated with efficacy of the RTS,S/AS01E malaria vaccine (Mosquirix™).

The study suggests malaria protection depends on the amount and subclass of antibodies generated upon vaccination and on previous exposure levels to the malaria parasite.

Researchers believe these findings, published in BMC Medicine, could aid the development of more effective vaccines and guide efforts to improve the effectiveness of RTS,S.

The RTS,S vaccine demonstrated partial effectiveness in a phase 3 study—31% in infants ages 6 weeks to 12 weeks and 56% in children ages 5 months to 17 months.

Carlota Dobaño Lázaro, PhD, of ISGlobal in Barcelona, Spain, and her colleagues have been working to understand the reasons for this variability and identify vaccine protection correlates.

The team used a quantitative assay to investigate the levels and types of antibodies induced by RTS,S. In particular, they measured total IgM, IgG, and IgG1–4 subclass antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and three constructs of the Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoite protein (CSP).

The researchers analyzed serum and plasma from 195 infants and children from Kintampo, Ghana (an area with high malaria transmission) and Manhiça, Mozambique (low malaria transmission), who were vaccinated during the phase 3 trial for RTS,S.

The results confirmed that RTS,S induces significant levels of IgG antibodies against both CSP and HBsAg, which are higher in children than in infants.

The researchers found that higher HBsAg antibody levels post-vaccination were associated with protection from malaria.

However, the same could not be said for all subclasses of CSP antibodies. Higher levels of IgG1 and IgG3 antibodies were associated with protection, while higher levels of IgG2 and IgG4 were associated with a greater risk of developing malaria.

“The balance between the different subclasses seems to be more important than the total IgG levels,” said study author Itzi Ubillos Escriche, of ISGlobal.

“This could be because IgG1 and IgG3 antibodies have the capacity to stick to the parasite and give an ‘eat-me’ signal to cells of the immune system.”

The results also showed that subjects with higher pre-vaccine levels of anti-P falciparum and anti-CSP antibodies were less protected against malaria post-vaccination.

“This means that the vaccine will exert a larger benefit to infants who have not been exposed to the parasite in utero or during the first weeks of life,” Dr. Dobaño Lázaro said.

“This study . . . identifies new correlates of vaccine success and failure in African children and provides a basis for designing more efficacious vaccines.”

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, and EVIMalaR and AGAUR-Catalonia. ISGlobal is a member of the CERCA Program, Generalitat de Catalunya.

The authors said they have no competing interests.

The phase 3 trial of RTS,S was supported by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative.

malaria_vaccine_Credit_Caitlin_Kleiboer_230_v2.jpg

New research has revealed markers associated with efficacy of the RTS,S/AS01E malaria vaccine (Mosquirix™).

The study suggests malaria protection depends on the amount and subclass of antibodies generated upon vaccination and on previous exposure levels to the malaria parasite.

Researchers believe these findings, published in BMC Medicine, could aid the development of more effective vaccines and guide efforts to improve the effectiveness of RTS,S.

The RTS,S vaccine demonstrated partial effectiveness in a phase 3 study—31% in infants ages 6 weeks to 12 weeks and 56% in children ages 5 months to 17 months.

Carlota Dobaño Lázaro, PhD, of ISGlobal in Barcelona, Spain, and her colleagues have been working to understand the reasons for this variability and identify vaccine protection correlates.

The team used a quantitative assay to investigate the levels and types of antibodies induced by RTS,S. In particular, they measured total IgM, IgG, and IgG1–4 subclass antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and three constructs of the Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoite protein (CSP).

The researchers analyzed serum and plasma from 195 infants and children from Kintampo, Ghana (an area with high malaria transmission) and Manhiça, Mozambique (low malaria transmission), who were vaccinated during the phase 3 trial for RTS,S.

The results confirmed that RTS,S induces significant levels of IgG antibodies against both CSP and HBsAg, which are higher in children than in infants.

The researchers found that higher HBsAg antibody levels post-vaccination were associated with protection from malaria.

However, the same could not be said for all subclasses of CSP antibodies. Higher levels of IgG1 and IgG3 antibodies were associated with protection, while higher levels of IgG2 and IgG4 were associated with a greater risk of developing malaria.

“The balance between the different subclasses seems to be more important than the total IgG levels,” said study author Itzi Ubillos Escriche, of ISGlobal.

“This could be because IgG1 and IgG3 antibodies have the capacity to stick to the parasite and give an ‘eat-me’ signal to cells of the immune system.”

The results also showed that subjects with higher pre-vaccine levels of anti-P falciparum and anti-CSP antibodies were less protected against malaria post-vaccination.

“This means that the vaccine will exert a larger benefit to infants who have not been exposed to the parasite in utero or during the first weeks of life,” Dr. Dobaño Lázaro said.

“This study . . . identifies new correlates of vaccine success and failure in African children and provides a basis for designing more efficacious vaccines.”

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, and EVIMalaR and AGAUR-Catalonia. ISGlobal is a member of the CERCA Program, Generalitat de Catalunya.

The authors said they have no competing interests.

The phase 3 trial of RTS,S was supported by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative.

malaria_vaccine_Credit_Caitlin_Kleiboer_230_v2.jpg

New research has revealed markers associated with efficacy of the RTS,S/AS01E malaria vaccine (Mosquirix™).

The study suggests malaria protection depends on the amount and subclass of antibodies generated upon vaccination and on previous exposure levels to the malaria parasite.

Researchers believe these findings, published in BMC Medicine, could aid the development of more effective vaccines and guide efforts to improve the effectiveness of RTS,S.

The RTS,S vaccine demonstrated partial effectiveness in a phase 3 study—31% in infants ages 6 weeks to 12 weeks and 56% in children ages 5 months to 17 months.

Carlota Dobaño Lázaro, PhD, of ISGlobal in Barcelona, Spain, and her colleagues have been working to understand the reasons for this variability and identify vaccine protection correlates.

The team used a quantitative assay to investigate the levels and types of antibodies induced by RTS,S. In particular, they measured total IgM, IgG, and IgG1–4 subclass antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and three constructs of the Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoite protein (CSP).

The researchers analyzed serum and plasma from 195 infants and children from Kintampo, Ghana (an area with high malaria transmission) and Manhiça, Mozambique (low malaria transmission), who were vaccinated during the phase 3 trial for RTS,S.

The results confirmed that RTS,S induces significant levels of IgG antibodies against both CSP and HBsAg, which are higher in children than in infants.

The researchers found that higher HBsAg antibody levels post-vaccination were associated with protection from malaria.

However, the same could not be said for all subclasses of CSP antibodies. Higher levels of IgG1 and IgG3 antibodies were associated with protection, while higher levels of IgG2 and IgG4 were associated with a greater risk of developing malaria.

“The balance between the different subclasses seems to be more important than the total IgG levels,” said study author Itzi Ubillos Escriche, of ISGlobal.

“This could be because IgG1 and IgG3 antibodies have the capacity to stick to the parasite and give an ‘eat-me’ signal to cells of the immune system.”

The results also showed that subjects with higher pre-vaccine levels of anti-P falciparum and anti-CSP antibodies were less protected against malaria post-vaccination.

“This means that the vaccine will exert a larger benefit to infants who have not been exposed to the parasite in utero or during the first weeks of life,” Dr. Dobaño Lázaro said.

“This study . . . identifies new correlates of vaccine success and failure in African children and provides a basis for designing more efficacious vaccines.”

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, and EVIMalaR and AGAUR-Catalonia. ISGlobal is a member of the CERCA Program, Generalitat de Catalunya.

The authors said they have no competing interests.

The phase 3 trial of RTS,S was supported by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative.

handholdinghospital-pexels-205.jpg

The latest edition of the national palliative care guidelines provides new clinical strategies relevant to hematology practice in the United States, according to a physician-researcher specializing in hematology.

The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, 4th edition, represents a “blueprint for what it looks like to provide high-quality, comprehensive palliative care to people with serious illness,” said Thomas W. LeBlanc, MD, a physician-researcher at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina.

However, unlike previous editions, this update to the guidelines emphasizes the importance of palliative care provided by both primary care and specialty care clinicians.

“Part of this report is about trying to raise the game of everybody in medicine and provide a higher basic level of primary palliative care to all people with serious illness, but then also to figure out who has higher levels of needs where the specialists should be applied, since they are a scarce resource,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

The latest edition helps establish a foundation for gold standard palliative care for people living with serious illness, regardless of diagnosis, prognosis, setting, or age, according to The National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care, which published the clinical practice guidelines.

The update was developed by the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care (NCP), which includes 16 national organizations with palliative care and hospice expertise, and is endorsed by more than 80 national organizations, including the American Society of Hematology.

One key reason for the update, according to NCP, was to acknowledge that today’s healthcare system may not be meeting patients’ palliative care needs.

Specifically, the guidelines call on clinicians who don’t practice palliative care to integrate palliative care principles into their routine assessment of seriously ill patients with conditions such as heart failure, lung disease, and cancer.

That differs from the way palliative care is traditionally practiced, in which specially trained doctors, nurses, and other specialists provide that support.

An issue with that traditional model is a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs, said Dr. LeBlanc, whose clinical practice and research focuses on palliative care needs of patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Palliative care has matured as a field such that we are now actually facing workforce shortage issues and really fundamental questions about who really needs us the most and how we increase our reach to improve the lives of more patients and families facing serious illness,” he said.

That’s a major driver behind the emphasis in the latest guidelines on providing palliative care in the community, coordinating care, and dealing with care transitions, Dr. LeBlanc added.

“I hope that this document will help to demonstrate the value and the need for palliative care specialists and for improvements in primary care in the care of patients with hematologic diseases in general,” he said. “To me, this adds increasing legitimacy to this whole field.”

handholdinghospital-pexels-205.jpg

The latest edition of the national palliative care guidelines provides new clinical strategies relevant to hematology practice in the United States, according to a physician-researcher specializing in hematology.

The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, 4th edition, represents a “blueprint for what it looks like to provide high-quality, comprehensive palliative care to people with serious illness,” said Thomas W. LeBlanc, MD, a physician-researcher at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina.

However, unlike previous editions, this update to the guidelines emphasizes the importance of palliative care provided by both primary care and specialty care clinicians.

“Part of this report is about trying to raise the game of everybody in medicine and provide a higher basic level of primary palliative care to all people with serious illness, but then also to figure out who has higher levels of needs where the specialists should be applied, since they are a scarce resource,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

The latest edition helps establish a foundation for gold standard palliative care for people living with serious illness, regardless of diagnosis, prognosis, setting, or age, according to The National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care, which published the clinical practice guidelines.

The update was developed by the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care (NCP), which includes 16 national organizations with palliative care and hospice expertise, and is endorsed by more than 80 national organizations, including the American Society of Hematology.

One key reason for the update, according to NCP, was to acknowledge that today’s healthcare system may not be meeting patients’ palliative care needs.

Specifically, the guidelines call on clinicians who don’t practice palliative care to integrate palliative care principles into their routine assessment of seriously ill patients with conditions such as heart failure, lung disease, and cancer.

That differs from the way palliative care is traditionally practiced, in which specially trained doctors, nurses, and other specialists provide that support.

An issue with that traditional model is a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs, said Dr. LeBlanc, whose clinical practice and research focuses on palliative care needs of patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Palliative care has matured as a field such that we are now actually facing workforce shortage issues and really fundamental questions about who really needs us the most and how we increase our reach to improve the lives of more patients and families facing serious illness,” he said.

That’s a major driver behind the emphasis in the latest guidelines on providing palliative care in the community, coordinating care, and dealing with care transitions, Dr. LeBlanc added.

“I hope that this document will help to demonstrate the value and the need for palliative care specialists and for improvements in primary care in the care of patients with hematologic diseases in general,” he said. “To me, this adds increasing legitimacy to this whole field.”

handholdinghospital-pexels-205.jpg

The latest edition of the national palliative care guidelines provides new clinical strategies relevant to hematology practice in the United States, according to a physician-researcher specializing in hematology.

The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, 4th edition, represents a “blueprint for what it looks like to provide high-quality, comprehensive palliative care to people with serious illness,” said Thomas W. LeBlanc, MD, a physician-researcher at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina.

However, unlike previous editions, this update to the guidelines emphasizes the importance of palliative care provided by both primary care and specialty care clinicians.

“Part of this report is about trying to raise the game of everybody in medicine and provide a higher basic level of primary palliative care to all people with serious illness, but then also to figure out who has higher levels of needs where the specialists should be applied, since they are a scarce resource,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

The latest edition helps establish a foundation for gold standard palliative care for people living with serious illness, regardless of diagnosis, prognosis, setting, or age, according to The National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care, which published the clinical practice guidelines.

The update was developed by the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care (NCP), which includes 16 national organizations with palliative care and hospice expertise, and is endorsed by more than 80 national organizations, including the American Society of Hematology.

One key reason for the update, according to NCP, was to acknowledge that today’s healthcare system may not be meeting patients’ palliative care needs.

Specifically, the guidelines call on clinicians who don’t practice palliative care to integrate palliative care principles into their routine assessment of seriously ill patients with conditions such as heart failure, lung disease, and cancer.

That differs from the way palliative care is traditionally practiced, in which specially trained doctors, nurses, and other specialists provide that support.

An issue with that traditional model is a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs, said Dr. LeBlanc, whose clinical practice and research focuses on palliative care needs of patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Palliative care has matured as a field such that we are now actually facing workforce shortage issues and really fundamental questions about who really needs us the most and how we increase our reach to improve the lives of more patients and families facing serious illness,” he said.

That’s a major driver behind the emphasis in the latest guidelines on providing palliative care in the community, coordinating care, and dealing with care transitions, Dr. LeBlanc added.

“I hope that this document will help to demonstrate the value and the need for palliative care specialists and for improvements in primary care in the care of patients with hematologic diseases in general,” he said. “To me, this adds increasing legitimacy to this whole field.”

snifferdog-170.jpg

NEW ORLEANS—Dogs can be trained to sniff out malaria in humans, according to research presented at the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Annual Meeting.

Researchers found that dogs could detect malaria by sniffing socks worn by children from a malaria-endemic area of West Africa.

“While our findings are at an early stage, in principle, we have shown that dogs could be trained to detect malaria-infected people by their odor with a credible degree of accuracy,” said study investigator Steve Lindsay, PhD, of Durham University in Durham City, U.K.

Dr. Lindsay presented these findings at the meeting as abstract 32.

The research began in The Gambia, where 600 school children were recruited to join the study. They were checked for overall general health, sampled for malaria parasites, and fitted with a pair of socks they were asked to wear overnight.

The next day, the socks were collected. The socks were sorted according to the malaria infection status of the children. The researchers only selected socks from uninfected children and children with malaria who did not have fever.

The socks were shipped to the United Kingdom, where they were stored in a freezer for several months while dogs were trained to sniff out malaria.

The dogs had to distinguish between socks from children with malaria parasites and socks from uninfected children. The animals were trained to sniff each sample, freeze if they thought they detected malaria, and move on if they did not.

In total, 175 sock samples were tested, including those from 30 malaria-positive children and those from 145 uninfected children.

The dogs correctly identified 70% of the infected children and 90% of the uninfected children.

Dr. Lindsay and his colleagues believe that, with more training and more samples, the dogs could provide a level of accuracy approaching that of a clinical test.

Now, the researchers are considering a follow-up study that would take samples from people in different parts of Africa to test whether parasites from one part of the continent present odors that are different from another part of the continent.

As for putting malaria-detecting dogs to work in the field, Dr. Lindsay said they could be helpful assistants in malaria elimination campaigns.

Currently, the only way to address the problem of asymptomatic malaria carriers is to test or treat an entire community. Dr. Lindsay said detection dogs could be useful for significantly narrowing the focus of clinical testing and treatment efforts.

Dr. Lindsay also believes detection dogs could be used at ports of entry into countries that have eliminated malaria or are close to elimination.

“This could provide a non-invasive way of screening for the disease at ports of entry in a similar way to how sniffer dogs are routinely used to detect fruit and vegetables or drugs at airports,” he said.

“This could help prevent the spread of malaria to countries that have been declared malaria-free and also ensure that people, many of whom might be unaware that they are infected with the malaria parasite, receive antimalarial drug treatment for the disease.”

Dr. Lindsay and his colleagues’ research was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Dr. Lindsay reported no conflicts of interest.

snifferdog-170.jpg

NEW ORLEANS—Dogs can be trained to sniff out malaria in humans, according to research presented at the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Annual Meeting.

Researchers found that dogs could detect malaria by sniffing socks worn by children from a malaria-endemic area of West Africa.

“While our findings are at an early stage, in principle, we have shown that dogs could be trained to detect malaria-infected people by their odor with a credible degree of accuracy,” said study investigator Steve Lindsay, PhD, of Durham University in Durham City, U.K.

Dr. Lindsay presented these findings at the meeting as abstract 32.

The research began in The Gambia, where 600 school children were recruited to join the study. They were checked for overall general health, sampled for malaria parasites, and fitted with a pair of socks they were asked to wear overnight.

The next day, the socks were collected. The socks were sorted according to the malaria infection status of the children. The researchers only selected socks from uninfected children and children with malaria who did not have fever.

The socks were shipped to the United Kingdom, where they were stored in a freezer for several months while dogs were trained to sniff out malaria.

The dogs had to distinguish between socks from children with malaria parasites and socks from uninfected children. The animals were trained to sniff each sample, freeze if they thought they detected malaria, and move on if they did not.

In total, 175 sock samples were tested, including those from 30 malaria-positive children and those from 145 uninfected children.

The dogs correctly identified 70% of the infected children and 90% of the uninfected children.

Dr. Lindsay and his colleagues believe that, with more training and more samples, the dogs could provide a level of accuracy approaching that of a clinical test.

Now, the researchers are considering a follow-up study that would take samples from people in different parts of Africa to test whether parasites from one part of the continent present odors that are different from another part of the continent.

As for putting malaria-detecting dogs to work in the field, Dr. Lindsay said they could be helpful assistants in malaria elimination campaigns.

Currently, the only way to address the problem of asymptomatic malaria carriers is to test or treat an entire community. Dr. Lindsay said detection dogs could be useful for significantly narrowing the focus of clinical testing and treatment efforts.

Dr. Lindsay also believes detection dogs could be used at ports of entry into countries that have eliminated malaria or are close to elimination.

“This could provide a non-invasive way of screening for the disease at ports of entry in a similar way to how sniffer dogs are routinely used to detect fruit and vegetables or drugs at airports,” he said.

“This could help prevent the spread of malaria to countries that have been declared malaria-free and also ensure that people, many of whom might be unaware that they are infected with the malaria parasite, receive antimalarial drug treatment for the disease.”

Dr. Lindsay and his colleagues’ research was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Dr. Lindsay reported no conflicts of interest.

snifferdog-170.jpg

NEW ORLEANS—Dogs can be trained to sniff out malaria in humans, according to research presented at the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Annual Meeting.

Researchers found that dogs could detect malaria by sniffing socks worn by children from a malaria-endemic area of West Africa.

“While our findings are at an early stage, in principle, we have shown that dogs could be trained to detect malaria-infected people by their odor with a credible degree of accuracy,” said study investigator Steve Lindsay, PhD, of Durham University in Durham City, U.K.

Dr. Lindsay presented these findings at the meeting as abstract 32.

The research began in The Gambia, where 600 school children were recruited to join the study. They were checked for overall general health, sampled for malaria parasites, and fitted with a pair of socks they were asked to wear overnight.

The next day, the socks were collected. The socks were sorted according to the malaria infection status of the children. The researchers only selected socks from uninfected children and children with malaria who did not have fever.

The socks were shipped to the United Kingdom, where they were stored in a freezer for several months while dogs were trained to sniff out malaria.

The dogs had to distinguish between socks from children with malaria parasites and socks from uninfected children. The animals were trained to sniff each sample, freeze if they thought they detected malaria, and move on if they did not.

In total, 175 sock samples were tested, including those from 30 malaria-positive children and those from 145 uninfected children.

The dogs correctly identified 70% of the infected children and 90% of the uninfected children.

Dr. Lindsay and his colleagues believe that, with more training and more samples, the dogs could provide a level of accuracy approaching that of a clinical test.

Now, the researchers are considering a follow-up study that would take samples from people in different parts of Africa to test whether parasites from one part of the continent present odors that are different from another part of the continent.

As for putting malaria-detecting dogs to work in the field, Dr. Lindsay said they could be helpful assistants in malaria elimination campaigns.

Currently, the only way to address the problem of asymptomatic malaria carriers is to test or treat an entire community. Dr. Lindsay said detection dogs could be useful for significantly narrowing the focus of clinical testing and treatment efforts.

Dr. Lindsay also believes detection dogs could be used at ports of entry into countries that have eliminated malaria or are close to elimination.

“This could provide a non-invasive way of screening for the disease at ports of entry in a similar way to how sniffer dogs are routinely used to detect fruit and vegetables or drugs at airports,” he said.

“This could help prevent the spread of malaria to countries that have been declared malaria-free and also ensure that people, many of whom might be unaware that they are infected with the malaria parasite, receive antimalarial drug treatment for the disease.”

Dr. Lindsay and his colleagues’ research was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Dr. Lindsay reported no conflicts of interest.

preparing_capsules_for_a_clinical_trial_credit_Esther_Dyson_230.jpg

Cancer treatments that prolong progression-free survival (PFS) may not improve health-related quality of life (HRQOL), researchers reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The researchers failed to find a significant association between PFS and HRQOL in an analysis of cancer clinical trials.

“There are only two reasons to use progression-free survival as a valid endpoint in oncology,” said study author Feng Xie, PhD, of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

“One is that it is a valid surrogate marker for overall survival. The second is the assumption that patients who live longer without disease progression will have better health-related quality of life, even without longer survival.”

“Given the increased use of progression-free survival as the primary outcome in new oncology drug trials, and uncertainty of overall survival, it remains possible that patients are receiving toxic and/or expensive treatments without experiencing important benefit.”

With this in mind, Dr. Xie and his colleagues conducted a review and meta-analysis of 52 articles reporting on 38 randomized clinical trials. The trials included 13,979 patients with 12 types of cancer, including 1 trial of patients with multiple myeloma.

The median follow-up in these trials ranged from 10.5 months to 66.0 months.

The median PFS of patients who received the trial interventions ranged from 1.8 months to 33.7 months.

For 28 of the trials (74%), patients who received the trial intervention had better PFS than patients who received the comparator. Overall, the mean difference in median PFS between the intervention and comparator arms was 1.91 months.

HRQOL was measured with 6 different instruments* across the trials, and the types of HRQOL measured varied. Thirty trials included global HRQOL, 20 included physical, and 13 included emotional HRQOL. The duration of reported or measured HRQOL ranged from 1 month to 34 months.

Improved global HRQOL was reported in 53% of trials (16/30), improved physical HRQOL was reported in 55% (11/20), and improved emotional HRQOL was reported in 62% (8/13). The mean difference in change of HRQOL adjusted to per-month values was −0.39 for global, 0.26 for physical, and 1.08 for emotional HRQOL.

The slope of the association between the difference in median PFS and the difference in HRQOL change was:

• 0.12 (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.27 to 0.52) for global HRQOL
• −0.20 (95% CI,−0.62 to 0.23) for physical HRQOL
• 0.78 (95% CI, −0.05 to 1.60) for emotional HRQOL.

Dr. Xie and his colleagues said these results suggest there is no significant association between PFS and HRQOL, so interventions prolonging PFS may not improve HRQOL.

“Therefore, to ensure patients are truly obtaining important benefit from cancer therapies, clinical trial investigators should measure health-related quality of life directly and accurately, ensuring adequate duration and follow-up, and publish it,” Dr. Xie said.

He also argued for the need to “revisit this issue of using surrogate outcomes to measure the safety and efficacy of new oncology drugs.”

Dr. Xie and his colleagues did not report any conflicts of interest. One study author (Marcin Waligora, PhD) reported funding from the National Science Centre in Poland.

*EORTC-QLQ-C30, FACT-G19, Lung Cancer Symptom Scale, EQ-5D, 8-item linear analog self-assessment (LASA) questionnaire, and clinician-reported Karnofsky score

preparing_capsules_for_a_clinical_trial_credit_Esther_Dyson_230.jpg

Cancer treatments that prolong progression-free survival (PFS) may not improve health-related quality of life (HRQOL), researchers reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The researchers failed to find a significant association between PFS and HRQOL in an analysis of cancer clinical trials.

“There are only two reasons to use progression-free survival as a valid endpoint in oncology,” said study author Feng Xie, PhD, of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

“One is that it is a valid surrogate marker for overall survival. The second is the assumption that patients who live longer without disease progression will have better health-related quality of life, even without longer survival.”

“Given the increased use of progression-free survival as the primary outcome in new oncology drug trials, and uncertainty of overall survival, it remains possible that patients are receiving toxic and/or expensive treatments without experiencing important benefit.”

With this in mind, Dr. Xie and his colleagues conducted a review and meta-analysis of 52 articles reporting on 38 randomized clinical trials. The trials included 13,979 patients with 12 types of cancer, including 1 trial of patients with multiple myeloma.

The median follow-up in these trials ranged from 10.5 months to 66.0 months.

The median PFS of patients who received the trial interventions ranged from 1.8 months to 33.7 months.

For 28 of the trials (74%), patients who received the trial intervention had better PFS than patients who received the comparator. Overall, the mean difference in median PFS between the intervention and comparator arms was 1.91 months.

HRQOL was measured with 6 different instruments* across the trials, and the types of HRQOL measured varied. Thirty trials included global HRQOL, 20 included physical, and 13 included emotional HRQOL. The duration of reported or measured HRQOL ranged from 1 month to 34 months.

Improved global HRQOL was reported in 53% of trials (16/30), improved physical HRQOL was reported in 55% (11/20), and improved emotional HRQOL was reported in 62% (8/13). The mean difference in change of HRQOL adjusted to per-month values was −0.39 for global, 0.26 for physical, and 1.08 for emotional HRQOL.

The slope of the association between the difference in median PFS and the difference in HRQOL change was:

• 0.12 (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.27 to 0.52) for global HRQOL
• −0.20 (95% CI,−0.62 to 0.23) for physical HRQOL
• 0.78 (95% CI, −0.05 to 1.60) for emotional HRQOL.

Dr. Xie and his colleagues said these results suggest there is no significant association between PFS and HRQOL, so interventions prolonging PFS may not improve HRQOL.

“Therefore, to ensure patients are truly obtaining important benefit from cancer therapies, clinical trial investigators should measure health-related quality of life directly and accurately, ensuring adequate duration and follow-up, and publish it,” Dr. Xie said.

He also argued for the need to “revisit this issue of using surrogate outcomes to measure the safety and efficacy of new oncology drugs.”

Dr. Xie and his colleagues did not report any conflicts of interest. One study author (Marcin Waligora, PhD) reported funding from the National Science Centre in Poland.

*EORTC-QLQ-C30, FACT-G19, Lung Cancer Symptom Scale, EQ-5D, 8-item linear analog self-assessment (LASA) questionnaire, and clinician-reported Karnofsky score

preparing_capsules_for_a_clinical_trial_credit_Esther_Dyson_230.jpg

Cancer treatments that prolong progression-free survival (PFS) may not improve health-related quality of life (HRQOL), researchers reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The researchers failed to find a significant association between PFS and HRQOL in an analysis of cancer clinical trials.

“There are only two reasons to use progression-free survival as a valid endpoint in oncology,” said study author Feng Xie, PhD, of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

“One is that it is a valid surrogate marker for overall survival. The second is the assumption that patients who live longer without disease progression will have better health-related quality of life, even without longer survival.”

“Given the increased use of progression-free survival as the primary outcome in new oncology drug trials, and uncertainty of overall survival, it remains possible that patients are receiving toxic and/or expensive treatments without experiencing important benefit.”

With this in mind, Dr. Xie and his colleagues conducted a review and meta-analysis of 52 articles reporting on 38 randomized clinical trials. The trials included 13,979 patients with 12 types of cancer, including 1 trial of patients with multiple myeloma.

The median follow-up in these trials ranged from 10.5 months to 66.0 months.

The median PFS of patients who received the trial interventions ranged from 1.8 months to 33.7 months.

For 28 of the trials (74%), patients who received the trial intervention had better PFS than patients who received the comparator. Overall, the mean difference in median PFS between the intervention and comparator arms was 1.91 months.

HRQOL was measured with 6 different instruments* across the trials, and the types of HRQOL measured varied. Thirty trials included global HRQOL, 20 included physical, and 13 included emotional HRQOL. The duration of reported or measured HRQOL ranged from 1 month to 34 months.

Improved global HRQOL was reported in 53% of trials (16/30), improved physical HRQOL was reported in 55% (11/20), and improved emotional HRQOL was reported in 62% (8/13). The mean difference in change of HRQOL adjusted to per-month values was −0.39 for global, 0.26 for physical, and 1.08 for emotional HRQOL.

The slope of the association between the difference in median PFS and the difference in HRQOL change was:

• 0.12 (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.27 to 0.52) for global HRQOL
• −0.20 (95% CI,−0.62 to 0.23) for physical HRQOL
• 0.78 (95% CI, −0.05 to 1.60) for emotional HRQOL.

Dr. Xie and his colleagues said these results suggest there is no significant association between PFS and HRQOL, so interventions prolonging PFS may not improve HRQOL.

“Therefore, to ensure patients are truly obtaining important benefit from cancer therapies, clinical trial investigators should measure health-related quality of life directly and accurately, ensuring adequate duration and follow-up, and publish it,” Dr. Xie said.

He also argued for the need to “revisit this issue of using surrogate outcomes to measure the safety and efficacy of new oncology drugs.”

Dr. Xie and his colleagues did not report any conflicts of interest. One study author (Marcin Waligora, PhD) reported funding from the National Science Centre in Poland.

*EORTC-QLQ-C30, FACT-G19, Lung Cancer Symptom Scale, EQ-5D, 8-item linear analog self-assessment (LASA) questionnaire, and clinician-reported Karnofsky score

fajgenbaum_david-penn-230.jpg

The anti-IL-6 antibody siltuximab is central to first-line treatment of idiopathic multicentric Castleman disease (iMCD), according to new guidelines on iMCD published in Blood.

The guidelines also say that early intervention with combination chemotherapy may prevent a fatal outcome in patients with severe iMCD.

To create these guidelines, 42 experts from 10 countries reviewed the published literature and a series of 344 clinical cases.

The guidelines should help clinicians select therapy, evaluate response, and thereby improve outcomes for this difficult-to-treat disease, according to author David C. Fajgenbaum, MD, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and an iMCD patient himself.

“Right now, we recommend siltuximab first-line for everyone,” Dr. Fajgenbaum said, “but if we continue to dig deeper, it may be that there are clinical cases within idiopathic MCD that we think are even better candidates than others, and there may be alternative therapies for other patients.”

Treating iMCD is challenging because of the rarity and heterogeneity of the disease, among other factors, Dr. Fajgenbaum noted.

Some 6,000 to 7,000 cases of Castleman disease are diagnosed yearly, and of those, only about 1,000 cases are iMCD, according to Dr. Fajgenbaum.

“Even within idiopathic MCD, there is some heterogeneity,” he said. “Some patients present in the intensive care unit with life-threatening multiple organ failure and will die within weeks of presentation, whereas others will have a slower presentation and certainly not nearly as aggressive presentation.”

Although the exact etiology of iMCD is unknown, human IL-6 is the most common pathological driver, the experts said in the guidelines.

Siltuximab and tocilizumab are two IL-6–directed therapies used to treat MCD, with siltuximab targeting IL-6 itself and tocilizumab targeting the IL-6 receptor. Siltuximab is recommended as the first choice because of rigorous data supporting its use, including randomized clinical trial data, while tocilizumab is recommended if siltuximab is not available.

However, clinicians need to carefully monitor laboratory results and clinical features for patients on these drugs because about 50% of iMCD patients don’t have a satisfactory response to first-line anti–IL-6 treatments, Dr. Fajgenbaum said.

“Once you get to second-line therapies, that’s really where the level of evidence is lower,” he said.

Second-line therapy should include rituximab, and immunomodulatory/immunosuppressive agents or steroids may be added, according to the guidelines.

Third-line therapy is “less well defined,” according to the guidelines, and experts generally recommended immunomodulatory/immunosuppressive agents such as cyclosporine A, sirolimus, thalidomide, and lenalidomide.

Cytotoxic chemotherapy has a high response rate but also a high rate of relapse and significant toxicities, according to the data analysis conducted as part of the guideline development process. Based on that, the experts said to avoid it unless the patient progresses to severe iMCD.

“Patients who are literally dying in the intensive care unit, given the right combination chemotherapy, can improve within days to weeks and can even leave the hospital,” Dr. Fajgenbaum said. “It’s not necessarily going to be the answer long-term, but it can be life-saving in the short term. So we recommended a really quite aggressive approach for these patients.”

To bolster the evidence base, investigators in the Castleman Disease Collaborative Network (CDCN) set up an international registry to collect treatment and outcome data for 500 patients. After the first year and a half, 150 patients were enrolled, and the investigators have identified more than 30 drugs that have been used off-label to treat iMCD, according to Dr. Fajgenbaum.

“Some of the drugs are demonstrating efficacy in small numbers,” he said. “With the goal of 500 patients total, we can certainly hope to see some trends.”

Dr. Fajgenbaum was diagnosed with iMCD as a medical student.

“That certainly served as a very strong personal motivator for me to get involved in the disease,” he said. “But as I’ve gotten more and more involved, I’ve obviously met a lot of other patients, and that really is a huge motivator for all members of the CDCN. We want more options for more patients more quickly so we can help as many people as possible.”

Dr. Fajgenbaum reported research funding from Janssen. Coauthors reported disclosures related to Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Merck, Celgene, Incyte, Pfizer, Sequenom, and Foundation Medicine, among others.

fajgenbaum_david-penn-230.jpg

The anti-IL-6 antibody siltuximab is central to first-line treatment of idiopathic multicentric Castleman disease (iMCD), according to new guidelines on iMCD published in Blood.

The guidelines also say that early intervention with combination chemotherapy may prevent a fatal outcome in patients with severe iMCD.

To create these guidelines, 42 experts from 10 countries reviewed the published literature and a series of 344 clinical cases.

The guidelines should help clinicians select therapy, evaluate response, and thereby improve outcomes for this difficult-to-treat disease, according to author David C. Fajgenbaum, MD, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and an iMCD patient himself.

“Right now, we recommend siltuximab first-line for everyone,” Dr. Fajgenbaum said, “but if we continue to dig deeper, it may be that there are clinical cases within idiopathic MCD that we think are even better candidates than others, and there may be alternative therapies for other patients.”

Treating iMCD is challenging because of the rarity and heterogeneity of the disease, among other factors, Dr. Fajgenbaum noted.

Some 6,000 to 7,000 cases of Castleman disease are diagnosed yearly, and of those, only about 1,000 cases are iMCD, according to Dr. Fajgenbaum.

“Even within idiopathic MCD, there is some heterogeneity,” he said. “Some patients present in the intensive care unit with life-threatening multiple organ failure and will die within weeks of presentation, whereas others will have a slower presentation and certainly not nearly as aggressive presentation.”

Although the exact etiology of iMCD is unknown, human IL-6 is the most common pathological driver, the experts said in the guidelines.

Siltuximab and tocilizumab are two IL-6–directed therapies used to treat MCD, with siltuximab targeting IL-6 itself and tocilizumab targeting the IL-6 receptor. Siltuximab is recommended as the first choice because of rigorous data supporting its use, including randomized clinical trial data, while tocilizumab is recommended if siltuximab is not available.

However, clinicians need to carefully monitor laboratory results and clinical features for patients on these drugs because about 50% of iMCD patients don’t have a satisfactory response to first-line anti–IL-6 treatments, Dr. Fajgenbaum said.

“Once you get to second-line therapies, that’s really where the level of evidence is lower,” he said.

Second-line therapy should include rituximab, and immunomodulatory/immunosuppressive agents or steroids may be added, according to the guidelines.

Third-line therapy is “less well defined,” according to the guidelines, and experts generally recommended immunomodulatory/immunosuppressive agents such as cyclosporine A, sirolimus, thalidomide, and lenalidomide.

Cytotoxic chemotherapy has a high response rate but also a high rate of relapse and significant toxicities, according to the data analysis conducted as part of the guideline development process. Based on that, the experts said to avoid it unless the patient progresses to severe iMCD.

“Patients who are literally dying in the intensive care unit, given the right combination chemotherapy, can improve within days to weeks and can even leave the hospital,” Dr. Fajgenbaum said. “It’s not necessarily going to be the answer long-term, but it can be life-saving in the short term. So we recommended a really quite aggressive approach for these patients.”

To bolster the evidence base, investigators in the Castleman Disease Collaborative Network (CDCN) set up an international registry to collect treatment and outcome data for 500 patients. After the first year and a half, 150 patients were enrolled, and the investigators have identified more than 30 drugs that have been used off-label to treat iMCD, according to Dr. Fajgenbaum.

“Some of the drugs are demonstrating efficacy in small numbers,” he said. “With the goal of 500 patients total, we can certainly hope to see some trends.”

Dr. Fajgenbaum was diagnosed with iMCD as a medical student.

“That certainly served as a very strong personal motivator for me to get involved in the disease,” he said. “But as I’ve gotten more and more involved, I’ve obviously met a lot of other patients, and that really is a huge motivator for all members of the CDCN. We want more options for more patients more quickly so we can help as many people as possible.”

Dr. Fajgenbaum reported research funding from Janssen. Coauthors reported disclosures related to Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Merck, Celgene, Incyte, Pfizer, Sequenom, and Foundation Medicine, among others.

fajgenbaum_david-penn-230.jpg

The anti-IL-6 antibody siltuximab is central to first-line treatment of idiopathic multicentric Castleman disease (iMCD), according to new guidelines on iMCD published in Blood.

The guidelines also say that early intervention with combination chemotherapy may prevent a fatal outcome in patients with severe iMCD.

To create these guidelines, 42 experts from 10 countries reviewed the published literature and a series of 344 clinical cases.

The guidelines should help clinicians select therapy, evaluate response, and thereby improve outcomes for this difficult-to-treat disease, according to author David C. Fajgenbaum, MD, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and an iMCD patient himself.

“Right now, we recommend siltuximab first-line for everyone,” Dr. Fajgenbaum said, “but if we continue to dig deeper, it may be that there are clinical cases within idiopathic MCD that we think are even better candidates than others, and there may be alternative therapies for other patients.”

Treating iMCD is challenging because of the rarity and heterogeneity of the disease, among other factors, Dr. Fajgenbaum noted.

Some 6,000 to 7,000 cases of Castleman disease are diagnosed yearly, and of those, only about 1,000 cases are iMCD, according to Dr. Fajgenbaum.

“Even within idiopathic MCD, there is some heterogeneity,” he said. “Some patients present in the intensive care unit with life-threatening multiple organ failure and will die within weeks of presentation, whereas others will have a slower presentation and certainly not nearly as aggressive presentation.”

Although the exact etiology of iMCD is unknown, human IL-6 is the most common pathological driver, the experts said in the guidelines.

Siltuximab and tocilizumab are two IL-6–directed therapies used to treat MCD, with siltuximab targeting IL-6 itself and tocilizumab targeting the IL-6 receptor. Siltuximab is recommended as the first choice because of rigorous data supporting its use, including randomized clinical trial data, while tocilizumab is recommended if siltuximab is not available.

However, clinicians need to carefully monitor laboratory results and clinical features for patients on these drugs because about 50% of iMCD patients don’t have a satisfactory response to first-line anti–IL-6 treatments, Dr. Fajgenbaum said.

“Once you get to second-line therapies, that’s really where the level of evidence is lower,” he said.

Second-line therapy should include rituximab, and immunomodulatory/immunosuppressive agents or steroids may be added, according to the guidelines.

Third-line therapy is “less well defined,” according to the guidelines, and experts generally recommended immunomodulatory/immunosuppressive agents such as cyclosporine A, sirolimus, thalidomide, and lenalidomide.

Cytotoxic chemotherapy has a high response rate but also a high rate of relapse and significant toxicities, according to the data analysis conducted as part of the guideline development process. Based on that, the experts said to avoid it unless the patient progresses to severe iMCD.

“Patients who are literally dying in the intensive care unit, given the right combination chemotherapy, can improve within days to weeks and can even leave the hospital,” Dr. Fajgenbaum said. “It’s not necessarily going to be the answer long-term, but it can be life-saving in the short term. So we recommended a really quite aggressive approach for these patients.”

To bolster the evidence base, investigators in the Castleman Disease Collaborative Network (CDCN) set up an international registry to collect treatment and outcome data for 500 patients. After the first year and a half, 150 patients were enrolled, and the investigators have identified more than 30 drugs that have been used off-label to treat iMCD, according to Dr. Fajgenbaum.

“Some of the drugs are demonstrating efficacy in small numbers,” he said. “With the goal of 500 patients total, we can certainly hope to see some trends.”

Dr. Fajgenbaum was diagnosed with iMCD as a medical student.

“That certainly served as a very strong personal motivator for me to get involved in the disease,” he said. “But as I’ve gotten more and more involved, I’ve obviously met a lot of other patients, and that really is a huge motivator for all members of the CDCN. We want more options for more patients more quickly so we can help as many people as possible.”

Dr. Fajgenbaum reported research funding from Janssen. Coauthors reported disclosures related to Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Merck, Celgene, Incyte, Pfizer, Sequenom, and Foundation Medicine, among others.

Allison_Honji_Nobel-2018.jpg

Two immunologists have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discoveries that represent a “paradigmatic shift in the fight against cancer,” the Nobel committee said.

James P. Allison, PhD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, and Tasuku Honjo, MD, PhD, of Kyoto University, shared the prize for their discovery of cancer therapies that work by inhibiting negative immune regulation.

Dr. Allison studied the protein CTLA-4 found on T cells, which acts as a T-cell brake, and Dr. Honjo discovered a protein on immune cells called PD-1 that also acts as a T-cell brake.

In addition to sharing the honor, the scientists will split the 9 million Swedish kronor ($1.01 million) that comes with the prize.

Drs. Allison and Honjo, working in parallel, pursued different strategies for inhibiting the brakes on the immune system. Both strategies produced effective checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of cancer.

James P. Allison

Dr. Allison was one of several scientists during the 1990s who noticed that CTLA-4 functions as a brake on T cells. Unlike other scientists, however, he set out to investigate whether blocking CTLA-4 with an antibody he had already developed could release the brake on the immune system.

The antibody had “spectacular” effects in curing mice with cancer. Despite little interest from the pharmaceutical industry, Dr. Allison continued efforts to develop the antibody therapy for humans.

The antibody turned out to be ipilimumab, which was approved in 2011 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of advanced melanoma.

Tasuko Honjo

A few years prior to Dr. Allison’s finding, Dr. Honjo discovered PD-1 and set out to determine its function. PD-1 also operates as a T-cell brake, but it uses a different mechanism than does CTLA-4.

Dr. Honjo and others demonstrated in animal experiments that PD-1 blockade could be an effective anticancer therapy. Over the years he demonstrated the efficacy of targeting PD-1 in different types of human cancers.

The first two PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors—pembrolizumab and nivolumab—were approved by the FDA in 2014 for the treatment of melanoma.

Nivolumab is also approved to treat classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer, squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, colorectal cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, and microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer.

Pembrolizumab is also approved to treat primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, advanced NSCLC, classical HL, advanced gastric cancer, advanced cervical cancer, head and neck squamous cell cancer, advanced urothelial bladder cancer, and microsatellite instability-high cancer.

And targeting both CTLA-4 and PD-1 in combination therapy together may prove to be even more effective in eliminating cancer cells than either strategy alone, as is being demonstrated in patients with melanoma.

The Nobel organization wrote in a press release, “Checkpoint therapy has now revolutionized cancer treatment and has fundamentally changed the way we view how cancer can be managed.” 

Allison_Honji_Nobel-2018.jpg

Two immunologists have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discoveries that represent a “paradigmatic shift in the fight against cancer,” the Nobel committee said.

James P. Allison, PhD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, and Tasuku Honjo, MD, PhD, of Kyoto University, shared the prize for their discovery of cancer therapies that work by inhibiting negative immune regulation.

Dr. Allison studied the protein CTLA-4 found on T cells, which acts as a T-cell brake, and Dr. Honjo discovered a protein on immune cells called PD-1 that also acts as a T-cell brake.

In addition to sharing the honor, the scientists will split the 9 million Swedish kronor ($1.01 million) that comes with the prize.

Drs. Allison and Honjo, working in parallel, pursued different strategies for inhibiting the brakes on the immune system. Both strategies produced effective checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of cancer.

James P. Allison

Dr. Allison was one of several scientists during the 1990s who noticed that CTLA-4 functions as a brake on T cells. Unlike other scientists, however, he set out to investigate whether blocking CTLA-4 with an antibody he had already developed could release the brake on the immune system.

The antibody had “spectacular” effects in curing mice with cancer. Despite little interest from the pharmaceutical industry, Dr. Allison continued efforts to develop the antibody therapy for humans.

The antibody turned out to be ipilimumab, which was approved in 2011 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of advanced melanoma.

Tasuko Honjo

A few years prior to Dr. Allison’s finding, Dr. Honjo discovered PD-1 and set out to determine its function. PD-1 also operates as a T-cell brake, but it uses a different mechanism than does CTLA-4.

Dr. Honjo and others demonstrated in animal experiments that PD-1 blockade could be an effective anticancer therapy. Over the years he demonstrated the efficacy of targeting PD-1 in different types of human cancers.

The first two PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors—pembrolizumab and nivolumab—were approved by the FDA in 2014 for the treatment of melanoma.

Nivolumab is also approved to treat classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer, squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, colorectal cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, and microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer.

Pembrolizumab is also approved to treat primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, advanced NSCLC, classical HL, advanced gastric cancer, advanced cervical cancer, head and neck squamous cell cancer, advanced urothelial bladder cancer, and microsatellite instability-high cancer.

And targeting both CTLA-4 and PD-1 in combination therapy together may prove to be even more effective in eliminating cancer cells than either strategy alone, as is being demonstrated in patients with melanoma.

The Nobel organization wrote in a press release, “Checkpoint therapy has now revolutionized cancer treatment and has fundamentally changed the way we view how cancer can be managed.” 

Allison_Honji_Nobel-2018.jpg

Two immunologists have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discoveries that represent a “paradigmatic shift in the fight against cancer,” the Nobel committee said.

James P. Allison, PhD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, and Tasuku Honjo, MD, PhD, of Kyoto University, shared the prize for their discovery of cancer therapies that work by inhibiting negative immune regulation.

Dr. Allison studied the protein CTLA-4 found on T cells, which acts as a T-cell brake, and Dr. Honjo discovered a protein on immune cells called PD-1 that also acts as a T-cell brake.

In addition to sharing the honor, the scientists will split the 9 million Swedish kronor ($1.01 million) that comes with the prize.

Drs. Allison and Honjo, working in parallel, pursued different strategies for inhibiting the brakes on the immune system. Both strategies produced effective checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of cancer.

James P. Allison

Dr. Allison was one of several scientists during the 1990s who noticed that CTLA-4 functions as a brake on T cells. Unlike other scientists, however, he set out to investigate whether blocking CTLA-4 with an antibody he had already developed could release the brake on the immune system.

The antibody had “spectacular” effects in curing mice with cancer. Despite little interest from the pharmaceutical industry, Dr. Allison continued efforts to develop the antibody therapy for humans.

The antibody turned out to be ipilimumab, which was approved in 2011 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of advanced melanoma.

Tasuko Honjo

A few years prior to Dr. Allison’s finding, Dr. Honjo discovered PD-1 and set out to determine its function. PD-1 also operates as a T-cell brake, but it uses a different mechanism than does CTLA-4.

Dr. Honjo and others demonstrated in animal experiments that PD-1 blockade could be an effective anticancer therapy. Over the years he demonstrated the efficacy of targeting PD-1 in different types of human cancers.

The first two PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors—pembrolizumab and nivolumab—were approved by the FDA in 2014 for the treatment of melanoma.

Nivolumab is also approved to treat classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer, squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, colorectal cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, and microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer.

Pembrolizumab is also approved to treat primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, advanced NSCLC, classical HL, advanced gastric cancer, advanced cervical cancer, head and neck squamous cell cancer, advanced urothelial bladder cancer, and microsatellite instability-high cancer.

And targeting both CTLA-4 and PD-1 in combination therapy together may prove to be even more effective in eliminating cancer cells than either strategy alone, as is being demonstrated in patients with melanoma.

The Nobel organization wrote in a press release, “Checkpoint therapy has now revolutionized cancer treatment and has fundamentally changed the way we view how cancer can be managed.” 

scientist_using_a_computer_Credit_Darren_Baker_230.jpg

Sponsors of clinical trials often do not comply with European Union (EU) rules on reporting results, according to a new study.

Researchers looked at more than 7,000 trials for which results were supposed to be reported on the EU Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR).

Only about half of these trials actually had results on the EUCTR within 12 months of trial completion, as is required by the European Commission.

Ben Goldacre, MBBS, of the University of Oxford in the U.K., and his colleagues reported these findings in The BMJ.

The researchers assessed compliance with EU rules, explored factors associated with non-compliance, and ranked sponsors by compliance. The team also created a website for live, ongoing audit of compliance.

The researchers assessed 7,274 completed clinical trials for which results were due and found that 49.5% had results reported on the EUCTR.

Trials with commercial sponsors were more likely to have posted results than trials with non-commercial sponsors—68.1% and 11.0%, respectively (adjusted odds ratio, 23.25; P<0.001).

In addition, sponsors with a large number of trials were more likely to report results than sponsors without a large number of trials—78% and 18%, respectively (adjusted odds ratio, 18.38; P<0.001).

The researchers also said they found evidence of errors, omissions, and contradictory data on the EUCTR. For example, 29.4% of trials marked as “completed” gave no completion date, which prevents ascertainment of compliance with reporting requirements.

Finally, the researchers described the development of the EU TrialsTracker website. This site gives detailed information on the trial reporting performance of every individual drug company, university, and hospital conducting clinical trials in Europe.

The site shows which sponsors are the best or worst at complying with the law, and it gives detailed information on the individual trials for which results have not been reported on the register. The information on the site is updated every month.

scientist_using_a_computer_Credit_Darren_Baker_230.jpg

Sponsors of clinical trials often do not comply with European Union (EU) rules on reporting results, according to a new study.

Researchers looked at more than 7,000 trials for which results were supposed to be reported on the EU Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR).

Only about half of these trials actually had results on the EUCTR within 12 months of trial completion, as is required by the European Commission.

Ben Goldacre, MBBS, of the University of Oxford in the U.K., and his colleagues reported these findings in The BMJ.

The researchers assessed compliance with EU rules, explored factors associated with non-compliance, and ranked sponsors by compliance. The team also created a website for live, ongoing audit of compliance.

The researchers assessed 7,274 completed clinical trials for which results were due and found that 49.5% had results reported on the EUCTR.

Trials with commercial sponsors were more likely to have posted results than trials with non-commercial sponsors—68.1% and 11.0%, respectively (adjusted odds ratio, 23.25; P<0.001).

In addition, sponsors with a large number of trials were more likely to report results than sponsors without a large number of trials—78% and 18%, respectively (adjusted odds ratio, 18.38; P<0.001).

The researchers also said they found evidence of errors, omissions, and contradictory data on the EUCTR. For example, 29.4% of trials marked as “completed” gave no completion date, which prevents ascertainment of compliance with reporting requirements.

Finally, the researchers described the development of the EU TrialsTracker website. This site gives detailed information on the trial reporting performance of every individual drug company, university, and hospital conducting clinical trials in Europe.

The site shows which sponsors are the best or worst at complying with the law, and it gives detailed information on the individual trials for which results have not been reported on the register. The information on the site is updated every month.

scientist_using_a_computer_Credit_Darren_Baker_230.jpg

Sponsors of clinical trials often do not comply with European Union (EU) rules on reporting results, according to a new study.

Researchers looked at more than 7,000 trials for which results were supposed to be reported on the EU Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR).

Only about half of these trials actually had results on the EUCTR within 12 months of trial completion, as is required by the European Commission.

Ben Goldacre, MBBS, of the University of Oxford in the U.K., and his colleagues reported these findings in The BMJ.

The researchers assessed compliance with EU rules, explored factors associated with non-compliance, and ranked sponsors by compliance. The team also created a website for live, ongoing audit of compliance.

The researchers assessed 7,274 completed clinical trials for which results were due and found that 49.5% had results reported on the EUCTR.

Trials with commercial sponsors were more likely to have posted results than trials with non-commercial sponsors—68.1% and 11.0%, respectively (adjusted odds ratio, 23.25; P<0.001).

In addition, sponsors with a large number of trials were more likely to report results than sponsors without a large number of trials—78% and 18%, respectively (adjusted odds ratio, 18.38; P<0.001).

The researchers also said they found evidence of errors, omissions, and contradictory data on the EUCTR. For example, 29.4% of trials marked as “completed” gave no completion date, which prevents ascertainment of compliance with reporting requirements.

Finally, the researchers described the development of the EU TrialsTracker website. This site gives detailed information on the trial reporting performance of every individual drug company, university, and hospital conducting clinical trials in Europe.

The site shows which sponsors are the best or worst at complying with the law, and it gives detailed information on the individual trials for which results have not been reported on the register. The information on the site is updated every month.