Randy Dotinga

The rapid rise of chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T-cell) therapy has allowed hematologists to make great strides in treating aggressive cases of multiple myeloma and several types of lymphoma and leukemia. But patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), the most common leukemia in adults, have been left out.

Now there are encouraging signs that CLL could join the list of blood cancers that can be effectively treated by CAR T therapy. On another front, bispecific antibodies – which just received FDA approval to treat B-cell lymphoma – are being tested as treatments for CLL.

“These are the two immunotherapies that have the most potential right now,” said Ohio State University, Columbus, hematologist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, in an interview. She went on to say that these treatments could be a boon for patients with CLL who don’t respond well to targeted therapy drugs or are so young that those medications may not retain effectiveness throughout the patients’ lifespans.

As the American Cancer Society explains, CAR T therapy is a way to get T cells “to fight cancer by changing them in the lab so they can find and destroy cancer cells.” The cells are then returned to the patient.

As the National Cancer Institute says, “If all goes as planned, the CAR T cells will continue to multiply in the patient’s body and, with guidance from their engineered receptor, recognize and kill any cancer cells that harbor the target antigen on their surfaces.”

According to Dr. Rogers, CAR T therapy is less toxic than stem cell transplantation, a related treatment. That means older people can better tolerate it, including many CLL patients in their late 60s and beyond, she said. (Side effects of CAR T therapy include cytokine release syndrome, nervous system impairment, and weakening of the immune system.)

Thus far, CAR T therapy has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat lymphomas, some forms of leukemia, and multiple myeloma. “Despite the excitement around these therapies, they lead to long-term survival in fewer than half of the patients treated,” cautions the National Cancer Institute, which also notes their high cost: more than $450,000 in one case.

CAR T therapy is not FDA-approved for CLL. “There are many reasons why CAR T is less effective in patients with CLL versus other lymphomas,” said Lee Greenberger, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, in an interview. “For one, many patients with heavily pretreated CLL – prior to any use of CAR T – have mutations that are known to be difficult to treat. Dysfunctional T cells are also common in patients with CLL, and there’s often a lower number of available T-cells to manufacture.”

The results of a phase 1/2 trial released in August 2023 offered new insight about CAR T for CLL. In the open-label trial reported in The Lancet, 117 U.S. patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma underwent a form of CAR T therapy called lisocabtagene maraleucel after failing treatment with two lines of therapy, including a Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Among 49 patients at a specific dose, “the rate of complete response or remission (including with incomplete marrow recovery) was statistically significant at 18%,” the researchers reported. A total of 51 patients in the entire study died.

The rate of undetectable minimal residual disease blood was 64%. That rate is impressive, said University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center leukemia specialist Nitin Jain, MD, in an interview. It’s not nearly as high as researchers have seen in other disease settings, but it’s “a good, good thing for these patients. We’ll have to see in the longer follow-up how these patients fare 2, 3, or 4 years down the line.”

Dr. Rogers, the Ohio physician, said doctors had hoped durable benefit in the Lancet study would be more impressive. An important factor limiting its value may be the aggressiveness of the disease in patients who have already failed several treatments, she said. “The efficacy of CAR T might be improved by giving it as an earlier line of therapy before the CLL has become this aggressive. But it’s difficult to propose that you should use this before a Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitor or venetoclax because it’s expensive and difficult.”

What’s next for CART T research in CLL? Understanding the best timing for treatment will be key, Dr. Rogers said.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s Dr. Greenberger predicted that “we will begin to see CAR T explored in CLL patients whose disease has a high risk of failing approved agents, such as Bruton´s tyrosine kinase and B cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors. However, CLL patients may still receive prior therapy with more effective Bruton’s tyrosine kinase or B cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors in the future before using CAR T. This will likely be heightened as more Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitors become generic in the next 5 to 10 years and, hopefully, less expensive than CAR T therapy.”

In the big picture, he said, “treatment of CLL with CAR T is possible, but still needs significant improvements if it is to become a mainline therapy in the future.”

CAR T therapy remains available via clinical trials, and Dr. Rogers said it is “currently an important option for patients whose CLL has become resistant to standard targeted agents. We can certainly expect to extend someone’s expected survival by years if they have a favorable response.” She acknowledged that the cost is quite high, but noted that targeted therapies are also expensive, especially over the long term. They can run to $10,000-$20,000 a month. Bispecific antibodies are also being explored as potential therapy for CLL. “They’re really exciting,” Dr. Rogers said, with the potential to spur responses similar to those from CAR T therapy.

A 2022 review described these drugs as “molecules that combine antibody-directed therapies with cellular mediated immunotherapy.” The FDA explains that “by targeting two antigens or epitopes, they can cause multiple physiological or antitumor responses, which may be independent or connected.”

According to Dr. Greenberger, many bispecifics are in clinical trials now. However, “in the context of CLL, actually, the data is actually very, very limited. The development is just starting, and there are phase 1 and phase 2 trials ongoing.”

But data from lymphoma trials are encouraging, he said, and bispecifics “are actually looking as good as CAR T in some settings.”

Regimens can be a challenge for patients taking bispecifics, Dr. Greenberger said. “Repeat dosing with a step-up dosing approach to start is typically required when treating lymphoma.”

On the other hand, Dr. Rogers noted that antibody treatment can be easier for hematologists to arrange than CAR T therapy and stem cell transplants. “From an administrative side, there’s not as many things you need to have set up. So it’s able to be administered in a wider variety of settings,” she said,

Bispecific side effects include cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity as well as infusion reactions, Dr. Greenberger said, adding that “I would not exclude cost as a challenge.”

According to Formulary Watch, the bispecific Columvi (glofitamab-gxbm), which recently gained FDA approval to treat diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, is estimated to cost $350,000 for an 8.5-month round of treatment. Reuters reported that the bispecific Talvey (talquetamab-tgvs), which just received FDA approval to treat multiple myeloma, is estimated to cost $270,000-$360,000 for 6-8 months of treatment.

For now, bispecific trials “are mostly now reserved for patients with CLL who become resistant to our current standard targeted agents,” Dr. Rogers said. “It’s a little unclear if you can do CAR T therapy first and then bispecifics, or bispecifics and then CAR T therapy.”

What’s coming next for bispecifics? “On the horizon is better ease of administration, which is already being addressed by subcutaneous dosing for some bispecifics in lymphomas,” Dr. Greenberger said. “There’s also the possibility of combining bispecifics with conventional therapy.”

Dr. Rogers discloses ties with Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Beigene, and LOXO@Lilly. Dr. Greenberger discloses employment with the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which supports academic grants and a venture philanthropy via the Therapy Acceleration Program.

Dr. Jain reports ties with Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and numerous other disclosures.
 

The rapid rise of chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T-cell) therapy has allowed hematologists to make great strides in treating aggressive cases of multiple myeloma and several types of lymphoma and leukemia. But patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), the most common leukemia in adults, have been left out.

Now there are encouraging signs that CLL could join the list of blood cancers that can be effectively treated by CAR T therapy. On another front, bispecific antibodies – which just received FDA approval to treat B-cell lymphoma – are being tested as treatments for CLL.

“These are the two immunotherapies that have the most potential right now,” said Ohio State University, Columbus, hematologist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, in an interview. She went on to say that these treatments could be a boon for patients with CLL who don’t respond well to targeted therapy drugs or are so young that those medications may not retain effectiveness throughout the patients’ lifespans.

As the American Cancer Society explains, CAR T therapy is a way to get T cells “to fight cancer by changing them in the lab so they can find and destroy cancer cells.” The cells are then returned to the patient.

As the National Cancer Institute says, “If all goes as planned, the CAR T cells will continue to multiply in the patient’s body and, with guidance from their engineered receptor, recognize and kill any cancer cells that harbor the target antigen on their surfaces.”

According to Dr. Rogers, CAR T therapy is less toxic than stem cell transplantation, a related treatment. That means older people can better tolerate it, including many CLL patients in their late 60s and beyond, she said. (Side effects of CAR T therapy include cytokine release syndrome, nervous system impairment, and weakening of the immune system.)

Thus far, CAR T therapy has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat lymphomas, some forms of leukemia, and multiple myeloma. “Despite the excitement around these therapies, they lead to long-term survival in fewer than half of the patients treated,” cautions the National Cancer Institute, which also notes their high cost: more than $450,000 in one case.

CAR T therapy is not FDA-approved for CLL. “There are many reasons why CAR T is less effective in patients with CLL versus other lymphomas,” said Lee Greenberger, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, in an interview. “For one, many patients with heavily pretreated CLL – prior to any use of CAR T – have mutations that are known to be difficult to treat. Dysfunctional T cells are also common in patients with CLL, and there’s often a lower number of available T-cells to manufacture.”

The results of a phase 1/2 trial released in August 2023 offered new insight about CAR T for CLL. In the open-label trial reported in The Lancet, 117 U.S. patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma underwent a form of CAR T therapy called lisocabtagene maraleucel after failing treatment with two lines of therapy, including a Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Among 49 patients at a specific dose, “the rate of complete response or remission (including with incomplete marrow recovery) was statistically significant at 18%,” the researchers reported. A total of 51 patients in the entire study died.

The rate of undetectable minimal residual disease blood was 64%. That rate is impressive, said University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center leukemia specialist Nitin Jain, MD, in an interview. It’s not nearly as high as researchers have seen in other disease settings, but it’s “a good, good thing for these patients. We’ll have to see in the longer follow-up how these patients fare 2, 3, or 4 years down the line.”

Dr. Rogers, the Ohio physician, said doctors had hoped durable benefit in the Lancet study would be more impressive. An important factor limiting its value may be the aggressiveness of the disease in patients who have already failed several treatments, she said. “The efficacy of CAR T might be improved by giving it as an earlier line of therapy before the CLL has become this aggressive. But it’s difficult to propose that you should use this before a Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitor or venetoclax because it’s expensive and difficult.”

What’s next for CART T research in CLL? Understanding the best timing for treatment will be key, Dr. Rogers said.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s Dr. Greenberger predicted that “we will begin to see CAR T explored in CLL patients whose disease has a high risk of failing approved agents, such as Bruton´s tyrosine kinase and B cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors. However, CLL patients may still receive prior therapy with more effective Bruton’s tyrosine kinase or B cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors in the future before using CAR T. This will likely be heightened as more Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitors become generic in the next 5 to 10 years and, hopefully, less expensive than CAR T therapy.”

In the big picture, he said, “treatment of CLL with CAR T is possible, but still needs significant improvements if it is to become a mainline therapy in the future.”

CAR T therapy remains available via clinical trials, and Dr. Rogers said it is “currently an important option for patients whose CLL has become resistant to standard targeted agents. We can certainly expect to extend someone’s expected survival by years if they have a favorable response.” She acknowledged that the cost is quite high, but noted that targeted therapies are also expensive, especially over the long term. They can run to $10,000-$20,000 a month. Bispecific antibodies are also being explored as potential therapy for CLL. “They’re really exciting,” Dr. Rogers said, with the potential to spur responses similar to those from CAR T therapy.

A 2022 review described these drugs as “molecules that combine antibody-directed therapies with cellular mediated immunotherapy.” The FDA explains that “by targeting two antigens or epitopes, they can cause multiple physiological or antitumor responses, which may be independent or connected.”

According to Dr. Greenberger, many bispecifics are in clinical trials now. However, “in the context of CLL, actually, the data is actually very, very limited. The development is just starting, and there are phase 1 and phase 2 trials ongoing.”

But data from lymphoma trials are encouraging, he said, and bispecifics “are actually looking as good as CAR T in some settings.”

Regimens can be a challenge for patients taking bispecifics, Dr. Greenberger said. “Repeat dosing with a step-up dosing approach to start is typically required when treating lymphoma.”

On the other hand, Dr. Rogers noted that antibody treatment can be easier for hematologists to arrange than CAR T therapy and stem cell transplants. “From an administrative side, there’s not as many things you need to have set up. So it’s able to be administered in a wider variety of settings,” she said,

Bispecific side effects include cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity as well as infusion reactions, Dr. Greenberger said, adding that “I would not exclude cost as a challenge.”

According to Formulary Watch, the bispecific Columvi (glofitamab-gxbm), which recently gained FDA approval to treat diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, is estimated to cost $350,000 for an 8.5-month round of treatment. Reuters reported that the bispecific Talvey (talquetamab-tgvs), which just received FDA approval to treat multiple myeloma, is estimated to cost $270,000-$360,000 for 6-8 months of treatment.

For now, bispecific trials “are mostly now reserved for patients with CLL who become resistant to our current standard targeted agents,” Dr. Rogers said. “It’s a little unclear if you can do CAR T therapy first and then bispecifics, or bispecifics and then CAR T therapy.”

What’s coming next for bispecifics? “On the horizon is better ease of administration, which is already being addressed by subcutaneous dosing for some bispecifics in lymphomas,” Dr. Greenberger said. “There’s also the possibility of combining bispecifics with conventional therapy.”

Dr. Rogers discloses ties with Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Beigene, and LOXO@Lilly. Dr. Greenberger discloses employment with the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which supports academic grants and a venture philanthropy via the Therapy Acceleration Program.

Dr. Jain reports ties with Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and numerous other disclosures.
 

The rapid rise of chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T-cell) therapy has allowed hematologists to make great strides in treating aggressive cases of multiple myeloma and several types of lymphoma and leukemia. But patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), the most common leukemia in adults, have been left out.

Now there are encouraging signs that CLL could join the list of blood cancers that can be effectively treated by CAR T therapy. On another front, bispecific antibodies – which just received FDA approval to treat B-cell lymphoma – are being tested as treatments for CLL.

“These are the two immunotherapies that have the most potential right now,” said Ohio State University, Columbus, hematologist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, in an interview. She went on to say that these treatments could be a boon for patients with CLL who don’t respond well to targeted therapy drugs or are so young that those medications may not retain effectiveness throughout the patients’ lifespans.

As the American Cancer Society explains, CAR T therapy is a way to get T cells “to fight cancer by changing them in the lab so they can find and destroy cancer cells.” The cells are then returned to the patient.

As the National Cancer Institute says, “If all goes as planned, the CAR T cells will continue to multiply in the patient’s body and, with guidance from their engineered receptor, recognize and kill any cancer cells that harbor the target antigen on their surfaces.”

According to Dr. Rogers, CAR T therapy is less toxic than stem cell transplantation, a related treatment. That means older people can better tolerate it, including many CLL patients in their late 60s and beyond, she said. (Side effects of CAR T therapy include cytokine release syndrome, nervous system impairment, and weakening of the immune system.)

Thus far, CAR T therapy has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat lymphomas, some forms of leukemia, and multiple myeloma. “Despite the excitement around these therapies, they lead to long-term survival in fewer than half of the patients treated,” cautions the National Cancer Institute, which also notes their high cost: more than $450,000 in one case.

CAR T therapy is not FDA-approved for CLL. “There are many reasons why CAR T is less effective in patients with CLL versus other lymphomas,” said Lee Greenberger, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, in an interview. “For one, many patients with heavily pretreated CLL – prior to any use of CAR T – have mutations that are known to be difficult to treat. Dysfunctional T cells are also common in patients with CLL, and there’s often a lower number of available T-cells to manufacture.”

The results of a phase 1/2 trial released in August 2023 offered new insight about CAR T for CLL. In the open-label trial reported in The Lancet, 117 U.S. patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma underwent a form of CAR T therapy called lisocabtagene maraleucel after failing treatment with two lines of therapy, including a Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Among 49 patients at a specific dose, “the rate of complete response or remission (including with incomplete marrow recovery) was statistically significant at 18%,” the researchers reported. A total of 51 patients in the entire study died.

The rate of undetectable minimal residual disease blood was 64%. That rate is impressive, said University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center leukemia specialist Nitin Jain, MD, in an interview. It’s not nearly as high as researchers have seen in other disease settings, but it’s “a good, good thing for these patients. We’ll have to see in the longer follow-up how these patients fare 2, 3, or 4 years down the line.”

Dr. Rogers, the Ohio physician, said doctors had hoped durable benefit in the Lancet study would be more impressive. An important factor limiting its value may be the aggressiveness of the disease in patients who have already failed several treatments, she said. “The efficacy of CAR T might be improved by giving it as an earlier line of therapy before the CLL has become this aggressive. But it’s difficult to propose that you should use this before a Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitor or venetoclax because it’s expensive and difficult.”

What’s next for CART T research in CLL? Understanding the best timing for treatment will be key, Dr. Rogers said.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s Dr. Greenberger predicted that “we will begin to see CAR T explored in CLL patients whose disease has a high risk of failing approved agents, such as Bruton´s tyrosine kinase and B cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors. However, CLL patients may still receive prior therapy with more effective Bruton’s tyrosine kinase or B cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors in the future before using CAR T. This will likely be heightened as more Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitors become generic in the next 5 to 10 years and, hopefully, less expensive than CAR T therapy.”

In the big picture, he said, “treatment of CLL with CAR T is possible, but still needs significant improvements if it is to become a mainline therapy in the future.”

CAR T therapy remains available via clinical trials, and Dr. Rogers said it is “currently an important option for patients whose CLL has become resistant to standard targeted agents. We can certainly expect to extend someone’s expected survival by years if they have a favorable response.” She acknowledged that the cost is quite high, but noted that targeted therapies are also expensive, especially over the long term. They can run to $10,000-$20,000 a month. Bispecific antibodies are also being explored as potential therapy for CLL. “They’re really exciting,” Dr. Rogers said, with the potential to spur responses similar to those from CAR T therapy.

A 2022 review described these drugs as “molecules that combine antibody-directed therapies with cellular mediated immunotherapy.” The FDA explains that “by targeting two antigens or epitopes, they can cause multiple physiological or antitumor responses, which may be independent or connected.”

According to Dr. Greenberger, many bispecifics are in clinical trials now. However, “in the context of CLL, actually, the data is actually very, very limited. The development is just starting, and there are phase 1 and phase 2 trials ongoing.”

But data from lymphoma trials are encouraging, he said, and bispecifics “are actually looking as good as CAR T in some settings.”

Regimens can be a challenge for patients taking bispecifics, Dr. Greenberger said. “Repeat dosing with a step-up dosing approach to start is typically required when treating lymphoma.”

On the other hand, Dr. Rogers noted that antibody treatment can be easier for hematologists to arrange than CAR T therapy and stem cell transplants. “From an administrative side, there’s not as many things you need to have set up. So it’s able to be administered in a wider variety of settings,” she said,

Bispecific side effects include cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity as well as infusion reactions, Dr. Greenberger said, adding that “I would not exclude cost as a challenge.”

According to Formulary Watch, the bispecific Columvi (glofitamab-gxbm), which recently gained FDA approval to treat diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, is estimated to cost $350,000 for an 8.5-month round of treatment. Reuters reported that the bispecific Talvey (talquetamab-tgvs), which just received FDA approval to treat multiple myeloma, is estimated to cost $270,000-$360,000 for 6-8 months of treatment.

For now, bispecific trials “are mostly now reserved for patients with CLL who become resistant to our current standard targeted agents,” Dr. Rogers said. “It’s a little unclear if you can do CAR T therapy first and then bispecifics, or bispecifics and then CAR T therapy.”

What’s coming next for bispecifics? “On the horizon is better ease of administration, which is already being addressed by subcutaneous dosing for some bispecifics in lymphomas,” Dr. Greenberger said. “There’s also the possibility of combining bispecifics with conventional therapy.”

Dr. Rogers discloses ties with Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Beigene, and LOXO@Lilly. Dr. Greenberger discloses employment with the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which supports academic grants and a venture philanthropy via the Therapy Acceleration Program.

Dr. Jain reports ties with Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and numerous other disclosures.
 

One in eight primary care clinicians revised prescriptions after receiving electronic alerts that estimated how much patients would pay out of pocket and that offered cheaper alternatives if available, according to findings from a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The findings suggest that incorporating the alerts into electronic health record software could be useful for reducing patient expenses, said lead author Anna D. Sinaiko, PhD, assistant professor of health economics and policy at Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. Showing clinicians the actual prices of medications their patient would pay led to changes in one in six orders when the potential cost savings to the patient was $20 or more, she said.

“This suggests that clinicians are taking medication out-of-pocket prices into account when they are most meaningful for patients.”

Such “real-time benefit tools” provide more meaningful information about patient drug prices in clinical settings than has previously been available, Dr. Sinaiko said. They provide out-of-pocket price estimates specific to individual patients and account for their health plans as opposed to symbols or colors indicating drugs that are more or less expensive, which has been the status quo.

Also, she said, Medicare has promoted the use of these tools by health systems and health plans.

Dr. Sinaiko and colleagues examined EHR data for 103,953 primary care clinic encounters with 72,420 patients in the University of Colorado Health system (81.5% White; 59.5% female; 51.4% aged 65 years or older; 51.9% on Medicare). The patients were treated from July 2019 to July 2022 by 889 clinicians (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants), who wrote nearly 1.9 million medication orders. Of those orders, 181,887 (9.7%) included a price estimate.

For each prescription, the EHR displayed out-of-pocket costs for patients and offered alternative drugs if those drugs were at least 15 cents cheaper or if they were available at an on-site pharmacy.

Clinicians changed prescriptions 12.3% of the time after they saw price information. The percentage went up to 14% when possible cost savings were $5 or more.

Researchers also found that, while there was the option for clinicians to click a button in the EHR and learn a patient’s specific medication price before ordering a drug, very few clinicians requested price estimates directly, Dr. Sinaiko said. Fewer than 1% (0.9%) did so. The other 99.1% did not, meaning they received information about prices via alerts only after ordering prescriptions.

Researchers also found that clinicians weren’t more likely to change psychiatric medications when the cost savings for the patient was higher. The demographics of patients – such as whether they were poorer or richer – didn’t affect the willingness of clinicians to change prescriptions after receiving price information.

In the big picture, Dr. Sinaiko said, “The fact that medication orders were changed more often when the potential cost savings for patients were larger suggests to me that clinicians were taking out-of-pocket cost into account when it was most salient for the patient.”

It’s not clear, however, why clinicians did not revise more prescriptions to help patients save money.

One theory is that they may ignore the alerts because of “alert fatigue,” she said. “I’d like to know if clinicians discount or ignore the price estimate because they don’t know where it comes from or whether it is accurate. It’s also possible that clinicians discuss the option to change a medication order with their patient, and for reasons other than cost, they decide to keep the original selection. This suggests that clinicians might be using price information to guide – not dictate – their clinical decisions.”

The study had limitations. The researchers did not assess whether the cheaper alternative medications were appropriate in individual cases. Also, they did not take into account other factors, such as patient preferences, that affect how clinicians make prescription decisions.

Clinicians may also not know whether their patients worry about drug costs.

“There isn’t really good data on who wants to talk to their physician about costs, but it is definitely nowhere near 100%,” said health services researcher Alyna Chien, MD, a pediatrician at Boston Children’s Hospital. “For physicians, there is also good reason to keep cost out of the picture until asked so that patients don’t feel like they’re getting suboptimal choices.”

University of Washington, Seattle, graduate student Shiven Bhardwaj, PharmD, who studies health policy, said in an interview that the new study “suggests that physicians are not frequently selecting less costly agents suggested by the real-time benefit tool, and they may not even be considering these alternatives.”

According to Dr. Bhardwaj, previous research has found that physicians “are unable to estimate what their patients’ out-of-pocket costs may be, which is not surprising, given wide variation in health insurance benefit designs.”

Why aren’t more clinicians choosing cheaper alternatives, even when they’re directly told about them? Dr. Bhardwaj suggests that many health systems may be implementing electronic drug cost alerts in the absence of official notification or training.

“Health systems should be making providers aware of the system and its potential to reduce patients’ out-of-pocket costs.”
 

What’s next for research in this area?

Lead author Dr. Sinaiko said she and her team will interview clinicians and patients in practices at University of Colorado Health to understand how these price estimates are used in clinical encounters and how they affect clinician practice and patient experiences

“We are interested in learning about the cost-savings thresholds that are important to patients,” she said.

The researchers will also examine whether cost information helps to boost access to medications for chronic conditions among Black and Hispanic patients and patients who live in rural areas, she said.

The study was funded by the Harvard School of Public Health Dean’s Fund and the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Sinaiko, Dr. Bhardwaj, and Dr. Chien have no relevant disclosures. Two study authors report having received a grant from the National Institute on Aging and consulting fees from Dispatch Health and Credo Health.

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

One in eight primary care clinicians revised prescriptions after receiving electronic alerts that estimated how much patients would pay out of pocket and that offered cheaper alternatives if available, according to findings from a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The findings suggest that incorporating the alerts into electronic health record software could be useful for reducing patient expenses, said lead author Anna D. Sinaiko, PhD, assistant professor of health economics and policy at Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. Showing clinicians the actual prices of medications their patient would pay led to changes in one in six orders when the potential cost savings to the patient was $20 or more, she said.

“This suggests that clinicians are taking medication out-of-pocket prices into account when they are most meaningful for patients.”

Such “real-time benefit tools” provide more meaningful information about patient drug prices in clinical settings than has previously been available, Dr. Sinaiko said. They provide out-of-pocket price estimates specific to individual patients and account for their health plans as opposed to symbols or colors indicating drugs that are more or less expensive, which has been the status quo.

Also, she said, Medicare has promoted the use of these tools by health systems and health plans.

Dr. Sinaiko and colleagues examined EHR data for 103,953 primary care clinic encounters with 72,420 patients in the University of Colorado Health system (81.5% White; 59.5% female; 51.4% aged 65 years or older; 51.9% on Medicare). The patients were treated from July 2019 to July 2022 by 889 clinicians (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants), who wrote nearly 1.9 million medication orders. Of those orders, 181,887 (9.7%) included a price estimate.

For each prescription, the EHR displayed out-of-pocket costs for patients and offered alternative drugs if those drugs were at least 15 cents cheaper or if they were available at an on-site pharmacy.

Clinicians changed prescriptions 12.3% of the time after they saw price information. The percentage went up to 14% when possible cost savings were $5 or more.

Researchers also found that, while there was the option for clinicians to click a button in the EHR and learn a patient’s specific medication price before ordering a drug, very few clinicians requested price estimates directly, Dr. Sinaiko said. Fewer than 1% (0.9%) did so. The other 99.1% did not, meaning they received information about prices via alerts only after ordering prescriptions.

Researchers also found that clinicians weren’t more likely to change psychiatric medications when the cost savings for the patient was higher. The demographics of patients – such as whether they were poorer or richer – didn’t affect the willingness of clinicians to change prescriptions after receiving price information.

In the big picture, Dr. Sinaiko said, “The fact that medication orders were changed more often when the potential cost savings for patients were larger suggests to me that clinicians were taking out-of-pocket cost into account when it was most salient for the patient.”

It’s not clear, however, why clinicians did not revise more prescriptions to help patients save money.

One theory is that they may ignore the alerts because of “alert fatigue,” she said. “I’d like to know if clinicians discount or ignore the price estimate because they don’t know where it comes from or whether it is accurate. It’s also possible that clinicians discuss the option to change a medication order with their patient, and for reasons other than cost, they decide to keep the original selection. This suggests that clinicians might be using price information to guide – not dictate – their clinical decisions.”

The study had limitations. The researchers did not assess whether the cheaper alternative medications were appropriate in individual cases. Also, they did not take into account other factors, such as patient preferences, that affect how clinicians make prescription decisions.

Clinicians may also not know whether their patients worry about drug costs.

“There isn’t really good data on who wants to talk to their physician about costs, but it is definitely nowhere near 100%,” said health services researcher Alyna Chien, MD, a pediatrician at Boston Children’s Hospital. “For physicians, there is also good reason to keep cost out of the picture until asked so that patients don’t feel like they’re getting suboptimal choices.”

University of Washington, Seattle, graduate student Shiven Bhardwaj, PharmD, who studies health policy, said in an interview that the new study “suggests that physicians are not frequently selecting less costly agents suggested by the real-time benefit tool, and they may not even be considering these alternatives.”

According to Dr. Bhardwaj, previous research has found that physicians “are unable to estimate what their patients’ out-of-pocket costs may be, which is not surprising, given wide variation in health insurance benefit designs.”

Why aren’t more clinicians choosing cheaper alternatives, even when they’re directly told about them? Dr. Bhardwaj suggests that many health systems may be implementing electronic drug cost alerts in the absence of official notification or training.

“Health systems should be making providers aware of the system and its potential to reduce patients’ out-of-pocket costs.”
 

What’s next for research in this area?

Lead author Dr. Sinaiko said she and her team will interview clinicians and patients in practices at University of Colorado Health to understand how these price estimates are used in clinical encounters and how they affect clinician practice and patient experiences

“We are interested in learning about the cost-savings thresholds that are important to patients,” she said.

The researchers will also examine whether cost information helps to boost access to medications for chronic conditions among Black and Hispanic patients and patients who live in rural areas, she said.

The study was funded by the Harvard School of Public Health Dean’s Fund and the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Sinaiko, Dr. Bhardwaj, and Dr. Chien have no relevant disclosures. Two study authors report having received a grant from the National Institute on Aging and consulting fees from Dispatch Health and Credo Health.

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

One in eight primary care clinicians revised prescriptions after receiving electronic alerts that estimated how much patients would pay out of pocket and that offered cheaper alternatives if available, according to findings from a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The findings suggest that incorporating the alerts into electronic health record software could be useful for reducing patient expenses, said lead author Anna D. Sinaiko, PhD, assistant professor of health economics and policy at Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. Showing clinicians the actual prices of medications their patient would pay led to changes in one in six orders when the potential cost savings to the patient was $20 or more, she said.

“This suggests that clinicians are taking medication out-of-pocket prices into account when they are most meaningful for patients.”

Such “real-time benefit tools” provide more meaningful information about patient drug prices in clinical settings than has previously been available, Dr. Sinaiko said. They provide out-of-pocket price estimates specific to individual patients and account for their health plans as opposed to symbols or colors indicating drugs that are more or less expensive, which has been the status quo.

Also, she said, Medicare has promoted the use of these tools by health systems and health plans.

Dr. Sinaiko and colleagues examined EHR data for 103,953 primary care clinic encounters with 72,420 patients in the University of Colorado Health system (81.5% White; 59.5% female; 51.4% aged 65 years or older; 51.9% on Medicare). The patients were treated from July 2019 to July 2022 by 889 clinicians (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants), who wrote nearly 1.9 million medication orders. Of those orders, 181,887 (9.7%) included a price estimate.

For each prescription, the EHR displayed out-of-pocket costs for patients and offered alternative drugs if those drugs were at least 15 cents cheaper or if they were available at an on-site pharmacy.

Clinicians changed prescriptions 12.3% of the time after they saw price information. The percentage went up to 14% when possible cost savings were $5 or more.

Researchers also found that, while there was the option for clinicians to click a button in the EHR and learn a patient’s specific medication price before ordering a drug, very few clinicians requested price estimates directly, Dr. Sinaiko said. Fewer than 1% (0.9%) did so. The other 99.1% did not, meaning they received information about prices via alerts only after ordering prescriptions.

Researchers also found that clinicians weren’t more likely to change psychiatric medications when the cost savings for the patient was higher. The demographics of patients – such as whether they were poorer or richer – didn’t affect the willingness of clinicians to change prescriptions after receiving price information.

In the big picture, Dr. Sinaiko said, “The fact that medication orders were changed more often when the potential cost savings for patients were larger suggests to me that clinicians were taking out-of-pocket cost into account when it was most salient for the patient.”

It’s not clear, however, why clinicians did not revise more prescriptions to help patients save money.

One theory is that they may ignore the alerts because of “alert fatigue,” she said. “I’d like to know if clinicians discount or ignore the price estimate because they don’t know where it comes from or whether it is accurate. It’s also possible that clinicians discuss the option to change a medication order with their patient, and for reasons other than cost, they decide to keep the original selection. This suggests that clinicians might be using price information to guide – not dictate – their clinical decisions.”

The study had limitations. The researchers did not assess whether the cheaper alternative medications were appropriate in individual cases. Also, they did not take into account other factors, such as patient preferences, that affect how clinicians make prescription decisions.

Clinicians may also not know whether their patients worry about drug costs.

“There isn’t really good data on who wants to talk to their physician about costs, but it is definitely nowhere near 100%,” said health services researcher Alyna Chien, MD, a pediatrician at Boston Children’s Hospital. “For physicians, there is also good reason to keep cost out of the picture until asked so that patients don’t feel like they’re getting suboptimal choices.”

University of Washington, Seattle, graduate student Shiven Bhardwaj, PharmD, who studies health policy, said in an interview that the new study “suggests that physicians are not frequently selecting less costly agents suggested by the real-time benefit tool, and they may not even be considering these alternatives.”

According to Dr. Bhardwaj, previous research has found that physicians “are unable to estimate what their patients’ out-of-pocket costs may be, which is not surprising, given wide variation in health insurance benefit designs.”

Why aren’t more clinicians choosing cheaper alternatives, even when they’re directly told about them? Dr. Bhardwaj suggests that many health systems may be implementing electronic drug cost alerts in the absence of official notification or training.

“Health systems should be making providers aware of the system and its potential to reduce patients’ out-of-pocket costs.”
 

What’s next for research in this area?

Lead author Dr. Sinaiko said she and her team will interview clinicians and patients in practices at University of Colorado Health to understand how these price estimates are used in clinical encounters and how they affect clinician practice and patient experiences

“We are interested in learning about the cost-savings thresholds that are important to patients,” she said.

The researchers will also examine whether cost information helps to boost access to medications for chronic conditions among Black and Hispanic patients and patients who live in rural areas, she said.

The study was funded by the Harvard School of Public Health Dean’s Fund and the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Sinaiko, Dr. Bhardwaj, and Dr. Chien have no relevant disclosures. Two study authors report having received a grant from the National Institute on Aging and consulting fees from Dispatch Health and Credo Health.

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

TOPLINE:

Nearly 600 million people worldwide (7.6% of the world’s population) have osteoarthritis, and numbers are expected to rise starkly by 2050, especially knee/hip disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the prevalence of osteoarthritis in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020 and projected prevalence levels for the year 2050.
• Population-based surveys offered data from 26 countries for knee osteoarthritis, 23 countries for hip osteoarthritis, and 42 countries for hand osteoarthritis. Researchers used U.S. insurance claims to estimate prevalence for other osteoarthritis types.
• Similar analyses were conducted in 2010 and 2017.

TAKEAWAY:

• Osteoarthritis cases worldwide have grown by an estimated 132.2% since 1990. Population growth and aging were identified as major contributing factors.
• In 2020, an estimated 595 million people had osteoarthritis. From 2020 to 2050, cases of osteoarthritis in the knee are expected to grow by 74.9%, in the hand by 48.6%, in the hip by 78.6%, and in other locations by 95.1%.  
• Years lived with disability (age-standardized rate) grew from an estimated 233 per 100,000 in 1990 to 255 per 100,000 in 2020, an increase of 9.5%.
• High body mass index contributed to 20.4% of cases.

IN PRACTICE:

In “a major challenge to health systems,” osteoarthritis may affect nearly 1 billion people in 2050.

SOURCE:

The Global Burden of Disease 2021 Osteoarthritis Collaborators, led by Jaimie D. Steinmetz, PhD, MSc, of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Seattle, conducted the study, which was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limited data, heavy reliance on U.S. insurance data, and other factors may have skewed the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Institute of Bone and Joint Research, and the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health. Multiple authors reported numerous disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Nearly 600 million people worldwide (7.6% of the world’s population) have osteoarthritis, and numbers are expected to rise starkly by 2050, especially knee/hip disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the prevalence of osteoarthritis in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020 and projected prevalence levels for the year 2050.
• Population-based surveys offered data from 26 countries for knee osteoarthritis, 23 countries for hip osteoarthritis, and 42 countries for hand osteoarthritis. Researchers used U.S. insurance claims to estimate prevalence for other osteoarthritis types.
• Similar analyses were conducted in 2010 and 2017.

TAKEAWAY:

• Osteoarthritis cases worldwide have grown by an estimated 132.2% since 1990. Population growth and aging were identified as major contributing factors.
• In 2020, an estimated 595 million people had osteoarthritis. From 2020 to 2050, cases of osteoarthritis in the knee are expected to grow by 74.9%, in the hand by 48.6%, in the hip by 78.6%, and in other locations by 95.1%.  
• Years lived with disability (age-standardized rate) grew from an estimated 233 per 100,000 in 1990 to 255 per 100,000 in 2020, an increase of 9.5%.
• High body mass index contributed to 20.4% of cases.

IN PRACTICE:

In “a major challenge to health systems,” osteoarthritis may affect nearly 1 billion people in 2050.

SOURCE:

The Global Burden of Disease 2021 Osteoarthritis Collaborators, led by Jaimie D. Steinmetz, PhD, MSc, of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Seattle, conducted the study, which was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limited data, heavy reliance on U.S. insurance data, and other factors may have skewed the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Institute of Bone and Joint Research, and the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health. Multiple authors reported numerous disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Nearly 600 million people worldwide (7.6% of the world’s population) have osteoarthritis, and numbers are expected to rise starkly by 2050, especially knee/hip disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the prevalence of osteoarthritis in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020 and projected prevalence levels for the year 2050.
• Population-based surveys offered data from 26 countries for knee osteoarthritis, 23 countries for hip osteoarthritis, and 42 countries for hand osteoarthritis. Researchers used U.S. insurance claims to estimate prevalence for other osteoarthritis types.
• Similar analyses were conducted in 2010 and 2017.

TAKEAWAY:

• Osteoarthritis cases worldwide have grown by an estimated 132.2% since 1990. Population growth and aging were identified as major contributing factors.
• In 2020, an estimated 595 million people had osteoarthritis. From 2020 to 2050, cases of osteoarthritis in the knee are expected to grow by 74.9%, in the hand by 48.6%, in the hip by 78.6%, and in other locations by 95.1%.  
• Years lived with disability (age-standardized rate) grew from an estimated 233 per 100,000 in 1990 to 255 per 100,000 in 2020, an increase of 9.5%.
• High body mass index contributed to 20.4% of cases.

IN PRACTICE:

In “a major challenge to health systems,” osteoarthritis may affect nearly 1 billion people in 2050.

SOURCE:

The Global Burden of Disease 2021 Osteoarthritis Collaborators, led by Jaimie D. Steinmetz, PhD, MSc, of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Seattle, conducted the study, which was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limited data, heavy reliance on U.S. insurance data, and other factors may have skewed the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Institute of Bone and Joint Research, and the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health. Multiple authors reported numerous disclosures.

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

Back in 1997, a young Stanford (Calif.) University student named Christopher Flowers made his debut in the medical literature with a Nature Medicine report that called out the pharmaceutical industry for overlooking the crucial role of clinical investigators in drug development.

“My research uncovered a series of physicians who served as ‘clinical champions’ and dramatically sped the process of drug development,” Dr. Flowers recalled in an interview. “This early career research inspired me to become the type of clinical champion that I uncovered.”

MD Anderson Cancer Center

Over his career, hematologist-oncologist Dr. Flowers has developed lifesaving therapies for lymphoma, which has transformed into a highly treatable and even curable disease. He’s listed as a coauthor of hundreds of peer-reviewed cancer studies, reports, and medical society guidelines. And he’s revealed stark disparities in blood cancer care: His research shows that non-White patients suffer from worse outcomes, regardless of factors like income and insurance coverage.

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, recently named physician-scientist Dr. Flowers as division head of cancer medicine, a position he’s held on an interim basis. As of Sept. 1, he will permanently oversee 300 faculty and more than 2,000 staff members.
 

A running start in Seattle

For Dr. Flowers, track and field is a sport that runs in the family. His grandfather was a top runner in both high school and college, and both Dr. Flowers and his brother ran competitively in Seattle, where they grew up. But Dr. Flowers chose a career in oncology, earning a medical degree at Stanford and master’s degrees at both Stanford and the University of Washington, Seattle.

The late Kenneth Melmon, MD, a groundbreaking pharmacologist, was a major influence. “He was one of the first people that I met when I began as an undergraduate at Stanford. We grew to be long-standing friends, and he demonstrated what outstanding mentorship looks like. In our research collaboration, we investigated the work of Dr. Gertrude Elion and Dr. George Hitchings involving the translation of pharmacological data from cellular and animal models to clinically useful drugs including 6-mercaptopurine, allopurinol, azathioprine, acyclovir, and zidovudine.”

The late Oliver Press, MD, a blood cancer specialist, inspired Dr. Flower’s interest in lymphoma. “I began work with him during an internship at the University of Washington. Ollie was a great inspiration and a key leader in the development of innovative therapies for lymphoma. He embodied the role of a clinical champion translating work in radioimmunotherapy to new therapeutics for patients with lymphomas. Working with him ultimately led me to pursue a career in hematology and oncology with a focus on the care for patients with lymphomas.”
 

Career blooms as lymphoma care advances

Dr. Flowers went on to Emory University, Atlanta, where he served as scientific director of the Research Informatics Shared Resource and a faculty member in the department of biomedical informatics. “I applied my training in informatics and my clinical expertise to support active grants from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund for Innovation in Regulatory Science and from the National Cancer Institute to develop informatics tools for pathology image analysis and prognostic modeling.”

For 13 years, he also served the Winship Cancer Institute as director of the Emory Healthcare lymphoma program (where his patients included Kansas City Chiefs football star Eric Berry), and for 4 years as scientific director of research informatics. Meanwhile, Dr. Flowers helped develop national practice guidelines for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology. He also chaired the ASCO guideline on management of febrile neutropenia.

In 2019, MD Anderson hired Dr. Flowers as chair of the department of lymphoma/myeloma. A year later, he was appointed division head ad interim for cancer medicine.

“Chris is a unique leader who expertly combines mentorship, sponsorship, and bidirectional open, honest communication,” said Sairah Ahmed, MD, associate professor of lymphoma at MD Anderson. “He doesn’t just empower his team to reach their goals. He also inspires those around him to turn vision into reality.”

As Dr. Flowers noted, many patients with lymphoma are now able to recover and live normal lives. He himself played a direct role himself in boosting lifespans.

“I have been fortunate to play a role in the development of several treatments that have led to advances in first-line therapy for patients with aggressive lymphomas. I partnered with others at MD Anderson, including Dr. Sattva Neelapu and Dr. Jason Westin, who have developed novel therapies like chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for patients with relapse lymphomas,” he said. “Leaders in the field at MD Anderson like Dr. Michael Wang have developed new oral treatments for patients with rare lymphoma subtypes like mantle cell lymphoma. Other colleagues such as Dr. Nathan Fowler and Dr. Loretta Nastoupil have focused on the care for patients with indolent lymphomas and developed less-toxic therapies that are now in common use.”
 

Exposing the disparities in blood cancer care

Dr. Flowers, who’s African American, has also been a leader in health disparity research. In 2016, for example, he was coauthor of a study into non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that revealed that Blacks in the United States have dramatically lower survival rates than Whites. The 10-year survival rate for Black women with chronic lymphocytic leukemia was just 47%, for example, compared with 66% for White females. “Although incidence rates of lymphoid neoplasms are generally higher among Whites, Black men tend to have poorer survival,” Dr. Flowers and colleagues wrote.

In a 2021 report for the ASCO Educational Book, Dr. Flowers and hematologist-oncologist Demetria Smith-Graziani, MD, now with Emory University, explored disparities across blood cancers and barriers to minority enrollment in clinical trials. “Some approaches that clinicians can apply to address these disparities include increasing systems-level awareness, improving access to care, and reducing biases in clinical setting,” the authors wrote.

Luis Malpica Castillo, MD, assistant professor of lymphoma at MD Anderson Cancer Center, lauded the work of Dr. Flowers in expanding opportunities for minority patients with the disease.

“During the past years, Dr. Flowers’ work has not only had a positive impact on the Texan community, but minority populations living with cancer in the United States and abroad,” he said. “Currently, we are implementing cancer care networks aimed to increase diversity in clinical trials by enrolling a larger number of Hispanic and African American patients, who otherwise may not have benefited from novel therapies. The ultimate goal is to provide high-quality care to all patients living with cancer.”

In addition to his research work, Dr. Flowers is an advocate for diversity within the hematology community. He’s a founding member and former chair of the American Society of Hematology’s Committee on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (formerly the Committee on Promoting Diversity), and he helped develop the society’s Minority Recruitment Initiative.

What’s next for Dr. Flowers? For one, he plans to continue working as a mentor; he received the ASH Mentor Award in honor of his service in 2022. “I am strongly committed to increasing the number of tenure-track investigators trained in clinical and translational cancer research and to promote their career development.”

And he looks forward to helping develop MD Anderson’s recently announced $2.5 billion hospital in Austin. “This will extend the exceptional care that we provide as the No. 1 cancer center in the United States,” he said. “It will also create new opportunities for research and collaboration with experts at UT Austin.”

When he’s not in clinic, Dr. Flowers embraces his lifelong love of speeding through life on his own two feet. He’s even inspired his children to share his passion. “I run most days of the week,” he said. “Running provides a great opportunity to think and process new research ideas, work through leadership challenges, and sometimes just to relax and let go of the day.”

Back in 1997, a young Stanford (Calif.) University student named Christopher Flowers made his debut in the medical literature with a Nature Medicine report that called out the pharmaceutical industry for overlooking the crucial role of clinical investigators in drug development.

“My research uncovered a series of physicians who served as ‘clinical champions’ and dramatically sped the process of drug development,” Dr. Flowers recalled in an interview. “This early career research inspired me to become the type of clinical champion that I uncovered.”

MD Anderson Cancer Center

Over his career, hematologist-oncologist Dr. Flowers has developed lifesaving therapies for lymphoma, which has transformed into a highly treatable and even curable disease. He’s listed as a coauthor of hundreds of peer-reviewed cancer studies, reports, and medical society guidelines. And he’s revealed stark disparities in blood cancer care: His research shows that non-White patients suffer from worse outcomes, regardless of factors like income and insurance coverage.

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, recently named physician-scientist Dr. Flowers as division head of cancer medicine, a position he’s held on an interim basis. As of Sept. 1, he will permanently oversee 300 faculty and more than 2,000 staff members.
 

A running start in Seattle

For Dr. Flowers, track and field is a sport that runs in the family. His grandfather was a top runner in both high school and college, and both Dr. Flowers and his brother ran competitively in Seattle, where they grew up. But Dr. Flowers chose a career in oncology, earning a medical degree at Stanford and master’s degrees at both Stanford and the University of Washington, Seattle.

The late Kenneth Melmon, MD, a groundbreaking pharmacologist, was a major influence. “He was one of the first people that I met when I began as an undergraduate at Stanford. We grew to be long-standing friends, and he demonstrated what outstanding mentorship looks like. In our research collaboration, we investigated the work of Dr. Gertrude Elion and Dr. George Hitchings involving the translation of pharmacological data from cellular and animal models to clinically useful drugs including 6-mercaptopurine, allopurinol, azathioprine, acyclovir, and zidovudine.”

The late Oliver Press, MD, a blood cancer specialist, inspired Dr. Flower’s interest in lymphoma. “I began work with him during an internship at the University of Washington. Ollie was a great inspiration and a key leader in the development of innovative therapies for lymphoma. He embodied the role of a clinical champion translating work in radioimmunotherapy to new therapeutics for patients with lymphomas. Working with him ultimately led me to pursue a career in hematology and oncology with a focus on the care for patients with lymphomas.”
 

Career blooms as lymphoma care advances

Dr. Flowers went on to Emory University, Atlanta, where he served as scientific director of the Research Informatics Shared Resource and a faculty member in the department of biomedical informatics. “I applied my training in informatics and my clinical expertise to support active grants from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund for Innovation in Regulatory Science and from the National Cancer Institute to develop informatics tools for pathology image analysis and prognostic modeling.”

For 13 years, he also served the Winship Cancer Institute as director of the Emory Healthcare lymphoma program (where his patients included Kansas City Chiefs football star Eric Berry), and for 4 years as scientific director of research informatics. Meanwhile, Dr. Flowers helped develop national practice guidelines for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology. He also chaired the ASCO guideline on management of febrile neutropenia.

In 2019, MD Anderson hired Dr. Flowers as chair of the department of lymphoma/myeloma. A year later, he was appointed division head ad interim for cancer medicine.

“Chris is a unique leader who expertly combines mentorship, sponsorship, and bidirectional open, honest communication,” said Sairah Ahmed, MD, associate professor of lymphoma at MD Anderson. “He doesn’t just empower his team to reach their goals. He also inspires those around him to turn vision into reality.”

As Dr. Flowers noted, many patients with lymphoma are now able to recover and live normal lives. He himself played a direct role himself in boosting lifespans.

“I have been fortunate to play a role in the development of several treatments that have led to advances in first-line therapy for patients with aggressive lymphomas. I partnered with others at MD Anderson, including Dr. Sattva Neelapu and Dr. Jason Westin, who have developed novel therapies like chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for patients with relapse lymphomas,” he said. “Leaders in the field at MD Anderson like Dr. Michael Wang have developed new oral treatments for patients with rare lymphoma subtypes like mantle cell lymphoma. Other colleagues such as Dr. Nathan Fowler and Dr. Loretta Nastoupil have focused on the care for patients with indolent lymphomas and developed less-toxic therapies that are now in common use.”
 

Exposing the disparities in blood cancer care

Dr. Flowers, who’s African American, has also been a leader in health disparity research. In 2016, for example, he was coauthor of a study into non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that revealed that Blacks in the United States have dramatically lower survival rates than Whites. The 10-year survival rate for Black women with chronic lymphocytic leukemia was just 47%, for example, compared with 66% for White females. “Although incidence rates of lymphoid neoplasms are generally higher among Whites, Black men tend to have poorer survival,” Dr. Flowers and colleagues wrote.

In a 2021 report for the ASCO Educational Book, Dr. Flowers and hematologist-oncologist Demetria Smith-Graziani, MD, now with Emory University, explored disparities across blood cancers and barriers to minority enrollment in clinical trials. “Some approaches that clinicians can apply to address these disparities include increasing systems-level awareness, improving access to care, and reducing biases in clinical setting,” the authors wrote.

Luis Malpica Castillo, MD, assistant professor of lymphoma at MD Anderson Cancer Center, lauded the work of Dr. Flowers in expanding opportunities for minority patients with the disease.

“During the past years, Dr. Flowers’ work has not only had a positive impact on the Texan community, but minority populations living with cancer in the United States and abroad,” he said. “Currently, we are implementing cancer care networks aimed to increase diversity in clinical trials by enrolling a larger number of Hispanic and African American patients, who otherwise may not have benefited from novel therapies. The ultimate goal is to provide high-quality care to all patients living with cancer.”

In addition to his research work, Dr. Flowers is an advocate for diversity within the hematology community. He’s a founding member and former chair of the American Society of Hematology’s Committee on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (formerly the Committee on Promoting Diversity), and he helped develop the society’s Minority Recruitment Initiative.

What’s next for Dr. Flowers? For one, he plans to continue working as a mentor; he received the ASH Mentor Award in honor of his service in 2022. “I am strongly committed to increasing the number of tenure-track investigators trained in clinical and translational cancer research and to promote their career development.”

And he looks forward to helping develop MD Anderson’s recently announced $2.5 billion hospital in Austin. “This will extend the exceptional care that we provide as the No. 1 cancer center in the United States,” he said. “It will also create new opportunities for research and collaboration with experts at UT Austin.”

When he’s not in clinic, Dr. Flowers embraces his lifelong love of speeding through life on his own two feet. He’s even inspired his children to share his passion. “I run most days of the week,” he said. “Running provides a great opportunity to think and process new research ideas, work through leadership challenges, and sometimes just to relax and let go of the day.”

Back in 1997, a young Stanford (Calif.) University student named Christopher Flowers made his debut in the medical literature with a Nature Medicine report that called out the pharmaceutical industry for overlooking the crucial role of clinical investigators in drug development.

“My research uncovered a series of physicians who served as ‘clinical champions’ and dramatically sped the process of drug development,” Dr. Flowers recalled in an interview. “This early career research inspired me to become the type of clinical champion that I uncovered.”

MD Anderson Cancer Center

Over his career, hematologist-oncologist Dr. Flowers has developed lifesaving therapies for lymphoma, which has transformed into a highly treatable and even curable disease. He’s listed as a coauthor of hundreds of peer-reviewed cancer studies, reports, and medical society guidelines. And he’s revealed stark disparities in blood cancer care: His research shows that non-White patients suffer from worse outcomes, regardless of factors like income and insurance coverage.

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, recently named physician-scientist Dr. Flowers as division head of cancer medicine, a position he’s held on an interim basis. As of Sept. 1, he will permanently oversee 300 faculty and more than 2,000 staff members.
 

A running start in Seattle

For Dr. Flowers, track and field is a sport that runs in the family. His grandfather was a top runner in both high school and college, and both Dr. Flowers and his brother ran competitively in Seattle, where they grew up. But Dr. Flowers chose a career in oncology, earning a medical degree at Stanford and master’s degrees at both Stanford and the University of Washington, Seattle.

The late Kenneth Melmon, MD, a groundbreaking pharmacologist, was a major influence. “He was one of the first people that I met when I began as an undergraduate at Stanford. We grew to be long-standing friends, and he demonstrated what outstanding mentorship looks like. In our research collaboration, we investigated the work of Dr. Gertrude Elion and Dr. George Hitchings involving the translation of pharmacological data from cellular and animal models to clinically useful drugs including 6-mercaptopurine, allopurinol, azathioprine, acyclovir, and zidovudine.”

The late Oliver Press, MD, a blood cancer specialist, inspired Dr. Flower’s interest in lymphoma. “I began work with him during an internship at the University of Washington. Ollie was a great inspiration and a key leader in the development of innovative therapies for lymphoma. He embodied the role of a clinical champion translating work in radioimmunotherapy to new therapeutics for patients with lymphomas. Working with him ultimately led me to pursue a career in hematology and oncology with a focus on the care for patients with lymphomas.”
 

Career blooms as lymphoma care advances

Dr. Flowers went on to Emory University, Atlanta, where he served as scientific director of the Research Informatics Shared Resource and a faculty member in the department of biomedical informatics. “I applied my training in informatics and my clinical expertise to support active grants from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund for Innovation in Regulatory Science and from the National Cancer Institute to develop informatics tools for pathology image analysis and prognostic modeling.”

For 13 years, he also served the Winship Cancer Institute as director of the Emory Healthcare lymphoma program (where his patients included Kansas City Chiefs football star Eric Berry), and for 4 years as scientific director of research informatics. Meanwhile, Dr. Flowers helped develop national practice guidelines for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology. He also chaired the ASCO guideline on management of febrile neutropenia.

In 2019, MD Anderson hired Dr. Flowers as chair of the department of lymphoma/myeloma. A year later, he was appointed division head ad interim for cancer medicine.

“Chris is a unique leader who expertly combines mentorship, sponsorship, and bidirectional open, honest communication,” said Sairah Ahmed, MD, associate professor of lymphoma at MD Anderson. “He doesn’t just empower his team to reach their goals. He also inspires those around him to turn vision into reality.”

As Dr. Flowers noted, many patients with lymphoma are now able to recover and live normal lives. He himself played a direct role himself in boosting lifespans.

“I have been fortunate to play a role in the development of several treatments that have led to advances in first-line therapy for patients with aggressive lymphomas. I partnered with others at MD Anderson, including Dr. Sattva Neelapu and Dr. Jason Westin, who have developed novel therapies like chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for patients with relapse lymphomas,” he said. “Leaders in the field at MD Anderson like Dr. Michael Wang have developed new oral treatments for patients with rare lymphoma subtypes like mantle cell lymphoma. Other colleagues such as Dr. Nathan Fowler and Dr. Loretta Nastoupil have focused on the care for patients with indolent lymphomas and developed less-toxic therapies that are now in common use.”
 

Exposing the disparities in blood cancer care

Dr. Flowers, who’s African American, has also been a leader in health disparity research. In 2016, for example, he was coauthor of a study into non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that revealed that Blacks in the United States have dramatically lower survival rates than Whites. The 10-year survival rate for Black women with chronic lymphocytic leukemia was just 47%, for example, compared with 66% for White females. “Although incidence rates of lymphoid neoplasms are generally higher among Whites, Black men tend to have poorer survival,” Dr. Flowers and colleagues wrote.

In a 2021 report for the ASCO Educational Book, Dr. Flowers and hematologist-oncologist Demetria Smith-Graziani, MD, now with Emory University, explored disparities across blood cancers and barriers to minority enrollment in clinical trials. “Some approaches that clinicians can apply to address these disparities include increasing systems-level awareness, improving access to care, and reducing biases in clinical setting,” the authors wrote.

Luis Malpica Castillo, MD, assistant professor of lymphoma at MD Anderson Cancer Center, lauded the work of Dr. Flowers in expanding opportunities for minority patients with the disease.

“During the past years, Dr. Flowers’ work has not only had a positive impact on the Texan community, but minority populations living with cancer in the United States and abroad,” he said. “Currently, we are implementing cancer care networks aimed to increase diversity in clinical trials by enrolling a larger number of Hispanic and African American patients, who otherwise may not have benefited from novel therapies. The ultimate goal is to provide high-quality care to all patients living with cancer.”

In addition to his research work, Dr. Flowers is an advocate for diversity within the hematology community. He’s a founding member and former chair of the American Society of Hematology’s Committee on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (formerly the Committee on Promoting Diversity), and he helped develop the society’s Minority Recruitment Initiative.

What’s next for Dr. Flowers? For one, he plans to continue working as a mentor; he received the ASH Mentor Award in honor of his service in 2022. “I am strongly committed to increasing the number of tenure-track investigators trained in clinical and translational cancer research and to promote their career development.”

And he looks forward to helping develop MD Anderson’s recently announced $2.5 billion hospital in Austin. “This will extend the exceptional care that we provide as the No. 1 cancer center in the United States,” he said. “It will also create new opportunities for research and collaboration with experts at UT Austin.”

When he’s not in clinic, Dr. Flowers embraces his lifelong love of speeding through life on his own two feet. He’s even inspired his children to share his passion. “I run most days of the week,” he said. “Running provides a great opportunity to think and process new research ideas, work through leadership challenges, and sometimes just to relax and let go of the day.”

In a new study, researchers report that they have found epigenetic methylation markers on 15 genes that appear to foreshadow psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a development that could bring scientists closer to developing a DNA test to predict which patients with psoriasis will develop the condition.

KTSDESIGN/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY/Getty Images

While no predictive test is in sight yet, the findings published in Arthritis & Rheumatology mark an important step, study lead author Omar F. Cruz-Correa, PhD, of the Psoriatic Arthritis Research Program in the University Health Network, Toronto, said in an interview. “In the future, markers like these could be measured by dermatologists and even general practitioners to help identify new psoriasis patients at a high risk of developing PsA,” he said. “Then both the health care team and the patients themselves could be more aware of their increased risk and the pressing need of closer monitoring for musculoskeletal symptoms. Once the first symptoms appear, treatment can be initiated early on, helping to prevent permanent joint damage.”

An estimated 30% of patients with psoriasis will develop PsA, too, putting them at higher risk of disability and death. According to Dr. Cruz-Correa, “one of the more pressing matters in PsA is the lack of means of predicting which psoriasis patients will develop PsA.”

DNA methylation, the topic of the new study, has already been linked to psoriasis and PsA. It’s “relatively easy to measure and helps regulate gene expression in response to environmental effects,” Dr. Cruz-Correa said. “DNA methylation is also appealing because it serves as an intermediary between environment and genetic factors as it’s transmitted between generations of cells and influenced by external factors.”

For the new study, researchers examined the DNA of 117 patients with psoriasis – 58 who went on to develop PsA (“converters”) and another 59 who were matched to converters but did not develop PsA (“nonconverters”). The patients were in a larger group of 700 patients with psoriasis who had the disease for a mean of about 17 years at the time of blood sampling.

Samples from converters were taken an average of 5.16 years (± 12.77 years) before PsA set in.

The researchers report that they found “36 highly relevant methylation markers … across 15 genes and several intergenic regions. A classification model relying on these markers identified converters and nonconverters with an area under the ROC curve of 0.9644.”

Statistically, this number is high and means that “the DNA methylation markers are really good at identifying psoriasis patients who will develop PsA and those that will not,” at least in this specific patient group, Dr. Cruz-Correa said.

At this point, the number of markers is a bit too high to develop a feasible DNA test to predict PsA, he said. “However, the results from our study have also pointed us toward some interesting metabolic pathways that may warrant further study.”
 

What’s next?

The first step forward “is the validation of these predictive DNA methylation markers in a wider population of patients with varied clinical and demographic characteristics. This would help assess the potential for generalization of such a test,” Dr. Cruz-Correa said. “A second step is to assess the potential impact of these methylation markers on disease activity and treatment response, which are clinical outcomes of great importance to patients.”

Meanwhile, he said, “there are ongoing efforts to shed light into how DNA methylation integrates with other epigenetic mechanisms like micro-RNAs to regulate gene expression in concert with one another. An integrative look into these mechanisms may be able to give insight into the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease in a way that has not been possible before.”

In an interview, Johann E. Gudjonsson, MD, PhD, professor of skin molecular immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said the study “is interesting and important as it indicates that there are changes in the blood that occur before the development of psoriatic arthritis. However, it does not provide much in terms of novel insights into the mechanisms involved and is still a long way away from being useful as a clinical predictor or biomarker.”

The National Psoriasis Foundation, Krembil Foundation, and Canadian Institutes of Health Research provided support for the study. Dr. Cruz-Correa reports support from the National Psoriasis Foundation and the Arthritis Society. Dr. Gudjonsson has no relevant financial relationships.
 

In a new study, researchers report that they have found epigenetic methylation markers on 15 genes that appear to foreshadow psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a development that could bring scientists closer to developing a DNA test to predict which patients with psoriasis will develop the condition.

KTSDESIGN/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY/Getty Images

While no predictive test is in sight yet, the findings published in Arthritis & Rheumatology mark an important step, study lead author Omar F. Cruz-Correa, PhD, of the Psoriatic Arthritis Research Program in the University Health Network, Toronto, said in an interview. “In the future, markers like these could be measured by dermatologists and even general practitioners to help identify new psoriasis patients at a high risk of developing PsA,” he said. “Then both the health care team and the patients themselves could be more aware of their increased risk and the pressing need of closer monitoring for musculoskeletal symptoms. Once the first symptoms appear, treatment can be initiated early on, helping to prevent permanent joint damage.”

An estimated 30% of patients with psoriasis will develop PsA, too, putting them at higher risk of disability and death. According to Dr. Cruz-Correa, “one of the more pressing matters in PsA is the lack of means of predicting which psoriasis patients will develop PsA.”

DNA methylation, the topic of the new study, has already been linked to psoriasis and PsA. It’s “relatively easy to measure and helps regulate gene expression in response to environmental effects,” Dr. Cruz-Correa said. “DNA methylation is also appealing because it serves as an intermediary between environment and genetic factors as it’s transmitted between generations of cells and influenced by external factors.”

For the new study, researchers examined the DNA of 117 patients with psoriasis – 58 who went on to develop PsA (“converters”) and another 59 who were matched to converters but did not develop PsA (“nonconverters”). The patients were in a larger group of 700 patients with psoriasis who had the disease for a mean of about 17 years at the time of blood sampling.

Samples from converters were taken an average of 5.16 years (± 12.77 years) before PsA set in.

The researchers report that they found “36 highly relevant methylation markers … across 15 genes and several intergenic regions. A classification model relying on these markers identified converters and nonconverters with an area under the ROC curve of 0.9644.”

Statistically, this number is high and means that “the DNA methylation markers are really good at identifying psoriasis patients who will develop PsA and those that will not,” at least in this specific patient group, Dr. Cruz-Correa said.

At this point, the number of markers is a bit too high to develop a feasible DNA test to predict PsA, he said. “However, the results from our study have also pointed us toward some interesting metabolic pathways that may warrant further study.”
 

What’s next?

The first step forward “is the validation of these predictive DNA methylation markers in a wider population of patients with varied clinical and demographic characteristics. This would help assess the potential for generalization of such a test,” Dr. Cruz-Correa said. “A second step is to assess the potential impact of these methylation markers on disease activity and treatment response, which are clinical outcomes of great importance to patients.”

Meanwhile, he said, “there are ongoing efforts to shed light into how DNA methylation integrates with other epigenetic mechanisms like micro-RNAs to regulate gene expression in concert with one another. An integrative look into these mechanisms may be able to give insight into the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease in a way that has not been possible before.”

In an interview, Johann E. Gudjonsson, MD, PhD, professor of skin molecular immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said the study “is interesting and important as it indicates that there are changes in the blood that occur before the development of psoriatic arthritis. However, it does not provide much in terms of novel insights into the mechanisms involved and is still a long way away from being useful as a clinical predictor or biomarker.”

The National Psoriasis Foundation, Krembil Foundation, and Canadian Institutes of Health Research provided support for the study. Dr. Cruz-Correa reports support from the National Psoriasis Foundation and the Arthritis Society. Dr. Gudjonsson has no relevant financial relationships.
 

In a new study, researchers report that they have found epigenetic methylation markers on 15 genes that appear to foreshadow psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a development that could bring scientists closer to developing a DNA test to predict which patients with psoriasis will develop the condition.

KTSDESIGN/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY/Getty Images

While no predictive test is in sight yet, the findings published in Arthritis & Rheumatology mark an important step, study lead author Omar F. Cruz-Correa, PhD, of the Psoriatic Arthritis Research Program in the University Health Network, Toronto, said in an interview. “In the future, markers like these could be measured by dermatologists and even general practitioners to help identify new psoriasis patients at a high risk of developing PsA,” he said. “Then both the health care team and the patients themselves could be more aware of their increased risk and the pressing need of closer monitoring for musculoskeletal symptoms. Once the first symptoms appear, treatment can be initiated early on, helping to prevent permanent joint damage.”

An estimated 30% of patients with psoriasis will develop PsA, too, putting them at higher risk of disability and death. According to Dr. Cruz-Correa, “one of the more pressing matters in PsA is the lack of means of predicting which psoriasis patients will develop PsA.”

DNA methylation, the topic of the new study, has already been linked to psoriasis and PsA. It’s “relatively easy to measure and helps regulate gene expression in response to environmental effects,” Dr. Cruz-Correa said. “DNA methylation is also appealing because it serves as an intermediary between environment and genetic factors as it’s transmitted between generations of cells and influenced by external factors.”

For the new study, researchers examined the DNA of 117 patients with psoriasis – 58 who went on to develop PsA (“converters”) and another 59 who were matched to converters but did not develop PsA (“nonconverters”). The patients were in a larger group of 700 patients with psoriasis who had the disease for a mean of about 17 years at the time of blood sampling.

Samples from converters were taken an average of 5.16 years (± 12.77 years) before PsA set in.

The researchers report that they found “36 highly relevant methylation markers … across 15 genes and several intergenic regions. A classification model relying on these markers identified converters and nonconverters with an area under the ROC curve of 0.9644.”

Statistically, this number is high and means that “the DNA methylation markers are really good at identifying psoriasis patients who will develop PsA and those that will not,” at least in this specific patient group, Dr. Cruz-Correa said.

At this point, the number of markers is a bit too high to develop a feasible DNA test to predict PsA, he said. “However, the results from our study have also pointed us toward some interesting metabolic pathways that may warrant further study.”
 

What’s next?

The first step forward “is the validation of these predictive DNA methylation markers in a wider population of patients with varied clinical and demographic characteristics. This would help assess the potential for generalization of such a test,” Dr. Cruz-Correa said. “A second step is to assess the potential impact of these methylation markers on disease activity and treatment response, which are clinical outcomes of great importance to patients.”

Meanwhile, he said, “there are ongoing efforts to shed light into how DNA methylation integrates with other epigenetic mechanisms like micro-RNAs to regulate gene expression in concert with one another. An integrative look into these mechanisms may be able to give insight into the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease in a way that has not been possible before.”

In an interview, Johann E. Gudjonsson, MD, PhD, professor of skin molecular immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said the study “is interesting and important as it indicates that there are changes in the blood that occur before the development of psoriatic arthritis. However, it does not provide much in terms of novel insights into the mechanisms involved and is still a long way away from being useful as a clinical predictor or biomarker.”

The National Psoriasis Foundation, Krembil Foundation, and Canadian Institutes of Health Research provided support for the study. Dr. Cruz-Correa reports support from the National Psoriasis Foundation and the Arthritis Society. Dr. Gudjonsson has no relevant financial relationships.
 

A new interim analysis of a large randomized, phase 3 trial provides more evidence that a combination of ibrutinib and rituximab is a better option for younger patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) than the once-standard combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR).

The analysis of the open-label FLAIR trial, published in The Lancet Oncology, tracked 771 patients with CLL for a median follow-up of 53 months (interquartile ratio, 41-61 months) and found that median progression-free survival was not reached with ibrutinib/rituximab versus 67 months with FCR (hazard ratio, 0.44, P < .0001).

“This paper is another confirmation to say that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors are more powerful than even our strongest chemoimmunotherapy. That’s very reassuring,” said hematologist/oncologist Jan A. Burger, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in an interview. He did not take part in the analysis but is familiar with its findings.

There are caveats to the study. More patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab arm died of cardiac events, possibly reflecting a known risk of those drugs. And for unclear reasons, there was no difference in overall survival – a secondary endpoint – between the groups. The study authors speculate that this may be because some patients on FCR progressed and turned to effective second-line drugs.

Still, the findings are consistent with the landmark E1912 trial, the authors wrote, and adds “to a body of evidence that suggests that the use of ibrutinib-based regimens should be considered for patients with previously untreated CLL, especially those with IGHV-unmutated CLL.”

The study, partially funded by industry, was led by Peter Hillmen, PhD, of Leeds (England) Cancer Center.

According to Dr. Burger, FCR was the standard treatment for younger, fitter patients with CLL about 10-15 years ago. Then Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib entered the picture. But, as the new report notes, initial studies focused on older patients who weren’t considered fit enough to tolerate FCR.

The new study, like the E1912 trial, aimed to compare ibrutinib-rituximab versus FCR in younger, fitter patients.

From 2014 to 2018, researchers assigned 771 patients (median age, 62 years; IQR 56-67; 73% male; 95% White; 66% with World Health Organization performance status, 0) to FCR (n = 385) or ibrutinib/rituximab (n = 386).

Nearly three-quarters (74%) in the FCR group received six cycles of therapy, and 97% of those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group received six cycles of rituximab. Those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group also received daily doses of ibrutinib. Doses could be modified. The data cutoff was May 24, 2021.

Notably, there was no improvement in overall survival in the ibrutinib/rituximab group: 92.1% of patients lived 4 years versus 93.5% in the FCR group. This contrasts with an improvement in overall survival in the earlier E1912 study in the ibrutinib/rituximab group.

However, the study authors noted that overall survival in the FCR group is higher than in earlier studies, perhaps reflecting the wider availability of targeted therapy. The final study analysis will offer more insight into overall survival.

In an interview, hematologist David A. Bond, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is familiar with the study findings, said “the lack of an improvement in overall survival could be due to differences in available treatments at relapse, as the FLAIR study was conducted more recently than the prior E1912 study.” He added that “the younger ages in the E1912 study may have led to less risk for cardiovascular events or deaths for the patients treated with ibrutinib in the E1912 study.”

The previous E1912 trial showed a larger effect for ibrutinib/rituximab versus FCR on progression-free survival (HR, 0.37, P < .001 for E1912 and HR, 0.44, P< .0001 for the FLAIR trial). However, the study authors noted that FLAIR trial had older subjects (mean age, 62 vs 56.7 in the E1912 trial.)

As for grade 3 or 4 adverse events, leukopenia was most common in the FCR group (n = 203, 54%), compared with the ibrutinib/rituximab group (n = 55, 14%). Serious adverse events were reported in 205 (53%) of patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab group versus 203 (54%) patients in the FCR group.

All-cause infections, myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, Richter’s transformation, and other diagnosed cancers were rare but more common in the FCR group. Deaths from COVID-19 were the same at 3 in each group; 2 of 29 deaths in the FCR group and 3 of 30 deaths in the ibrutinib/rituximab group were considered to be likely linked to treatment.

Sudden unexplained or cardiac deaths were more common in the ibrutinib-rituximab group (n = 8, 2%) vs. the FCR group (n = 2, less than 1%).

Dr. Bond said “one of the takeaways for practicing hematologists from the FLAIR study is that cardiovascular complications and sudden cardiac death are clearly an issue for older patients with hypertension treated with ibrutinib. Patients should be monitored for signs or symptoms of cardiovascular disease and have close management of blood pressure.” 

Dr. Burger also noted that cardiac problems are a known risk of ibrutinib. “Fortunately, we have second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors that could be chosen for patients when we are worried about side effects.”

He said that chemotherapy remains the preferred – or only – treatment in some parts of the world. And patients may prefer FCR to ibrutinib because of the latter drug’s side effects or a preference for therapy that doesn’t take as long.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK and Janssen. The study authors reported relationships with companies such as Lilly, Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Gilead, and many others. Dr. Burger reports financial support for clinical trials from Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Biogen, and Janssen. Dr. Bond reported no disclosures.

A new interim analysis of a large randomized, phase 3 trial provides more evidence that a combination of ibrutinib and rituximab is a better option for younger patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) than the once-standard combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR).

The analysis of the open-label FLAIR trial, published in The Lancet Oncology, tracked 771 patients with CLL for a median follow-up of 53 months (interquartile ratio, 41-61 months) and found that median progression-free survival was not reached with ibrutinib/rituximab versus 67 months with FCR (hazard ratio, 0.44, P < .0001).

“This paper is another confirmation to say that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors are more powerful than even our strongest chemoimmunotherapy. That’s very reassuring,” said hematologist/oncologist Jan A. Burger, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in an interview. He did not take part in the analysis but is familiar with its findings.

There are caveats to the study. More patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab arm died of cardiac events, possibly reflecting a known risk of those drugs. And for unclear reasons, there was no difference in overall survival – a secondary endpoint – between the groups. The study authors speculate that this may be because some patients on FCR progressed and turned to effective second-line drugs.

Still, the findings are consistent with the landmark E1912 trial, the authors wrote, and adds “to a body of evidence that suggests that the use of ibrutinib-based regimens should be considered for patients with previously untreated CLL, especially those with IGHV-unmutated CLL.”

The study, partially funded by industry, was led by Peter Hillmen, PhD, of Leeds (England) Cancer Center.

According to Dr. Burger, FCR was the standard treatment for younger, fitter patients with CLL about 10-15 years ago. Then Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib entered the picture. But, as the new report notes, initial studies focused on older patients who weren’t considered fit enough to tolerate FCR.

The new study, like the E1912 trial, aimed to compare ibrutinib-rituximab versus FCR in younger, fitter patients.

From 2014 to 2018, researchers assigned 771 patients (median age, 62 years; IQR 56-67; 73% male; 95% White; 66% with World Health Organization performance status, 0) to FCR (n = 385) or ibrutinib/rituximab (n = 386).

Nearly three-quarters (74%) in the FCR group received six cycles of therapy, and 97% of those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group received six cycles of rituximab. Those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group also received daily doses of ibrutinib. Doses could be modified. The data cutoff was May 24, 2021.

Notably, there was no improvement in overall survival in the ibrutinib/rituximab group: 92.1% of patients lived 4 years versus 93.5% in the FCR group. This contrasts with an improvement in overall survival in the earlier E1912 study in the ibrutinib/rituximab group.

However, the study authors noted that overall survival in the FCR group is higher than in earlier studies, perhaps reflecting the wider availability of targeted therapy. The final study analysis will offer more insight into overall survival.

In an interview, hematologist David A. Bond, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is familiar with the study findings, said “the lack of an improvement in overall survival could be due to differences in available treatments at relapse, as the FLAIR study was conducted more recently than the prior E1912 study.” He added that “the younger ages in the E1912 study may have led to less risk for cardiovascular events or deaths for the patients treated with ibrutinib in the E1912 study.”

The previous E1912 trial showed a larger effect for ibrutinib/rituximab versus FCR on progression-free survival (HR, 0.37, P < .001 for E1912 and HR, 0.44, P< .0001 for the FLAIR trial). However, the study authors noted that FLAIR trial had older subjects (mean age, 62 vs 56.7 in the E1912 trial.)

As for grade 3 or 4 adverse events, leukopenia was most common in the FCR group (n = 203, 54%), compared with the ibrutinib/rituximab group (n = 55, 14%). Serious adverse events were reported in 205 (53%) of patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab group versus 203 (54%) patients in the FCR group.

All-cause infections, myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, Richter’s transformation, and other diagnosed cancers were rare but more common in the FCR group. Deaths from COVID-19 were the same at 3 in each group; 2 of 29 deaths in the FCR group and 3 of 30 deaths in the ibrutinib/rituximab group were considered to be likely linked to treatment.

Sudden unexplained or cardiac deaths were more common in the ibrutinib-rituximab group (n = 8, 2%) vs. the FCR group (n = 2, less than 1%).

Dr. Bond said “one of the takeaways for practicing hematologists from the FLAIR study is that cardiovascular complications and sudden cardiac death are clearly an issue for older patients with hypertension treated with ibrutinib. Patients should be monitored for signs or symptoms of cardiovascular disease and have close management of blood pressure.” 

Dr. Burger also noted that cardiac problems are a known risk of ibrutinib. “Fortunately, we have second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors that could be chosen for patients when we are worried about side effects.”

He said that chemotherapy remains the preferred – or only – treatment in some parts of the world. And patients may prefer FCR to ibrutinib because of the latter drug’s side effects or a preference for therapy that doesn’t take as long.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK and Janssen. The study authors reported relationships with companies such as Lilly, Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Gilead, and many others. Dr. Burger reports financial support for clinical trials from Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Biogen, and Janssen. Dr. Bond reported no disclosures.

A new interim analysis of a large randomized, phase 3 trial provides more evidence that a combination of ibrutinib and rituximab is a better option for younger patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) than the once-standard combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR).

The analysis of the open-label FLAIR trial, published in The Lancet Oncology, tracked 771 patients with CLL for a median follow-up of 53 months (interquartile ratio, 41-61 months) and found that median progression-free survival was not reached with ibrutinib/rituximab versus 67 months with FCR (hazard ratio, 0.44, P < .0001).

“This paper is another confirmation to say that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors are more powerful than even our strongest chemoimmunotherapy. That’s very reassuring,” said hematologist/oncologist Jan A. Burger, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in an interview. He did not take part in the analysis but is familiar with its findings.

There are caveats to the study. More patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab arm died of cardiac events, possibly reflecting a known risk of those drugs. And for unclear reasons, there was no difference in overall survival – a secondary endpoint – between the groups. The study authors speculate that this may be because some patients on FCR progressed and turned to effective second-line drugs.

Still, the findings are consistent with the landmark E1912 trial, the authors wrote, and adds “to a body of evidence that suggests that the use of ibrutinib-based regimens should be considered for patients with previously untreated CLL, especially those with IGHV-unmutated CLL.”

The study, partially funded by industry, was led by Peter Hillmen, PhD, of Leeds (England) Cancer Center.

According to Dr. Burger, FCR was the standard treatment for younger, fitter patients with CLL about 10-15 years ago. Then Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib entered the picture. But, as the new report notes, initial studies focused on older patients who weren’t considered fit enough to tolerate FCR.

The new study, like the E1912 trial, aimed to compare ibrutinib-rituximab versus FCR in younger, fitter patients.

From 2014 to 2018, researchers assigned 771 patients (median age, 62 years; IQR 56-67; 73% male; 95% White; 66% with World Health Organization performance status, 0) to FCR (n = 385) or ibrutinib/rituximab (n = 386).

Nearly three-quarters (74%) in the FCR group received six cycles of therapy, and 97% of those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group received six cycles of rituximab. Those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group also received daily doses of ibrutinib. Doses could be modified. The data cutoff was May 24, 2021.

Notably, there was no improvement in overall survival in the ibrutinib/rituximab group: 92.1% of patients lived 4 years versus 93.5% in the FCR group. This contrasts with an improvement in overall survival in the earlier E1912 study in the ibrutinib/rituximab group.

However, the study authors noted that overall survival in the FCR group is higher than in earlier studies, perhaps reflecting the wider availability of targeted therapy. The final study analysis will offer more insight into overall survival.

In an interview, hematologist David A. Bond, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is familiar with the study findings, said “the lack of an improvement in overall survival could be due to differences in available treatments at relapse, as the FLAIR study was conducted more recently than the prior E1912 study.” He added that “the younger ages in the E1912 study may have led to less risk for cardiovascular events or deaths for the patients treated with ibrutinib in the E1912 study.”

The previous E1912 trial showed a larger effect for ibrutinib/rituximab versus FCR on progression-free survival (HR, 0.37, P < .001 for E1912 and HR, 0.44, P< .0001 for the FLAIR trial). However, the study authors noted that FLAIR trial had older subjects (mean age, 62 vs 56.7 in the E1912 trial.)

As for grade 3 or 4 adverse events, leukopenia was most common in the FCR group (n = 203, 54%), compared with the ibrutinib/rituximab group (n = 55, 14%). Serious adverse events were reported in 205 (53%) of patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab group versus 203 (54%) patients in the FCR group.

All-cause infections, myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, Richter’s transformation, and other diagnosed cancers were rare but more common in the FCR group. Deaths from COVID-19 were the same at 3 in each group; 2 of 29 deaths in the FCR group and 3 of 30 deaths in the ibrutinib/rituximab group were considered to be likely linked to treatment.

Sudden unexplained or cardiac deaths were more common in the ibrutinib-rituximab group (n = 8, 2%) vs. the FCR group (n = 2, less than 1%).

Dr. Bond said “one of the takeaways for practicing hematologists from the FLAIR study is that cardiovascular complications and sudden cardiac death are clearly an issue for older patients with hypertension treated with ibrutinib. Patients should be monitored for signs or symptoms of cardiovascular disease and have close management of blood pressure.” 

Dr. Burger also noted that cardiac problems are a known risk of ibrutinib. “Fortunately, we have second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors that could be chosen for patients when we are worried about side effects.”

He said that chemotherapy remains the preferred – or only – treatment in some parts of the world. And patients may prefer FCR to ibrutinib because of the latter drug’s side effects or a preference for therapy that doesn’t take as long.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK and Janssen. The study authors reported relationships with companies such as Lilly, Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Gilead, and many others. Dr. Burger reports financial support for clinical trials from Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Biogen, and Janssen. Dr. Bond reported no disclosures.

California’s highest court has revived a high-profile lawsuit that could have a major impact on whether insurers can punish physicians who refer patients to out-of-network providers.

The case, which has bounced around courts in the Golden State since 2012, pits the nearly 50,000-member California Medical Association (CMA) against Aetna, one of the nation’s largest health insurers. The physician group alleges that Aetna illegally retaliated against physicians who sent patients to certain out-of-network clinics.

Out-of-network providers and clinics were involved in just 4.7% of professional medical claims in 2020, according to a federal report released July 6, 2023. Such claims are more likely than others to be denied, and they result in unexpected medical bills, which have led to the passage of state and federal laws that target “surprise billing.”

In a July 17 ruling, the California Supreme Court unanimously resurrected the CMA v. Aetna case after a judge and a state appeals court killed it on the grounds that the CMA - which is affiliated with the American Medical Association (AMA) - had no standing to sue Aetna. The high state court declared that the CMA could sue on its own behalf, but the justices noted that their ruling says nothing about the merits of the case.

The ruling appears to mean that CMA’s lawsuit will head back to Superior Court in Los Angeles County. The outcome of the case won’t have a direct national effect, since the case is in state court, not federal court. However, state rulings can influence the thinking of judges elsewhere.

The case, filed in 2012, alleges that Aetna harmed patient care by harassing and sacking contract physicians who referred patients to out-of-network ambulatory surgery centers.

According to the new ruling, Aetna responded by saying that “its policy, rather than interfering in medical judgments, was designed simply to encourage participating physicians, consistent with their judgment, to use in-network care providers, such as ambulatory surgery centers, and was adopted in part in response to physicians referring patients to facilities in which they had financial interests.”

In a 2012 letter to CMA, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, an Aetna attorney went further and claimed that “physicians and their business partners secure outsized and improper windfalls at the expense of Aetna’s plan members and employer plan sponsors.”

The CMA received support for its lawsuit via friend-of-the-court legal briefs from the California attorney general, city attorneys for several major California cities, the AMA, several major labor unions, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and the advocacy organization Consumer Watchdog. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the California Association of Health Plans, and the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies filed briefs supporting Aetna.

Aetna, now part of CVS Health, declined to comment about the new ruling.

The CMA released a statement from its president, internist/hospitalist Donaldo M. Hernandez, MD: “The practice of threatening physicians who refer patients to out-of-network providers is unlawful, and we are pleased that the court agrees that CMA has the right to challenge these practices in court.”

In an interview, research professor emeritus Jack Hoadley, PhD, of the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, noted that many health plans don’t cover out-of-network care. Those that do – including PPOs and hybrid plans – often require that patients pay a larger share of the total cost or pay a separate or higher deductible, he said.

So why would an insurer punish doctors who refer patients to health care providers who are outside the insurer’s approved network? In some cases, patients may blame insurers when they’re forced to pay higher rates for out-of-network care, Dr. Hoadley said. Insurers may also be miffed when physicians send patients out of network, he said, because insurers contract with physicians to send a certain number of patients within the insurer’s network.

The federal No Surprises Act, passed by Congress in 2020, hasn’t decreased tension between providers and insurers over out-of-network fees, Dr. Hoadley said. As the effects of the law are hammered out in court, he said, there’s still an adversarial relationship.

In California, the out-of-network landscape changed 3 years before the No Surprises Act. In 2017, the state passed its own no-surprise-billing law, which “protects consumers from surprise medical bills when they get non-emergency services, go to an in-network health facility and receive care from an out-of-network provider without their consent.” In these cases, the law says patients need to pay only in accordance with in-network cost sharing.

In 2019, a USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy report found signs that out-of-network care was fading in California other than in the emergency setting, possibly as a result of the law.

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

California’s highest court has revived a high-profile lawsuit that could have a major impact on whether insurers can punish physicians who refer patients to out-of-network providers.

The case, which has bounced around courts in the Golden State since 2012, pits the nearly 50,000-member California Medical Association (CMA) against Aetna, one of the nation’s largest health insurers. The physician group alleges that Aetna illegally retaliated against physicians who sent patients to certain out-of-network clinics.

Out-of-network providers and clinics were involved in just 4.7% of professional medical claims in 2020, according to a federal report released July 6, 2023. Such claims are more likely than others to be denied, and they result in unexpected medical bills, which have led to the passage of state and federal laws that target “surprise billing.”

In a July 17 ruling, the California Supreme Court unanimously resurrected the CMA v. Aetna case after a judge and a state appeals court killed it on the grounds that the CMA - which is affiliated with the American Medical Association (AMA) - had no standing to sue Aetna. The high state court declared that the CMA could sue on its own behalf, but the justices noted that their ruling says nothing about the merits of the case.

The ruling appears to mean that CMA’s lawsuit will head back to Superior Court in Los Angeles County. The outcome of the case won’t have a direct national effect, since the case is in state court, not federal court. However, state rulings can influence the thinking of judges elsewhere.

The case, filed in 2012, alleges that Aetna harmed patient care by harassing and sacking contract physicians who referred patients to out-of-network ambulatory surgery centers.

According to the new ruling, Aetna responded by saying that “its policy, rather than interfering in medical judgments, was designed simply to encourage participating physicians, consistent with their judgment, to use in-network care providers, such as ambulatory surgery centers, and was adopted in part in response to physicians referring patients to facilities in which they had financial interests.”

In a 2012 letter to CMA, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, an Aetna attorney went further and claimed that “physicians and their business partners secure outsized and improper windfalls at the expense of Aetna’s plan members and employer plan sponsors.”

The CMA received support for its lawsuit via friend-of-the-court legal briefs from the California attorney general, city attorneys for several major California cities, the AMA, several major labor unions, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and the advocacy organization Consumer Watchdog. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the California Association of Health Plans, and the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies filed briefs supporting Aetna.

Aetna, now part of CVS Health, declined to comment about the new ruling.

The CMA released a statement from its president, internist/hospitalist Donaldo M. Hernandez, MD: “The practice of threatening physicians who refer patients to out-of-network providers is unlawful, and we are pleased that the court agrees that CMA has the right to challenge these practices in court.”

In an interview, research professor emeritus Jack Hoadley, PhD, of the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, noted that many health plans don’t cover out-of-network care. Those that do – including PPOs and hybrid plans – often require that patients pay a larger share of the total cost or pay a separate or higher deductible, he said.

So why would an insurer punish doctors who refer patients to health care providers who are outside the insurer’s approved network? In some cases, patients may blame insurers when they’re forced to pay higher rates for out-of-network care, Dr. Hoadley said. Insurers may also be miffed when physicians send patients out of network, he said, because insurers contract with physicians to send a certain number of patients within the insurer’s network.

The federal No Surprises Act, passed by Congress in 2020, hasn’t decreased tension between providers and insurers over out-of-network fees, Dr. Hoadley said. As the effects of the law are hammered out in court, he said, there’s still an adversarial relationship.

In California, the out-of-network landscape changed 3 years before the No Surprises Act. In 2017, the state passed its own no-surprise-billing law, which “protects consumers from surprise medical bills when they get non-emergency services, go to an in-network health facility and receive care from an out-of-network provider without their consent.” In these cases, the law says patients need to pay only in accordance with in-network cost sharing.

In 2019, a USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy report found signs that out-of-network care was fading in California other than in the emergency setting, possibly as a result of the law.

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

California’s highest court has revived a high-profile lawsuit that could have a major impact on whether insurers can punish physicians who refer patients to out-of-network providers.

The case, which has bounced around courts in the Golden State since 2012, pits the nearly 50,000-member California Medical Association (CMA) against Aetna, one of the nation’s largest health insurers. The physician group alleges that Aetna illegally retaliated against physicians who sent patients to certain out-of-network clinics.

Out-of-network providers and clinics were involved in just 4.7% of professional medical claims in 2020, according to a federal report released July 6, 2023. Such claims are more likely than others to be denied, and they result in unexpected medical bills, which have led to the passage of state and federal laws that target “surprise billing.”

In a July 17 ruling, the California Supreme Court unanimously resurrected the CMA v. Aetna case after a judge and a state appeals court killed it on the grounds that the CMA - which is affiliated with the American Medical Association (AMA) - had no standing to sue Aetna. The high state court declared that the CMA could sue on its own behalf, but the justices noted that their ruling says nothing about the merits of the case.

The ruling appears to mean that CMA’s lawsuit will head back to Superior Court in Los Angeles County. The outcome of the case won’t have a direct national effect, since the case is in state court, not federal court. However, state rulings can influence the thinking of judges elsewhere.

The case, filed in 2012, alleges that Aetna harmed patient care by harassing and sacking contract physicians who referred patients to out-of-network ambulatory surgery centers.

According to the new ruling, Aetna responded by saying that “its policy, rather than interfering in medical judgments, was designed simply to encourage participating physicians, consistent with their judgment, to use in-network care providers, such as ambulatory surgery centers, and was adopted in part in response to physicians referring patients to facilities in which they had financial interests.”

In a 2012 letter to CMA, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, an Aetna attorney went further and claimed that “physicians and their business partners secure outsized and improper windfalls at the expense of Aetna’s plan members and employer plan sponsors.”

The CMA received support for its lawsuit via friend-of-the-court legal briefs from the California attorney general, city attorneys for several major California cities, the AMA, several major labor unions, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and the advocacy organization Consumer Watchdog. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the California Association of Health Plans, and the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies filed briefs supporting Aetna.

Aetna, now part of CVS Health, declined to comment about the new ruling.

The CMA released a statement from its president, internist/hospitalist Donaldo M. Hernandez, MD: “The practice of threatening physicians who refer patients to out-of-network providers is unlawful, and we are pleased that the court agrees that CMA has the right to challenge these practices in court.”

In an interview, research professor emeritus Jack Hoadley, PhD, of the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, noted that many health plans don’t cover out-of-network care. Those that do – including PPOs and hybrid plans – often require that patients pay a larger share of the total cost or pay a separate or higher deductible, he said.

So why would an insurer punish doctors who refer patients to health care providers who are outside the insurer’s approved network? In some cases, patients may blame insurers when they’re forced to pay higher rates for out-of-network care, Dr. Hoadley said. Insurers may also be miffed when physicians send patients out of network, he said, because insurers contract with physicians to send a certain number of patients within the insurer’s network.

The federal No Surprises Act, passed by Congress in 2020, hasn’t decreased tension between providers and insurers over out-of-network fees, Dr. Hoadley said. As the effects of the law are hammered out in court, he said, there’s still an adversarial relationship.

In California, the out-of-network landscape changed 3 years before the No Surprises Act. In 2017, the state passed its own no-surprise-billing law, which “protects consumers from surprise medical bills when they get non-emergency services, go to an in-network health facility and receive care from an out-of-network provider without their consent.” In these cases, the law says patients need to pay only in accordance with in-network cost sharing.

In 2019, a USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy report found signs that out-of-network care was fading in California other than in the emergency setting, possibly as a result of the law.

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

Clinical research in lupus has a mammoth diversity problem: Black individuals are most likely to develop the disease, but they’re the least likely to take part in studies. By the numbers, a 2018 analysis of randomized controlled trials in systemic lupus erythematosus from the years 1997 to 2017 found that 51% of trial participants were White and 14% were Black, even though an estimated 33% of patients with lupus were White and 43% were Black.

Are there ways to fix this disparity? The topic is getting plenty of attention, and speakers at a July 21 online conference touted research projects that aim to boost the numbers of non-White participants in lupus trials.

So far there doesn’t seem to be anything like a magic bullet. Still, the stakes are high. “While race is a social construct, genetic polymorphisms as well as environmental and social differences may influence drugs, safety, and efficacy,” Joy Buie, PhD, MSCR, research director for the Lupus Foundation of America, said at the “Engaging Diverse Participants in Lupus Clinical Trials: The Path Forward” summit held by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

As African American patients explained, minority populations often don’t trust the medical system and feel burned by their lengthy struggles to get diagnosed. In some cases, they don’t have full faith in their clinicians and feel unheard.

In a video presentation developed as part of a federal education campaign, Shanelle Gabriel, a poet and musician diagnosed with lupus, described her first reaction when her physician suggested she join a clinical trial. “My first reaction was no. I know my history,” she said, apparently referring to the infamous Tuskegee study that withheld proper treatment from Black men with syphilis for decades. “As an African American woman, I was scared. I didn’t want to be a guinea pig.”

Stacey Kennedy-Conner, a Chicago-area patient and advocate, told the summit audience about how patients can feel that clinical trial information can add “an extra layer of confusion” to their experience. “There’s also the mentality of, ‘If it’s not broke, don’t fix it’: If this medication regimen is working, I don’t want anybody to touch me.”

Monique Gore-Massy, a New York City patient and advocate, added that there can be a perception that patients with lupus “are stuck at home in bed.” In reality, she said, “we have jobs, we have families. Think about that, and consider everything that you’re asking from us: Is this taking me away from my family? Am I going to have to take off work? There may be incentives, but is that worth me taking time off work that I may not get paid for? These are some of the realities that we have to look at in terms of the whole entire clinical trial process.”

It’s also important to keep patients informed of progress being made in trials, she said. “You don’t want to say you just felt like a number and then not get any kind of follow-up.”

In the big picture, “there has to be something that builds up the confidence of individuals so that they are more mindful to participate in these clinical trials,” said Aleta McLean, an Atlanta patient who was diagnosed with lupus 14 years ago.

Several researchers highlighted ongoing projects at the summit. The ACR, for example, has launched a $500,000 initiative called Training to Increase Minority Enrollment in Lupus Clinical Trials with Community Engagement (TIMELY). The federally funded project aims to evaluate whether training of health care professionals can boost clinical trial participation among Black and Hispanic patients.

“We hope to disseminate the results of our project to the scientific community through abstracts, manuscripts, presentations at national meetings,” said rheumatologist Saira Z. Sheikh, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Overall, our goal is to establish new partnerships to support the TIMELY model and advance the education and engagement of providers and community health workers.”

Pamela Payne-Foster, MD, MPH, preventive medicine/public health physician at the University of Alabama College of Community Health Sciences, Tuscaloosa, spoke about the federally funded Deep South Health Equity Project, which is paying patients to take part in an online education program and attend an online regional conference.

Other efforts are underway. The Lupus Research Alliance and its clinical affiliate Lupus Therapeutics have launched two initiatives. One is a program called Project Change (Community-based Health Action Network to Generate Trial Participation and Eliminate Disparities), and the Diversity in Lupus Research Program aims to fund scientists’ work.

Will any of this work boost diversity in clinical trials? As one audience member noted in a Q&A session, health care disparities – and knowledge about them – are nothing new: “Why are we not able to narrow the gap?”

Rear Admiral Richardae Araojo, PharmD, MS, director of the FDA’s Office of Minority Health and Health Equity and associate commissioner for minority health, replied that waves of interest in disparities come and go. “That contributes to why we may not see solutions. But ultimately, there are a lot of people doing a lot of work trying to solve the issues.”

The summit was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and RemeGen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinical research in lupus has a mammoth diversity problem: Black individuals are most likely to develop the disease, but they’re the least likely to take part in studies. By the numbers, a 2018 analysis of randomized controlled trials in systemic lupus erythematosus from the years 1997 to 2017 found that 51% of trial participants were White and 14% were Black, even though an estimated 33% of patients with lupus were White and 43% were Black.

Are there ways to fix this disparity? The topic is getting plenty of attention, and speakers at a July 21 online conference touted research projects that aim to boost the numbers of non-White participants in lupus trials.

So far there doesn’t seem to be anything like a magic bullet. Still, the stakes are high. “While race is a social construct, genetic polymorphisms as well as environmental and social differences may influence drugs, safety, and efficacy,” Joy Buie, PhD, MSCR, research director for the Lupus Foundation of America, said at the “Engaging Diverse Participants in Lupus Clinical Trials: The Path Forward” summit held by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

As African American patients explained, minority populations often don’t trust the medical system and feel burned by their lengthy struggles to get diagnosed. In some cases, they don’t have full faith in their clinicians and feel unheard.

In a video presentation developed as part of a federal education campaign, Shanelle Gabriel, a poet and musician diagnosed with lupus, described her first reaction when her physician suggested she join a clinical trial. “My first reaction was no. I know my history,” she said, apparently referring to the infamous Tuskegee study that withheld proper treatment from Black men with syphilis for decades. “As an African American woman, I was scared. I didn’t want to be a guinea pig.”

Stacey Kennedy-Conner, a Chicago-area patient and advocate, told the summit audience about how patients can feel that clinical trial information can add “an extra layer of confusion” to their experience. “There’s also the mentality of, ‘If it’s not broke, don’t fix it’: If this medication regimen is working, I don’t want anybody to touch me.”

Monique Gore-Massy, a New York City patient and advocate, added that there can be a perception that patients with lupus “are stuck at home in bed.” In reality, she said, “we have jobs, we have families. Think about that, and consider everything that you’re asking from us: Is this taking me away from my family? Am I going to have to take off work? There may be incentives, but is that worth me taking time off work that I may not get paid for? These are some of the realities that we have to look at in terms of the whole entire clinical trial process.”

It’s also important to keep patients informed of progress being made in trials, she said. “You don’t want to say you just felt like a number and then not get any kind of follow-up.”

In the big picture, “there has to be something that builds up the confidence of individuals so that they are more mindful to participate in these clinical trials,” said Aleta McLean, an Atlanta patient who was diagnosed with lupus 14 years ago.

Several researchers highlighted ongoing projects at the summit. The ACR, for example, has launched a $500,000 initiative called Training to Increase Minority Enrollment in Lupus Clinical Trials with Community Engagement (TIMELY). The federally funded project aims to evaluate whether training of health care professionals can boost clinical trial participation among Black and Hispanic patients.

“We hope to disseminate the results of our project to the scientific community through abstracts, manuscripts, presentations at national meetings,” said rheumatologist Saira Z. Sheikh, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Overall, our goal is to establish new partnerships to support the TIMELY model and advance the education and engagement of providers and community health workers.”

Pamela Payne-Foster, MD, MPH, preventive medicine/public health physician at the University of Alabama College of Community Health Sciences, Tuscaloosa, spoke about the federally funded Deep South Health Equity Project, which is paying patients to take part in an online education program and attend an online regional conference.

Other efforts are underway. The Lupus Research Alliance and its clinical affiliate Lupus Therapeutics have launched two initiatives. One is a program called Project Change (Community-based Health Action Network to Generate Trial Participation and Eliminate Disparities), and the Diversity in Lupus Research Program aims to fund scientists’ work.

Will any of this work boost diversity in clinical trials? As one audience member noted in a Q&A session, health care disparities – and knowledge about them – are nothing new: “Why are we not able to narrow the gap?”

Rear Admiral Richardae Araojo, PharmD, MS, director of the FDA’s Office of Minority Health and Health Equity and associate commissioner for minority health, replied that waves of interest in disparities come and go. “That contributes to why we may not see solutions. But ultimately, there are a lot of people doing a lot of work trying to solve the issues.”

The summit was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and RemeGen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinical research in lupus has a mammoth diversity problem: Black individuals are most likely to develop the disease, but they’re the least likely to take part in studies. By the numbers, a 2018 analysis of randomized controlled trials in systemic lupus erythematosus from the years 1997 to 2017 found that 51% of trial participants were White and 14% were Black, even though an estimated 33% of patients with lupus were White and 43% were Black.

Are there ways to fix this disparity? The topic is getting plenty of attention, and speakers at a July 21 online conference touted research projects that aim to boost the numbers of non-White participants in lupus trials.

So far there doesn’t seem to be anything like a magic bullet. Still, the stakes are high. “While race is a social construct, genetic polymorphisms as well as environmental and social differences may influence drugs, safety, and efficacy,” Joy Buie, PhD, MSCR, research director for the Lupus Foundation of America, said at the “Engaging Diverse Participants in Lupus Clinical Trials: The Path Forward” summit held by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

As African American patients explained, minority populations often don’t trust the medical system and feel burned by their lengthy struggles to get diagnosed. In some cases, they don’t have full faith in their clinicians and feel unheard.

In a video presentation developed as part of a federal education campaign, Shanelle Gabriel, a poet and musician diagnosed with lupus, described her first reaction when her physician suggested she join a clinical trial. “My first reaction was no. I know my history,” she said, apparently referring to the infamous Tuskegee study that withheld proper treatment from Black men with syphilis for decades. “As an African American woman, I was scared. I didn’t want to be a guinea pig.”

Stacey Kennedy-Conner, a Chicago-area patient and advocate, told the summit audience about how patients can feel that clinical trial information can add “an extra layer of confusion” to their experience. “There’s also the mentality of, ‘If it’s not broke, don’t fix it’: If this medication regimen is working, I don’t want anybody to touch me.”

Monique Gore-Massy, a New York City patient and advocate, added that there can be a perception that patients with lupus “are stuck at home in bed.” In reality, she said, “we have jobs, we have families. Think about that, and consider everything that you’re asking from us: Is this taking me away from my family? Am I going to have to take off work? There may be incentives, but is that worth me taking time off work that I may not get paid for? These are some of the realities that we have to look at in terms of the whole entire clinical trial process.”

It’s also important to keep patients informed of progress being made in trials, she said. “You don’t want to say you just felt like a number and then not get any kind of follow-up.”

In the big picture, “there has to be something that builds up the confidence of individuals so that they are more mindful to participate in these clinical trials,” said Aleta McLean, an Atlanta patient who was diagnosed with lupus 14 years ago.

Several researchers highlighted ongoing projects at the summit. The ACR, for example, has launched a $500,000 initiative called Training to Increase Minority Enrollment in Lupus Clinical Trials with Community Engagement (TIMELY). The federally funded project aims to evaluate whether training of health care professionals can boost clinical trial participation among Black and Hispanic patients.

“We hope to disseminate the results of our project to the scientific community through abstracts, manuscripts, presentations at national meetings,” said rheumatologist Saira Z. Sheikh, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Overall, our goal is to establish new partnerships to support the TIMELY model and advance the education and engagement of providers and community health workers.”

Pamela Payne-Foster, MD, MPH, preventive medicine/public health physician at the University of Alabama College of Community Health Sciences, Tuscaloosa, spoke about the federally funded Deep South Health Equity Project, which is paying patients to take part in an online education program and attend an online regional conference.

Other efforts are underway. The Lupus Research Alliance and its clinical affiliate Lupus Therapeutics have launched two initiatives. One is a program called Project Change (Community-based Health Action Network to Generate Trial Participation and Eliminate Disparities), and the Diversity in Lupus Research Program aims to fund scientists’ work.

Will any of this work boost diversity in clinical trials? As one audience member noted in a Q&A session, health care disparities – and knowledge about them – are nothing new: “Why are we not able to narrow the gap?”

Rear Admiral Richardae Araojo, PharmD, MS, director of the FDA’s Office of Minority Health and Health Equity and associate commissioner for minority health, replied that waves of interest in disparities come and go. “That contributes to why we may not see solutions. But ultimately, there are a lot of people doing a lot of work trying to solve the issues.”

The summit was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and RemeGen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As the number of female veterans continues to grow, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is adjusting by focusing more on breast/gynecological cancer and referring fewer cases to outside clinicians.

The VA’s effort reflects the reality that female veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are approaching the ages—50s, 60s, and 70s—when cancer diagnoses become more common, said Sarah Colonna, MD, national medical director of breast oncology for VA's Breast and Gynecologic Oncology System of Excellence and an oncologist at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and Wahlen VA Medical Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. “This is preparation for the change that we know is coming.”

In response, the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) is devoting a regional meeting in Tampa, Florida (July 29, 2023) to improving survivorship for patients with women’s cancers. “This meeting is designed to educate both cancer experts and primary care providers on the care of women who have already gone through breast and gynecological cancer treatment,” Colonna explained.

Adherence Challenges

Colonna will speak in a session about the importance of adherence to endocrine therapy. “When we prescribe endocrine therapy for breast cancer, we usually ask women to stay on it for 5 to 10 years, and sometimes that’s hard for them,” she said. “I’ll talk about tips and tricks to help women stay on endocrine therapy for the long haul because we know that is linked to better survival.”

Between two-thirds and three-quarters of women with breast cancer are advised to stay on endocrine drugs, she said, but the medications can be difficult to tolerate due to adverse effects such as hot flashes and sleep disturbances.

In addition, patients are often anxious about the medications. “Women are very leery of anything that changes or makes their hormones different,” Colonna noted. “They feel like it’s messing with something that is natural for them.”

Colonna urges colleagues to focus on their “soft skills,” the ability to absorb and validate the worries of patients. Instead of dismissing them, she said, focus on messages that acknowledge concerns but are also firm: “That’s real, that sucks. But we’ve got to do it.”

It’s also helpful to guide patients away from thinking that taking a pill every day means they’re sick. “I try to flip that paradigm: ‘You’re taking this pill every day because you have power over this thing that happened to you.’”

Education is also key, she said, so that patients “understand very clearly why this medication is important for them: It increases the chance of surviving breast cancer or it increases the chances that the cancer will never come back in your arm or in your breast. Then, whether they make a decision to take it or not, at least they’re making the choice with knowledge.”

As for adverse effects, Colonna said medications such as antidepressants and painkillers can relieve hot flashes, which can disturb sleep.

Identifying the best strategy to address adverse effects “requires keeping in frequent contact with the patient during the first 6 months of endocrine therapy, which are really critical,” she said. “Once they’ve been on it for a year, they can see the light at the end of the tunnel and hang in there even if they have adverse effects.”

Some guidelines suggest that no doctor visits are needed until the 6-month mark, but Colonna prefers to check in at the 4- to 6-week mark, even if it’s just via a phone call. Otherwise, “often they’ll stop taking the pill, and then you won’t know about it until you see them at 6 six months.” At that point, she said, a critical period for treatment has passed.

The Role of Nurse Navigators

In another session at the Tampa regional meeting, AVAHO president-elect Cindy Bowman, MSN, RN, OCN, will moderate a session about the role of nurse navigators in VA cancer care. She is the coordinator of the Cancer Care Navigation Program at the C. W. Bill Young VA Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida.

“Veterans become survivors the day they’re diagnosed with cancer,” she said. Within the VA, cancer-care navigator teams developed over the past decade aim to help patients find their way forward through survivorship, she said, and nurses are crucial to the effort.

As Sharp and Scheid reported in a 2018 Journal Oncology Navigation Survivorship article, “research demonstrates that navigation can improve access to the cancer care system by addressing barriers, as well as facilitating quality care. The benefits of patient navigation for improving cancer patient outcomes is considerable.” McKenney and colleagues found that “patient navigation has been demonstrated to increase access to screening, shorten time to diagnostic resolution, and improve cancer outcomes, particularly in health disparity populations, such as women of color, rural populations, and poor women.” 

According to Bowman, “it has become standard practice to have nurse navigators be there each step of the way from a high suspicion of cancer to diagnosis and through the clinical workup into active treatment and survivorship.” Within the VA, she said, “the focus right now is to look at standardizing care that all VAs will be able to offer holistic, comprehensive cancer-care navigation teams.”

At the regional meeting, Bowman’s session will include updates from nurse navigators about helping patients through breast/gynecological cancer, abnormal mammograms, and survivorship.

Nurse navigators are typically the second medical professionals who talk to cancer patients after their physicians, Bowman said. The unique knowledge of oncology nurse navigators gives them invaluable insight into treatment plans and cancer drug regimens, she said.

“They’re able to sit down and discuss the actual cancer drug regimen with patients—what each of those drugs do, how they’re administered, the short-term and long-term side effects,” she said. “They have the knowledge about all aspects of cancer care that can really only come from somebody who’s specialty trained.”

Other sessions at the AVAHO regional meeting will highlight breast cancer and lymphedema, breast cancer and bone health; diet, exercise and cancer; sexual health for breast/gynecological cancer survivors; and imaging surveillance after diagnosis.

As the number of female veterans continues to grow, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is adjusting by focusing more on breast/gynecological cancer and referring fewer cases to outside clinicians.

The VA’s effort reflects the reality that female veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are approaching the ages—50s, 60s, and 70s—when cancer diagnoses become more common, said Sarah Colonna, MD, national medical director of breast oncology for VA's Breast and Gynecologic Oncology System of Excellence and an oncologist at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and Wahlen VA Medical Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. “This is preparation for the change that we know is coming.”

In response, the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) is devoting a regional meeting in Tampa, Florida (July 29, 2023) to improving survivorship for patients with women’s cancers. “This meeting is designed to educate both cancer experts and primary care providers on the care of women who have already gone through breast and gynecological cancer treatment,” Colonna explained.

Adherence Challenges

Colonna will speak in a session about the importance of adherence to endocrine therapy. “When we prescribe endocrine therapy for breast cancer, we usually ask women to stay on it for 5 to 10 years, and sometimes that’s hard for them,” she said. “I’ll talk about tips and tricks to help women stay on endocrine therapy for the long haul because we know that is linked to better survival.”

Between two-thirds and three-quarters of women with breast cancer are advised to stay on endocrine drugs, she said, but the medications can be difficult to tolerate due to adverse effects such as hot flashes and sleep disturbances.

In addition, patients are often anxious about the medications. “Women are very leery of anything that changes or makes their hormones different,” Colonna noted. “They feel like it’s messing with something that is natural for them.”

Colonna urges colleagues to focus on their “soft skills,” the ability to absorb and validate the worries of patients. Instead of dismissing them, she said, focus on messages that acknowledge concerns but are also firm: “That’s real, that sucks. But we’ve got to do it.”

It’s also helpful to guide patients away from thinking that taking a pill every day means they’re sick. “I try to flip that paradigm: ‘You’re taking this pill every day because you have power over this thing that happened to you.’”

Education is also key, she said, so that patients “understand very clearly why this medication is important for them: It increases the chance of surviving breast cancer or it increases the chances that the cancer will never come back in your arm or in your breast. Then, whether they make a decision to take it or not, at least they’re making the choice with knowledge.”

As for adverse effects, Colonna said medications such as antidepressants and painkillers can relieve hot flashes, which can disturb sleep.

Identifying the best strategy to address adverse effects “requires keeping in frequent contact with the patient during the first 6 months of endocrine therapy, which are really critical,” she said. “Once they’ve been on it for a year, they can see the light at the end of the tunnel and hang in there even if they have adverse effects.”

Some guidelines suggest that no doctor visits are needed until the 6-month mark, but Colonna prefers to check in at the 4- to 6-week mark, even if it’s just via a phone call. Otherwise, “often they’ll stop taking the pill, and then you won’t know about it until you see them at 6 six months.” At that point, she said, a critical period for treatment has passed.

The Role of Nurse Navigators

In another session at the Tampa regional meeting, AVAHO president-elect Cindy Bowman, MSN, RN, OCN, will moderate a session about the role of nurse navigators in VA cancer care. She is the coordinator of the Cancer Care Navigation Program at the C. W. Bill Young VA Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida.

“Veterans become survivors the day they’re diagnosed with cancer,” she said. Within the VA, cancer-care navigator teams developed over the past decade aim to help patients find their way forward through survivorship, she said, and nurses are crucial to the effort.

As Sharp and Scheid reported in a 2018 Journal Oncology Navigation Survivorship article, “research demonstrates that navigation can improve access to the cancer care system by addressing barriers, as well as facilitating quality care. The benefits of patient navigation for improving cancer patient outcomes is considerable.” McKenney and colleagues found that “patient navigation has been demonstrated to increase access to screening, shorten time to diagnostic resolution, and improve cancer outcomes, particularly in health disparity populations, such as women of color, rural populations, and poor women.” 

According to Bowman, “it has become standard practice to have nurse navigators be there each step of the way from a high suspicion of cancer to diagnosis and through the clinical workup into active treatment and survivorship.” Within the VA, she said, “the focus right now is to look at standardizing care that all VAs will be able to offer holistic, comprehensive cancer-care navigation teams.”

At the regional meeting, Bowman’s session will include updates from nurse navigators about helping patients through breast/gynecological cancer, abnormal mammograms, and survivorship.

Nurse navigators are typically the second medical professionals who talk to cancer patients after their physicians, Bowman said. The unique knowledge of oncology nurse navigators gives them invaluable insight into treatment plans and cancer drug regimens, she said.

“They’re able to sit down and discuss the actual cancer drug regimen with patients—what each of those drugs do, how they’re administered, the short-term and long-term side effects,” she said. “They have the knowledge about all aspects of cancer care that can really only come from somebody who’s specialty trained.”

Other sessions at the AVAHO regional meeting will highlight breast cancer and lymphedema, breast cancer and bone health; diet, exercise and cancer; sexual health for breast/gynecological cancer survivors; and imaging surveillance after diagnosis.

As the number of female veterans continues to grow, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is adjusting by focusing more on breast/gynecological cancer and referring fewer cases to outside clinicians.

The VA’s effort reflects the reality that female veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are approaching the ages—50s, 60s, and 70s—when cancer diagnoses become more common, said Sarah Colonna, MD, national medical director of breast oncology for VA's Breast and Gynecologic Oncology System of Excellence and an oncologist at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and Wahlen VA Medical Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. “This is preparation for the change that we know is coming.”

In response, the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) is devoting a regional meeting in Tampa, Florida (July 29, 2023) to improving survivorship for patients with women’s cancers. “This meeting is designed to educate both cancer experts and primary care providers on the care of women who have already gone through breast and gynecological cancer treatment,” Colonna explained.

Adherence Challenges

Colonna will speak in a session about the importance of adherence to endocrine therapy. “When we prescribe endocrine therapy for breast cancer, we usually ask women to stay on it for 5 to 10 years, and sometimes that’s hard for them,” she said. “I’ll talk about tips and tricks to help women stay on endocrine therapy for the long haul because we know that is linked to better survival.”

Between two-thirds and three-quarters of women with breast cancer are advised to stay on endocrine drugs, she said, but the medications can be difficult to tolerate due to adverse effects such as hot flashes and sleep disturbances.

In addition, patients are often anxious about the medications. “Women are very leery of anything that changes or makes their hormones different,” Colonna noted. “They feel like it’s messing with something that is natural for them.”

Colonna urges colleagues to focus on their “soft skills,” the ability to absorb and validate the worries of patients. Instead of dismissing them, she said, focus on messages that acknowledge concerns but are also firm: “That’s real, that sucks. But we’ve got to do it.”

It’s also helpful to guide patients away from thinking that taking a pill every day means they’re sick. “I try to flip that paradigm: ‘You’re taking this pill every day because you have power over this thing that happened to you.’”

Education is also key, she said, so that patients “understand very clearly why this medication is important for them: It increases the chance of surviving breast cancer or it increases the chances that the cancer will never come back in your arm or in your breast. Then, whether they make a decision to take it or not, at least they’re making the choice with knowledge.”

As for adverse effects, Colonna said medications such as antidepressants and painkillers can relieve hot flashes, which can disturb sleep.

Identifying the best strategy to address adverse effects “requires keeping in frequent contact with the patient during the first 6 months of endocrine therapy, which are really critical,” she said. “Once they’ve been on it for a year, they can see the light at the end of the tunnel and hang in there even if they have adverse effects.”

Some guidelines suggest that no doctor visits are needed until the 6-month mark, but Colonna prefers to check in at the 4- to 6-week mark, even if it’s just via a phone call. Otherwise, “often they’ll stop taking the pill, and then you won’t know about it until you see them at 6 six months.” At that point, she said, a critical period for treatment has passed.

The Role of Nurse Navigators

In another session at the Tampa regional meeting, AVAHO president-elect Cindy Bowman, MSN, RN, OCN, will moderate a session about the role of nurse navigators in VA cancer care. She is the coordinator of the Cancer Care Navigation Program at the C. W. Bill Young VA Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida.

“Veterans become survivors the day they’re diagnosed with cancer,” she said. Within the VA, cancer-care navigator teams developed over the past decade aim to help patients find their way forward through survivorship, she said, and nurses are crucial to the effort.

As Sharp and Scheid reported in a 2018 Journal Oncology Navigation Survivorship article, “research demonstrates that navigation can improve access to the cancer care system by addressing barriers, as well as facilitating quality care. The benefits of patient navigation for improving cancer patient outcomes is considerable.” McKenney and colleagues found that “patient navigation has been demonstrated to increase access to screening, shorten time to diagnostic resolution, and improve cancer outcomes, particularly in health disparity populations, such as women of color, rural populations, and poor women.” 

According to Bowman, “it has become standard practice to have nurse navigators be there each step of the way from a high suspicion of cancer to diagnosis and through the clinical workup into active treatment and survivorship.” Within the VA, she said, “the focus right now is to look at standardizing care that all VAs will be able to offer holistic, comprehensive cancer-care navigation teams.”

At the regional meeting, Bowman’s session will include updates from nurse navigators about helping patients through breast/gynecological cancer, abnormal mammograms, and survivorship.

Nurse navigators are typically the second medical professionals who talk to cancer patients after their physicians, Bowman said. The unique knowledge of oncology nurse navigators gives them invaluable insight into treatment plans and cancer drug regimens, she said.

“They’re able to sit down and discuss the actual cancer drug regimen with patients—what each of those drugs do, how they’re administered, the short-term and long-term side effects,” she said. “They have the knowledge about all aspects of cancer care that can really only come from somebody who’s specialty trained.”

Other sessions at the AVAHO regional meeting will highlight breast cancer and lymphedema, breast cancer and bone health; diet, exercise and cancer; sexual health for breast/gynecological cancer survivors; and imaging surveillance after diagnosis.

A new study offers a grim portrait of the apparent effects of excess weight on outcomes in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL): Among patients aged 15-50 years who were treated with asparaginase-containing pediatric regimens, mortality and treatment-related side effects were much more common in those with elevated body mass index (BMI). Older obese/overweight patients were especially likely to have poor outcomes.

The study, published in Blood Advances, doesn’t identify a culprit behind the worse outcomes in obese and overweight patients. However, it does highlight the limits of asparaginase-containing pediatric regimens in these patients, said study senior author and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute leukemia specialist Marlise R. Luskin, MD, in an interview.

“Pediatric-inspired regimens can be applied safely in adults up to the age of 50 years, with those of normal BMI having particularly good outcomes. Further research is needed to determine the best approach to treating patients of all ages with elevated BMIs,” Dr. Luskin said.

ALL is an uncommon cancer that kills about 1,390 people in the United States each year, according to the American Cancer Society. Most cases are in children, but most deaths are in adults, according to the ACS.

Research over the past 20 years has shown that younger adults “with ALL have better outcomes when they treated with intensive pediatric-style chemotherapy regimens than when they are treated with traditional adult regimens,” Dr. Luskin said. “Still, too many young adults do not have good outcomes. Either their disease is resistant to chemotherapy, or they experience significant side effects from treatment. Our main motivation for this study was to better understand which adolescents and younger adults have good outcomes with pediatric-style chemotherapy, and which patients require improved approaches.”

The researchers retrospectively tracked 388 patients aged 15-50 who were treated with Dana-Farber Consortium regimens from 2001 to 2021. A total of 46.7% were overweight or obese as defined by BMI. Of the rest, 2.6% were underweight, and 50.7% had normal weight. The study defined this combined group (53.3%) as having normal weight.

Most patients were male (61.9%), the median age was 24 years, and 35% were aged 30-50. All were treated with asparaginase-based regimens, although the components of the regimens changed over time.

In a bit of good news, “the study remarkably found equivalent overall survival among younger (aged 15-29) and older (aged 30-50) patients with normal BMI – 83% versus 85%, respectively [P = .89],” said lead author and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute advanced leukemia fellow Shai Shimony, MD. “This is an incredibly important finding as many are hesitant to offer pediatric regimens to patients over 30 years merely because of their age.”

As for differences by weight, both the normal and overweight/obese groups had identical rates of remission (87%; P = .84). However, overweight or obese patients had higher 4-year non-relapse mortality (11.7% vs. 2.8%; P = .006), worse event-free 4-year survival (63% vs. 77%; P = .003), and worse overall 4-year survival (64% vs. 83%; P = .0001).

Older obese/overweight patients (aged 30-50) were especially vulnerable to death, with worse overall 4-year survival versus their younger counterparts (55% vs. 73%; P = .023).

In another finding, the researchers also found that high triglyceride levels were common in patients, and this was linked to improved survival and decreased risk of relapse. These higher levels are likely linked to the drug regimen and “are not in and of themselves harmful or a reason to discontinue treatment,” Dr. Luskin said.

As for treatment-related side effects, an analysis of 353 patients found that grade III/IV hepatotoxicity – defined as elevation of AST, ALT, and/or bilirubin – was higher in patients who were overweight/obese versus normal weight (60.7% vs. 42.2%; P = .0005). Grade III/IV hyperglycemias were also higher in the overweight/obese group vs. normal weight (36.4% vs. 24.4%; P = .014).

Why might excess weight lead to worse outcomes? “We found that BMI was associated with more nonrelapse mortality, meaning death due to treatment-related side effects,” said Dr. Shimony. “This may be because patients with higher BMI are less able to tolerate chemotherapy, possibly due to more hyperglycemia, infection, and less overall resilience in the setting of complications. Obesity may also be associated with intrinsic disease resistance. This may be because adipose tissue protects lymphoblasts from the effects of chemotherapy or is due to underdosing of chemotherapy drugs.”

The study authors noted limitations to their research such as its reliance on BMI at diagnosis, without details about weight changes over time, and the lack of a systematic evaluation of measurable residual disease.

In an interview, Gwen Nichols, MD, chief medical officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, said it’s indeed possible that heavier patients may be underdosed with chemotherapy – especially older ones who may have more excess weight than children.

Dr. Nichols, who praised the study, highlighted another theory. “What causes you metabolically to be overweight may be connected to some reason to less metabolization of chemotherapy drugs,” she said.

Going forward, Dr. Shimony said “clinicians treating younger adults with ALL should monitor their patients with elevated BMI very closely for response and side effects. We recommend these patients be enrolled in clinical trials whenever possible so that more can be learned about how this group of patients responds to novel treatment approaches. Importantly, it is not yet known how obesity is associated with outcomes in nonasparaginase regimens such as hyper-CVAD or those approaches that rely on novel agents.” 

The Foley Family Research Fund funded the study. Dr. Luskin disclosed research support from Abbvie and Novartis, and some other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Shimony and Dr. Nichols have no disclosures.
 

A new study offers a grim portrait of the apparent effects of excess weight on outcomes in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL): Among patients aged 15-50 years who were treated with asparaginase-containing pediatric regimens, mortality and treatment-related side effects were much more common in those with elevated body mass index (BMI). Older obese/overweight patients were especially likely to have poor outcomes.

The study, published in Blood Advances, doesn’t identify a culprit behind the worse outcomes in obese and overweight patients. However, it does highlight the limits of asparaginase-containing pediatric regimens in these patients, said study senior author and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute leukemia specialist Marlise R. Luskin, MD, in an interview.

“Pediatric-inspired regimens can be applied safely in adults up to the age of 50 years, with those of normal BMI having particularly good outcomes. Further research is needed to determine the best approach to treating patients of all ages with elevated BMIs,” Dr. Luskin said.

ALL is an uncommon cancer that kills about 1,390 people in the United States each year, according to the American Cancer Society. Most cases are in children, but most deaths are in adults, according to the ACS.

Research over the past 20 years has shown that younger adults “with ALL have better outcomes when they treated with intensive pediatric-style chemotherapy regimens than when they are treated with traditional adult regimens,” Dr. Luskin said. “Still, too many young adults do not have good outcomes. Either their disease is resistant to chemotherapy, or they experience significant side effects from treatment. Our main motivation for this study was to better understand which adolescents and younger adults have good outcomes with pediatric-style chemotherapy, and which patients require improved approaches.”

The researchers retrospectively tracked 388 patients aged 15-50 who were treated with Dana-Farber Consortium regimens from 2001 to 2021. A total of 46.7% were overweight or obese as defined by BMI. Of the rest, 2.6% were underweight, and 50.7% had normal weight. The study defined this combined group (53.3%) as having normal weight.

Most patients were male (61.9%), the median age was 24 years, and 35% were aged 30-50. All were treated with asparaginase-based regimens, although the components of the regimens changed over time.

In a bit of good news, “the study remarkably found equivalent overall survival among younger (aged 15-29) and older (aged 30-50) patients with normal BMI – 83% versus 85%, respectively [P = .89],” said lead author and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute advanced leukemia fellow Shai Shimony, MD. “This is an incredibly important finding as many are hesitant to offer pediatric regimens to patients over 30 years merely because of their age.”

As for differences by weight, both the normal and overweight/obese groups had identical rates of remission (87%; P = .84). However, overweight or obese patients had higher 4-year non-relapse mortality (11.7% vs. 2.8%; P = .006), worse event-free 4-year survival (63% vs. 77%; P = .003), and worse overall 4-year survival (64% vs. 83%; P = .0001).

Older obese/overweight patients (aged 30-50) were especially vulnerable to death, with worse overall 4-year survival versus their younger counterparts (55% vs. 73%; P = .023).

In another finding, the researchers also found that high triglyceride levels were common in patients, and this was linked to improved survival and decreased risk of relapse. These higher levels are likely linked to the drug regimen and “are not in and of themselves harmful or a reason to discontinue treatment,” Dr. Luskin said.

As for treatment-related side effects, an analysis of 353 patients found that grade III/IV hepatotoxicity – defined as elevation of AST, ALT, and/or bilirubin – was higher in patients who were overweight/obese versus normal weight (60.7% vs. 42.2%; P = .0005). Grade III/IV hyperglycemias were also higher in the overweight/obese group vs. normal weight (36.4% vs. 24.4%; P = .014).

Why might excess weight lead to worse outcomes? “We found that BMI was associated with more nonrelapse mortality, meaning death due to treatment-related side effects,” said Dr. Shimony. “This may be because patients with higher BMI are less able to tolerate chemotherapy, possibly due to more hyperglycemia, infection, and less overall resilience in the setting of complications. Obesity may also be associated with intrinsic disease resistance. This may be because adipose tissue protects lymphoblasts from the effects of chemotherapy or is due to underdosing of chemotherapy drugs.”

The study authors noted limitations to their research such as its reliance on BMI at diagnosis, without details about weight changes over time, and the lack of a systematic evaluation of measurable residual disease.

In an interview, Gwen Nichols, MD, chief medical officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, said it’s indeed possible that heavier patients may be underdosed with chemotherapy – especially older ones who may have more excess weight than children.

Dr. Nichols, who praised the study, highlighted another theory. “What causes you metabolically to be overweight may be connected to some reason to less metabolization of chemotherapy drugs,” she said.

Going forward, Dr. Shimony said “clinicians treating younger adults with ALL should monitor their patients with elevated BMI very closely for response and side effects. We recommend these patients be enrolled in clinical trials whenever possible so that more can be learned about how this group of patients responds to novel treatment approaches. Importantly, it is not yet known how obesity is associated with outcomes in nonasparaginase regimens such as hyper-CVAD or those approaches that rely on novel agents.” 

The Foley Family Research Fund funded the study. Dr. Luskin disclosed research support from Abbvie and Novartis, and some other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Shimony and Dr. Nichols have no disclosures.
 

A new study offers a grim portrait of the apparent effects of excess weight on outcomes in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL): Among patients aged 15-50 years who were treated with asparaginase-containing pediatric regimens, mortality and treatment-related side effects were much more common in those with elevated body mass index (BMI). Older obese/overweight patients were especially likely to have poor outcomes.

The study, published in Blood Advances, doesn’t identify a culprit behind the worse outcomes in obese and overweight patients. However, it does highlight the limits of asparaginase-containing pediatric regimens in these patients, said study senior author and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute leukemia specialist Marlise R. Luskin, MD, in an interview.

“Pediatric-inspired regimens can be applied safely in adults up to the age of 50 years, with those of normal BMI having particularly good outcomes. Further research is needed to determine the best approach to treating patients of all ages with elevated BMIs,” Dr. Luskin said.

ALL is an uncommon cancer that kills about 1,390 people in the United States each year, according to the American Cancer Society. Most cases are in children, but most deaths are in adults, according to the ACS.

Research over the past 20 years has shown that younger adults “with ALL have better outcomes when they treated with intensive pediatric-style chemotherapy regimens than when they are treated with traditional adult regimens,” Dr. Luskin said. “Still, too many young adults do not have good outcomes. Either their disease is resistant to chemotherapy, or they experience significant side effects from treatment. Our main motivation for this study was to better understand which adolescents and younger adults have good outcomes with pediatric-style chemotherapy, and which patients require improved approaches.”

The researchers retrospectively tracked 388 patients aged 15-50 who were treated with Dana-Farber Consortium regimens from 2001 to 2021. A total of 46.7% were overweight or obese as defined by BMI. Of the rest, 2.6% were underweight, and 50.7% had normal weight. The study defined this combined group (53.3%) as having normal weight.

Most patients were male (61.9%), the median age was 24 years, and 35% were aged 30-50. All were treated with asparaginase-based regimens, although the components of the regimens changed over time.

In a bit of good news, “the study remarkably found equivalent overall survival among younger (aged 15-29) and older (aged 30-50) patients with normal BMI – 83% versus 85%, respectively [P = .89],” said lead author and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute advanced leukemia fellow Shai Shimony, MD. “This is an incredibly important finding as many are hesitant to offer pediatric regimens to patients over 30 years merely because of their age.”

As for differences by weight, both the normal and overweight/obese groups had identical rates of remission (87%; P = .84). However, overweight or obese patients had higher 4-year non-relapse mortality (11.7% vs. 2.8%; P = .006), worse event-free 4-year survival (63% vs. 77%; P = .003), and worse overall 4-year survival (64% vs. 83%; P = .0001).

Older obese/overweight patients (aged 30-50) were especially vulnerable to death, with worse overall 4-year survival versus their younger counterparts (55% vs. 73%; P = .023).

In another finding, the researchers also found that high triglyceride levels were common in patients, and this was linked to improved survival and decreased risk of relapse. These higher levels are likely linked to the drug regimen and “are not in and of themselves harmful or a reason to discontinue treatment,” Dr. Luskin said.

As for treatment-related side effects, an analysis of 353 patients found that grade III/IV hepatotoxicity – defined as elevation of AST, ALT, and/or bilirubin – was higher in patients who were overweight/obese versus normal weight (60.7% vs. 42.2%; P = .0005). Grade III/IV hyperglycemias were also higher in the overweight/obese group vs. normal weight (36.4% vs. 24.4%; P = .014).

Why might excess weight lead to worse outcomes? “We found that BMI was associated with more nonrelapse mortality, meaning death due to treatment-related side effects,” said Dr. Shimony. “This may be because patients with higher BMI are less able to tolerate chemotherapy, possibly due to more hyperglycemia, infection, and less overall resilience in the setting of complications. Obesity may also be associated with intrinsic disease resistance. This may be because adipose tissue protects lymphoblasts from the effects of chemotherapy or is due to underdosing of chemotherapy drugs.”

The study authors noted limitations to their research such as its reliance on BMI at diagnosis, without details about weight changes over time, and the lack of a systematic evaluation of measurable residual disease.

In an interview, Gwen Nichols, MD, chief medical officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, said it’s indeed possible that heavier patients may be underdosed with chemotherapy – especially older ones who may have more excess weight than children.

Dr. Nichols, who praised the study, highlighted another theory. “What causes you metabolically to be overweight may be connected to some reason to less metabolization of chemotherapy drugs,” she said.

Going forward, Dr. Shimony said “clinicians treating younger adults with ALL should monitor their patients with elevated BMI very closely for response and side effects. We recommend these patients be enrolled in clinical trials whenever possible so that more can be learned about how this group of patients responds to novel treatment approaches. Importantly, it is not yet known how obesity is associated with outcomes in nonasparaginase regimens such as hyper-CVAD or those approaches that rely on novel agents.” 

The Foley Family Research Fund funded the study. Dr. Luskin disclosed research support from Abbvie and Novartis, and some other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Shimony and Dr. Nichols have no disclosures.