User login
AVAHO
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
Rising Cancer Rates Among Young People Spur New Fertility Preservation Options
Rising Cancer Rates Among Young People Spur New Fertility Preservation Options
ATLANTA —Jacqueline Lee, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist at Emory School of Medicine, frequently treats patients with cancer. Recently, she treated 4 women in their 30s with histories of colon cancer, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, lymphoma, and breast cancer. A young man in his 20s sought her care, to discuss his case of lymphoma.
All these patients sought guidance from Lee because they want to protect their ability to have children. At the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology, Lee explained that plenty of patients are finding themselves in similar straits due in part to recent trends.
Cancer rates in the US have been rising among people aged 15 to 39 years, who now account for 4.2% of all cancer cases. An estimated 84,100 people in this age group are expected to be diagnosed with cancer this year. Meanwhile, women are having children later in life-birth rates are up among those aged 25 to 49 years-making it more likely that they have histories of cancer.
Although it's difficult to predict how cancer will affect fertility, Lee emphasized that many chemotherapy medications, including cisplatin and carboplatin, are cytotoxic. "It's hard to always predict what someone's arc of care is going to be," she said, "so I really have a low threshold for recommending fertility preservation in patients who have a strong desire to have future childbearing."
For women with cancer, egg preservation isn't the only strategy. Clinicians can also try to protect ovarian tissue from pelvic radiation through surgical reposition of the ovaries, Lee noted. In addition goserelin, a hormone-suppressing therapy, may protect the ovaries from chemotherapy, though its effectiveness in boosting pregnancy rates is still unclear.
"When I mentioned this option, it's usually for patients who can't preserve fertility via egg or embryo preservation, or we don't have the luxury of that kind of time," Lee said. "I say that if helps at all, it might help you resume menses after treatment. But infertility is still very common."
For some patients, freezing eggs is an easy decision. "They don't have a reproductive partner they're ready to make embryos with, so we proceed with egg preservation. It's no longer considered experimental and comes with lower upfront costs since the costs of actually making embryos are deferred until the future."
In addition, she said, freezing eggs also avoids the touchy topic of disposing of embryos. Lee cautions patients that retrieving eggs is a 2-week process that requires any initiation of cancer care to be delayed. However, the retrieval process can be adjusted in patients with special needs due to the type of cancer they have.
For prepubertal girls with cancer, ovarian tissue can be removed and frozen as a fertility preservation option. However, this is not considered standard of care. "We don't do it," she said. "We refer out if needed. Hopefully we'll develop a program in the future."
As for the 5 patients that Lee mentioned, with details changed to protect their privacy, their outcomes were as follows:
- The woman with colon cancer, who had undergone a hemicolectomy, chose to defer fertility preservation.
- The woman with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, who was taking depo-Lupron, had undetectable anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels. Lee discussed the possibility of IVF with a donor egg.
- The woman with breast cancer, who was newly diagnosed, deferred fertility preservation.
- The man with lymphoma (Hodgkin's), who was awaiting chemotherapy, had his sperm frozen.
- The woman with lymphoma (new diagnosis) had 27 eggs frozen.
Lee had no disclosures to report.
ATLANTA —Jacqueline Lee, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist at Emory School of Medicine, frequently treats patients with cancer. Recently, she treated 4 women in their 30s with histories of colon cancer, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, lymphoma, and breast cancer. A young man in his 20s sought her care, to discuss his case of lymphoma.
All these patients sought guidance from Lee because they want to protect their ability to have children. At the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology, Lee explained that plenty of patients are finding themselves in similar straits due in part to recent trends.
Cancer rates in the US have been rising among people aged 15 to 39 years, who now account for 4.2% of all cancer cases. An estimated 84,100 people in this age group are expected to be diagnosed with cancer this year. Meanwhile, women are having children later in life-birth rates are up among those aged 25 to 49 years-making it more likely that they have histories of cancer.
Although it's difficult to predict how cancer will affect fertility, Lee emphasized that many chemotherapy medications, including cisplatin and carboplatin, are cytotoxic. "It's hard to always predict what someone's arc of care is going to be," she said, "so I really have a low threshold for recommending fertility preservation in patients who have a strong desire to have future childbearing."
For women with cancer, egg preservation isn't the only strategy. Clinicians can also try to protect ovarian tissue from pelvic radiation through surgical reposition of the ovaries, Lee noted. In addition goserelin, a hormone-suppressing therapy, may protect the ovaries from chemotherapy, though its effectiveness in boosting pregnancy rates is still unclear.
"When I mentioned this option, it's usually for patients who can't preserve fertility via egg or embryo preservation, or we don't have the luxury of that kind of time," Lee said. "I say that if helps at all, it might help you resume menses after treatment. But infertility is still very common."
For some patients, freezing eggs is an easy decision. "They don't have a reproductive partner they're ready to make embryos with, so we proceed with egg preservation. It's no longer considered experimental and comes with lower upfront costs since the costs of actually making embryos are deferred until the future."
In addition, she said, freezing eggs also avoids the touchy topic of disposing of embryos. Lee cautions patients that retrieving eggs is a 2-week process that requires any initiation of cancer care to be delayed. However, the retrieval process can be adjusted in patients with special needs due to the type of cancer they have.
For prepubertal girls with cancer, ovarian tissue can be removed and frozen as a fertility preservation option. However, this is not considered standard of care. "We don't do it," she said. "We refer out if needed. Hopefully we'll develop a program in the future."
As for the 5 patients that Lee mentioned, with details changed to protect their privacy, their outcomes were as follows:
- The woman with colon cancer, who had undergone a hemicolectomy, chose to defer fertility preservation.
- The woman with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, who was taking depo-Lupron, had undetectable anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels. Lee discussed the possibility of IVF with a donor egg.
- The woman with breast cancer, who was newly diagnosed, deferred fertility preservation.
- The man with lymphoma (Hodgkin's), who was awaiting chemotherapy, had his sperm frozen.
- The woman with lymphoma (new diagnosis) had 27 eggs frozen.
Lee had no disclosures to report.
ATLANTA —Jacqueline Lee, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist at Emory School of Medicine, frequently treats patients with cancer. Recently, she treated 4 women in their 30s with histories of colon cancer, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, lymphoma, and breast cancer. A young man in his 20s sought her care, to discuss his case of lymphoma.
All these patients sought guidance from Lee because they want to protect their ability to have children. At the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology, Lee explained that plenty of patients are finding themselves in similar straits due in part to recent trends.
Cancer rates in the US have been rising among people aged 15 to 39 years, who now account for 4.2% of all cancer cases. An estimated 84,100 people in this age group are expected to be diagnosed with cancer this year. Meanwhile, women are having children later in life-birth rates are up among those aged 25 to 49 years-making it more likely that they have histories of cancer.
Although it's difficult to predict how cancer will affect fertility, Lee emphasized that many chemotherapy medications, including cisplatin and carboplatin, are cytotoxic. "It's hard to always predict what someone's arc of care is going to be," she said, "so I really have a low threshold for recommending fertility preservation in patients who have a strong desire to have future childbearing."
For women with cancer, egg preservation isn't the only strategy. Clinicians can also try to protect ovarian tissue from pelvic radiation through surgical reposition of the ovaries, Lee noted. In addition goserelin, a hormone-suppressing therapy, may protect the ovaries from chemotherapy, though its effectiveness in boosting pregnancy rates is still unclear.
"When I mentioned this option, it's usually for patients who can't preserve fertility via egg or embryo preservation, or we don't have the luxury of that kind of time," Lee said. "I say that if helps at all, it might help you resume menses after treatment. But infertility is still very common."
For some patients, freezing eggs is an easy decision. "They don't have a reproductive partner they're ready to make embryos with, so we proceed with egg preservation. It's no longer considered experimental and comes with lower upfront costs since the costs of actually making embryos are deferred until the future."
In addition, she said, freezing eggs also avoids the touchy topic of disposing of embryos. Lee cautions patients that retrieving eggs is a 2-week process that requires any initiation of cancer care to be delayed. However, the retrieval process can be adjusted in patients with special needs due to the type of cancer they have.
For prepubertal girls with cancer, ovarian tissue can be removed and frozen as a fertility preservation option. However, this is not considered standard of care. "We don't do it," she said. "We refer out if needed. Hopefully we'll develop a program in the future."
As for the 5 patients that Lee mentioned, with details changed to protect their privacy, their outcomes were as follows:
- The woman with colon cancer, who had undergone a hemicolectomy, chose to defer fertility preservation.
- The woman with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, who was taking depo-Lupron, had undetectable anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels. Lee discussed the possibility of IVF with a donor egg.
- The woman with breast cancer, who was newly diagnosed, deferred fertility preservation.
- The man with lymphoma (Hodgkin's), who was awaiting chemotherapy, had his sperm frozen.
- The woman with lymphoma (new diagnosis) had 27 eggs frozen.
Lee had no disclosures to report.
Rising Cancer Rates Among Young People Spur New Fertility Preservation Options
Rising Cancer Rates Among Young People Spur New Fertility Preservation Options
VA Cancer Clinical Trials as a Strategy for Increasing Accrual of Racial and Ethnic Underrepresented Groups
Background
Cancer clinical trials (CCTs) are central to improving cancer care. However, generalizability of findings from CCTs is difficult due to the lack of diversity in most United States CCTs. Clinical trial accrual of underrepresented groups, is low throughout the United States and is approximately 4-5% in most CCTs. Reasons for low accrual in this population are multifactorial. Despite numerous factors related to accruing racial and ethnic underrepresented groups, many institutions have sought to address these barriers. We conducted a scoping review to identify evidence-based approaches to increase participation in cancer treatment clinical trials.
Methods
We reviewed the Salisbury VA Medical Center Oncology clinical trial database from October 2019 to June 2024. The participants in these clinical trials required consent. These clinical trials included treatment interventional as well as non-treatment interventional. Fifteen studies were included and over 260 Veterans participated.
Results
Key themes emerged that included a focus on patient education, cultural competency, and building capacity in the clinics to care for the Veteran population at three separate sites in the Salisbury VA system. The Black Veteran accrual rate of 29% was achieved. This accrual rate is representative of our VA catchment population of 33% for Black Veterans, and is five times the national average.
Conclusions
The research team’s success in enrolling Black Veterans in clinical trials is attributed to several factors. The demographic composition of Veterans served by the Salisbury, Charlotte, and Kernersville VA provided a diverse population that included a 33% Black group. The type of clinical trials focused on patients who were most impacted by the disease. The VA did afford less barriers to access to health care.
Background
Cancer clinical trials (CCTs) are central to improving cancer care. However, generalizability of findings from CCTs is difficult due to the lack of diversity in most United States CCTs. Clinical trial accrual of underrepresented groups, is low throughout the United States and is approximately 4-5% in most CCTs. Reasons for low accrual in this population are multifactorial. Despite numerous factors related to accruing racial and ethnic underrepresented groups, many institutions have sought to address these barriers. We conducted a scoping review to identify evidence-based approaches to increase participation in cancer treatment clinical trials.
Methods
We reviewed the Salisbury VA Medical Center Oncology clinical trial database from October 2019 to June 2024. The participants in these clinical trials required consent. These clinical trials included treatment interventional as well as non-treatment interventional. Fifteen studies were included and over 260 Veterans participated.
Results
Key themes emerged that included a focus on patient education, cultural competency, and building capacity in the clinics to care for the Veteran population at three separate sites in the Salisbury VA system. The Black Veteran accrual rate of 29% was achieved. This accrual rate is representative of our VA catchment population of 33% for Black Veterans, and is five times the national average.
Conclusions
The research team’s success in enrolling Black Veterans in clinical trials is attributed to several factors. The demographic composition of Veterans served by the Salisbury, Charlotte, and Kernersville VA provided a diverse population that included a 33% Black group. The type of clinical trials focused on patients who were most impacted by the disease. The VA did afford less barriers to access to health care.
Background
Cancer clinical trials (CCTs) are central to improving cancer care. However, generalizability of findings from CCTs is difficult due to the lack of diversity in most United States CCTs. Clinical trial accrual of underrepresented groups, is low throughout the United States and is approximately 4-5% in most CCTs. Reasons for low accrual in this population are multifactorial. Despite numerous factors related to accruing racial and ethnic underrepresented groups, many institutions have sought to address these barriers. We conducted a scoping review to identify evidence-based approaches to increase participation in cancer treatment clinical trials.
Methods
We reviewed the Salisbury VA Medical Center Oncology clinical trial database from October 2019 to June 2024. The participants in these clinical trials required consent. These clinical trials included treatment interventional as well as non-treatment interventional. Fifteen studies were included and over 260 Veterans participated.
Results
Key themes emerged that included a focus on patient education, cultural competency, and building capacity in the clinics to care for the Veteran population at three separate sites in the Salisbury VA system. The Black Veteran accrual rate of 29% was achieved. This accrual rate is representative of our VA catchment population of 33% for Black Veterans, and is five times the national average.
Conclusions
The research team’s success in enrolling Black Veterans in clinical trials is attributed to several factors. The demographic composition of Veterans served by the Salisbury, Charlotte, and Kernersville VA provided a diverse population that included a 33% Black group. The type of clinical trials focused on patients who were most impacted by the disease. The VA did afford less barriers to access to health care.
Patient Navigators for Serious Illnesses Can Now Bill Under New Medicare Codes
In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.
The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.
A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.
“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.
Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.
The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.
The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.
CMS expects the new navigators may:
- Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
- Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
- Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.
Peers as Navigators
The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.
“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.
The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.
But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.
In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.
“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.
Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.
The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.
The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.
Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.
Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.
Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.
“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
Potential Challenges
Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.
“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.
In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.
While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.
“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.
Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.
Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.
A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.
Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.
The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.
Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.
The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.
A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.
“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.
Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.
The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.
The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.
CMS expects the new navigators may:
- Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
- Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
- Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.
Peers as Navigators
The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.
“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.
The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.
But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.
In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.
“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.
Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.
The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.
The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.
Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.
Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.
Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.
“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
Potential Challenges
Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.
“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.
In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.
While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.
“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.
Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.
Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.
A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.
Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.
The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.
Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.
The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.
A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.
“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.
Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.
The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.
The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.
CMS expects the new navigators may:
- Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
- Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
- Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.
Peers as Navigators
The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.
“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.
The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.
But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.
In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.
“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.
Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.
The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.
The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.
Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.
Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.
Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.
“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
Potential Challenges
Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.
“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.
In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.
While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.
“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.
Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.
Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.
A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.
Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.
The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.
Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening via Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Testing in a Veterans Affairs Health System
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most common cancers and causes of cancer-related deaths in the United States.1 Reflective of a nationwide trend, CRC screening rates at the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS) decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic.2-5 Contributing factors to this decrease included cancellations of elective colonoscopies during the initial phase of the pandemic and concurrent turnover of endoscopists. In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force lowered the recommended initial CRC screening age from 50 years to 45 years, further increasing the backlog of unscreened patients.6
Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is a noninvasive screening method in which antibodies are used to detect hemoglobin in the stool. The sensitivity and specificity of 1-time FIT are 79% to 80% and 94%, respectively, for the detection of CRC, with sensitivity improving with successive testing.7,8 Annual FIT is recognized as a tier 1 preferred screening method by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.7,9 Programs that mail FIT kits to eligible patients outside of physician visits have been successfully implemented in health care systems.10,11
The VACHS designed and implemented a mailed FIT program using existing infrastructure and staffing.
Program Description
A team of local stakeholders comprised of VACHS leadership, primary care, nursing, and gastroenterology staff, as well as representatives from laboratory, informatics, mail services, and group practice management, was established to execute the project. The team met monthly to plan the project.
The team developed a dataset consisting of patients aged 45 to 75 years who were at average risk for CRC and due for CRC screening. Patients were defined as due for CRC screening if they had not had a colonoscopy in the previous 9 years or a FIT or fecal occult blood test in the previous 11 months. Average risk for CRC was defined by excluding patients with associated diagnosis codes for CRC, colectomy, inflammatory bowel disease, and anemia. The program also excluded patients with diagnosis codes associated with dementia, deferring discussions about cancer screening to their primary care practitioners (PCPs). Patients with invalid mailing addresses were also excluded, as well as those whose PCPs had indicated in the electronic health record that the patient received CRC screening outside the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system.
Letter Templates
Two patient letter electronic health record templates were developed. The first was a primer letter, which was mailed to patients 2 to 3 weeks before the mailed FIT kit as an introduction to the program.12 The purpose of the primer letter was to give advance notice to patients that they could expect a FIT kit to arrive in the mail. The goal was to prepare patients to complete FIT when the kit arrived and prompt them to call the VA to opt out of the mailed FIT program if they were up to date with CRC screening or if they had a condition which made them at high risk for CRC.
The second FIT letter arrived with the FIT kit, introduced FIT and described the importance of CRC screening. The letter detailed instructions for completing FIT and automatically created a FIT order. It also included a list of common conditions that may exclude patients, with a recommendation for patients to contact their medical team if they felt they were not candidates for FIT.
Staff Education
A previous VACHS pilot project demonstrated the success of a mailed FIT program to increase FIT use. Implemented as part of the pilot program, staff education consisted of a session for clinicians about the role of FIT in CRC screening and an all-staff education session. An additional education session about CRC and FIT for all staff was repeated with the program launch.
Program Launch
The mailed FIT program was introduced during a VACHS primary care all-staff meeting. After the meeting, each patient aligned care team (PACT) received an encrypted email that included a list of the patients on their team who were candidates for the program, a patient-facing FIT instruction sheet, detailed instructions on how to send the FIT primer letter, and a FIT package consisting of the labeled FIT kit, FIT letter, and patient instruction sheet. A reminder letter was sent to each patient 3 weeks after the FIT package was mailed. The patient lists were populated into a shared, encrypted Microsoft Teams folder that was edited in real time by PACT teams and viewed by VACHS leadership to track progress.
Program Metrics
At program launch, the VACHS had 4642 patients due for CRC screening who were eligible for the mailed FIT program. On March 7, 2023, the data consisting of FIT tests ordered between December 2022 and May 2023—3 months before and after the launch of the program—were reviewed and categorized. In the 3 months before program launch, 1528 FIT were ordered and 714 were returned (46.7%). In the 3 months after the launch of the program, 4383 FIT were ordered and 1712 were returned (39.1%) (Figure). Test orders increased 287% from the preintervention to the postintervention period. The mean (SD) number of monthly FIT tests prelaunch was 509 (32.7), which increased to 1461 (331.6) postlaunch.
At the VACHS, 61.4% of patients aged 45 to 75 years were up to date with CRC screening before the program launch. In the 3 months after program launch, the rate increased to 63.8% among patients aged 45 to 75 years, the highest rate in our Veterans Integrated Services Network and exceeding the VA national average CRC screening rate, according to unpublished VA Monthly Management Report data.
In the 3 months following the program launch, 139 FIT kits tested positive for potential CRC. Of these, 79 (56.8%) patients had completed a diagnostic colonoscopy. PACT PCPs and nurses received reports on patients with positive FIT tests and those with no colonoscopy scheduled or completed and were asked to follow up.
Discussion
Through a proactive, population-based CRC screening program centered on mailed FIT kits outside of the traditional patient visit, the VACHS increased the use of FIT and rates of CRC screening. The numbers of FIT kits ordered and completed substantially increased in the 3 months after program launch.
Compared to mailed FIT programs described in the literature that rely on centralized processes in that a separate team operates the mailed FIT program for the entire organization, this program used existing PACT infrastructure and staff.10,11 This strategy allowed VACHS to design and implement the program in several months. Not needing to hire new staff or create a central team for the sole purpose of implementing the program allowed us to save on any organizational funding and efforts that would have accompanied the additional staff. The program described in this article may be more attainable for primary care practices or smaller health systems that do not have the capacity for the creation of a centralized process.
Limitations
Although the total number of FIT completions substantially increased during the program, the rate of FIT completion during the mailed FIT program was lower than the rate of completion prior to program launch. This decreased rate of FIT kit completion may be related to separation from a patient visit and potential loss of real-time education with a clinician. The program’s decentralized design increased the existing workload for primary care staff, and as a result, consideration must be given to local staffing levels. Additionally, the report of eligible patients depended on diagnosis codes and may have captured patients with higher-than-average risk of CRC, such as patients with prior history of adenomatous polyps, family history of CRC, or other medical or genetic conditions. We attempted to mitigate this by including a list of conditions that would exclude patients from FIT eligibility in the FIT letter and giving them the option to opt out.
Conclusions
CRC screening rates improved following implementation of a primary care team-centered quality improvement process to proactively identify patients appropriate for FIT and mail them FIT kits. This project highlights that population-health interventions around CRC screening via use of FIT can be successful within a primary care patient-centered medical home model, considering the increases in both CRC screening rates and increase in FIT tests ordered.
1. American Cancer Society. Key statistics for colorectal cancer. Revised January 29, 2024. Accessed June 11, 2024. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/colon-rectal-cancer/about/key-statistics.html
2. Chen RC, Haynes K, Du S, Barron J, Katz AJ. Association of cancer screening deficit in the United States with the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(6):878-884. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.0884
3. Mazidimoradi A, Tiznobaik A, Salehiniya H. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Cancer. 2022;53(3):730-744. doi:10.1007/s12029-021-00679-x
4. Adams MA, Kurlander JE, Gao Y, Yankey N, Saini SD. Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on screening colonoscopy utilization in a large integrated health system. Gastroenterology. 2022;162(7):2098-2100.e2. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2022.02.034
5. Sundaram S, Olson S, Sharma P, Rajendra S. A review of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer screening: implications and solutions. Pathogens. 2021;10(11):558. doi:10.3390/pathogens10111508
6. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2021;325(19):1965-1977. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.6238
7. Robertson DJ, Lee JK, Boland CR, et al. Recommendations on fecal immunochemical testing to screen for colorectal neoplasia: a consensus statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85(1):2-21.e3. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2016.09.025
8. Lee JK, Liles EG, Bent S, Levin TR, Corley DA. Accuracy of fecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(3):171. doi:10.7326/M13-1484
9. Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2017;153(1):307-323. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2017.05.013
10. Deeds SA, Moore CB, Gunnink EJ, et al. Implementation of a mailed faecal immunochemical test programme for colorectal cancer screening among veterans. BMJ Open Qual. 2022;11(4):e001927. doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2022-001927
11. Selby K, Jensen CD, Levin TR, et al. Program components and results from an organized colorectal cancer screening program using annual fecal immunochemical testing. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;20(1):145-152. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2020.09.042
12. Deeds S, Liu T, Schuttner L, et al. A postcard primer prior to mailed fecal immunochemical test among veterans: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2023:38(14):3235-3241. doi:10.1007/s11606-023-08248-7
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most common cancers and causes of cancer-related deaths in the United States.1 Reflective of a nationwide trend, CRC screening rates at the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS) decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic.2-5 Contributing factors to this decrease included cancellations of elective colonoscopies during the initial phase of the pandemic and concurrent turnover of endoscopists. In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force lowered the recommended initial CRC screening age from 50 years to 45 years, further increasing the backlog of unscreened patients.6
Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is a noninvasive screening method in which antibodies are used to detect hemoglobin in the stool. The sensitivity and specificity of 1-time FIT are 79% to 80% and 94%, respectively, for the detection of CRC, with sensitivity improving with successive testing.7,8 Annual FIT is recognized as a tier 1 preferred screening method by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.7,9 Programs that mail FIT kits to eligible patients outside of physician visits have been successfully implemented in health care systems.10,11
The VACHS designed and implemented a mailed FIT program using existing infrastructure and staffing.
Program Description
A team of local stakeholders comprised of VACHS leadership, primary care, nursing, and gastroenterology staff, as well as representatives from laboratory, informatics, mail services, and group practice management, was established to execute the project. The team met monthly to plan the project.
The team developed a dataset consisting of patients aged 45 to 75 years who were at average risk for CRC and due for CRC screening. Patients were defined as due for CRC screening if they had not had a colonoscopy in the previous 9 years or a FIT or fecal occult blood test in the previous 11 months. Average risk for CRC was defined by excluding patients with associated diagnosis codes for CRC, colectomy, inflammatory bowel disease, and anemia. The program also excluded patients with diagnosis codes associated with dementia, deferring discussions about cancer screening to their primary care practitioners (PCPs). Patients with invalid mailing addresses were also excluded, as well as those whose PCPs had indicated in the electronic health record that the patient received CRC screening outside the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system.
Letter Templates
Two patient letter electronic health record templates were developed. The first was a primer letter, which was mailed to patients 2 to 3 weeks before the mailed FIT kit as an introduction to the program.12 The purpose of the primer letter was to give advance notice to patients that they could expect a FIT kit to arrive in the mail. The goal was to prepare patients to complete FIT when the kit arrived and prompt them to call the VA to opt out of the mailed FIT program if they were up to date with CRC screening or if they had a condition which made them at high risk for CRC.
The second FIT letter arrived with the FIT kit, introduced FIT and described the importance of CRC screening. The letter detailed instructions for completing FIT and automatically created a FIT order. It also included a list of common conditions that may exclude patients, with a recommendation for patients to contact their medical team if they felt they were not candidates for FIT.
Staff Education
A previous VACHS pilot project demonstrated the success of a mailed FIT program to increase FIT use. Implemented as part of the pilot program, staff education consisted of a session for clinicians about the role of FIT in CRC screening and an all-staff education session. An additional education session about CRC and FIT for all staff was repeated with the program launch.
Program Launch
The mailed FIT program was introduced during a VACHS primary care all-staff meeting. After the meeting, each patient aligned care team (PACT) received an encrypted email that included a list of the patients on their team who were candidates for the program, a patient-facing FIT instruction sheet, detailed instructions on how to send the FIT primer letter, and a FIT package consisting of the labeled FIT kit, FIT letter, and patient instruction sheet. A reminder letter was sent to each patient 3 weeks after the FIT package was mailed. The patient lists were populated into a shared, encrypted Microsoft Teams folder that was edited in real time by PACT teams and viewed by VACHS leadership to track progress.
Program Metrics
At program launch, the VACHS had 4642 patients due for CRC screening who were eligible for the mailed FIT program. On March 7, 2023, the data consisting of FIT tests ordered between December 2022 and May 2023—3 months before and after the launch of the program—were reviewed and categorized. In the 3 months before program launch, 1528 FIT were ordered and 714 were returned (46.7%). In the 3 months after the launch of the program, 4383 FIT were ordered and 1712 were returned (39.1%) (Figure). Test orders increased 287% from the preintervention to the postintervention period. The mean (SD) number of monthly FIT tests prelaunch was 509 (32.7), which increased to 1461 (331.6) postlaunch.
At the VACHS, 61.4% of patients aged 45 to 75 years were up to date with CRC screening before the program launch. In the 3 months after program launch, the rate increased to 63.8% among patients aged 45 to 75 years, the highest rate in our Veterans Integrated Services Network and exceeding the VA national average CRC screening rate, according to unpublished VA Monthly Management Report data.
In the 3 months following the program launch, 139 FIT kits tested positive for potential CRC. Of these, 79 (56.8%) patients had completed a diagnostic colonoscopy. PACT PCPs and nurses received reports on patients with positive FIT tests and those with no colonoscopy scheduled or completed and were asked to follow up.
Discussion
Through a proactive, population-based CRC screening program centered on mailed FIT kits outside of the traditional patient visit, the VACHS increased the use of FIT and rates of CRC screening. The numbers of FIT kits ordered and completed substantially increased in the 3 months after program launch.
Compared to mailed FIT programs described in the literature that rely on centralized processes in that a separate team operates the mailed FIT program for the entire organization, this program used existing PACT infrastructure and staff.10,11 This strategy allowed VACHS to design and implement the program in several months. Not needing to hire new staff or create a central team for the sole purpose of implementing the program allowed us to save on any organizational funding and efforts that would have accompanied the additional staff. The program described in this article may be more attainable for primary care practices or smaller health systems that do not have the capacity for the creation of a centralized process.
Limitations
Although the total number of FIT completions substantially increased during the program, the rate of FIT completion during the mailed FIT program was lower than the rate of completion prior to program launch. This decreased rate of FIT kit completion may be related to separation from a patient visit and potential loss of real-time education with a clinician. The program’s decentralized design increased the existing workload for primary care staff, and as a result, consideration must be given to local staffing levels. Additionally, the report of eligible patients depended on diagnosis codes and may have captured patients with higher-than-average risk of CRC, such as patients with prior history of adenomatous polyps, family history of CRC, or other medical or genetic conditions. We attempted to mitigate this by including a list of conditions that would exclude patients from FIT eligibility in the FIT letter and giving them the option to opt out.
Conclusions
CRC screening rates improved following implementation of a primary care team-centered quality improvement process to proactively identify patients appropriate for FIT and mail them FIT kits. This project highlights that population-health interventions around CRC screening via use of FIT can be successful within a primary care patient-centered medical home model, considering the increases in both CRC screening rates and increase in FIT tests ordered.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most common cancers and causes of cancer-related deaths in the United States.1 Reflective of a nationwide trend, CRC screening rates at the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS) decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic.2-5 Contributing factors to this decrease included cancellations of elective colonoscopies during the initial phase of the pandemic and concurrent turnover of endoscopists. In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force lowered the recommended initial CRC screening age from 50 years to 45 years, further increasing the backlog of unscreened patients.6
Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is a noninvasive screening method in which antibodies are used to detect hemoglobin in the stool. The sensitivity and specificity of 1-time FIT are 79% to 80% and 94%, respectively, for the detection of CRC, with sensitivity improving with successive testing.7,8 Annual FIT is recognized as a tier 1 preferred screening method by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.7,9 Programs that mail FIT kits to eligible patients outside of physician visits have been successfully implemented in health care systems.10,11
The VACHS designed and implemented a mailed FIT program using existing infrastructure and staffing.
Program Description
A team of local stakeholders comprised of VACHS leadership, primary care, nursing, and gastroenterology staff, as well as representatives from laboratory, informatics, mail services, and group practice management, was established to execute the project. The team met monthly to plan the project.
The team developed a dataset consisting of patients aged 45 to 75 years who were at average risk for CRC and due for CRC screening. Patients were defined as due for CRC screening if they had not had a colonoscopy in the previous 9 years or a FIT or fecal occult blood test in the previous 11 months. Average risk for CRC was defined by excluding patients with associated diagnosis codes for CRC, colectomy, inflammatory bowel disease, and anemia. The program also excluded patients with diagnosis codes associated with dementia, deferring discussions about cancer screening to their primary care practitioners (PCPs). Patients with invalid mailing addresses were also excluded, as well as those whose PCPs had indicated in the electronic health record that the patient received CRC screening outside the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system.
Letter Templates
Two patient letter electronic health record templates were developed. The first was a primer letter, which was mailed to patients 2 to 3 weeks before the mailed FIT kit as an introduction to the program.12 The purpose of the primer letter was to give advance notice to patients that they could expect a FIT kit to arrive in the mail. The goal was to prepare patients to complete FIT when the kit arrived and prompt them to call the VA to opt out of the mailed FIT program if they were up to date with CRC screening or if they had a condition which made them at high risk for CRC.
The second FIT letter arrived with the FIT kit, introduced FIT and described the importance of CRC screening. The letter detailed instructions for completing FIT and automatically created a FIT order. It also included a list of common conditions that may exclude patients, with a recommendation for patients to contact their medical team if they felt they were not candidates for FIT.
Staff Education
A previous VACHS pilot project demonstrated the success of a mailed FIT program to increase FIT use. Implemented as part of the pilot program, staff education consisted of a session for clinicians about the role of FIT in CRC screening and an all-staff education session. An additional education session about CRC and FIT for all staff was repeated with the program launch.
Program Launch
The mailed FIT program was introduced during a VACHS primary care all-staff meeting. After the meeting, each patient aligned care team (PACT) received an encrypted email that included a list of the patients on their team who were candidates for the program, a patient-facing FIT instruction sheet, detailed instructions on how to send the FIT primer letter, and a FIT package consisting of the labeled FIT kit, FIT letter, and patient instruction sheet. A reminder letter was sent to each patient 3 weeks after the FIT package was mailed. The patient lists were populated into a shared, encrypted Microsoft Teams folder that was edited in real time by PACT teams and viewed by VACHS leadership to track progress.
Program Metrics
At program launch, the VACHS had 4642 patients due for CRC screening who were eligible for the mailed FIT program. On March 7, 2023, the data consisting of FIT tests ordered between December 2022 and May 2023—3 months before and after the launch of the program—were reviewed and categorized. In the 3 months before program launch, 1528 FIT were ordered and 714 were returned (46.7%). In the 3 months after the launch of the program, 4383 FIT were ordered and 1712 were returned (39.1%) (Figure). Test orders increased 287% from the preintervention to the postintervention period. The mean (SD) number of monthly FIT tests prelaunch was 509 (32.7), which increased to 1461 (331.6) postlaunch.
At the VACHS, 61.4% of patients aged 45 to 75 years were up to date with CRC screening before the program launch. In the 3 months after program launch, the rate increased to 63.8% among patients aged 45 to 75 years, the highest rate in our Veterans Integrated Services Network and exceeding the VA national average CRC screening rate, according to unpublished VA Monthly Management Report data.
In the 3 months following the program launch, 139 FIT kits tested positive for potential CRC. Of these, 79 (56.8%) patients had completed a diagnostic colonoscopy. PACT PCPs and nurses received reports on patients with positive FIT tests and those with no colonoscopy scheduled or completed and were asked to follow up.
Discussion
Through a proactive, population-based CRC screening program centered on mailed FIT kits outside of the traditional patient visit, the VACHS increased the use of FIT and rates of CRC screening. The numbers of FIT kits ordered and completed substantially increased in the 3 months after program launch.
Compared to mailed FIT programs described in the literature that rely on centralized processes in that a separate team operates the mailed FIT program for the entire organization, this program used existing PACT infrastructure and staff.10,11 This strategy allowed VACHS to design and implement the program in several months. Not needing to hire new staff or create a central team for the sole purpose of implementing the program allowed us to save on any organizational funding and efforts that would have accompanied the additional staff. The program described in this article may be more attainable for primary care practices or smaller health systems that do not have the capacity for the creation of a centralized process.
Limitations
Although the total number of FIT completions substantially increased during the program, the rate of FIT completion during the mailed FIT program was lower than the rate of completion prior to program launch. This decreased rate of FIT kit completion may be related to separation from a patient visit and potential loss of real-time education with a clinician. The program’s decentralized design increased the existing workload for primary care staff, and as a result, consideration must be given to local staffing levels. Additionally, the report of eligible patients depended on diagnosis codes and may have captured patients with higher-than-average risk of CRC, such as patients with prior history of adenomatous polyps, family history of CRC, or other medical or genetic conditions. We attempted to mitigate this by including a list of conditions that would exclude patients from FIT eligibility in the FIT letter and giving them the option to opt out.
Conclusions
CRC screening rates improved following implementation of a primary care team-centered quality improvement process to proactively identify patients appropriate for FIT and mail them FIT kits. This project highlights that population-health interventions around CRC screening via use of FIT can be successful within a primary care patient-centered medical home model, considering the increases in both CRC screening rates and increase in FIT tests ordered.
1. American Cancer Society. Key statistics for colorectal cancer. Revised January 29, 2024. Accessed June 11, 2024. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/colon-rectal-cancer/about/key-statistics.html
2. Chen RC, Haynes K, Du S, Barron J, Katz AJ. Association of cancer screening deficit in the United States with the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(6):878-884. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.0884
3. Mazidimoradi A, Tiznobaik A, Salehiniya H. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Cancer. 2022;53(3):730-744. doi:10.1007/s12029-021-00679-x
4. Adams MA, Kurlander JE, Gao Y, Yankey N, Saini SD. Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on screening colonoscopy utilization in a large integrated health system. Gastroenterology. 2022;162(7):2098-2100.e2. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2022.02.034
5. Sundaram S, Olson S, Sharma P, Rajendra S. A review of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer screening: implications and solutions. Pathogens. 2021;10(11):558. doi:10.3390/pathogens10111508
6. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2021;325(19):1965-1977. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.6238
7. Robertson DJ, Lee JK, Boland CR, et al. Recommendations on fecal immunochemical testing to screen for colorectal neoplasia: a consensus statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85(1):2-21.e3. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2016.09.025
8. Lee JK, Liles EG, Bent S, Levin TR, Corley DA. Accuracy of fecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(3):171. doi:10.7326/M13-1484
9. Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2017;153(1):307-323. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2017.05.013
10. Deeds SA, Moore CB, Gunnink EJ, et al. Implementation of a mailed faecal immunochemical test programme for colorectal cancer screening among veterans. BMJ Open Qual. 2022;11(4):e001927. doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2022-001927
11. Selby K, Jensen CD, Levin TR, et al. Program components and results from an organized colorectal cancer screening program using annual fecal immunochemical testing. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;20(1):145-152. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2020.09.042
12. Deeds S, Liu T, Schuttner L, et al. A postcard primer prior to mailed fecal immunochemical test among veterans: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2023:38(14):3235-3241. doi:10.1007/s11606-023-08248-7
1. American Cancer Society. Key statistics for colorectal cancer. Revised January 29, 2024. Accessed June 11, 2024. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/colon-rectal-cancer/about/key-statistics.html
2. Chen RC, Haynes K, Du S, Barron J, Katz AJ. Association of cancer screening deficit in the United States with the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(6):878-884. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.0884
3. Mazidimoradi A, Tiznobaik A, Salehiniya H. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Cancer. 2022;53(3):730-744. doi:10.1007/s12029-021-00679-x
4. Adams MA, Kurlander JE, Gao Y, Yankey N, Saini SD. Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on screening colonoscopy utilization in a large integrated health system. Gastroenterology. 2022;162(7):2098-2100.e2. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2022.02.034
5. Sundaram S, Olson S, Sharma P, Rajendra S. A review of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer screening: implications and solutions. Pathogens. 2021;10(11):558. doi:10.3390/pathogens10111508
6. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2021;325(19):1965-1977. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.6238
7. Robertson DJ, Lee JK, Boland CR, et al. Recommendations on fecal immunochemical testing to screen for colorectal neoplasia: a consensus statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85(1):2-21.e3. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2016.09.025
8. Lee JK, Liles EG, Bent S, Levin TR, Corley DA. Accuracy of fecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(3):171. doi:10.7326/M13-1484
9. Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2017;153(1):307-323. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2017.05.013
10. Deeds SA, Moore CB, Gunnink EJ, et al. Implementation of a mailed faecal immunochemical test programme for colorectal cancer screening among veterans. BMJ Open Qual. 2022;11(4):e001927. doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2022-001927
11. Selby K, Jensen CD, Levin TR, et al. Program components and results from an organized colorectal cancer screening program using annual fecal immunochemical testing. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;20(1):145-152. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2020.09.042
12. Deeds S, Liu T, Schuttner L, et al. A postcard primer prior to mailed fecal immunochemical test among veterans: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2023:38(14):3235-3241. doi:10.1007/s11606-023-08248-7
FDA Approves Bispecific HER2 Antibody for Biliary Tract Cancer
This approval makes the bispecific antibody the first HER2-targeted treatment to carry the indication.
Zanidatamab binds two separate regions on the HER2 cell surface protein, crosslinking neighboring HER2 proteins, blocking HER2 signaling, and inducing cytotoxic immune responses.
The FDA simultaneously announced that it has also approved VENTANA PATHWAY anti–HER2/neu (4B5) Rabbit Monoclonal Primary Antibody (Ventana Medical Systems, Inc./Roche Diagnostics) as a companion diagnostic device to aid in identifying patients with BTC who may be eligible for treatment with zanidatamab.
Zanidatamab Trial Results
The approval of zanidatamab was based on the phase 2b HERIZON-BTC-01 trial— which was open-label, multicenter, and single-arm — involving 62 patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive (IHC3+) BTC. In this trial, zanidatamab 20 mg/kg was administered every 2 weeks to patients who had received gemcitabine-containing chemotherapy previously but not a HER2-targeted therapy.
The objective response rate was 52%, and the median duration of response was 14.9 months, according to the statement from the FDA.
The life expectancy for advanced BTC treated in the second line with standard chemotherapy is approximately 6-9 months, according to Jazz Pharmaceuticals.
Boxed Warning and Adverse Events
The prescribing information contains a boxed warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The most common adverse reactions reported in at least 20% of patients who received zanidatamab were diarrhea, infusion-related reactions, abdominal pain, and fatigue.
The recommended zanidatamab dose is 20 mg/kg, administered as an intravenous infusion once every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals’ application was granted priority review, breakthrough therapy designation, and orphan drug designation.
An ongoing phase 3 trial, HERIZON-BTC-302, is testing zanidatamab in combination with standard-of-care therapy in the first-line setting for advanced or metastatic HER2-positive BTC. The bispecific antibody is also being developed for HER2-positive advanced/metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This approval makes the bispecific antibody the first HER2-targeted treatment to carry the indication.
Zanidatamab binds two separate regions on the HER2 cell surface protein, crosslinking neighboring HER2 proteins, blocking HER2 signaling, and inducing cytotoxic immune responses.
The FDA simultaneously announced that it has also approved VENTANA PATHWAY anti–HER2/neu (4B5) Rabbit Monoclonal Primary Antibody (Ventana Medical Systems, Inc./Roche Diagnostics) as a companion diagnostic device to aid in identifying patients with BTC who may be eligible for treatment with zanidatamab.
Zanidatamab Trial Results
The approval of zanidatamab was based on the phase 2b HERIZON-BTC-01 trial— which was open-label, multicenter, and single-arm — involving 62 patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive (IHC3+) BTC. In this trial, zanidatamab 20 mg/kg was administered every 2 weeks to patients who had received gemcitabine-containing chemotherapy previously but not a HER2-targeted therapy.
The objective response rate was 52%, and the median duration of response was 14.9 months, according to the statement from the FDA.
The life expectancy for advanced BTC treated in the second line with standard chemotherapy is approximately 6-9 months, according to Jazz Pharmaceuticals.
Boxed Warning and Adverse Events
The prescribing information contains a boxed warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The most common adverse reactions reported in at least 20% of patients who received zanidatamab were diarrhea, infusion-related reactions, abdominal pain, and fatigue.
The recommended zanidatamab dose is 20 mg/kg, administered as an intravenous infusion once every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals’ application was granted priority review, breakthrough therapy designation, and orphan drug designation.
An ongoing phase 3 trial, HERIZON-BTC-302, is testing zanidatamab in combination with standard-of-care therapy in the first-line setting for advanced or metastatic HER2-positive BTC. The bispecific antibody is also being developed for HER2-positive advanced/metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This approval makes the bispecific antibody the first HER2-targeted treatment to carry the indication.
Zanidatamab binds two separate regions on the HER2 cell surface protein, crosslinking neighboring HER2 proteins, blocking HER2 signaling, and inducing cytotoxic immune responses.
The FDA simultaneously announced that it has also approved VENTANA PATHWAY anti–HER2/neu (4B5) Rabbit Monoclonal Primary Antibody (Ventana Medical Systems, Inc./Roche Diagnostics) as a companion diagnostic device to aid in identifying patients with BTC who may be eligible for treatment with zanidatamab.
Zanidatamab Trial Results
The approval of zanidatamab was based on the phase 2b HERIZON-BTC-01 trial— which was open-label, multicenter, and single-arm — involving 62 patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive (IHC3+) BTC. In this trial, zanidatamab 20 mg/kg was administered every 2 weeks to patients who had received gemcitabine-containing chemotherapy previously but not a HER2-targeted therapy.
The objective response rate was 52%, and the median duration of response was 14.9 months, according to the statement from the FDA.
The life expectancy for advanced BTC treated in the second line with standard chemotherapy is approximately 6-9 months, according to Jazz Pharmaceuticals.
Boxed Warning and Adverse Events
The prescribing information contains a boxed warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The most common adverse reactions reported in at least 20% of patients who received zanidatamab were diarrhea, infusion-related reactions, abdominal pain, and fatigue.
The recommended zanidatamab dose is 20 mg/kg, administered as an intravenous infusion once every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals’ application was granted priority review, breakthrough therapy designation, and orphan drug designation.
An ongoing phase 3 trial, HERIZON-BTC-302, is testing zanidatamab in combination with standard-of-care therapy in the first-line setting for advanced or metastatic HER2-positive BTC. The bispecific antibody is also being developed for HER2-positive advanced/metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
NCCN Expands Cancer Genetic Risk Assessment Guidelines
Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.
For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.
“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.
Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.
The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants.
For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.”
“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release.
“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.
For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.
“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.
Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.
The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants.
For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.”
“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release.
“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.
For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.
“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.
Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.
The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants.
For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.”
“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release.
“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Is Pancreatic Cancer Really Rising in Young People?
TOPLINE:
Given the stable mortality rates in this population, the increase in incidence likely reflects previously undetected cases instead of a true rise in new cases, researchers say.
METHODOLOGY:
- Data from several registries have indicated that the incidence of pancreatic cancer among younger individuals, particularly women, is on the rise in the United States and worldwide.
- In a new analysis, researchers wanted to see if the observed increase in pancreatic cancer incidence among young Americans represented a true rise in cancer occurrence or indicated greater diagnostic scrutiny. If pancreatic cancer incidence is really increasing, “incidence and mortality would be expected to increase concurrently, as would early- and late-stage diagnoses,” the researchers explained.
- The researchers collected data on pancreatic cancer incidence, histology, and stage distribution for individuals aged 15-39 years from US Cancer Statistics, a database covering almost the entire US population from 2001 to 2020. Pancreatic cancer mortality data from the same timeframe came from the National Vital Statistics System.
- The researchers looked at four histologic categories: Adenocarcinoma, the dominant pancreatic cancer histology, as well as more rare subtypes — endocrine and solid pseudopapillary — and “other” category. Researchers also categorized stage-specific incidence as early stage (in situ or localized) or late stage (regional or distant).
TAKEAWAY:
- The incidence of pancreatic cancer increased 2.1-fold in young women (incidence, 3.3-6.9 per million) and 1.6-fold in young men (incidence, 3.9-6.2 per million) between 2001 and 2019. However, mortality rates remained stable for women (1.5 deaths per million; annual percent change [AAPC], −0.5%; 95% CI, –1.4% to 0.5%) and men (2.5 deaths per million; AAPC, –0.1%; 95% CI, –0.8% to 0.6%) over this period.
- Looking at cancer subtypes, the increase in incidence was largely caused by early-stage endocrine cancer and solid pseudopapillary neoplasms in women, not adenocarcinoma (which remained stable over the study period).
- Looking at cancer stage, most of the increase in incidence came from detection of smaller tumors (< 2 cm) and early-stage cancer, which rose from 0.6 to 3.7 per million in women and from 0.4 to 2.2 per million in men. The authors also found no statistically significant change in the incidence of late-stage cancer in women or men.
- Rates of surgical treatment for pancreatic cancer increased, more than tripling among women (from 1.5 to 4.7 per million) and more than doubling among men (from 1.1 to 2.3 per million).
IN PRACTICE:
“Pancreatic cancer now can be another cancer subject to overdiagnosis: The detection of disease not destined to cause symptoms or death,” the authors concluded. “Although the observed changes in incidence are small, overdiagnosis is especially concerning for pancreatic cancer, as pancreatic surgery has substantial risk for morbidity (in particular, pancreatic fistulas) and mortality.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Vishal R. Patel, MD, MPH, and corresponding author H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online on November 19 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was limited by the lack of data on the method of cancer detection, which may have affected the interpretation of the findings.
DISCLOSURES:
Disclosure forms are available with the article online.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Given the stable mortality rates in this population, the increase in incidence likely reflects previously undetected cases instead of a true rise in new cases, researchers say.
METHODOLOGY:
- Data from several registries have indicated that the incidence of pancreatic cancer among younger individuals, particularly women, is on the rise in the United States and worldwide.
- In a new analysis, researchers wanted to see if the observed increase in pancreatic cancer incidence among young Americans represented a true rise in cancer occurrence or indicated greater diagnostic scrutiny. If pancreatic cancer incidence is really increasing, “incidence and mortality would be expected to increase concurrently, as would early- and late-stage diagnoses,” the researchers explained.
- The researchers collected data on pancreatic cancer incidence, histology, and stage distribution for individuals aged 15-39 years from US Cancer Statistics, a database covering almost the entire US population from 2001 to 2020. Pancreatic cancer mortality data from the same timeframe came from the National Vital Statistics System.
- The researchers looked at four histologic categories: Adenocarcinoma, the dominant pancreatic cancer histology, as well as more rare subtypes — endocrine and solid pseudopapillary — and “other” category. Researchers also categorized stage-specific incidence as early stage (in situ or localized) or late stage (regional or distant).
TAKEAWAY:
- The incidence of pancreatic cancer increased 2.1-fold in young women (incidence, 3.3-6.9 per million) and 1.6-fold in young men (incidence, 3.9-6.2 per million) between 2001 and 2019. However, mortality rates remained stable for women (1.5 deaths per million; annual percent change [AAPC], −0.5%; 95% CI, –1.4% to 0.5%) and men (2.5 deaths per million; AAPC, –0.1%; 95% CI, –0.8% to 0.6%) over this period.
- Looking at cancer subtypes, the increase in incidence was largely caused by early-stage endocrine cancer and solid pseudopapillary neoplasms in women, not adenocarcinoma (which remained stable over the study period).
- Looking at cancer stage, most of the increase in incidence came from detection of smaller tumors (< 2 cm) and early-stage cancer, which rose from 0.6 to 3.7 per million in women and from 0.4 to 2.2 per million in men. The authors also found no statistically significant change in the incidence of late-stage cancer in women or men.
- Rates of surgical treatment for pancreatic cancer increased, more than tripling among women (from 1.5 to 4.7 per million) and more than doubling among men (from 1.1 to 2.3 per million).
IN PRACTICE:
“Pancreatic cancer now can be another cancer subject to overdiagnosis: The detection of disease not destined to cause symptoms or death,” the authors concluded. “Although the observed changes in incidence are small, overdiagnosis is especially concerning for pancreatic cancer, as pancreatic surgery has substantial risk for morbidity (in particular, pancreatic fistulas) and mortality.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Vishal R. Patel, MD, MPH, and corresponding author H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online on November 19 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was limited by the lack of data on the method of cancer detection, which may have affected the interpretation of the findings.
DISCLOSURES:
Disclosure forms are available with the article online.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Given the stable mortality rates in this population, the increase in incidence likely reflects previously undetected cases instead of a true rise in new cases, researchers say.
METHODOLOGY:
- Data from several registries have indicated that the incidence of pancreatic cancer among younger individuals, particularly women, is on the rise in the United States and worldwide.
- In a new analysis, researchers wanted to see if the observed increase in pancreatic cancer incidence among young Americans represented a true rise in cancer occurrence or indicated greater diagnostic scrutiny. If pancreatic cancer incidence is really increasing, “incidence and mortality would be expected to increase concurrently, as would early- and late-stage diagnoses,” the researchers explained.
- The researchers collected data on pancreatic cancer incidence, histology, and stage distribution for individuals aged 15-39 years from US Cancer Statistics, a database covering almost the entire US population from 2001 to 2020. Pancreatic cancer mortality data from the same timeframe came from the National Vital Statistics System.
- The researchers looked at four histologic categories: Adenocarcinoma, the dominant pancreatic cancer histology, as well as more rare subtypes — endocrine and solid pseudopapillary — and “other” category. Researchers also categorized stage-specific incidence as early stage (in situ or localized) or late stage (regional or distant).
TAKEAWAY:
- The incidence of pancreatic cancer increased 2.1-fold in young women (incidence, 3.3-6.9 per million) and 1.6-fold in young men (incidence, 3.9-6.2 per million) between 2001 and 2019. However, mortality rates remained stable for women (1.5 deaths per million; annual percent change [AAPC], −0.5%; 95% CI, –1.4% to 0.5%) and men (2.5 deaths per million; AAPC, –0.1%; 95% CI, –0.8% to 0.6%) over this period.
- Looking at cancer subtypes, the increase in incidence was largely caused by early-stage endocrine cancer and solid pseudopapillary neoplasms in women, not adenocarcinoma (which remained stable over the study period).
- Looking at cancer stage, most of the increase in incidence came from detection of smaller tumors (< 2 cm) and early-stage cancer, which rose from 0.6 to 3.7 per million in women and from 0.4 to 2.2 per million in men. The authors also found no statistically significant change in the incidence of late-stage cancer in women or men.
- Rates of surgical treatment for pancreatic cancer increased, more than tripling among women (from 1.5 to 4.7 per million) and more than doubling among men (from 1.1 to 2.3 per million).
IN PRACTICE:
“Pancreatic cancer now can be another cancer subject to overdiagnosis: The detection of disease not destined to cause symptoms or death,” the authors concluded. “Although the observed changes in incidence are small, overdiagnosis is especially concerning for pancreatic cancer, as pancreatic surgery has substantial risk for morbidity (in particular, pancreatic fistulas) and mortality.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Vishal R. Patel, MD, MPH, and corresponding author H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online on November 19 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was limited by the lack of data on the method of cancer detection, which may have affected the interpretation of the findings.
DISCLOSURES:
Disclosure forms are available with the article online.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Thrombocytosis and Cancer Risk: Management in Primary Care
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
In this podcast, I’m going to talk about unexplained high platelet counts, or thrombocytosis, and the risk for cancer in primary care. Let’s start with a typical case we all might see in primary care.
Louisa is 47 years old and is the chief financial officer for a tech startup company. She presents to us in primary care feeling tired all the time — a very common presentation in primary care — with associated reduced appetite. Past medical history includes irritable bowel syndrome, and she’s an ex-smoker.
Systemic inquiry is unremarkable. Specifically, there is no history of weight loss. Louisa has not been prescribed any medication and uses over-the-counter remedies for her irritable bowel syndrome. Examination is also unremarkable. Blood tests were checked, which were all reassuring, except for a platelet count of 612 × 109 cells/L (usual normal range, about 150-450).
What do we do next? Do we refer for an urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer? Do we check a quantitative immunohistochemical fecal occult blood test (qFIT) to identify any occult bleeding in her stool? Do we refer for a routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or pelvic ultrasound scan to exclude any upper gastrointestinal or endometrial malignancy?
Do we simply repeat the bloods? If so, do we repeat them routinely or urgently, and indeed, which ones should we recheck?
Louisa has an unexplained thrombocytosis. How do we manage this in primary care? Thrombocytosis is generally defined as a raised platelet count over 450. Importantly, thrombocytosis is a common incidental finding in around 2% of those over 40 years of age attending primary care. Reassuringly, 80%-90% of thrombocytosis is reactive, secondary to acute blood loss, infection, or inflammation, and the majority of cases resolve within 3 months.
Why the concern with Louisa then? Although most cases are reactive, clinical guidance (for example, NICE suspected cancer guidance in the UK and Scottish suspected cancer guidance in Scotland) reminds us that unexplained thrombocytosis is a risk marker for some solid-tumor malignancies.
Previous studies have demonstrated that unexplained thrombocytosis is associated with a 1-year cancer incidence of 11.6% in males and 6.2% in females, well exceeding the standard 3% threshold warranting investigation for underlying malignancy. However, thrombocytosis should not be used as a stand-alone diagnostic or screening test for cancer, or indeed to rule out cancer.
Instead, unexplained thrombocytosis should prompt us to think cancer. The Scottish suspected cancer referral guidelines include thrombocytosis in the investigation criteria for what they call the LEGO-C cancers — L for lung, E for endometrial, G for gastric, O for oesophageal, and C for colorectal, which is a useful reminder for us all.
What further history, examination, and investigations might we consider in primary care if we identify an unexplained high platelet count? As always, we should use our clinical judgment and trust our clinical acumen.
We should consider all the possible underlying causes, including infection, inflammation, and blood loss, including menstrual blood loss in women; myeloproliferative disorders such as polycythemia rubra vera, chronic myeloid leukemia, and essential thrombocythemia; and, of course, underlying malignancy. If a likely underlying reversible cause is present (for example, a recent lower respiratory tract infection), simply repeating the full blood count in 4-6 weeks is quite appropriate to see if the thrombocytosis has resolved.
Remember, 80%-90% of cases are reactive thrombocytosis, and most cases resolve within 3 months. If thrombocytosis is unexplained or not resolving, consider checking ferritin levels to exclude iron deficiency. Consider checking C-reactive protein (CRP) levels to exclude any inflammation, and also consider checking a blood film to exclude any hematologic disorders, in addition, of course, to more detailed history-taking and examination to elicit any red flags.
We can also consider a JAK2 gene mutation test, if it is available to you locally, or a hematology referral if we suspect a myeloproliferative disorder. JAK2 is a genetic mutation that may be present in people with essential thrombocythemia and can indicate a diagnosis of polycythemia rubra vera.
Subsequent to this, and again using our clinical judgment, we then need to exclude the LEGO-C cancers. Consider urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer or pelvic ultrasound in women to exclude endometrial cancer. Also, we should consider an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly in those individuals who have associated upper gastrointestinal symptoms and/or weight loss.
Finally, consider a qFIT to identify any occult bleeding in the stool, again if it’s available to you, or certainly if not, urgent lower gastrointestinal investigations to exclude colorectal cancer.
Alongside these possible investigations, as always, we should safety-net appropriately within agreed timeframes and check for resolution of the thrombocytosis according to the condition being suspected. Remember, most cases resolve within 3 months.
Returning to Louisa, what did I do? After seeing a platelet count of 600, I subsequently telephoned her and reexplored her history, which yielded nil else of note. Specifically, there was no history of unexplained weight loss, no history of upper or lower gastrointestinal symptoms, and certainly nothing significantly different from her usual irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. There were also no respiratory or genitourinary symptoms of note.
I did arrange for Louisa to undergo a chest x-ray over the next few days, though, as she was an ex-smoker. This was subsequently reported as normal. I appreciate chest x-rays have poor sensitivity for detecting lung cancer, as highlighted in a number of recent papers, but it was mutually agreed with Louisa that we would simply repeat her blood test in around 6 weeks. As well as repeating the full blood count, I arranged to check her ferritin, CRP, and a blood film, and then I was planning to reassess her clinically in person.
These bloods and my subsequent clinical review were reassuring. In fact, her platelet count had normalized after that 6 weeks had elapsed. Her thrombocytosis had resolved.
I didn’t arrange any further follow-up for her, but I did give her the usual safety netting advice to re-present to me or one of my colleagues if she does develop any worrying symptoms or signs.
I appreciate these scenarios are not always this straightforward, but I wanted to outline what investigations and referrals we may need to consider in primary care if we encounter an unexplained high platelet count.
There are a couple of quality-improvement activities for us all to consider in primary care. Consider as a team how we would respond to an incidental finding of thrombocytosis on a full blood count. Also consider what are our safety-netting options for those found to have raised platelet counts but no other symptoms or risk factors for underlying malignancy.
Finally, I’ve produced a Medscape UK primary care hack or clinical aide-memoire on managing unexplained thrombocytosis and associated cancer risk in primary care for all healthcare professionals working in primary care. This can be found online. I hope you find this resource helpful.
Dr. Kevin Fernando, General practitioner partner with specialist interests in cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic medicine, North Berwick Group Practice in Scotland, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi Menarini, and Daiichi Sankyo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
In this podcast, I’m going to talk about unexplained high platelet counts, or thrombocytosis, and the risk for cancer in primary care. Let’s start with a typical case we all might see in primary care.
Louisa is 47 years old and is the chief financial officer for a tech startup company. She presents to us in primary care feeling tired all the time — a very common presentation in primary care — with associated reduced appetite. Past medical history includes irritable bowel syndrome, and she’s an ex-smoker.
Systemic inquiry is unremarkable. Specifically, there is no history of weight loss. Louisa has not been prescribed any medication and uses over-the-counter remedies for her irritable bowel syndrome. Examination is also unremarkable. Blood tests were checked, which were all reassuring, except for a platelet count of 612 × 109 cells/L (usual normal range, about 150-450).
What do we do next? Do we refer for an urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer? Do we check a quantitative immunohistochemical fecal occult blood test (qFIT) to identify any occult bleeding in her stool? Do we refer for a routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or pelvic ultrasound scan to exclude any upper gastrointestinal or endometrial malignancy?
Do we simply repeat the bloods? If so, do we repeat them routinely or urgently, and indeed, which ones should we recheck?
Louisa has an unexplained thrombocytosis. How do we manage this in primary care? Thrombocytosis is generally defined as a raised platelet count over 450. Importantly, thrombocytosis is a common incidental finding in around 2% of those over 40 years of age attending primary care. Reassuringly, 80%-90% of thrombocytosis is reactive, secondary to acute blood loss, infection, or inflammation, and the majority of cases resolve within 3 months.
Why the concern with Louisa then? Although most cases are reactive, clinical guidance (for example, NICE suspected cancer guidance in the UK and Scottish suspected cancer guidance in Scotland) reminds us that unexplained thrombocytosis is a risk marker for some solid-tumor malignancies.
Previous studies have demonstrated that unexplained thrombocytosis is associated with a 1-year cancer incidence of 11.6% in males and 6.2% in females, well exceeding the standard 3% threshold warranting investigation for underlying malignancy. However, thrombocytosis should not be used as a stand-alone diagnostic or screening test for cancer, or indeed to rule out cancer.
Instead, unexplained thrombocytosis should prompt us to think cancer. The Scottish suspected cancer referral guidelines include thrombocytosis in the investigation criteria for what they call the LEGO-C cancers — L for lung, E for endometrial, G for gastric, O for oesophageal, and C for colorectal, which is a useful reminder for us all.
What further history, examination, and investigations might we consider in primary care if we identify an unexplained high platelet count? As always, we should use our clinical judgment and trust our clinical acumen.
We should consider all the possible underlying causes, including infection, inflammation, and blood loss, including menstrual blood loss in women; myeloproliferative disorders such as polycythemia rubra vera, chronic myeloid leukemia, and essential thrombocythemia; and, of course, underlying malignancy. If a likely underlying reversible cause is present (for example, a recent lower respiratory tract infection), simply repeating the full blood count in 4-6 weeks is quite appropriate to see if the thrombocytosis has resolved.
Remember, 80%-90% of cases are reactive thrombocytosis, and most cases resolve within 3 months. If thrombocytosis is unexplained or not resolving, consider checking ferritin levels to exclude iron deficiency. Consider checking C-reactive protein (CRP) levels to exclude any inflammation, and also consider checking a blood film to exclude any hematologic disorders, in addition, of course, to more detailed history-taking and examination to elicit any red flags.
We can also consider a JAK2 gene mutation test, if it is available to you locally, or a hematology referral if we suspect a myeloproliferative disorder. JAK2 is a genetic mutation that may be present in people with essential thrombocythemia and can indicate a diagnosis of polycythemia rubra vera.
Subsequent to this, and again using our clinical judgment, we then need to exclude the LEGO-C cancers. Consider urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer or pelvic ultrasound in women to exclude endometrial cancer. Also, we should consider an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly in those individuals who have associated upper gastrointestinal symptoms and/or weight loss.
Finally, consider a qFIT to identify any occult bleeding in the stool, again if it’s available to you, or certainly if not, urgent lower gastrointestinal investigations to exclude colorectal cancer.
Alongside these possible investigations, as always, we should safety-net appropriately within agreed timeframes and check for resolution of the thrombocytosis according to the condition being suspected. Remember, most cases resolve within 3 months.
Returning to Louisa, what did I do? After seeing a platelet count of 600, I subsequently telephoned her and reexplored her history, which yielded nil else of note. Specifically, there was no history of unexplained weight loss, no history of upper or lower gastrointestinal symptoms, and certainly nothing significantly different from her usual irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. There were also no respiratory or genitourinary symptoms of note.
I did arrange for Louisa to undergo a chest x-ray over the next few days, though, as she was an ex-smoker. This was subsequently reported as normal. I appreciate chest x-rays have poor sensitivity for detecting lung cancer, as highlighted in a number of recent papers, but it was mutually agreed with Louisa that we would simply repeat her blood test in around 6 weeks. As well as repeating the full blood count, I arranged to check her ferritin, CRP, and a blood film, and then I was planning to reassess her clinically in person.
These bloods and my subsequent clinical review were reassuring. In fact, her platelet count had normalized after that 6 weeks had elapsed. Her thrombocytosis had resolved.
I didn’t arrange any further follow-up for her, but I did give her the usual safety netting advice to re-present to me or one of my colleagues if she does develop any worrying symptoms or signs.
I appreciate these scenarios are not always this straightforward, but I wanted to outline what investigations and referrals we may need to consider in primary care if we encounter an unexplained high platelet count.
There are a couple of quality-improvement activities for us all to consider in primary care. Consider as a team how we would respond to an incidental finding of thrombocytosis on a full blood count. Also consider what are our safety-netting options for those found to have raised platelet counts but no other symptoms or risk factors for underlying malignancy.
Finally, I’ve produced a Medscape UK primary care hack or clinical aide-memoire on managing unexplained thrombocytosis and associated cancer risk in primary care for all healthcare professionals working in primary care. This can be found online. I hope you find this resource helpful.
Dr. Kevin Fernando, General practitioner partner with specialist interests in cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic medicine, North Berwick Group Practice in Scotland, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi Menarini, and Daiichi Sankyo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
In this podcast, I’m going to talk about unexplained high platelet counts, or thrombocytosis, and the risk for cancer in primary care. Let’s start with a typical case we all might see in primary care.
Louisa is 47 years old and is the chief financial officer for a tech startup company. She presents to us in primary care feeling tired all the time — a very common presentation in primary care — with associated reduced appetite. Past medical history includes irritable bowel syndrome, and she’s an ex-smoker.
Systemic inquiry is unremarkable. Specifically, there is no history of weight loss. Louisa has not been prescribed any medication and uses over-the-counter remedies for her irritable bowel syndrome. Examination is also unremarkable. Blood tests were checked, which were all reassuring, except for a platelet count of 612 × 109 cells/L (usual normal range, about 150-450).
What do we do next? Do we refer for an urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer? Do we check a quantitative immunohistochemical fecal occult blood test (qFIT) to identify any occult bleeding in her stool? Do we refer for a routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or pelvic ultrasound scan to exclude any upper gastrointestinal or endometrial malignancy?
Do we simply repeat the bloods? If so, do we repeat them routinely or urgently, and indeed, which ones should we recheck?
Louisa has an unexplained thrombocytosis. How do we manage this in primary care? Thrombocytosis is generally defined as a raised platelet count over 450. Importantly, thrombocytosis is a common incidental finding in around 2% of those over 40 years of age attending primary care. Reassuringly, 80%-90% of thrombocytosis is reactive, secondary to acute blood loss, infection, or inflammation, and the majority of cases resolve within 3 months.
Why the concern with Louisa then? Although most cases are reactive, clinical guidance (for example, NICE suspected cancer guidance in the UK and Scottish suspected cancer guidance in Scotland) reminds us that unexplained thrombocytosis is a risk marker for some solid-tumor malignancies.
Previous studies have demonstrated that unexplained thrombocytosis is associated with a 1-year cancer incidence of 11.6% in males and 6.2% in females, well exceeding the standard 3% threshold warranting investigation for underlying malignancy. However, thrombocytosis should not be used as a stand-alone diagnostic or screening test for cancer, or indeed to rule out cancer.
Instead, unexplained thrombocytosis should prompt us to think cancer. The Scottish suspected cancer referral guidelines include thrombocytosis in the investigation criteria for what they call the LEGO-C cancers — L for lung, E for endometrial, G for gastric, O for oesophageal, and C for colorectal, which is a useful reminder for us all.
What further history, examination, and investigations might we consider in primary care if we identify an unexplained high platelet count? As always, we should use our clinical judgment and trust our clinical acumen.
We should consider all the possible underlying causes, including infection, inflammation, and blood loss, including menstrual blood loss in women; myeloproliferative disorders such as polycythemia rubra vera, chronic myeloid leukemia, and essential thrombocythemia; and, of course, underlying malignancy. If a likely underlying reversible cause is present (for example, a recent lower respiratory tract infection), simply repeating the full blood count in 4-6 weeks is quite appropriate to see if the thrombocytosis has resolved.
Remember, 80%-90% of cases are reactive thrombocytosis, and most cases resolve within 3 months. If thrombocytosis is unexplained or not resolving, consider checking ferritin levels to exclude iron deficiency. Consider checking C-reactive protein (CRP) levels to exclude any inflammation, and also consider checking a blood film to exclude any hematologic disorders, in addition, of course, to more detailed history-taking and examination to elicit any red flags.
We can also consider a JAK2 gene mutation test, if it is available to you locally, or a hematology referral if we suspect a myeloproliferative disorder. JAK2 is a genetic mutation that may be present in people with essential thrombocythemia and can indicate a diagnosis of polycythemia rubra vera.
Subsequent to this, and again using our clinical judgment, we then need to exclude the LEGO-C cancers. Consider urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer or pelvic ultrasound in women to exclude endometrial cancer. Also, we should consider an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly in those individuals who have associated upper gastrointestinal symptoms and/or weight loss.
Finally, consider a qFIT to identify any occult bleeding in the stool, again if it’s available to you, or certainly if not, urgent lower gastrointestinal investigations to exclude colorectal cancer.
Alongside these possible investigations, as always, we should safety-net appropriately within agreed timeframes and check for resolution of the thrombocytosis according to the condition being suspected. Remember, most cases resolve within 3 months.
Returning to Louisa, what did I do? After seeing a platelet count of 600, I subsequently telephoned her and reexplored her history, which yielded nil else of note. Specifically, there was no history of unexplained weight loss, no history of upper or lower gastrointestinal symptoms, and certainly nothing significantly different from her usual irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. There were also no respiratory or genitourinary symptoms of note.
I did arrange for Louisa to undergo a chest x-ray over the next few days, though, as she was an ex-smoker. This was subsequently reported as normal. I appreciate chest x-rays have poor sensitivity for detecting lung cancer, as highlighted in a number of recent papers, but it was mutually agreed with Louisa that we would simply repeat her blood test in around 6 weeks. As well as repeating the full blood count, I arranged to check her ferritin, CRP, and a blood film, and then I was planning to reassess her clinically in person.
These bloods and my subsequent clinical review were reassuring. In fact, her platelet count had normalized after that 6 weeks had elapsed. Her thrombocytosis had resolved.
I didn’t arrange any further follow-up for her, but I did give her the usual safety netting advice to re-present to me or one of my colleagues if she does develop any worrying symptoms or signs.
I appreciate these scenarios are not always this straightforward, but I wanted to outline what investigations and referrals we may need to consider in primary care if we encounter an unexplained high platelet count.
There are a couple of quality-improvement activities for us all to consider in primary care. Consider as a team how we would respond to an incidental finding of thrombocytosis on a full blood count. Also consider what are our safety-netting options for those found to have raised platelet counts but no other symptoms or risk factors for underlying malignancy.
Finally, I’ve produced a Medscape UK primary care hack or clinical aide-memoire on managing unexplained thrombocytosis and associated cancer risk in primary care for all healthcare professionals working in primary care. This can be found online. I hope you find this resource helpful.
Dr. Kevin Fernando, General practitioner partner with specialist interests in cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic medicine, North Berwick Group Practice in Scotland, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi Menarini, and Daiichi Sankyo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Many Patients With Cancer Visit EDs Before Diagnosis
Researchers examined Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) data that had been gathered from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021. The study focused on patients aged 18 years or older with confirmed primary cancer diagnoses.
Factors associated with an increased likelihood of an ED visit ahead of diagnosis included having certain cancers, living in rural areas, and having less access to primary care, according to study author Keerat Grewal, MD, an emergency physician and clinician scientist at the Schwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine Institute at Sinai Health in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthors.
“The ED is a distressing environment for patients to receive a possible cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “Moreover, it is frequently ill equipped to provide ongoing continuity of care, which can lead patients down a poorly defined diagnostic pathway before receiving a confirmed diagnosis based on tissue and a subsequent treatment plan.”
The findings were published online on November 4 in CMAJ).
Neurologic Cancers Prominent
In an interview, Grewal said in an interview that the study reflects her desire as an emergency room physician to understand why so many patients with cancer get the initial reports about their disease from clinicians whom they often have just met for the first time.
Among patients with an ED visit before cancer diagnosis, 51.4% were admitted to hospital from the most recent visit.
Compared with patients with a family physician on whom they could rely for routine care, those who had no outpatient visits (odds ratio [OR], 2.09) or fewer than three outpatient visits (OR, 1.41) in the 6-30 months before cancer diagnosis were more likely to have an ED visit before their cancer diagnosis.
Other factors associated with increased odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis included rurality (OR, 1.15), residence in northern Ontario (northeast region: OR, 1.14 and northwest region: OR, 1.27 vs Toronto region), and living in the most marginalized areas (material resource deprivation: OR, 1.37 and housing stability: OR, 1.09 vs least marginalized area).
The researchers also found that patients with certain cancers were more likely to have sought care in the ED. They compared these cancers with breast cancer, which is often detected through screening.
“Patients with neurologic cancers had extremely high odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “This is likely because of the emergent nature of presentation, with acute neurologic symptoms such as weakness, confusion, or seizures, which require urgent assessment.” On the other hand, pancreatic, liver, or thoracic cancer can trigger nonspecific symptoms that may be ignored until they reach a crisis level that prompts an ED visit.
The limitations of the study included its inability to identify cancer-related ED visits and its narrow focus on patients in Ontario, according to the researchers. But the use of the ICES databases also allowed researchers access to a broader pool of data than are available in many other cases.
The findings in the new paper echo those of previous research, the authors noted. Research in the United Kingdom found that 24%-31% of cancer diagnoses involved the ED. In addition, a study of people enrolled in the US Medicare program, which serves patients aged 65 years or older, found that 23% were seen in the ED in the 30 days before diagnosis.
‘Unpacking the Data’
The current findings also are consistent with those of an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership study that was published in 2022 in The Lancet Oncology, said Erika Nicholson, MHS, vice president of cancer systems and innovation at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The latter study analyzed cancer registration and linked hospital admissions data from 14 jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom.
“We see similar trends in terms of people visiting EDs and being diagnosed through EDs internationally,” Nicholson said. “We’re working with partners to put in place different strategies to address the challenges” that this phenomenon presents in terms of improving screening and follow-up care.
“Cancer is not one disease, but many diseases,” she said. “They present differently. We’re focused on really unpacking the data and understanding them.”
All this research highlights the need for more services and personnel to address cancer, including people who are trained to help patients cope after getting concerning news through emergency care, she said.
“That means having a system that fully supports you and helps you navigate through that diagnostic process,” Nicholson said. Addressing the added challenges for patients who don’t have secure housing is a special need, she added.
This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Grewal reported receiving grants from CIHR and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Nicholson reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers examined Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) data that had been gathered from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021. The study focused on patients aged 18 years or older with confirmed primary cancer diagnoses.
Factors associated with an increased likelihood of an ED visit ahead of diagnosis included having certain cancers, living in rural areas, and having less access to primary care, according to study author Keerat Grewal, MD, an emergency physician and clinician scientist at the Schwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine Institute at Sinai Health in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthors.
“The ED is a distressing environment for patients to receive a possible cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “Moreover, it is frequently ill equipped to provide ongoing continuity of care, which can lead patients down a poorly defined diagnostic pathway before receiving a confirmed diagnosis based on tissue and a subsequent treatment plan.”
The findings were published online on November 4 in CMAJ).
Neurologic Cancers Prominent
In an interview, Grewal said in an interview that the study reflects her desire as an emergency room physician to understand why so many patients with cancer get the initial reports about their disease from clinicians whom they often have just met for the first time.
Among patients with an ED visit before cancer diagnosis, 51.4% were admitted to hospital from the most recent visit.
Compared with patients with a family physician on whom they could rely for routine care, those who had no outpatient visits (odds ratio [OR], 2.09) or fewer than three outpatient visits (OR, 1.41) in the 6-30 months before cancer diagnosis were more likely to have an ED visit before their cancer diagnosis.
Other factors associated with increased odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis included rurality (OR, 1.15), residence in northern Ontario (northeast region: OR, 1.14 and northwest region: OR, 1.27 vs Toronto region), and living in the most marginalized areas (material resource deprivation: OR, 1.37 and housing stability: OR, 1.09 vs least marginalized area).
The researchers also found that patients with certain cancers were more likely to have sought care in the ED. They compared these cancers with breast cancer, which is often detected through screening.
“Patients with neurologic cancers had extremely high odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “This is likely because of the emergent nature of presentation, with acute neurologic symptoms such as weakness, confusion, or seizures, which require urgent assessment.” On the other hand, pancreatic, liver, or thoracic cancer can trigger nonspecific symptoms that may be ignored until they reach a crisis level that prompts an ED visit.
The limitations of the study included its inability to identify cancer-related ED visits and its narrow focus on patients in Ontario, according to the researchers. But the use of the ICES databases also allowed researchers access to a broader pool of data than are available in many other cases.
The findings in the new paper echo those of previous research, the authors noted. Research in the United Kingdom found that 24%-31% of cancer diagnoses involved the ED. In addition, a study of people enrolled in the US Medicare program, which serves patients aged 65 years or older, found that 23% were seen in the ED in the 30 days before diagnosis.
‘Unpacking the Data’
The current findings also are consistent with those of an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership study that was published in 2022 in The Lancet Oncology, said Erika Nicholson, MHS, vice president of cancer systems and innovation at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The latter study analyzed cancer registration and linked hospital admissions data from 14 jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom.
“We see similar trends in terms of people visiting EDs and being diagnosed through EDs internationally,” Nicholson said. “We’re working with partners to put in place different strategies to address the challenges” that this phenomenon presents in terms of improving screening and follow-up care.
“Cancer is not one disease, but many diseases,” she said. “They present differently. We’re focused on really unpacking the data and understanding them.”
All this research highlights the need for more services and personnel to address cancer, including people who are trained to help patients cope after getting concerning news through emergency care, she said.
“That means having a system that fully supports you and helps you navigate through that diagnostic process,” Nicholson said. Addressing the added challenges for patients who don’t have secure housing is a special need, she added.
This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Grewal reported receiving grants from CIHR and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Nicholson reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers examined Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) data that had been gathered from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021. The study focused on patients aged 18 years or older with confirmed primary cancer diagnoses.
Factors associated with an increased likelihood of an ED visit ahead of diagnosis included having certain cancers, living in rural areas, and having less access to primary care, according to study author Keerat Grewal, MD, an emergency physician and clinician scientist at the Schwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine Institute at Sinai Health in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthors.
“The ED is a distressing environment for patients to receive a possible cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “Moreover, it is frequently ill equipped to provide ongoing continuity of care, which can lead patients down a poorly defined diagnostic pathway before receiving a confirmed diagnosis based on tissue and a subsequent treatment plan.”
The findings were published online on November 4 in CMAJ).
Neurologic Cancers Prominent
In an interview, Grewal said in an interview that the study reflects her desire as an emergency room physician to understand why so many patients with cancer get the initial reports about their disease from clinicians whom they often have just met for the first time.
Among patients with an ED visit before cancer diagnosis, 51.4% were admitted to hospital from the most recent visit.
Compared with patients with a family physician on whom they could rely for routine care, those who had no outpatient visits (odds ratio [OR], 2.09) or fewer than three outpatient visits (OR, 1.41) in the 6-30 months before cancer diagnosis were more likely to have an ED visit before their cancer diagnosis.
Other factors associated with increased odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis included rurality (OR, 1.15), residence in northern Ontario (northeast region: OR, 1.14 and northwest region: OR, 1.27 vs Toronto region), and living in the most marginalized areas (material resource deprivation: OR, 1.37 and housing stability: OR, 1.09 vs least marginalized area).
The researchers also found that patients with certain cancers were more likely to have sought care in the ED. They compared these cancers with breast cancer, which is often detected through screening.
“Patients with neurologic cancers had extremely high odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “This is likely because of the emergent nature of presentation, with acute neurologic symptoms such as weakness, confusion, or seizures, which require urgent assessment.” On the other hand, pancreatic, liver, or thoracic cancer can trigger nonspecific symptoms that may be ignored until they reach a crisis level that prompts an ED visit.
The limitations of the study included its inability to identify cancer-related ED visits and its narrow focus on patients in Ontario, according to the researchers. But the use of the ICES databases also allowed researchers access to a broader pool of data than are available in many other cases.
The findings in the new paper echo those of previous research, the authors noted. Research in the United Kingdom found that 24%-31% of cancer diagnoses involved the ED. In addition, a study of people enrolled in the US Medicare program, which serves patients aged 65 years or older, found that 23% were seen in the ED in the 30 days before diagnosis.
‘Unpacking the Data’
The current findings also are consistent with those of an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership study that was published in 2022 in The Lancet Oncology, said Erika Nicholson, MHS, vice president of cancer systems and innovation at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The latter study analyzed cancer registration and linked hospital admissions data from 14 jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom.
“We see similar trends in terms of people visiting EDs and being diagnosed through EDs internationally,” Nicholson said. “We’re working with partners to put in place different strategies to address the challenges” that this phenomenon presents in terms of improving screening and follow-up care.
“Cancer is not one disease, but many diseases,” she said. “They present differently. We’re focused on really unpacking the data and understanding them.”
All this research highlights the need for more services and personnel to address cancer, including people who are trained to help patients cope after getting concerning news through emergency care, she said.
“That means having a system that fully supports you and helps you navigate through that diagnostic process,” Nicholson said. Addressing the added challenges for patients who don’t have secure housing is a special need, she added.
This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Grewal reported receiving grants from CIHR and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Nicholson reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CMAJ
Registered Dieticians Sparse in VA Cancer Care
Veterans Health Administration cancer centers are lacking registered dieticians (RDs), and patients are more likely to be diagnosed with malnutrition when they are on staff, according to a new study.
The average number of full-time RDs across 13 cancer centers was just 1 per 1,065 patients, advanced practice oncology dietitian Katherine Petersen, MS, RDN, CSO, of the Phoenix VA Health Care System, reported at the AVAHO annual meeting.
However, patients treated by RDs were more likely to be diagnosed with malnutrition (odds ratio [OR], 2.9, 95% CI, 1.6-5.1). And patients were more likely to maintain weight if their clinic had a higher ratio of RDs to oncologists (OR, 1.6 for each 10% increase in ratio, 95% CI, 2.0-127.5).
Petersen told Federal Practitioner that dieticians came up with the idea for the study after attending AVAHO meetings. “A lot of the questions we were getting from physicians and other providers were: How do we get dietitians in our clinic?”
There is currently no standard staffing model for dieticians in oncology centers, Petersen said, and they are not reimbursed through Medicare or Medicaid. “We thought, ‘What do we add to the cancer center by having adequate staffing levels and seeing cancer patients?’ We designed a study to try and get to the heart of that.”
Petersen and her team focused on malnutrition. Nutrition impairment impacts an estimated 40% to 80% of patients with gastrointestinal, head and neck, pancreas, and colorectal cancer at diagnosis, she said.
Petersen discussed the published evidence that outlines how physicians recognize malnutrition at a lower rate than RDs. Dietary counseling from an RD is linked to better nutritional outcomes, physical function, and quality of life.
The study authors examined 2016 and 2017 VA registry data and reviewed charts of 681 veterans treated by 207 oncologists. Oncology clinics had a mean of 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) RD. The mean ratio of full-time RDs to oncologists was 1 per 48.5 and ranged from 1 per 4 to 1 per 850.
“It's almost like somebody randomly assigned [RDs] to cancer centers, and it has nothing to do with how many patients are seen in that particular center,” Petersen said. “Some clinics only have .1 or .2 FTEs assigned, and that may be a larger cancer center where they have maybe 85 cancer oncology providers, which includes surgical, medical, and radiation oncology and trainees.”
Why would a clinic have a .1 FTE RD, which suggests someone may be working 4 hours a week? In this kind of situation, an RD may cover a variety of areas and only work in cancer care when they receive a referral, Petersen said.
“That is just vastly underserving veterans,” she said. “You're missing so many veterans whom you could help with preventative care if you're only getting patients referred based on consults.”
As for the findings regarding higher RD staffing and higher detection of malnutrition, the study text notes “there was not a ‘high enough’ level of RD staffing at which we stopped seeing this trend. This is probably because – at least at the time of this study – no VA cancer center was adequately staffed for nutrition.”
Petersen hopes the findings will convince VA cancer center leadership to boost better patient outcomes by prioritizing the hiring of RDs.
Katherine Petersen, MS, RDN, CSO has no disclosures.
Veterans Health Administration cancer centers are lacking registered dieticians (RDs), and patients are more likely to be diagnosed with malnutrition when they are on staff, according to a new study.
The average number of full-time RDs across 13 cancer centers was just 1 per 1,065 patients, advanced practice oncology dietitian Katherine Petersen, MS, RDN, CSO, of the Phoenix VA Health Care System, reported at the AVAHO annual meeting.
However, patients treated by RDs were more likely to be diagnosed with malnutrition (odds ratio [OR], 2.9, 95% CI, 1.6-5.1). And patients were more likely to maintain weight if their clinic had a higher ratio of RDs to oncologists (OR, 1.6 for each 10% increase in ratio, 95% CI, 2.0-127.5).
Petersen told Federal Practitioner that dieticians came up with the idea for the study after attending AVAHO meetings. “A lot of the questions we were getting from physicians and other providers were: How do we get dietitians in our clinic?”
There is currently no standard staffing model for dieticians in oncology centers, Petersen said, and they are not reimbursed through Medicare or Medicaid. “We thought, ‘What do we add to the cancer center by having adequate staffing levels and seeing cancer patients?’ We designed a study to try and get to the heart of that.”
Petersen and her team focused on malnutrition. Nutrition impairment impacts an estimated 40% to 80% of patients with gastrointestinal, head and neck, pancreas, and colorectal cancer at diagnosis, she said.
Petersen discussed the published evidence that outlines how physicians recognize malnutrition at a lower rate than RDs. Dietary counseling from an RD is linked to better nutritional outcomes, physical function, and quality of life.
The study authors examined 2016 and 2017 VA registry data and reviewed charts of 681 veterans treated by 207 oncologists. Oncology clinics had a mean of 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) RD. The mean ratio of full-time RDs to oncologists was 1 per 48.5 and ranged from 1 per 4 to 1 per 850.
“It's almost like somebody randomly assigned [RDs] to cancer centers, and it has nothing to do with how many patients are seen in that particular center,” Petersen said. “Some clinics only have .1 or .2 FTEs assigned, and that may be a larger cancer center where they have maybe 85 cancer oncology providers, which includes surgical, medical, and radiation oncology and trainees.”
Why would a clinic have a .1 FTE RD, which suggests someone may be working 4 hours a week? In this kind of situation, an RD may cover a variety of areas and only work in cancer care when they receive a referral, Petersen said.
“That is just vastly underserving veterans,” she said. “You're missing so many veterans whom you could help with preventative care if you're only getting patients referred based on consults.”
As for the findings regarding higher RD staffing and higher detection of malnutrition, the study text notes “there was not a ‘high enough’ level of RD staffing at which we stopped seeing this trend. This is probably because – at least at the time of this study – no VA cancer center was adequately staffed for nutrition.”
Petersen hopes the findings will convince VA cancer center leadership to boost better patient outcomes by prioritizing the hiring of RDs.
Katherine Petersen, MS, RDN, CSO has no disclosures.
Veterans Health Administration cancer centers are lacking registered dieticians (RDs), and patients are more likely to be diagnosed with malnutrition when they are on staff, according to a new study.
The average number of full-time RDs across 13 cancer centers was just 1 per 1,065 patients, advanced practice oncology dietitian Katherine Petersen, MS, RDN, CSO, of the Phoenix VA Health Care System, reported at the AVAHO annual meeting.
However, patients treated by RDs were more likely to be diagnosed with malnutrition (odds ratio [OR], 2.9, 95% CI, 1.6-5.1). And patients were more likely to maintain weight if their clinic had a higher ratio of RDs to oncologists (OR, 1.6 for each 10% increase in ratio, 95% CI, 2.0-127.5).
Petersen told Federal Practitioner that dieticians came up with the idea for the study after attending AVAHO meetings. “A lot of the questions we were getting from physicians and other providers were: How do we get dietitians in our clinic?”
There is currently no standard staffing model for dieticians in oncology centers, Petersen said, and they are not reimbursed through Medicare or Medicaid. “We thought, ‘What do we add to the cancer center by having adequate staffing levels and seeing cancer patients?’ We designed a study to try and get to the heart of that.”
Petersen and her team focused on malnutrition. Nutrition impairment impacts an estimated 40% to 80% of patients with gastrointestinal, head and neck, pancreas, and colorectal cancer at diagnosis, she said.
Petersen discussed the published evidence that outlines how physicians recognize malnutrition at a lower rate than RDs. Dietary counseling from an RD is linked to better nutritional outcomes, physical function, and quality of life.
The study authors examined 2016 and 2017 VA registry data and reviewed charts of 681 veterans treated by 207 oncologists. Oncology clinics had a mean of 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) RD. The mean ratio of full-time RDs to oncologists was 1 per 48.5 and ranged from 1 per 4 to 1 per 850.
“It's almost like somebody randomly assigned [RDs] to cancer centers, and it has nothing to do with how many patients are seen in that particular center,” Petersen said. “Some clinics only have .1 or .2 FTEs assigned, and that may be a larger cancer center where they have maybe 85 cancer oncology providers, which includes surgical, medical, and radiation oncology and trainees.”
Why would a clinic have a .1 FTE RD, which suggests someone may be working 4 hours a week? In this kind of situation, an RD may cover a variety of areas and only work in cancer care when they receive a referral, Petersen said.
“That is just vastly underserving veterans,” she said. “You're missing so many veterans whom you could help with preventative care if you're only getting patients referred based on consults.”
As for the findings regarding higher RD staffing and higher detection of malnutrition, the study text notes “there was not a ‘high enough’ level of RD staffing at which we stopped seeing this trend. This is probably because – at least at the time of this study – no VA cancer center was adequately staffed for nutrition.”
Petersen hopes the findings will convince VA cancer center leadership to boost better patient outcomes by prioritizing the hiring of RDs.
Katherine Petersen, MS, RDN, CSO has no disclosures.