Katie Robinson

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer patients with advanced disease may be contradictory and cause more harm than good, according to a new study in JAMA Oncology.

The study, by Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, is an analysis of patient data from 280 U.S.-based community oncology practices. It included 34,131 patients who received first-line systemic therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), or other treatment, between January 2014 and December 2019 for newly diagnosed metastatic or recurrent non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), urothelial cell cancer (UCC), renal cell cancer (RCC), or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Researchers examined survival outcomes between patients who were eligible to participate in clinical trials with those who were deemed ineligible but may have still received ICIs.

For patients with poor performance status or organ dysfunction, participating in randomized clinical trials for immune checkpoint inhibitors is largely out of reach because of advanced disease, but it is not unusual for these patients to be accepted into clinical trials, a decision sometimes referred to as “desperation oncology,” the authors wrote.

In this study of 34,131 patients, 9,318 were considered ineligible to participate in ICI clinical trials because of advanced disease or organ dysfunction, yet up to 30% of these patients were treated with ICIs by their physician outside of a clinical trial. Dr. Parikh and colleagues found no overall survival differences between patients deemed ineligible for clinical trials, but were ultimately treated with ICI monotherapy, ICI combination therapy, or other treatments at 12 and 36 months. In fact, ICI monotherapy appeared to be harmful within 6 months of starting treatment.

“Clinicians who care for patients with poor performance status or organ dysfunction should be cautious about ICI use and carefully weigh expected survival gains against the potential for early mortality and adverse effects,” the authors wrote. They found the efficacy of ICI treatment alone, or in combination with other treatment, can be worse among trial-ineligible patients than patients who met the criteria for clinical trials.

No survival benefit was found for trial-ineligible patients who were treated with ICI monotherapy or combination therapy. Overall survival rates were similar at 12 and 36 months for both treatment groups. The overall median survival was less than 10 months, but 40% of trial ineligible patients treated with ICIs died within 6 months.

The use of ICIs for patients with poor performance status was found to be associated with lower hospice enrollment, more inpatient deaths, and more treatment during the last month of life. “It is critical to ensure that vulnerable, trial-ineligible patients are not exposed to non–evidence-based therapies that could cause harm and contradict patient goals,” the authors wrote.
 

The harms of treating unfit patients

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy in trial-ineligible patients is concerning, the authors said, because for patients with UCC and NSCLC, the standard of care is platinum-based chemotherapy. For patients with HCC and RCC, the standard of care is oral anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors may be prescribed in these cases to avoid side effects associated with other therapies, despite the lack of evidence showing that ICIs are effective in these cases.

“Individuals with poor performance status and/or organ dysfunction are vulnerable to receiving treatments that may not benefit them or cause disproportionately high side effects,” Dr. Parikh said in an interview. “Immunotherapy causes fewer side effects overall and is an attractive option, but there is no good phase 3 evidence that immunotherapy has benefits in this population.

“Physicians are preferentially using immunotherapy for unfit patients despite the fact that these individuals are usually excluded from clinical trials. Trial-ineligible patients – despite making up 30% of the cancer population – are different from patients studied in clinical trials. They are generally sicker, older and more prone to treatment adverse effects (including death), However, excluding these groups means that we don’t have good data on what treatments could benefit this vulnerable group. Thus, we are usually left to extrapolating results from healthier patients to unhealthy patients which risks giving them the wrong treatment,” he said.

A review that looked at immunotherapy in older adults suggested that, while those aged 65 or older represent most cancer patients, they are under-represented in clinical trials, including studies that led to approval of immunotherapy agents. A 2019 report suggested that, while 11 pivotal phase 3, randomized clinical trials have estimated the activity of ICIs in locally advanced and advanced NSCLC, each trial excluded patients with poor performance status.
 

Phase 3 trials needed for patients with poor performance

This retrospective study included 34,131 patients (median age, 70 years; 42% women) of which 27.3% had poor performance status and/or organ dysfunction and were classed as trial ineligible. The researchers assessed the use and overall survival outcomes following first-line ICI and non-ICI therapy that was initiated from January 2014 through December 2019.

Over the course of the study, the proportion of patients receiving ICI monotherapy increased from 0%-30.2% among trial-ineligible patients and from 0.1%-19.4% among eligible patients. However, among trial-ineligible patients, there were no overall survival differences between treatment with ICI monotherapy, ICI combination therapy and non-ICI therapy at 12 and 36 months.

Among trial-ineligible patients, ICI use was linked to a 14%-19% greater risk of death during the first 6 months after ICI initiation, but a 20% lower risk of death among those who survived 6 months after ICI initiation. Further, ICI combination therapy was associated with potential early harm among trial-ineligible patients.

“Phase 3 trials are sorely needed in patients with poor performance status or organ dysfunction so that we can adequately counsel patients who are unfit about expectations with novel cancer therapies,” Dr. Parikh said.

The cohort only included patients who received systemic therapy, which is a limitation of the study, so conclusions cannot be made about the efficacy of systemic therapy versus no systemic therapy in trial-ineligible patients.

Dr. Parikh reported nonfinancial support from Flatiron Health, grants from Humana, personal fees and equity from GNS Healthcare and Onc.AI, along with personal fees from the Cancer Study Group and Nanology outside the submitted work.

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer patients with advanced disease may be contradictory and cause more harm than good, according to a new study in JAMA Oncology.

The study, by Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, is an analysis of patient data from 280 U.S.-based community oncology practices. It included 34,131 patients who received first-line systemic therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), or other treatment, between January 2014 and December 2019 for newly diagnosed metastatic or recurrent non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), urothelial cell cancer (UCC), renal cell cancer (RCC), or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Researchers examined survival outcomes between patients who were eligible to participate in clinical trials with those who were deemed ineligible but may have still received ICIs.

For patients with poor performance status or organ dysfunction, participating in randomized clinical trials for immune checkpoint inhibitors is largely out of reach because of advanced disease, but it is not unusual for these patients to be accepted into clinical trials, a decision sometimes referred to as “desperation oncology,” the authors wrote.

In this study of 34,131 patients, 9,318 were considered ineligible to participate in ICI clinical trials because of advanced disease or organ dysfunction, yet up to 30% of these patients were treated with ICIs by their physician outside of a clinical trial. Dr. Parikh and colleagues found no overall survival differences between patients deemed ineligible for clinical trials, but were ultimately treated with ICI monotherapy, ICI combination therapy, or other treatments at 12 and 36 months. In fact, ICI monotherapy appeared to be harmful within 6 months of starting treatment.

“Clinicians who care for patients with poor performance status or organ dysfunction should be cautious about ICI use and carefully weigh expected survival gains against the potential for early mortality and adverse effects,” the authors wrote. They found the efficacy of ICI treatment alone, or in combination with other treatment, can be worse among trial-ineligible patients than patients who met the criteria for clinical trials.

No survival benefit was found for trial-ineligible patients who were treated with ICI monotherapy or combination therapy. Overall survival rates were similar at 12 and 36 months for both treatment groups. The overall median survival was less than 10 months, but 40% of trial ineligible patients treated with ICIs died within 6 months.

The use of ICIs for patients with poor performance status was found to be associated with lower hospice enrollment, more inpatient deaths, and more treatment during the last month of life. “It is critical to ensure that vulnerable, trial-ineligible patients are not exposed to non–evidence-based therapies that could cause harm and contradict patient goals,” the authors wrote.
 

The harms of treating unfit patients

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy in trial-ineligible patients is concerning, the authors said, because for patients with UCC and NSCLC, the standard of care is platinum-based chemotherapy. For patients with HCC and RCC, the standard of care is oral anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors may be prescribed in these cases to avoid side effects associated with other therapies, despite the lack of evidence showing that ICIs are effective in these cases.

“Individuals with poor performance status and/or organ dysfunction are vulnerable to receiving treatments that may not benefit them or cause disproportionately high side effects,” Dr. Parikh said in an interview. “Immunotherapy causes fewer side effects overall and is an attractive option, but there is no good phase 3 evidence that immunotherapy has benefits in this population.

“Physicians are preferentially using immunotherapy for unfit patients despite the fact that these individuals are usually excluded from clinical trials. Trial-ineligible patients – despite making up 30% of the cancer population – are different from patients studied in clinical trials. They are generally sicker, older and more prone to treatment adverse effects (including death), However, excluding these groups means that we don’t have good data on what treatments could benefit this vulnerable group. Thus, we are usually left to extrapolating results from healthier patients to unhealthy patients which risks giving them the wrong treatment,” he said.

A review that looked at immunotherapy in older adults suggested that, while those aged 65 or older represent most cancer patients, they are under-represented in clinical trials, including studies that led to approval of immunotherapy agents. A 2019 report suggested that, while 11 pivotal phase 3, randomized clinical trials have estimated the activity of ICIs in locally advanced and advanced NSCLC, each trial excluded patients with poor performance status.
 

Phase 3 trials needed for patients with poor performance

This retrospective study included 34,131 patients (median age, 70 years; 42% women) of which 27.3% had poor performance status and/or organ dysfunction and were classed as trial ineligible. The researchers assessed the use and overall survival outcomes following first-line ICI and non-ICI therapy that was initiated from January 2014 through December 2019.

Over the course of the study, the proportion of patients receiving ICI monotherapy increased from 0%-30.2% among trial-ineligible patients and from 0.1%-19.4% among eligible patients. However, among trial-ineligible patients, there were no overall survival differences between treatment with ICI monotherapy, ICI combination therapy and non-ICI therapy at 12 and 36 months.

Among trial-ineligible patients, ICI use was linked to a 14%-19% greater risk of death during the first 6 months after ICI initiation, but a 20% lower risk of death among those who survived 6 months after ICI initiation. Further, ICI combination therapy was associated with potential early harm among trial-ineligible patients.

“Phase 3 trials are sorely needed in patients with poor performance status or organ dysfunction so that we can adequately counsel patients who are unfit about expectations with novel cancer therapies,” Dr. Parikh said.

The cohort only included patients who received systemic therapy, which is a limitation of the study, so conclusions cannot be made about the efficacy of systemic therapy versus no systemic therapy in trial-ineligible patients.

Dr. Parikh reported nonfinancial support from Flatiron Health, grants from Humana, personal fees and equity from GNS Healthcare and Onc.AI, along with personal fees from the Cancer Study Group and Nanology outside the submitted work.

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer patients with advanced disease may be contradictory and cause more harm than good, according to a new study in JAMA Oncology.

The study, by Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, is an analysis of patient data from 280 U.S.-based community oncology practices. It included 34,131 patients who received first-line systemic therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), or other treatment, between January 2014 and December 2019 for newly diagnosed metastatic or recurrent non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), urothelial cell cancer (UCC), renal cell cancer (RCC), or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Researchers examined survival outcomes between patients who were eligible to participate in clinical trials with those who were deemed ineligible but may have still received ICIs.

For patients with poor performance status or organ dysfunction, participating in randomized clinical trials for immune checkpoint inhibitors is largely out of reach because of advanced disease, but it is not unusual for these patients to be accepted into clinical trials, a decision sometimes referred to as “desperation oncology,” the authors wrote.

In this study of 34,131 patients, 9,318 were considered ineligible to participate in ICI clinical trials because of advanced disease or organ dysfunction, yet up to 30% of these patients were treated with ICIs by their physician outside of a clinical trial. Dr. Parikh and colleagues found no overall survival differences between patients deemed ineligible for clinical trials, but were ultimately treated with ICI monotherapy, ICI combination therapy, or other treatments at 12 and 36 months. In fact, ICI monotherapy appeared to be harmful within 6 months of starting treatment.

“Clinicians who care for patients with poor performance status or organ dysfunction should be cautious about ICI use and carefully weigh expected survival gains against the potential for early mortality and adverse effects,” the authors wrote. They found the efficacy of ICI treatment alone, or in combination with other treatment, can be worse among trial-ineligible patients than patients who met the criteria for clinical trials.

No survival benefit was found for trial-ineligible patients who were treated with ICI monotherapy or combination therapy. Overall survival rates were similar at 12 and 36 months for both treatment groups. The overall median survival was less than 10 months, but 40% of trial ineligible patients treated with ICIs died within 6 months.

The use of ICIs for patients with poor performance status was found to be associated with lower hospice enrollment, more inpatient deaths, and more treatment during the last month of life. “It is critical to ensure that vulnerable, trial-ineligible patients are not exposed to non–evidence-based therapies that could cause harm and contradict patient goals,” the authors wrote.
 

The harms of treating unfit patients

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy in trial-ineligible patients is concerning, the authors said, because for patients with UCC and NSCLC, the standard of care is platinum-based chemotherapy. For patients with HCC and RCC, the standard of care is oral anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors may be prescribed in these cases to avoid side effects associated with other therapies, despite the lack of evidence showing that ICIs are effective in these cases.

“Individuals with poor performance status and/or organ dysfunction are vulnerable to receiving treatments that may not benefit them or cause disproportionately high side effects,” Dr. Parikh said in an interview. “Immunotherapy causes fewer side effects overall and is an attractive option, but there is no good phase 3 evidence that immunotherapy has benefits in this population.

“Physicians are preferentially using immunotherapy for unfit patients despite the fact that these individuals are usually excluded from clinical trials. Trial-ineligible patients – despite making up 30% of the cancer population – are different from patients studied in clinical trials. They are generally sicker, older and more prone to treatment adverse effects (including death), However, excluding these groups means that we don’t have good data on what treatments could benefit this vulnerable group. Thus, we are usually left to extrapolating results from healthier patients to unhealthy patients which risks giving them the wrong treatment,” he said.

A review that looked at immunotherapy in older adults suggested that, while those aged 65 or older represent most cancer patients, they are under-represented in clinical trials, including studies that led to approval of immunotherapy agents. A 2019 report suggested that, while 11 pivotal phase 3, randomized clinical trials have estimated the activity of ICIs in locally advanced and advanced NSCLC, each trial excluded patients with poor performance status.
 

Phase 3 trials needed for patients with poor performance

This retrospective study included 34,131 patients (median age, 70 years; 42% women) of which 27.3% had poor performance status and/or organ dysfunction and were classed as trial ineligible. The researchers assessed the use and overall survival outcomes following first-line ICI and non-ICI therapy that was initiated from January 2014 through December 2019.

Over the course of the study, the proportion of patients receiving ICI monotherapy increased from 0%-30.2% among trial-ineligible patients and from 0.1%-19.4% among eligible patients. However, among trial-ineligible patients, there were no overall survival differences between treatment with ICI monotherapy, ICI combination therapy and non-ICI therapy at 12 and 36 months.

Among trial-ineligible patients, ICI use was linked to a 14%-19% greater risk of death during the first 6 months after ICI initiation, but a 20% lower risk of death among those who survived 6 months after ICI initiation. Further, ICI combination therapy was associated with potential early harm among trial-ineligible patients.

“Phase 3 trials are sorely needed in patients with poor performance status or organ dysfunction so that we can adequately counsel patients who are unfit about expectations with novel cancer therapies,” Dr. Parikh said.

The cohort only included patients who received systemic therapy, which is a limitation of the study, so conclusions cannot be made about the efficacy of systemic therapy versus no systemic therapy in trial-ineligible patients.

Dr. Parikh reported nonfinancial support from Flatiron Health, grants from Humana, personal fees and equity from GNS Healthcare and Onc.AI, along with personal fees from the Cancer Study Group and Nanology outside the submitted work.

A head-to-head comparison of immune checkpoint inhibitors atezolizumab and nivolumab and the chemotherapy drug docetaxel in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), finds that atezolizumab was associated with a significantly longer overall survival than docetaxel and was on par with nivolumab.

The findings were reported in JAMA Network Open.

“Until recently, chemotherapy with platinum doublet was the standard first-line option for most patients with advanced NSCLC who did not have these genetic drivers or were not tested for them and remains the first choice in many parts of the world,” wrote the authors of the study which was led by Sreeram Ramagopalan, PhD, of F. Hoffmann-La Roche in Switzerland which funded the study.

Atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech), which was approved in October by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is a monoclonal antibody that targets programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1). It is also approved as monotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC whose disease progressed despite treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy.

This is the first-known analysis that compares atezolizumab, nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb), and docetaxel (Taxotere, Sanofi) in patients outside of clinical trials, said Vivek Subbiah, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center and the study’s first author. “We have several new immune checkpoint inhibitors approved for treatment for NSCLC. Head-to-head comparison of the effectiveness of these agents in the real world are lacking,” he said.

Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown improvement in the survival of patients with advanced NSCLC who failed chemotherapy treatment.

This study included 3,336 patients (mean age 67 years, 54.6% men) with advanced NSCLC who were treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Data were collected from more than 1,000 clinics in the United States. Of the patients, 206 received atezolizumab, 500 received docetaxel, and 2,630 received nivolumab.

Patients were followed between May 2011 and March 2020. Atezolizumab and nivolumab showed a similar overall survival in these patients, but atezolizumab showed a longer overall survival, compared with docetaxel.

“Compared with docetaxel, atezolizumab was associated with significantly longer survival in the overall population and across all subgroups analyzed,” including patients with stage IIIB or IV cancer at diagnosis and nonsquamous NSCLC, the authors wrote. “Atezolizumab was associated with longer overall survival compared with docetaxel and was on par with nivolumab, supporting current clinical guidelines for systemic therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC in the U.S.”

Limitations of the study included its observational design and a small number of patients receiving atezolizumab. The authors suggested that studies using larger sample sizes are needed.

This study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Genentech is a subsidiary of F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

A head-to-head comparison of immune checkpoint inhibitors atezolizumab and nivolumab and the chemotherapy drug docetaxel in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), finds that atezolizumab was associated with a significantly longer overall survival than docetaxel and was on par with nivolumab.

The findings were reported in JAMA Network Open.

“Until recently, chemotherapy with platinum doublet was the standard first-line option for most patients with advanced NSCLC who did not have these genetic drivers or were not tested for them and remains the first choice in many parts of the world,” wrote the authors of the study which was led by Sreeram Ramagopalan, PhD, of F. Hoffmann-La Roche in Switzerland which funded the study.

Atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech), which was approved in October by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is a monoclonal antibody that targets programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1). It is also approved as monotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC whose disease progressed despite treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy.

This is the first-known analysis that compares atezolizumab, nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb), and docetaxel (Taxotere, Sanofi) in patients outside of clinical trials, said Vivek Subbiah, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center and the study’s first author. “We have several new immune checkpoint inhibitors approved for treatment for NSCLC. Head-to-head comparison of the effectiveness of these agents in the real world are lacking,” he said.

Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown improvement in the survival of patients with advanced NSCLC who failed chemotherapy treatment.

This study included 3,336 patients (mean age 67 years, 54.6% men) with advanced NSCLC who were treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Data were collected from more than 1,000 clinics in the United States. Of the patients, 206 received atezolizumab, 500 received docetaxel, and 2,630 received nivolumab.

Patients were followed between May 2011 and March 2020. Atezolizumab and nivolumab showed a similar overall survival in these patients, but atezolizumab showed a longer overall survival, compared with docetaxel.

“Compared with docetaxel, atezolizumab was associated with significantly longer survival in the overall population and across all subgroups analyzed,” including patients with stage IIIB or IV cancer at diagnosis and nonsquamous NSCLC, the authors wrote. “Atezolizumab was associated with longer overall survival compared with docetaxel and was on par with nivolumab, supporting current clinical guidelines for systemic therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC in the U.S.”

Limitations of the study included its observational design and a small number of patients receiving atezolizumab. The authors suggested that studies using larger sample sizes are needed.

This study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Genentech is a subsidiary of F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

A head-to-head comparison of immune checkpoint inhibitors atezolizumab and nivolumab and the chemotherapy drug docetaxel in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), finds that atezolizumab was associated with a significantly longer overall survival than docetaxel and was on par with nivolumab.

The findings were reported in JAMA Network Open.

“Until recently, chemotherapy with platinum doublet was the standard first-line option for most patients with advanced NSCLC who did not have these genetic drivers or were not tested for them and remains the first choice in many parts of the world,” wrote the authors of the study which was led by Sreeram Ramagopalan, PhD, of F. Hoffmann-La Roche in Switzerland which funded the study.

Atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech), which was approved in October by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is a monoclonal antibody that targets programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1). It is also approved as monotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC whose disease progressed despite treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy.

This is the first-known analysis that compares atezolizumab, nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb), and docetaxel (Taxotere, Sanofi) in patients outside of clinical trials, said Vivek Subbiah, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center and the study’s first author. “We have several new immune checkpoint inhibitors approved for treatment for NSCLC. Head-to-head comparison of the effectiveness of these agents in the real world are lacking,” he said.

Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown improvement in the survival of patients with advanced NSCLC who failed chemotherapy treatment.

This study included 3,336 patients (mean age 67 years, 54.6% men) with advanced NSCLC who were treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Data were collected from more than 1,000 clinics in the United States. Of the patients, 206 received atezolizumab, 500 received docetaxel, and 2,630 received nivolumab.

Patients were followed between May 2011 and March 2020. Atezolizumab and nivolumab showed a similar overall survival in these patients, but atezolizumab showed a longer overall survival, compared with docetaxel.

“Compared with docetaxel, atezolizumab was associated with significantly longer survival in the overall population and across all subgroups analyzed,” including patients with stage IIIB or IV cancer at diagnosis and nonsquamous NSCLC, the authors wrote. “Atezolizumab was associated with longer overall survival compared with docetaxel and was on par with nivolumab, supporting current clinical guidelines for systemic therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC in the U.S.”

Limitations of the study included its observational design and a small number of patients receiving atezolizumab. The authors suggested that studies using larger sample sizes are needed.

This study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Genentech is a subsidiary of F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

Tongue squamous cell carcinomas are one of the most common oral cancers yet one of the most difficult to successfully treat. Getting an accurate measure of the depth of the tumor is critical to determining a patient’s prognosis and currently CT, MRI, and ultrasound are used to determine the depth and location of the tumor. Now, a new study in Scientific Reports suggests that MRI before biopsy may be the better option to determine the depth of tumor invasion.

“Several studies have reported a significant relationship between radiological depth of invasion measured on MRI and pathological depth of invasion in the tongue squamous cell carcinoma. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study on MRI divided into ‘before biopsy’ and ‘after incision biopsy,’ ” Hiroyuki Harada, DDS, PhD, of Tokyo Medical and Dental University, and colleagues wrote.

The issue of depth of invasion is so critical to determining metastasis to neck lymph nodes that in 2017 it was added to the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual.

This retrospective Japanese study included 128 patients with tongue carcinoma who underwent glossectomy between 2006 and 2019. The researchers evaluated which radiologic depth of invasion measurement – MRI before or after biopsy and ultrasound – was the most agreeable to clinical depth of invasion.

All the participants had undergone ultrasound, while 18 had undergone MRI before biopsy and 110 had undergone MRI after biopsy. The coefficients of determination were 0.664, 0.891, and 0.422 respectively, suggesting that calculating radiologic depth of invasion using MRI before biopsy was the most reliable radiologic method. MRI before biopsy slightly overestimated clinical depth of tumor invasion, MRI after biopsy severely overestimated the clinical measurement, and ultrasound slightly underestimated the clinical depth of tumor invasion.

Ultrasound is often preferred because of its easy use, yet measuring ulcerous lesions is difficult with ultrasound. But with MRI, there is no upper limit of measured value, but tongue movement during the procedure can make getting accurate images during the procedure difficult.

“The advantage of the MRI is that the image is acquired in the tongue’s resting position and that there is no upper limit of the measured value. The disadvantages include difficult detection of superficial tumors, influence of metal artifacts, and movement of the tongue,” the authors wrote. “Biopsy may lead to edema or hemorrhage and subsequent overestimation of tumor size and invasion depth in MRI.”

A small Canadian study published in 2016 in the Journal of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, found a strong correlation between clinical, pathological, and MRI measurements of depth of invasion in oral tongue SCC. Meanwhile, a 2017 U.K. study published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery found that the accuracy of clinical staging in oral SCC did not differ whether the biopsy was taken before or after MRI. While a good radiologic-pathological tumor thickness correlation has been reported in 2018 in the American Journal of Neuroradiology, tongue carcinoma often shows exophytic or ulcerous lesions, which are difficult to measure with MRI, CT, or ultrasound.

The authors suggested that further studies are needed to determine the effects on MRI of postbiopsy tongue inflammation. Limitations of the study included the small number of cases with MRI before biopsy.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Tongue squamous cell carcinomas are one of the most common oral cancers yet one of the most difficult to successfully treat. Getting an accurate measure of the depth of the tumor is critical to determining a patient’s prognosis and currently CT, MRI, and ultrasound are used to determine the depth and location of the tumor. Now, a new study in Scientific Reports suggests that MRI before biopsy may be the better option to determine the depth of tumor invasion.

“Several studies have reported a significant relationship between radiological depth of invasion measured on MRI and pathological depth of invasion in the tongue squamous cell carcinoma. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study on MRI divided into ‘before biopsy’ and ‘after incision biopsy,’ ” Hiroyuki Harada, DDS, PhD, of Tokyo Medical and Dental University, and colleagues wrote.

The issue of depth of invasion is so critical to determining metastasis to neck lymph nodes that in 2017 it was added to the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual.

This retrospective Japanese study included 128 patients with tongue carcinoma who underwent glossectomy between 2006 and 2019. The researchers evaluated which radiologic depth of invasion measurement – MRI before or after biopsy and ultrasound – was the most agreeable to clinical depth of invasion.

All the participants had undergone ultrasound, while 18 had undergone MRI before biopsy and 110 had undergone MRI after biopsy. The coefficients of determination were 0.664, 0.891, and 0.422 respectively, suggesting that calculating radiologic depth of invasion using MRI before biopsy was the most reliable radiologic method. MRI before biopsy slightly overestimated clinical depth of tumor invasion, MRI after biopsy severely overestimated the clinical measurement, and ultrasound slightly underestimated the clinical depth of tumor invasion.

Ultrasound is often preferred because of its easy use, yet measuring ulcerous lesions is difficult with ultrasound. But with MRI, there is no upper limit of measured value, but tongue movement during the procedure can make getting accurate images during the procedure difficult.

“The advantage of the MRI is that the image is acquired in the tongue’s resting position and that there is no upper limit of the measured value. The disadvantages include difficult detection of superficial tumors, influence of metal artifacts, and movement of the tongue,” the authors wrote. “Biopsy may lead to edema or hemorrhage and subsequent overestimation of tumor size and invasion depth in MRI.”

A small Canadian study published in 2016 in the Journal of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, found a strong correlation between clinical, pathological, and MRI measurements of depth of invasion in oral tongue SCC. Meanwhile, a 2017 U.K. study published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery found that the accuracy of clinical staging in oral SCC did not differ whether the biopsy was taken before or after MRI. While a good radiologic-pathological tumor thickness correlation has been reported in 2018 in the American Journal of Neuroradiology, tongue carcinoma often shows exophytic or ulcerous lesions, which are difficult to measure with MRI, CT, or ultrasound.

The authors suggested that further studies are needed to determine the effects on MRI of postbiopsy tongue inflammation. Limitations of the study included the small number of cases with MRI before biopsy.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Tongue squamous cell carcinomas are one of the most common oral cancers yet one of the most difficult to successfully treat. Getting an accurate measure of the depth of the tumor is critical to determining a patient’s prognosis and currently CT, MRI, and ultrasound are used to determine the depth and location of the tumor. Now, a new study in Scientific Reports suggests that MRI before biopsy may be the better option to determine the depth of tumor invasion.

“Several studies have reported a significant relationship between radiological depth of invasion measured on MRI and pathological depth of invasion in the tongue squamous cell carcinoma. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study on MRI divided into ‘before biopsy’ and ‘after incision biopsy,’ ” Hiroyuki Harada, DDS, PhD, of Tokyo Medical and Dental University, and colleagues wrote.

The issue of depth of invasion is so critical to determining metastasis to neck lymph nodes that in 2017 it was added to the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual.

This retrospective Japanese study included 128 patients with tongue carcinoma who underwent glossectomy between 2006 and 2019. The researchers evaluated which radiologic depth of invasion measurement – MRI before or after biopsy and ultrasound – was the most agreeable to clinical depth of invasion.

All the participants had undergone ultrasound, while 18 had undergone MRI before biopsy and 110 had undergone MRI after biopsy. The coefficients of determination were 0.664, 0.891, and 0.422 respectively, suggesting that calculating radiologic depth of invasion using MRI before biopsy was the most reliable radiologic method. MRI before biopsy slightly overestimated clinical depth of tumor invasion, MRI after biopsy severely overestimated the clinical measurement, and ultrasound slightly underestimated the clinical depth of tumor invasion.

Ultrasound is often preferred because of its easy use, yet measuring ulcerous lesions is difficult with ultrasound. But with MRI, there is no upper limit of measured value, but tongue movement during the procedure can make getting accurate images during the procedure difficult.

“The advantage of the MRI is that the image is acquired in the tongue’s resting position and that there is no upper limit of the measured value. The disadvantages include difficult detection of superficial tumors, influence of metal artifacts, and movement of the tongue,” the authors wrote. “Biopsy may lead to edema or hemorrhage and subsequent overestimation of tumor size and invasion depth in MRI.”

A small Canadian study published in 2016 in the Journal of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, found a strong correlation between clinical, pathological, and MRI measurements of depth of invasion in oral tongue SCC. Meanwhile, a 2017 U.K. study published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery found that the accuracy of clinical staging in oral SCC did not differ whether the biopsy was taken before or after MRI. While a good radiologic-pathological tumor thickness correlation has been reported in 2018 in the American Journal of Neuroradiology, tongue carcinoma often shows exophytic or ulcerous lesions, which are difficult to measure with MRI, CT, or ultrasound.

The authors suggested that further studies are needed to determine the effects on MRI of postbiopsy tongue inflammation. Limitations of the study included the small number of cases with MRI before biopsy.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A newly published study that compared the accuracy of two commonly used lung cancer screening algorithms found that the American College of Radiology Lung-RADs screening tool is more accurate in detecting cancerous nodules in patients with a history of lung cancer than NELSON, a Dutch clinical trial that measures nodule volume and growth rate instead of linear measurement of nodule size as done in Lung-RADs.

The study, published in the American Journal of Roentgenology on Nov. 10, 2021,was a retrospective study of 185 patients (100 women, 85 men; mean age, 66 years) who underwent lung cancer screening at a single health care system between July 2015 and August 2018. Using Lung-RADS, seven cancers were downgraded to category 2. The weighted cancer risk was 5% for new nodules, 1% for stable existing nodules, and 44% for growing existing nodules.

“Lung-RADS scores exhibited excellent sensitivity and specificity for cancer in existing nodules and excellent sensitivity in new nodules, though low specificity in new nodules,” wrote the authors, led by Mark M. Hammer, MD, a radiologist with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

CT scans are increasingly used for lung cancer screening, so accuracy is essential in devising an appropriate treatment plan for patients. Nearly all centers in the United States use the American College of Radiology’s Lung-RADS for lung cancer screening. In Europe, many centers use the volumetric-based approach of NELSON.

Several studies have compared the performance of nodule risk assessment algorithms, but the findings are inconsistent. Lung-RADS was found to be inferior to the Vancouver risk calculator in predicting malignancy in the National Lung Screening Trial for total nodules. Dr. Hammer previously reported that subsolid nodules classified as Lung-RADS categories 2 and 3 have a higher risk of malignancy than reported. Meanwhile, a study that followed 13,195 men and 2,594 women at high risk of lung cancer found that lung cancer mortality was lower among participants who underwent volume CT screening than among those who underwent no screening.

The authors cited the retrospective design and the small sample size as study limitations. They added that pathological proof was not obtained from benign nodules, which may represent undiagnosed cancer.

The authors declared no conflict of interest.

A newly published study that compared the accuracy of two commonly used lung cancer screening algorithms found that the American College of Radiology Lung-RADs screening tool is more accurate in detecting cancerous nodules in patients with a history of lung cancer than NELSON, a Dutch clinical trial that measures nodule volume and growth rate instead of linear measurement of nodule size as done in Lung-RADs.

The study, published in the American Journal of Roentgenology on Nov. 10, 2021,was a retrospective study of 185 patients (100 women, 85 men; mean age, 66 years) who underwent lung cancer screening at a single health care system between July 2015 and August 2018. Using Lung-RADS, seven cancers were downgraded to category 2. The weighted cancer risk was 5% for new nodules, 1% for stable existing nodules, and 44% for growing existing nodules.

“Lung-RADS scores exhibited excellent sensitivity and specificity for cancer in existing nodules and excellent sensitivity in new nodules, though low specificity in new nodules,” wrote the authors, led by Mark M. Hammer, MD, a radiologist with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

CT scans are increasingly used for lung cancer screening, so accuracy is essential in devising an appropriate treatment plan for patients. Nearly all centers in the United States use the American College of Radiology’s Lung-RADS for lung cancer screening. In Europe, many centers use the volumetric-based approach of NELSON.

Several studies have compared the performance of nodule risk assessment algorithms, but the findings are inconsistent. Lung-RADS was found to be inferior to the Vancouver risk calculator in predicting malignancy in the National Lung Screening Trial for total nodules. Dr. Hammer previously reported that subsolid nodules classified as Lung-RADS categories 2 and 3 have a higher risk of malignancy than reported. Meanwhile, a study that followed 13,195 men and 2,594 women at high risk of lung cancer found that lung cancer mortality was lower among participants who underwent volume CT screening than among those who underwent no screening.

The authors cited the retrospective design and the small sample size as study limitations. They added that pathological proof was not obtained from benign nodules, which may represent undiagnosed cancer.

The authors declared no conflict of interest.

A newly published study that compared the accuracy of two commonly used lung cancer screening algorithms found that the American College of Radiology Lung-RADs screening tool is more accurate in detecting cancerous nodules in patients with a history of lung cancer than NELSON, a Dutch clinical trial that measures nodule volume and growth rate instead of linear measurement of nodule size as done in Lung-RADs.

The study, published in the American Journal of Roentgenology on Nov. 10, 2021,was a retrospective study of 185 patients (100 women, 85 men; mean age, 66 years) who underwent lung cancer screening at a single health care system between July 2015 and August 2018. Using Lung-RADS, seven cancers were downgraded to category 2. The weighted cancer risk was 5% for new nodules, 1% for stable existing nodules, and 44% for growing existing nodules.

“Lung-RADS scores exhibited excellent sensitivity and specificity for cancer in existing nodules and excellent sensitivity in new nodules, though low specificity in new nodules,” wrote the authors, led by Mark M. Hammer, MD, a radiologist with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

CT scans are increasingly used for lung cancer screening, so accuracy is essential in devising an appropriate treatment plan for patients. Nearly all centers in the United States use the American College of Radiology’s Lung-RADS for lung cancer screening. In Europe, many centers use the volumetric-based approach of NELSON.

Several studies have compared the performance of nodule risk assessment algorithms, but the findings are inconsistent. Lung-RADS was found to be inferior to the Vancouver risk calculator in predicting malignancy in the National Lung Screening Trial for total nodules. Dr. Hammer previously reported that subsolid nodules classified as Lung-RADS categories 2 and 3 have a higher risk of malignancy than reported. Meanwhile, a study that followed 13,195 men and 2,594 women at high risk of lung cancer found that lung cancer mortality was lower among participants who underwent volume CT screening than among those who underwent no screening.

The authors cited the retrospective design and the small sample size as study limitations. They added that pathological proof was not obtained from benign nodules, which may represent undiagnosed cancer.

The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Breast cancer treatment often results in shoulder and arm problems, such as chronic pain, restricted shoulder movement, or lymphedema in the armpit area, limiting quality of life and delaying recovery. However, according to a U.K. study published by The BMJ on Nov. 10, women who exercised shortly after having nonreconstructive breast cancer surgery experienced less pain and regained better shoulder and arm mobility at 1 year than those who did not exercise.

“Hospitals should consider training physiotherapists in the PROSPER program to offer this structured, prescribed exercise program to women undergoing axillary clearance surgery and those having radiotherapy to the axilla,” said lead author Julie Bruce, PhD, a specialist in surgical epidemiology with the University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Up to one-third of women experience adverse effects to their lymphatic and musculoskeletal systems after breast cancer surgery and radiotherapy targeting the axilla. A study of 2,411 women in Denmark found that pain remained for up to 7 years after breast cancer treatment. U.K. guidelines for the management of breast cancer recommend referral to physical therapy if such problems develop, but the best timing and intensity along with the safety of postoperative exercise remain uncertain. A review of the literature in 2019 found a lack of adequate evidence to support the use of postoperative exercise after breast cancer surgery. Moreover, concerns with such exercise have been reported, such as increased risks of postoperative wound complications and lymphedema.

“The study was conducted to address uncertainty whether early postoperative exercise after women at high risk of shoulder and arm problems after nonreconstructive surgery was safe, clinically, and cost-effective. Previous studies were small, and no large high-quality randomized controlled trials had been undertaken with this patient population in the U.K.,” Dr. Bruce said.

In UK PROSPER, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial, researchers investigated the effects of an exercise program compared with usual care for 392 women (mean age 58) undergoing breast cancer surgery at 17 National Health Service (NHS) cancer centers. The women were randomly assigned to usual care with structured exercise or usual care alone. Structured exercise, introduced 7-10 days postoperatively, consisted of a physical therapy–led exercise program comprising stretching, strengthening, and physical activity, along with behavioral change techniques to support exercise adherence. Two further appointments were offered 1 and 3 months later. Outcomes included upper limb function, as measured by the Disability of Arm, Hand, and Shoulder (DASH) questionnaire at 12 months, complications, health related quality of life, and cost effectiveness.

At 12 months, women in the exercise group showed improved upper limb function compared with those who received usual care (mean DASH 16.3 for exercise, 23.7 for usual care; adjusted mean difference 7.81, 95% confidence interval, 3.17-12.44; P = .001). Compared with the usual care group, women in the exercise group reported lower pain intensity, fewer arm disability symptoms, and better health related quality of life.

“We found that arm function, measured using the DASH scale, improved over time and found surprisingly, these differences between treatment groups persisted at 12 months,” Dr. Bruce said. “There was no increased risk of neuropathic pain or lymphedema, so we concluded that the structured exercise program introduced from the seventh postoperative day was safe. Strengthening exercises were introduced from 1 month postoperatively.”

While the authors noted that the study was limited as participants and physical therapists knew which treatment they were receiving, they stressed that the study included a larger sample size than that of previous trials, along with a long follow-up period.

“We know that some women develop late lymphedema. Our findings are based on follow-up at 12 months. We hope to undertake longer-term follow up of our patient sample in the future,” Dr. Bruce said.

The authors declared support from the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Technology Assessment Programme.

Breast cancer treatment often results in shoulder and arm problems, such as chronic pain, restricted shoulder movement, or lymphedema in the armpit area, limiting quality of life and delaying recovery. However, according to a U.K. study published by The BMJ on Nov. 10, women who exercised shortly after having nonreconstructive breast cancer surgery experienced less pain and regained better shoulder and arm mobility at 1 year than those who did not exercise.

“Hospitals should consider training physiotherapists in the PROSPER program to offer this structured, prescribed exercise program to women undergoing axillary clearance surgery and those having radiotherapy to the axilla,” said lead author Julie Bruce, PhD, a specialist in surgical epidemiology with the University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Up to one-third of women experience adverse effects to their lymphatic and musculoskeletal systems after breast cancer surgery and radiotherapy targeting the axilla. A study of 2,411 women in Denmark found that pain remained for up to 7 years after breast cancer treatment. U.K. guidelines for the management of breast cancer recommend referral to physical therapy if such problems develop, but the best timing and intensity along with the safety of postoperative exercise remain uncertain. A review of the literature in 2019 found a lack of adequate evidence to support the use of postoperative exercise after breast cancer surgery. Moreover, concerns with such exercise have been reported, such as increased risks of postoperative wound complications and lymphedema.

“The study was conducted to address uncertainty whether early postoperative exercise after women at high risk of shoulder and arm problems after nonreconstructive surgery was safe, clinically, and cost-effective. Previous studies were small, and no large high-quality randomized controlled trials had been undertaken with this patient population in the U.K.,” Dr. Bruce said.

In UK PROSPER, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial, researchers investigated the effects of an exercise program compared with usual care for 392 women (mean age 58) undergoing breast cancer surgery at 17 National Health Service (NHS) cancer centers. The women were randomly assigned to usual care with structured exercise or usual care alone. Structured exercise, introduced 7-10 days postoperatively, consisted of a physical therapy–led exercise program comprising stretching, strengthening, and physical activity, along with behavioral change techniques to support exercise adherence. Two further appointments were offered 1 and 3 months later. Outcomes included upper limb function, as measured by the Disability of Arm, Hand, and Shoulder (DASH) questionnaire at 12 months, complications, health related quality of life, and cost effectiveness.

At 12 months, women in the exercise group showed improved upper limb function compared with those who received usual care (mean DASH 16.3 for exercise, 23.7 for usual care; adjusted mean difference 7.81, 95% confidence interval, 3.17-12.44; P = .001). Compared with the usual care group, women in the exercise group reported lower pain intensity, fewer arm disability symptoms, and better health related quality of life.

“We found that arm function, measured using the DASH scale, improved over time and found surprisingly, these differences between treatment groups persisted at 12 months,” Dr. Bruce said. “There was no increased risk of neuropathic pain or lymphedema, so we concluded that the structured exercise program introduced from the seventh postoperative day was safe. Strengthening exercises were introduced from 1 month postoperatively.”

While the authors noted that the study was limited as participants and physical therapists knew which treatment they were receiving, they stressed that the study included a larger sample size than that of previous trials, along with a long follow-up period.

“We know that some women develop late lymphedema. Our findings are based on follow-up at 12 months. We hope to undertake longer-term follow up of our patient sample in the future,” Dr. Bruce said.

The authors declared support from the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Technology Assessment Programme.

Breast cancer treatment often results in shoulder and arm problems, such as chronic pain, restricted shoulder movement, or lymphedema in the armpit area, limiting quality of life and delaying recovery. However, according to a U.K. study published by The BMJ on Nov. 10, women who exercised shortly after having nonreconstructive breast cancer surgery experienced less pain and regained better shoulder and arm mobility at 1 year than those who did not exercise.

“Hospitals should consider training physiotherapists in the PROSPER program to offer this structured, prescribed exercise program to women undergoing axillary clearance surgery and those having radiotherapy to the axilla,” said lead author Julie Bruce, PhD, a specialist in surgical epidemiology with the University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Up to one-third of women experience adverse effects to their lymphatic and musculoskeletal systems after breast cancer surgery and radiotherapy targeting the axilla. A study of 2,411 women in Denmark found that pain remained for up to 7 years after breast cancer treatment. U.K. guidelines for the management of breast cancer recommend referral to physical therapy if such problems develop, but the best timing and intensity along with the safety of postoperative exercise remain uncertain. A review of the literature in 2019 found a lack of adequate evidence to support the use of postoperative exercise after breast cancer surgery. Moreover, concerns with such exercise have been reported, such as increased risks of postoperative wound complications and lymphedema.

“The study was conducted to address uncertainty whether early postoperative exercise after women at high risk of shoulder and arm problems after nonreconstructive surgery was safe, clinically, and cost-effective. Previous studies were small, and no large high-quality randomized controlled trials had been undertaken with this patient population in the U.K.,” Dr. Bruce said.

In UK PROSPER, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial, researchers investigated the effects of an exercise program compared with usual care for 392 women (mean age 58) undergoing breast cancer surgery at 17 National Health Service (NHS) cancer centers. The women were randomly assigned to usual care with structured exercise or usual care alone. Structured exercise, introduced 7-10 days postoperatively, consisted of a physical therapy–led exercise program comprising stretching, strengthening, and physical activity, along with behavioral change techniques to support exercise adherence. Two further appointments were offered 1 and 3 months later. Outcomes included upper limb function, as measured by the Disability of Arm, Hand, and Shoulder (DASH) questionnaire at 12 months, complications, health related quality of life, and cost effectiveness.

At 12 months, women in the exercise group showed improved upper limb function compared with those who received usual care (mean DASH 16.3 for exercise, 23.7 for usual care; adjusted mean difference 7.81, 95% confidence interval, 3.17-12.44; P = .001). Compared with the usual care group, women in the exercise group reported lower pain intensity, fewer arm disability symptoms, and better health related quality of life.

“We found that arm function, measured using the DASH scale, improved over time and found surprisingly, these differences between treatment groups persisted at 12 months,” Dr. Bruce said. “There was no increased risk of neuropathic pain or lymphedema, so we concluded that the structured exercise program introduced from the seventh postoperative day was safe. Strengthening exercises were introduced from 1 month postoperatively.”

While the authors noted that the study was limited as participants and physical therapists knew which treatment they were receiving, they stressed that the study included a larger sample size than that of previous trials, along with a long follow-up period.

“We know that some women develop late lymphedema. Our findings are based on follow-up at 12 months. We hope to undertake longer-term follow up of our patient sample in the future,” Dr. Bruce said.

The authors declared support from the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Technology Assessment Programme.

Breast cancer screening using urine samples based on the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) sensed by a trained dog is feasible, according to a preliminary study published in the journal Biology June 10.

“The extrapolation of our results to widespread implementation is still uncertain,” wrote Shoko Kure, MD, PhD, of Nippon Medical School in Tokyo, and colleagues. “However, even if few dogs could be trained to detect breast cancer, the result may open the door to a robust and inexpensive way to detect breast cancer.” They added that “dog cancer detection is entirely noninvasive, safe and easy for both patients and everyone.” 

Early detection of breast cancer, which is the leading cause of death globally, is essential for more efficient treatment. While mammography can detect asymptomatic breast cancer and reduce mortality, it has a poor compliance, is less sensitive in dense breast tissue, detects nonmalignant lesions, and has not been shown to reduce mortality in women younger than 40. VOCs are emitted in the breath, blood, and urine, with different volatile patterns correlated with a variety of diseases including cancers, which dogs can be trained to detect. Breast cancer screening by dog sniffing of the VOCs in urine samples has not been attempted.

Dogs have been used as medical detectives for several cancers and conditions. A study published in 2018 showed that trained dogs who were able to differentiate the specific odor from the metabolic waste of breast cancer in vitro could identify that of colorectal cancer, and vice versa. More recently, research showed that trained dogs could detect advanced prostate cancer in urine samples with high specificity and sensitivity. In this double-blinded pilot study, two dogs were trained to detect Gleason 9 prostate cancer in urine collected from biopsy-confirmed patients. The canine olfaction system was 71% sensitive and as much as 76% specific at detecting Gleason 9 cancer. Along with cancer, trained dogs have been shown to identify people with COVID-19, even those who were asymptomatic. In this study, dogs who sniffed swab samples of armpit sweat could identify which samples came from patients infected with COVID-19 with up to 100% accuracy, while ruling out infection with up to 99% accuracy.

The double-blind study by Dr. Kure aimed to assess the potential of VOCs in urine samples for breast cancer screening by using a single trained sniffer dog – in this case a 9-year-old female Labrador retriever. Urine samples from 40 patients with primary breast cancer and 142 patients with non-breast malignant diseases were included along with samples from 18 healthy volunteers. In 40 times out of 40 runs of the double-blind test, the dog correctly identified urine samples of patients with breast cancer, with 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity.

“The dog in this test successfully differentiated breast cancer from non-breast malignancies and healthy controls,” the authors wrote. “This is the first, preliminary study indicating the feasibility of developing a new breast cancer screening method using urine samples based on VOCs.”

While the authors noted that the study was limited as it relied on one trained dog, they suggested that this method has potential in low-income countries where access to mammography is inadequate.

“Some well-trained sniffing dogs traveling around medically underserved [countries] all over the world could save many lives. Even when a healthy control was indicated by a trained dog, there would be a suspicion of undiagnosed/early-stage cancer, and the person would be advised to undergo medical screening,” the authors wrote.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Breast cancer screening using urine samples based on the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) sensed by a trained dog is feasible, according to a preliminary study published in the journal Biology June 10.

“The extrapolation of our results to widespread implementation is still uncertain,” wrote Shoko Kure, MD, PhD, of Nippon Medical School in Tokyo, and colleagues. “However, even if few dogs could be trained to detect breast cancer, the result may open the door to a robust and inexpensive way to detect breast cancer.” They added that “dog cancer detection is entirely noninvasive, safe and easy for both patients and everyone.” 

Early detection of breast cancer, which is the leading cause of death globally, is essential for more efficient treatment. While mammography can detect asymptomatic breast cancer and reduce mortality, it has a poor compliance, is less sensitive in dense breast tissue, detects nonmalignant lesions, and has not been shown to reduce mortality in women younger than 40. VOCs are emitted in the breath, blood, and urine, with different volatile patterns correlated with a variety of diseases including cancers, which dogs can be trained to detect. Breast cancer screening by dog sniffing of the VOCs in urine samples has not been attempted.

Dogs have been used as medical detectives for several cancers and conditions. A study published in 2018 showed that trained dogs who were able to differentiate the specific odor from the metabolic waste of breast cancer in vitro could identify that of colorectal cancer, and vice versa. More recently, research showed that trained dogs could detect advanced prostate cancer in urine samples with high specificity and sensitivity. In this double-blinded pilot study, two dogs were trained to detect Gleason 9 prostate cancer in urine collected from biopsy-confirmed patients. The canine olfaction system was 71% sensitive and as much as 76% specific at detecting Gleason 9 cancer. Along with cancer, trained dogs have been shown to identify people with COVID-19, even those who were asymptomatic. In this study, dogs who sniffed swab samples of armpit sweat could identify which samples came from patients infected with COVID-19 with up to 100% accuracy, while ruling out infection with up to 99% accuracy.

The double-blind study by Dr. Kure aimed to assess the potential of VOCs in urine samples for breast cancer screening by using a single trained sniffer dog – in this case a 9-year-old female Labrador retriever. Urine samples from 40 patients with primary breast cancer and 142 patients with non-breast malignant diseases were included along with samples from 18 healthy volunteers. In 40 times out of 40 runs of the double-blind test, the dog correctly identified urine samples of patients with breast cancer, with 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity.

“The dog in this test successfully differentiated breast cancer from non-breast malignancies and healthy controls,” the authors wrote. “This is the first, preliminary study indicating the feasibility of developing a new breast cancer screening method using urine samples based on VOCs.”

While the authors noted that the study was limited as it relied on one trained dog, they suggested that this method has potential in low-income countries where access to mammography is inadequate.

“Some well-trained sniffing dogs traveling around medically underserved [countries] all over the world could save many lives. Even when a healthy control was indicated by a trained dog, there would be a suspicion of undiagnosed/early-stage cancer, and the person would be advised to undergo medical screening,” the authors wrote.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Breast cancer screening using urine samples based on the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) sensed by a trained dog is feasible, according to a preliminary study published in the journal Biology June 10.

“The extrapolation of our results to widespread implementation is still uncertain,” wrote Shoko Kure, MD, PhD, of Nippon Medical School in Tokyo, and colleagues. “However, even if few dogs could be trained to detect breast cancer, the result may open the door to a robust and inexpensive way to detect breast cancer.” They added that “dog cancer detection is entirely noninvasive, safe and easy for both patients and everyone.” 

Early detection of breast cancer, which is the leading cause of death globally, is essential for more efficient treatment. While mammography can detect asymptomatic breast cancer and reduce mortality, it has a poor compliance, is less sensitive in dense breast tissue, detects nonmalignant lesions, and has not been shown to reduce mortality in women younger than 40. VOCs are emitted in the breath, blood, and urine, with different volatile patterns correlated with a variety of diseases including cancers, which dogs can be trained to detect. Breast cancer screening by dog sniffing of the VOCs in urine samples has not been attempted.

Dogs have been used as medical detectives for several cancers and conditions. A study published in 2018 showed that trained dogs who were able to differentiate the specific odor from the metabolic waste of breast cancer in vitro could identify that of colorectal cancer, and vice versa. More recently, research showed that trained dogs could detect advanced prostate cancer in urine samples with high specificity and sensitivity. In this double-blinded pilot study, two dogs were trained to detect Gleason 9 prostate cancer in urine collected from biopsy-confirmed patients. The canine olfaction system was 71% sensitive and as much as 76% specific at detecting Gleason 9 cancer. Along with cancer, trained dogs have been shown to identify people with COVID-19, even those who were asymptomatic. In this study, dogs who sniffed swab samples of armpit sweat could identify which samples came from patients infected with COVID-19 with up to 100% accuracy, while ruling out infection with up to 99% accuracy.

The double-blind study by Dr. Kure aimed to assess the potential of VOCs in urine samples for breast cancer screening by using a single trained sniffer dog – in this case a 9-year-old female Labrador retriever. Urine samples from 40 patients with primary breast cancer and 142 patients with non-breast malignant diseases were included along with samples from 18 healthy volunteers. In 40 times out of 40 runs of the double-blind test, the dog correctly identified urine samples of patients with breast cancer, with 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity.

“The dog in this test successfully differentiated breast cancer from non-breast malignancies and healthy controls,” the authors wrote. “This is the first, preliminary study indicating the feasibility of developing a new breast cancer screening method using urine samples based on VOCs.”

While the authors noted that the study was limited as it relied on one trained dog, they suggested that this method has potential in low-income countries where access to mammography is inadequate.

“Some well-trained sniffing dogs traveling around medically underserved [countries] all over the world could save many lives. Even when a healthy control was indicated by a trained dog, there would be a suspicion of undiagnosed/early-stage cancer, and the person would be advised to undergo medical screening,” the authors wrote.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

In patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma, immunotherapy, antibody drug conjugates and targeted agents are being added to the potential treatment options for this incurable condition, which has a limited life expectancy. This is according to a review of the recent therapeutic advances and ongoing clinical trials in metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

“Survival in the metastatic setting is 12-15 months with cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy, but only 3-6 months if left untreated,” wrote Srikala S. Sridhar, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues. Their report is in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology. “More recently, with the advent of immunotherapy, antibody-drug conjugates, and targeted agents, the treatment landscape has changed significantly, with overall survival now approaching two years.”

Both the incidence and mortality from bladder cancer have risen over the past few decades. Around 5% of patients are metastatic at presentation, but nearly half of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer will eventually relapse and develop metastatic disease.

For first-line treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, cisplatin-based chemotherapy remains the preferred option with response rates up to 72%, but durability is an issue with most patients experiencing disease progression. In patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease, who are not eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1, or patients who are not eligible for any platinum-based regimen regardless of PD-L1 status, the immune checkpoint inhibitors atezolizumab and pembrolizumab have received accelerated Food and Drug administration approval. More recently, pembrolizumab gained full FDA approval for use in patients not eligible to receive platinum-based chemotherapy.

While phase 3 studies are evaluating chemotherapy combined with atezolizumab or pembrolizumab, the results have not been promising. Moreover, the decreased survival observed in the immunotherapy-alone arms of these trials led the FDA to issue a warning that single agent immunotherapy should be used only in patients who are not eligible for cisplatin-based therapy and have PD-L1 expression, or in those not eligible for any platinum-based regimens regardless of PD-L1 expression.

“More intensive treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma is not always better,” the authors wrote. “Some of the reasons for this could be that chemotherapy and immunotherapy are targeting a similar population of cells, or that chemotherapy and immunotherapy are antagonistic on some level.”

[embed:render:related:node:205273]

Maintenance strategies are considered standard of care for other advanced solid tumors. In patients with bladder cancer without disease progression after a first line platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance avelumab, an anti PD-L1, has shown an overall survival of 21.4 months versus 14.3 months with best supportive care, a finding that the authors described as “practice changing.” Meanwhile, a separate trial showed increased progression-free survival with maintenance pembrolizumab, but no increased overall survival.

For second-line treatment, immunotherapy is currently the standard of care in patients with disease progression during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. While the efficiency of five anti PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies has been reported in the second-line setting, pembrolizumab is the only immune checkpoint inhibitor to receive full FDA approval. Atezolizumab, nivolumab, avelumab, and durvalumab have received accelerated approval.

“In urothelial carcinomas, PD-1 appears to have an advantage over anti PD-L1 in the second-line setting, but in the maintenance setting, it seems to be the opposite,” the authors wrote.

Erdafitinib is the only fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor approved for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, progressing on platinum-based chemotherapy. The oral potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR 1-4 is approved for use only in patients with susceptible FGFR3 gene mutations or FGFR2/3 gene fusions. Despite being approved for second-line treatment, erdafitinib is used mainly in third-line treatment after progression on immunotherapy. 

The antibody drug conjugates sacituzumab govitecan and enfortumab vedotin, which have gained accelerated FDA approval, provide other options for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma resistant to chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibitors. As these antibody drug conjugates have different mechanisms of action and toxicity profiles, they could be used in the same patient throughout the disease course, but further research is needed. Meanwhile, many chemotherapy options, including docetaxel, gemcitabine, ifosfamide, and pemetrexed, have been tested in metastatic urothelial carcinoma with some response after platinum-based treatment.

“A number of studies evaluating promising therapeutic strategies are still ongoing and will hopefully provide information for some important unanswered questions and further guide treatment sequencing in advanced urothelial carcinoma,” the authors wrote.

They declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

In patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma, immunotherapy, antibody drug conjugates and targeted agents are being added to the potential treatment options for this incurable condition, which has a limited life expectancy. This is according to a review of the recent therapeutic advances and ongoing clinical trials in metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

“Survival in the metastatic setting is 12-15 months with cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy, but only 3-6 months if left untreated,” wrote Srikala S. Sridhar, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues. Their report is in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology. “More recently, with the advent of immunotherapy, antibody-drug conjugates, and targeted agents, the treatment landscape has changed significantly, with overall survival now approaching two years.”

Both the incidence and mortality from bladder cancer have risen over the past few decades. Around 5% of patients are metastatic at presentation, but nearly half of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer will eventually relapse and develop metastatic disease.

For first-line treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, cisplatin-based chemotherapy remains the preferred option with response rates up to 72%, but durability is an issue with most patients experiencing disease progression. In patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease, who are not eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1, or patients who are not eligible for any platinum-based regimen regardless of PD-L1 status, the immune checkpoint inhibitors atezolizumab and pembrolizumab have received accelerated Food and Drug administration approval. More recently, pembrolizumab gained full FDA approval for use in patients not eligible to receive platinum-based chemotherapy.

While phase 3 studies are evaluating chemotherapy combined with atezolizumab or pembrolizumab, the results have not been promising. Moreover, the decreased survival observed in the immunotherapy-alone arms of these trials led the FDA to issue a warning that single agent immunotherapy should be used only in patients who are not eligible for cisplatin-based therapy and have PD-L1 expression, or in those not eligible for any platinum-based regimens regardless of PD-L1 expression.

“More intensive treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma is not always better,” the authors wrote. “Some of the reasons for this could be that chemotherapy and immunotherapy are targeting a similar population of cells, or that chemotherapy and immunotherapy are antagonistic on some level.”

[embed:render:related:node:205273]

Maintenance strategies are considered standard of care for other advanced solid tumors. In patients with bladder cancer without disease progression after a first line platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance avelumab, an anti PD-L1, has shown an overall survival of 21.4 months versus 14.3 months with best supportive care, a finding that the authors described as “practice changing.” Meanwhile, a separate trial showed increased progression-free survival with maintenance pembrolizumab, but no increased overall survival.

For second-line treatment, immunotherapy is currently the standard of care in patients with disease progression during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. While the efficiency of five anti PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies has been reported in the second-line setting, pembrolizumab is the only immune checkpoint inhibitor to receive full FDA approval. Atezolizumab, nivolumab, avelumab, and durvalumab have received accelerated approval.

“In urothelial carcinomas, PD-1 appears to have an advantage over anti PD-L1 in the second-line setting, but in the maintenance setting, it seems to be the opposite,” the authors wrote.

Erdafitinib is the only fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor approved for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, progressing on platinum-based chemotherapy. The oral potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR 1-4 is approved for use only in patients with susceptible FGFR3 gene mutations or FGFR2/3 gene fusions. Despite being approved for second-line treatment, erdafitinib is used mainly in third-line treatment after progression on immunotherapy. 

The antibody drug conjugates sacituzumab govitecan and enfortumab vedotin, which have gained accelerated FDA approval, provide other options for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma resistant to chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibitors. As these antibody drug conjugates have different mechanisms of action and toxicity profiles, they could be used in the same patient throughout the disease course, but further research is needed. Meanwhile, many chemotherapy options, including docetaxel, gemcitabine, ifosfamide, and pemetrexed, have been tested in metastatic urothelial carcinoma with some response after platinum-based treatment.

“A number of studies evaluating promising therapeutic strategies are still ongoing and will hopefully provide information for some important unanswered questions and further guide treatment sequencing in advanced urothelial carcinoma,” the authors wrote.

They declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

In patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma, immunotherapy, antibody drug conjugates and targeted agents are being added to the potential treatment options for this incurable condition, which has a limited life expectancy. This is according to a review of the recent therapeutic advances and ongoing clinical trials in metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

“Survival in the metastatic setting is 12-15 months with cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy, but only 3-6 months if left untreated,” wrote Srikala S. Sridhar, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues. Their report is in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology. “More recently, with the advent of immunotherapy, antibody-drug conjugates, and targeted agents, the treatment landscape has changed significantly, with overall survival now approaching two years.”

Both the incidence and mortality from bladder cancer have risen over the past few decades. Around 5% of patients are metastatic at presentation, but nearly half of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer will eventually relapse and develop metastatic disease.

For first-line treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, cisplatin-based chemotherapy remains the preferred option with response rates up to 72%, but durability is an issue with most patients experiencing disease progression. In patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease, who are not eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1, or patients who are not eligible for any platinum-based regimen regardless of PD-L1 status, the immune checkpoint inhibitors atezolizumab and pembrolizumab have received accelerated Food and Drug administration approval. More recently, pembrolizumab gained full FDA approval for use in patients not eligible to receive platinum-based chemotherapy.

While phase 3 studies are evaluating chemotherapy combined with atezolizumab or pembrolizumab, the results have not been promising. Moreover, the decreased survival observed in the immunotherapy-alone arms of these trials led the FDA to issue a warning that single agent immunotherapy should be used only in patients who are not eligible for cisplatin-based therapy and have PD-L1 expression, or in those not eligible for any platinum-based regimens regardless of PD-L1 expression.

“More intensive treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma is not always better,” the authors wrote. “Some of the reasons for this could be that chemotherapy and immunotherapy are targeting a similar population of cells, or that chemotherapy and immunotherapy are antagonistic on some level.”

[embed:render:related:node:205273]

Maintenance strategies are considered standard of care for other advanced solid tumors. In patients with bladder cancer without disease progression after a first line platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance avelumab, an anti PD-L1, has shown an overall survival of 21.4 months versus 14.3 months with best supportive care, a finding that the authors described as “practice changing.” Meanwhile, a separate trial showed increased progression-free survival with maintenance pembrolizumab, but no increased overall survival.

For second-line treatment, immunotherapy is currently the standard of care in patients with disease progression during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. While the efficiency of five anti PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies has been reported in the second-line setting, pembrolizumab is the only immune checkpoint inhibitor to receive full FDA approval. Atezolizumab, nivolumab, avelumab, and durvalumab have received accelerated approval.

“In urothelial carcinomas, PD-1 appears to have an advantage over anti PD-L1 in the second-line setting, but in the maintenance setting, it seems to be the opposite,” the authors wrote.

Erdafitinib is the only fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor approved for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, progressing on platinum-based chemotherapy. The oral potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR 1-4 is approved for use only in patients with susceptible FGFR3 gene mutations or FGFR2/3 gene fusions. Despite being approved for second-line treatment, erdafitinib is used mainly in third-line treatment after progression on immunotherapy. 

The antibody drug conjugates sacituzumab govitecan and enfortumab vedotin, which have gained accelerated FDA approval, provide other options for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma resistant to chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibitors. As these antibody drug conjugates have different mechanisms of action and toxicity profiles, they could be used in the same patient throughout the disease course, but further research is needed. Meanwhile, many chemotherapy options, including docetaxel, gemcitabine, ifosfamide, and pemetrexed, have been tested in metastatic urothelial carcinoma with some response after platinum-based treatment.

“A number of studies evaluating promising therapeutic strategies are still ongoing and will hopefully provide information for some important unanswered questions and further guide treatment sequencing in advanced urothelial carcinoma,” the authors wrote.

They declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

Checkpoint inhibitor use as adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) may eventually overtake the use of cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents, say the authors of a clinical review recently published in the journal Head and Neck.

The review, led by Jason G. Newman, MD, director of head and neck surgery at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, includes evidence-based research findings from the last 10 years which describe the possible roles for adjuvant radiation, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and/or targeted therapy in the management of high-risk cSCC.

Dr. Newman and colleagues wrote that more data – and high-quality data – are needed for physicians to determine with more confidence which adjuvant therapies would be best for specific patients with high-risk cSCC. But without that data, uncertainty in treatment decisions will persist.

“The requirements for and efficacy of adjuvant therapies in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma are unclear, and the gap in evidence for practice decisions regarding adjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk cSCC has been apparent for more than a decade,” they wrote.

While surgical excision with clear margins of the primary cSCC lesion remains the standard of care, certain high-risk factors necessitate adjuvant therapy, the authors wrote. However, since the evidence consists of small retrospective studies with conflicting results, it is unclear which patients might benefit from adjuvant therapy. This review included recent and current trials in cutaneous SCC and the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

According to the review, adjuvant radiation therapy is usually considered with high-risk features, such as perineural invasion, lymph node metastasis and extracapsular/extranodal extension, if the patient is otherwise at high risk for metastasis or recurrence, or if further surgery is not possible.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology do not recommend adjuvant radiation therapy for most patients with cSCC. However, adjuvant radiation therapy with or without systemic therapy may be considered in locally advanced disease, when further surgery is not an option, or if there is regional lymph node metastasis, but multidisciplinary consultation is recommended.

Regarding checkpoint inhibitors, the NCCN, ACR, and ASTRO do not recommend the use of systemic therapy for local disease amenable to surgery. Potential use of a checkpoint inhibitor with radiation therapy in a clinical trial is recommended for residual disease in locally advanced cSCC as palliative care when other options are not available. While the use of cemiplimab or pembrolizumab are preferred in regional recurrence when curative surgery and radiation therapy are not an option, a targeted therapy can be considered if this is not feasible.

“Given the current activity of checkpoint inhibition in this disease, enthusiasm for the addition of cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents in the adjuvant setting may be on the decline,” the authors wrote. “Multidisciplinary approaches will most likely continue to be recommended in complicated cases, including those involving immunosuppression.”

The authors said that further study is needed on prognostic testing, such as gene expression profile testing or sentinel lymph node biopsy, as such testing early in disease could identify patients who would likely benefit from adjuvant therapy. They added that the need to identify patients at early stages of disease who are at high risk for metastasis continues to remain critical.

Checkpoint inhibitor use as adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) may eventually overtake the use of cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents, say the authors of a clinical review recently published in the journal Head and Neck.

The review, led by Jason G. Newman, MD, director of head and neck surgery at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, includes evidence-based research findings from the last 10 years which describe the possible roles for adjuvant radiation, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and/or targeted therapy in the management of high-risk cSCC.

Dr. Newman and colleagues wrote that more data – and high-quality data – are needed for physicians to determine with more confidence which adjuvant therapies would be best for specific patients with high-risk cSCC. But without that data, uncertainty in treatment decisions will persist.

“The requirements for and efficacy of adjuvant therapies in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma are unclear, and the gap in evidence for practice decisions regarding adjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk cSCC has been apparent for more than a decade,” they wrote.

While surgical excision with clear margins of the primary cSCC lesion remains the standard of care, certain high-risk factors necessitate adjuvant therapy, the authors wrote. However, since the evidence consists of small retrospective studies with conflicting results, it is unclear which patients might benefit from adjuvant therapy. This review included recent and current trials in cutaneous SCC and the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

According to the review, adjuvant radiation therapy is usually considered with high-risk features, such as perineural invasion, lymph node metastasis and extracapsular/extranodal extension, if the patient is otherwise at high risk for metastasis or recurrence, or if further surgery is not possible.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology do not recommend adjuvant radiation therapy for most patients with cSCC. However, adjuvant radiation therapy with or without systemic therapy may be considered in locally advanced disease, when further surgery is not an option, or if there is regional lymph node metastasis, but multidisciplinary consultation is recommended.

Regarding checkpoint inhibitors, the NCCN, ACR, and ASTRO do not recommend the use of systemic therapy for local disease amenable to surgery. Potential use of a checkpoint inhibitor with radiation therapy in a clinical trial is recommended for residual disease in locally advanced cSCC as palliative care when other options are not available. While the use of cemiplimab or pembrolizumab are preferred in regional recurrence when curative surgery and radiation therapy are not an option, a targeted therapy can be considered if this is not feasible.

“Given the current activity of checkpoint inhibition in this disease, enthusiasm for the addition of cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents in the adjuvant setting may be on the decline,” the authors wrote. “Multidisciplinary approaches will most likely continue to be recommended in complicated cases, including those involving immunosuppression.”

The authors said that further study is needed on prognostic testing, such as gene expression profile testing or sentinel lymph node biopsy, as such testing early in disease could identify patients who would likely benefit from adjuvant therapy. They added that the need to identify patients at early stages of disease who are at high risk for metastasis continues to remain critical.

Checkpoint inhibitor use as adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) may eventually overtake the use of cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents, say the authors of a clinical review recently published in the journal Head and Neck.

The review, led by Jason G. Newman, MD, director of head and neck surgery at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, includes evidence-based research findings from the last 10 years which describe the possible roles for adjuvant radiation, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and/or targeted therapy in the management of high-risk cSCC.

Dr. Newman and colleagues wrote that more data – and high-quality data – are needed for physicians to determine with more confidence which adjuvant therapies would be best for specific patients with high-risk cSCC. But without that data, uncertainty in treatment decisions will persist.

“The requirements for and efficacy of adjuvant therapies in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma are unclear, and the gap in evidence for practice decisions regarding adjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk cSCC has been apparent for more than a decade,” they wrote.

While surgical excision with clear margins of the primary cSCC lesion remains the standard of care, certain high-risk factors necessitate adjuvant therapy, the authors wrote. However, since the evidence consists of small retrospective studies with conflicting results, it is unclear which patients might benefit from adjuvant therapy. This review included recent and current trials in cutaneous SCC and the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

According to the review, adjuvant radiation therapy is usually considered with high-risk features, such as perineural invasion, lymph node metastasis and extracapsular/extranodal extension, if the patient is otherwise at high risk for metastasis or recurrence, or if further surgery is not possible.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology do not recommend adjuvant radiation therapy for most patients with cSCC. However, adjuvant radiation therapy with or without systemic therapy may be considered in locally advanced disease, when further surgery is not an option, or if there is regional lymph node metastasis, but multidisciplinary consultation is recommended.

Regarding checkpoint inhibitors, the NCCN, ACR, and ASTRO do not recommend the use of systemic therapy for local disease amenable to surgery. Potential use of a checkpoint inhibitor with radiation therapy in a clinical trial is recommended for residual disease in locally advanced cSCC as palliative care when other options are not available. While the use of cemiplimab or pembrolizumab are preferred in regional recurrence when curative surgery and radiation therapy are not an option, a targeted therapy can be considered if this is not feasible.

“Given the current activity of checkpoint inhibition in this disease, enthusiasm for the addition of cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents in the adjuvant setting may be on the decline,” the authors wrote. “Multidisciplinary approaches will most likely continue to be recommended in complicated cases, including those involving immunosuppression.”

The authors said that further study is needed on prognostic testing, such as gene expression profile testing or sentinel lymph node biopsy, as such testing early in disease could identify patients who would likely benefit from adjuvant therapy. They added that the need to identify patients at early stages of disease who are at high risk for metastasis continues to remain critical.

Lung cancer screening reduces mortality, but patient adherence to screening intervals is suboptimal in the United States, according to a review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

“Lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS),” Yannan Lin, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote. ”Patient adherence to Lung-RADS–recommended screening intervals is suboptimal across clinical lung cancer screening programs in the U.S., especially among patients with Lung-RADS category 1-2 results.”

Lung cancer screening can identify tumors at earlier, more treatable stages, but patients with lung cancer diagnoses based on new nodules at incidence screening have shown shortened survivals. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has shown a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with low-dose chest CT screening relative to chest radiography. The Lung-RADS guidelines to standardize the reporting of lung cancer screening were developed based on findings from the NLST and other screening studies, partly to reduce false-positive rates. Lung-RADS scores are based upon nodule size, characteristics and location, with management guidelines specific to Lung-RADS categories, ranging from low-dose chest CT in 12 months for Lung-RADS 1-2 to chest CT, PET/CT, or tissue sampling for Lung-RADS 4B/X.

The rate of adherence to lung cancer screening based on Lung-RADS guidelines is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis looked at patient adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practice.

The meta-analysis included 21 studies. The pooled adherence rate was 57% for defined adherence, which included an annual incidence screen performed within 15 months, among 6,689 patients and 65% for anytime adherence among 5,085 patients. The authors noted that overall rates of adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practices is low as compared with the over 90% adherence seen in the NLST, adversely affecting the mortality benefits of lung cancer screening.

Higher adherence rates were found in patients with Lung-RADS 3 (risk for lung cancer, 1%-2%) and 4 (risk, >5%) than Lung-RADS 1 and 2 (risk, <1%; P < .05), which the authors said suggests that tailored interventions based on Lung-RADS categories may be beneficial.

“It is likely that patients and referrers are more concerned about nodules at a higher risk for lung cancer, prompting greater adherence to recommended screening intervals in Lung-RADS 3-4,” the authors wrote. “It is crucial that patients and referrers alike understand that screening is most effective when performed regularly, including for those with negative baseline screens, as de novo nodules, those detected after a negative screen, are more aggressive than those detected at baseline screen.”

These low adherence rates seen in the clinical practices could be explained by patient characteristics, insurance coverage and interventions to ensure adherence, among other factors.

Further, inconsistent reporting of adherence rates was observed. Standardized reporting of adherence rates to lung cancer screening is needed to identify interventions to improve adherence, the authors wrote.

The authors of this study noted no conflicts of interest.

Lung cancer screening reduces mortality, but patient adherence to screening intervals is suboptimal in the United States, according to a review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

“Lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS),” Yannan Lin, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote. ”Patient adherence to Lung-RADS–recommended screening intervals is suboptimal across clinical lung cancer screening programs in the U.S., especially among patients with Lung-RADS category 1-2 results.”

Lung cancer screening can identify tumors at earlier, more treatable stages, but patients with lung cancer diagnoses based on new nodules at incidence screening have shown shortened survivals. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has shown a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with low-dose chest CT screening relative to chest radiography. The Lung-RADS guidelines to standardize the reporting of lung cancer screening were developed based on findings from the NLST and other screening studies, partly to reduce false-positive rates. Lung-RADS scores are based upon nodule size, characteristics and location, with management guidelines specific to Lung-RADS categories, ranging from low-dose chest CT in 12 months for Lung-RADS 1-2 to chest CT, PET/CT, or tissue sampling for Lung-RADS 4B/X.

The rate of adherence to lung cancer screening based on Lung-RADS guidelines is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis looked at patient adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practice.

The meta-analysis included 21 studies. The pooled adherence rate was 57% for defined adherence, which included an annual incidence screen performed within 15 months, among 6,689 patients and 65% for anytime adherence among 5,085 patients. The authors noted that overall rates of adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practices is low as compared with the over 90% adherence seen in the NLST, adversely affecting the mortality benefits of lung cancer screening.

Higher adherence rates were found in patients with Lung-RADS 3 (risk for lung cancer, 1%-2%) and 4 (risk, >5%) than Lung-RADS 1 and 2 (risk, <1%; P < .05), which the authors said suggests that tailored interventions based on Lung-RADS categories may be beneficial.

“It is likely that patients and referrers are more concerned about nodules at a higher risk for lung cancer, prompting greater adherence to recommended screening intervals in Lung-RADS 3-4,” the authors wrote. “It is crucial that patients and referrers alike understand that screening is most effective when performed regularly, including for those with negative baseline screens, as de novo nodules, those detected after a negative screen, are more aggressive than those detected at baseline screen.”

These low adherence rates seen in the clinical practices could be explained by patient characteristics, insurance coverage and interventions to ensure adherence, among other factors.

Further, inconsistent reporting of adherence rates was observed. Standardized reporting of adherence rates to lung cancer screening is needed to identify interventions to improve adherence, the authors wrote.

The authors of this study noted no conflicts of interest.

Lung cancer screening reduces mortality, but patient adherence to screening intervals is suboptimal in the United States, according to a review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

“Lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS),” Yannan Lin, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote. ”Patient adherence to Lung-RADS–recommended screening intervals is suboptimal across clinical lung cancer screening programs in the U.S., especially among patients with Lung-RADS category 1-2 results.”

Lung cancer screening can identify tumors at earlier, more treatable stages, but patients with lung cancer diagnoses based on new nodules at incidence screening have shown shortened survivals. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has shown a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with low-dose chest CT screening relative to chest radiography. The Lung-RADS guidelines to standardize the reporting of lung cancer screening were developed based on findings from the NLST and other screening studies, partly to reduce false-positive rates. Lung-RADS scores are based upon nodule size, characteristics and location, with management guidelines specific to Lung-RADS categories, ranging from low-dose chest CT in 12 months for Lung-RADS 1-2 to chest CT, PET/CT, or tissue sampling for Lung-RADS 4B/X.

The rate of adherence to lung cancer screening based on Lung-RADS guidelines is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis looked at patient adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practice.

The meta-analysis included 21 studies. The pooled adherence rate was 57% for defined adherence, which included an annual incidence screen performed within 15 months, among 6,689 patients and 65% for anytime adherence among 5,085 patients. The authors noted that overall rates of adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practices is low as compared with the over 90% adherence seen in the NLST, adversely affecting the mortality benefits of lung cancer screening.

Higher adherence rates were found in patients with Lung-RADS 3 (risk for lung cancer, 1%-2%) and 4 (risk, >5%) than Lung-RADS 1 and 2 (risk, <1%; P < .05), which the authors said suggests that tailored interventions based on Lung-RADS categories may be beneficial.

“It is likely that patients and referrers are more concerned about nodules at a higher risk for lung cancer, prompting greater adherence to recommended screening intervals in Lung-RADS 3-4,” the authors wrote. “It is crucial that patients and referrers alike understand that screening is most effective when performed regularly, including for those with negative baseline screens, as de novo nodules, those detected after a negative screen, are more aggressive than those detected at baseline screen.”

These low adherence rates seen in the clinical practices could be explained by patient characteristics, insurance coverage and interventions to ensure adherence, among other factors.

Further, inconsistent reporting of adherence rates was observed. Standardized reporting of adherence rates to lung cancer screening is needed to identify interventions to improve adherence, the authors wrote.

The authors of this study noted no conflicts of interest.