News

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced on Feb. 7, 2025, that 116 Veterans Health Administration job classifications will not be eligible for the deferred resignation plan emailed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The exemptions include Title 38 and Hybrid Title 38 positions, including doctors, nurses, and most medical staff.

The original OPM email offer had a Feb. 6, 2025, deadline for accepting the offer and a resignation date of no later than Sept. 30, 2025. However, the offer has been put on hold following a limited temporary restraining order from a Federal District Court in Massachusetts. Judge George O’Toole enjoined the OPM from “taking any further action to implement the so-called Fork Directive.” Arguments on the program’s legal merits began at a separate hearing on Monday.

The 116 roles exempted include physicians, nurses, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, therapists, data scientists, dieticians, health and medical instrument technicians, among other roles.

OPM also included Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) in the deferred resignation offer. In a Feb. 6 email, the VA’s Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) said: “The Department of Veterans Affairs established a list of occupations that are excluded from participating in DRP and VERA. If your occupation is on this list, you are not eligible to participate in the DRP.”

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced on Feb. 7, 2025, that 116 Veterans Health Administration job classifications will not be eligible for the deferred resignation plan emailed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The exemptions include Title 38 and Hybrid Title 38 positions, including doctors, nurses, and most medical staff.

The original OPM email offer had a Feb. 6, 2025, deadline for accepting the offer and a resignation date of no later than Sept. 30, 2025. However, the offer has been put on hold following a limited temporary restraining order from a Federal District Court in Massachusetts. Judge George O’Toole enjoined the OPM from “taking any further action to implement the so-called Fork Directive.” Arguments on the program’s legal merits began at a separate hearing on Monday.

The 116 roles exempted include physicians, nurses, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, therapists, data scientists, dieticians, health and medical instrument technicians, among other roles.

OPM also included Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) in the deferred resignation offer. In a Feb. 6 email, the VA’s Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) said: “The Department of Veterans Affairs established a list of occupations that are excluded from participating in DRP and VERA. If your occupation is on this list, you are not eligible to participate in the DRP.”

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced on Feb. 7, 2025, that 116 Veterans Health Administration job classifications will not be eligible for the deferred resignation plan emailed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The exemptions include Title 38 and Hybrid Title 38 positions, including doctors, nurses, and most medical staff.

The original OPM email offer had a Feb. 6, 2025, deadline for accepting the offer and a resignation date of no later than Sept. 30, 2025. However, the offer has been put on hold following a limited temporary restraining order from a Federal District Court in Massachusetts. Judge George O’Toole enjoined the OPM from “taking any further action to implement the so-called Fork Directive.” Arguments on the program’s legal merits began at a separate hearing on Monday.

The 116 roles exempted include physicians, nurses, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, therapists, data scientists, dieticians, health and medical instrument technicians, among other roles.

OPM also included Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) in the deferred resignation offer. In a Feb. 6 email, the VA’s Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) said: “The Department of Veterans Affairs established a list of occupations that are excluded from participating in DRP and VERA. If your occupation is on this list, you are not eligible to participate in the DRP.”

In 2016, Brady Scott was in his parents’ home in Garrett, Kentucky, scrolling his Facebook feed when a post from a local newspaper caught his attention. “The article said that if you grew up in the region I grew up in, compared to the richer Central Kentucky region, the life expectancy differed by about 9 years,” he recalled.

The respiratory therapist, then a PhD student at Rush University, Chicago, was struck and began “Googling” to find out why this was the case. Initially, he thought diabetes, smoking, and economic distress — all prevalent problems in the area — were the culprits. However, he soon found that respiratory disease was particularly common in his region.

Now a professor and program director of the Respiratory Care Program at Rush University, Scott has spent several years trying to understand why people in certain regions experience respiratory illness at higher rates than in other places.

 

The Environment as a Determinant of Health

When Scott began his PhD, the prevalence of asthma in Southeast Kentucky, part of the Appalachian region, was already well-documented. He focused his research on uncontrolled asthma and the triggers that drove asthma exacerbations.

Housing quality emerged as an important factor. He found that exposure to mold, mildew, dust mites, pests, and rodents increased the risk for asthma and exacerbated existing cases. Lower-income families, more likely to live in poor-quality housing, were significantly affected, even in single-family homes.

Wanda Phipatanakul, MD, MS, director of the Division of Immunology Research Center at Boston Children’s Hospital and S. Jean Emans professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, has found similar results in urban environments. She said cockroach and mouse allergen exposure is disproportionately prevalent in urban, low-income neighborhoods. These exposures, closely tied to housing conditions, contribute to worse asthma and respiratory problems, particularly in children.

Scott and Phipatanakul agreed that the environment surrounding people’s homes can also exacerbate respiratory disease.

Rural areas present unique risks, such as agricultural activities that release pesticides and other particulates into the air, said Scott. In mountainous areas like Appalachia, mining operations are another significant contributor. For example, blasting mountains with dynamite creates large clouds of dust and pollutants that settle in valleys. Coal-hauling roads contribute to air quality issues, too. And houses near these roads may be exposed to increased levels of particulate matter, he said.

In the city, Phipatanakul has found that historical practices like redlining have systematically denied certain neighborhoods access to resources and investment, leaving a legacy of poor infrastructure, limited resources, and higher exposure to environmental risks. Today, these areas have more highways and fewer green spaces and are disproportionately linked with a higher incidence of respiratory illnesses.

The findings of both Scott and Phipatanakul underscore a critical bottom line: Health disparities are deeply influenced by environmental factors, which are themselves shaped by socioeconomic conditions and historical inequities. Poor housing quality, exposure to allergens, and proximity to environmental hazards disproportionately affect underserved and minority communities, whether in rural or urban settings.

 

The Role of Green Spaces in Improving Respiratory Health

Restoring and increasing tree cover and green spaces in urban areas can significantly improve respiratory health by addressing environmental challenges and reducing triggers for respiratory issues. Areas with greater greenness tend to have lower levels of pollutants and fewer environmental infestations, such as mice and cockroaches, explained Phipatanakul. Her research highlights that schools in greener areas have fewer airborne pollutants and particles than those in more urbanized, less green areas, which are usually in poorer suburbs.

Trees absorb pollutants such as particulate matter and sulfur dioxide through dry deposition and stomatal uptake, improving air quality. “The question is whether we can use trees as a public health tool, and this is being done in many cities,” said Alessandro Marcon, PhD, a professor of epidemiology and medical statistics at the University of Verona, Verona, Italy, while speaking at the European Respiratory Society conference held in Vienna last September.

A US analysis showed that existing natural vegetation, such as forests and grasslands, absorbs a large portion of emissions. By restoring land cover, pollution from harmful substances like sulfur dioxide and particulate matter could be reduced by about 30%. This approach is often more cost-effective than technological solutions for managing emissions.

Moreover, tree cover contributes to a healthier air microbiome. Research indicates that urban forest areas have lower pathogenic bacteria and fungi concentrations than nearby urban zones.

Another major advantage is the mitigation of the urban heat island effect. A study conducted in Paris found that municipalities with higher tree coverage experienced 20%-30% lower heat-related mortality than those with less greenery. Increasing tree coverage to 30% could reduce up to 40% of excess mortality associated with urban heat islands. Trees achieve this by providing shade and facilitating evapotranspiration, which cools the surrounding air.

Urban environments, unsurprisingly, often have higher levels of air pollution due to increased traffic and industrial activity. However, despite appearing greener, rural environments may harbor less obvious but significant sources of air pollution. “I live in an urban environment now, but I grew up in a rural environment,” Scott said. “Each has its own issues that affect air quality and health.”

Scott, Phipatanakul, and Marcon reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In 2016, Brady Scott was in his parents’ home in Garrett, Kentucky, scrolling his Facebook feed when a post from a local newspaper caught his attention. “The article said that if you grew up in the region I grew up in, compared to the richer Central Kentucky region, the life expectancy differed by about 9 years,” he recalled.

The respiratory therapist, then a PhD student at Rush University, Chicago, was struck and began “Googling” to find out why this was the case. Initially, he thought diabetes, smoking, and economic distress — all prevalent problems in the area — were the culprits. However, he soon found that respiratory disease was particularly common in his region.

Now a professor and program director of the Respiratory Care Program at Rush University, Scott has spent several years trying to understand why people in certain regions experience respiratory illness at higher rates than in other places.

 

The Environment as a Determinant of Health

When Scott began his PhD, the prevalence of asthma in Southeast Kentucky, part of the Appalachian region, was already well-documented. He focused his research on uncontrolled asthma and the triggers that drove asthma exacerbations.

Housing quality emerged as an important factor. He found that exposure to mold, mildew, dust mites, pests, and rodents increased the risk for asthma and exacerbated existing cases. Lower-income families, more likely to live in poor-quality housing, were significantly affected, even in single-family homes.

Wanda Phipatanakul, MD, MS, director of the Division of Immunology Research Center at Boston Children’s Hospital and S. Jean Emans professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, has found similar results in urban environments. She said cockroach and mouse allergen exposure is disproportionately prevalent in urban, low-income neighborhoods. These exposures, closely tied to housing conditions, contribute to worse asthma and respiratory problems, particularly in children.

Scott and Phipatanakul agreed that the environment surrounding people’s homes can also exacerbate respiratory disease.

Rural areas present unique risks, such as agricultural activities that release pesticides and other particulates into the air, said Scott. In mountainous areas like Appalachia, mining operations are another significant contributor. For example, blasting mountains with dynamite creates large clouds of dust and pollutants that settle in valleys. Coal-hauling roads contribute to air quality issues, too. And houses near these roads may be exposed to increased levels of particulate matter, he said.

In the city, Phipatanakul has found that historical practices like redlining have systematically denied certain neighborhoods access to resources and investment, leaving a legacy of poor infrastructure, limited resources, and higher exposure to environmental risks. Today, these areas have more highways and fewer green spaces and are disproportionately linked with a higher incidence of respiratory illnesses.

The findings of both Scott and Phipatanakul underscore a critical bottom line: Health disparities are deeply influenced by environmental factors, which are themselves shaped by socioeconomic conditions and historical inequities. Poor housing quality, exposure to allergens, and proximity to environmental hazards disproportionately affect underserved and minority communities, whether in rural or urban settings.

 

The Role of Green Spaces in Improving Respiratory Health

Restoring and increasing tree cover and green spaces in urban areas can significantly improve respiratory health by addressing environmental challenges and reducing triggers for respiratory issues. Areas with greater greenness tend to have lower levels of pollutants and fewer environmental infestations, such as mice and cockroaches, explained Phipatanakul. Her research highlights that schools in greener areas have fewer airborne pollutants and particles than those in more urbanized, less green areas, which are usually in poorer suburbs.

Trees absorb pollutants such as particulate matter and sulfur dioxide through dry deposition and stomatal uptake, improving air quality. “The question is whether we can use trees as a public health tool, and this is being done in many cities,” said Alessandro Marcon, PhD, a professor of epidemiology and medical statistics at the University of Verona, Verona, Italy, while speaking at the European Respiratory Society conference held in Vienna last September.

A US analysis showed that existing natural vegetation, such as forests and grasslands, absorbs a large portion of emissions. By restoring land cover, pollution from harmful substances like sulfur dioxide and particulate matter could be reduced by about 30%. This approach is often more cost-effective than technological solutions for managing emissions.

Moreover, tree cover contributes to a healthier air microbiome. Research indicates that urban forest areas have lower pathogenic bacteria and fungi concentrations than nearby urban zones.

Another major advantage is the mitigation of the urban heat island effect. A study conducted in Paris found that municipalities with higher tree coverage experienced 20%-30% lower heat-related mortality than those with less greenery. Increasing tree coverage to 30% could reduce up to 40% of excess mortality associated with urban heat islands. Trees achieve this by providing shade and facilitating evapotranspiration, which cools the surrounding air.

Urban environments, unsurprisingly, often have higher levels of air pollution due to increased traffic and industrial activity. However, despite appearing greener, rural environments may harbor less obvious but significant sources of air pollution. “I live in an urban environment now, but I grew up in a rural environment,” Scott said. “Each has its own issues that affect air quality and health.”

Scott, Phipatanakul, and Marcon reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In 2016, Brady Scott was in his parents’ home in Garrett, Kentucky, scrolling his Facebook feed when a post from a local newspaper caught his attention. “The article said that if you grew up in the region I grew up in, compared to the richer Central Kentucky region, the life expectancy differed by about 9 years,” he recalled.

The respiratory therapist, then a PhD student at Rush University, Chicago, was struck and began “Googling” to find out why this was the case. Initially, he thought diabetes, smoking, and economic distress — all prevalent problems in the area — were the culprits. However, he soon found that respiratory disease was particularly common in his region.

Now a professor and program director of the Respiratory Care Program at Rush University, Scott has spent several years trying to understand why people in certain regions experience respiratory illness at higher rates than in other places.

 

The Environment as a Determinant of Health

When Scott began his PhD, the prevalence of asthma in Southeast Kentucky, part of the Appalachian region, was already well-documented. He focused his research on uncontrolled asthma and the triggers that drove asthma exacerbations.

Housing quality emerged as an important factor. He found that exposure to mold, mildew, dust mites, pests, and rodents increased the risk for asthma and exacerbated existing cases. Lower-income families, more likely to live in poor-quality housing, were significantly affected, even in single-family homes.

Wanda Phipatanakul, MD, MS, director of the Division of Immunology Research Center at Boston Children’s Hospital and S. Jean Emans professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, has found similar results in urban environments. She said cockroach and mouse allergen exposure is disproportionately prevalent in urban, low-income neighborhoods. These exposures, closely tied to housing conditions, contribute to worse asthma and respiratory problems, particularly in children.

Scott and Phipatanakul agreed that the environment surrounding people’s homes can also exacerbate respiratory disease.

Rural areas present unique risks, such as agricultural activities that release pesticides and other particulates into the air, said Scott. In mountainous areas like Appalachia, mining operations are another significant contributor. For example, blasting mountains with dynamite creates large clouds of dust and pollutants that settle in valleys. Coal-hauling roads contribute to air quality issues, too. And houses near these roads may be exposed to increased levels of particulate matter, he said.

In the city, Phipatanakul has found that historical practices like redlining have systematically denied certain neighborhoods access to resources and investment, leaving a legacy of poor infrastructure, limited resources, and higher exposure to environmental risks. Today, these areas have more highways and fewer green spaces and are disproportionately linked with a higher incidence of respiratory illnesses.

The findings of both Scott and Phipatanakul underscore a critical bottom line: Health disparities are deeply influenced by environmental factors, which are themselves shaped by socioeconomic conditions and historical inequities. Poor housing quality, exposure to allergens, and proximity to environmental hazards disproportionately affect underserved and minority communities, whether in rural or urban settings.

 

The Role of Green Spaces in Improving Respiratory Health

Restoring and increasing tree cover and green spaces in urban areas can significantly improve respiratory health by addressing environmental challenges and reducing triggers for respiratory issues. Areas with greater greenness tend to have lower levels of pollutants and fewer environmental infestations, such as mice and cockroaches, explained Phipatanakul. Her research highlights that schools in greener areas have fewer airborne pollutants and particles than those in more urbanized, less green areas, which are usually in poorer suburbs.

Trees absorb pollutants such as particulate matter and sulfur dioxide through dry deposition and stomatal uptake, improving air quality. “The question is whether we can use trees as a public health tool, and this is being done in many cities,” said Alessandro Marcon, PhD, a professor of epidemiology and medical statistics at the University of Verona, Verona, Italy, while speaking at the European Respiratory Society conference held in Vienna last September.

A US analysis showed that existing natural vegetation, such as forests and grasslands, absorbs a large portion of emissions. By restoring land cover, pollution from harmful substances like sulfur dioxide and particulate matter could be reduced by about 30%. This approach is often more cost-effective than technological solutions for managing emissions.

Moreover, tree cover contributes to a healthier air microbiome. Research indicates that urban forest areas have lower pathogenic bacteria and fungi concentrations than nearby urban zones.

Another major advantage is the mitigation of the urban heat island effect. A study conducted in Paris found that municipalities with higher tree coverage experienced 20%-30% lower heat-related mortality than those with less greenery. Increasing tree coverage to 30% could reduce up to 40% of excess mortality associated with urban heat islands. Trees achieve this by providing shade and facilitating evapotranspiration, which cools the surrounding air.

Urban environments, unsurprisingly, often have higher levels of air pollution due to increased traffic and industrial activity. However, despite appearing greener, rural environments may harbor less obvious but significant sources of air pollution. “I live in an urban environment now, but I grew up in a rural environment,” Scott said. “Each has its own issues that affect air quality and health.”

Scott, Phipatanakul, and Marcon reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

It is the best possible news after an advanced melanoma diagnosis: A clean 10-year scan. This, in all likelihood, means the patient is cured and can leave the office free from their annual ‘scanxiety.’ 

But even in the best-case scenarios, oncologists may dodge the word cure, searching for others such as “remission,” “no evidence of disease,” and “most likely cured” to communicate the good news. Using these more open-ended terms can give patients reassurance without providing false hope that the cancer won’t ever return.

The “risk of future recurrence — even when very small — makes oncologists reluctant to use the word cure, fearing it will be interpreted as a promise, and particularly one that might be broken,” Belinda E. Kiely, MD, and Martin R. Stockler, MD, medical oncologists from the University of Sydney in Australia, wrote in a recent editorial.

Is it ever safe for oncologists to use the word cure? Might doing so backfire? Or does a patient’s underlying fear of recurrence transcend the word?

 

A Word’s Heavy Impact

Part of clinicians’ hesitance to use the word cure may stem from a lack of accepted definition for the term in oncology.

For some experts, a cure means patients will have a normal life expectancy not affected by cancer. Being able to confidently tell a patient that “requires very long-term follow-up,” said James Larkin, PhD, a medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, England.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has a similar definition: “Cure means that there are no traces of your cancer after treatment and the cancer will never come back,” the NCI website says.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology, however, defines cure much more narrowly, as “when a person’s cancer has not returned for at least 5 years after treatment.” 

Not having a standard definition of cure in oncology makes it even more challenging for an oncologist to know how to communicate that a cancer very likely won’t return, without overpromising.

Some of the hesitance in framing good news comes from nuances in prognoses that depend on the type and stage of cancer, explained Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

Patients with localized early-stage breast cancer, for instance, have a 5-year survival rate of nearly 100%, and most live 2 decades or longer but, for some, the cancer will return.

“If you talk about early disease, indeed, we cure 80% of breast cancer patients,” Kok said during a press conference at the annual 2024 European Society of Medical Oncology meeting. But sub-dividing breast cancer into tumor type adds complexity. “With triple negative breast cancer, if they relapse, they relapse during the first 2 or 3 years so, at 5 years, the majority are disease free. But that’s different for estrogen receptor positive breast cancer,” in which recurrences can come much later.

In advanced cancers, oncologists may, understandably, be more hesitant to use the word cure. However, ongoing progress in cancer treatments is making the prospect of a cure more likely for some patients.

Take recent findings in melanoma. The landmark CheckMate 067 study in advanced disease revealed that patients receiving the immunotherapy combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a median melanoma-specific survival > 10 years and a median overall survival of about 6 years.

The findings from the trial suggest that “many patients may die from causes unrelated to melanoma — or, in essence, they are cured,” outside expert Elisa Funck-Brentano, MD, PhD, from Ambroise-Paré Hospital in Paris, France, explained to Medscape Medical News.

With CheckMate 067, “what we’re talking about here is potential cure of metastatic solid tumors, which in general is something that’s new,” said senior author Larkin. In fact, late relapses after the 2- to 3-year mark in immunotherapy-treated melanoma are extremely rare.

CheckMate 067 “really made people tempted to use the word cure, and I will say some people in our field do,” said Pauline Funchain, MD, a medical oncologist at Stanford Cancer Institute, and associate professor at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. “The rest of us really, really want to, but are hesitant because of what we know about melanoma.”

Because the reality is late relapse is still possible.

The cancer can show up decades later and I think, as oncologists, that experience has sort of shaken us,” Funchain told this news organization.

“Oncologists are scarred by those examples,” agreed Evan Hall, MD, a medical oncologist at Fred Hutch Cancer Center and assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine, both in Seattle.

Clinical trials also don’t typically frame patient outcomes in terms of being cured. A recent analysis, which examined the use of “cure” and “hope” in 13,363 oncology articles published between 2000 and 2019 in JAMA Oncology and the Journal of Clinical Oncology, found that both words were used infrequently, especially in primary research articles, and their use decreased significantly over time, even as survival rates in oncology improved. The word cure, for instance, appeared in about 0.1% of sentences in primary research papers published in either journal, though the context of its use was not identified.

Outcomes in cancer clinical trials, which may assess hundreds even thousands of patients, are largely framed in terms of risks and rates of survival — 85% of patients who received treatment X are alive at 5 years or patients receiving treatment Y have a 20% risk for recurrence, for instance.

These risks and rates can’t tell an oncologist whether the patient sitting in front of them can close the cancer chapter of their lives for good.

“I just saw a patient the other day who was 30 years out from their melanoma diagnosis, and they had a recurrence,” Hall recalled. That’s why, “ultimately, it’s a hard thing to tell somebody they’re cured,” he said. “I personally don’t really like using that term.”

While the literature on using the word cure in oncology is limited, one older survey of oncology clinicians supports this view that many feel reluctant to use the term. Of 117 oncology clinicians who responded, 81% said they were “hesitant to tell a patient that they are cured,” and 63% said that they “would never tell a patient that they are cured,” while just 36% said they were comfortable saying the word, with most respondents waiting at least 6-10 years before doing so.

A more recent Italian survey, however, revealed a more favorable view of the word cure in oncology. The survey, which included 224 clinicians and 249 patients, reported that > 90% of cancer physicians, which included surgeons, radiotherapists, and medical oncologists, agreed that it’s possible for a patient to be cured, while about 84% of patients believed this. And > 80% of respondents said using the word cure would be “beneficial” to patients.

Still, even for those hearing the word cure and feeling comforted by an oncologist’s reassurance, it may only provide short-term relief. Fear that the cancer will come slinking, even roaring, back eventually may loom. And this lingering worry can haunt cancer survivors for years.

In a recent cross-sectional study of 229 adults who survived childhood cancer and had lived cancer-free for decades, researchers found that one third reported experiencing clinically significant elevated fear that their primary cancer would recur or a subsequent malignant neoplasm would develop. Similar anxiety has been documented in long-term survivors of adult-onset cancers.

To some degree, every survivor will experience fear and anxiety that their cancer will come back and, at a certain level, that is normal, the study’s senior author Nicole Alberts, PhD, a psychologist, associate professor, and Canada research chair in Behavioural Health Intervention at Concordia University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada, told this news organization.

Although an oncologist’s words do matter and clinicians may wrestle with the right words for patients in the moment, it can take more than words to quell patients’ fear, she said.

“What we know about that kind of anxiety is that there’s this cycle where reassurance doesn’t really help in the long-term,” Alberts said. In other words, hearing the word cure from their oncologist initially makes people feel better, but the anxiety may eventually come back.

Alberts tries to help patients acknowledge and accept uncertainty while also calming residual or lingering anxiety about a cancer recurrence. Ultimately, Alberts’ goal is to help cancer survivors “find the sweet spot to live again.”

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

It is the best possible news after an advanced melanoma diagnosis: A clean 10-year scan. This, in all likelihood, means the patient is cured and can leave the office free from their annual ‘scanxiety.’ 

But even in the best-case scenarios, oncologists may dodge the word cure, searching for others such as “remission,” “no evidence of disease,” and “most likely cured” to communicate the good news. Using these more open-ended terms can give patients reassurance without providing false hope that the cancer won’t ever return.

The “risk of future recurrence — even when very small — makes oncologists reluctant to use the word cure, fearing it will be interpreted as a promise, and particularly one that might be broken,” Belinda E. Kiely, MD, and Martin R. Stockler, MD, medical oncologists from the University of Sydney in Australia, wrote in a recent editorial.

Is it ever safe for oncologists to use the word cure? Might doing so backfire? Or does a patient’s underlying fear of recurrence transcend the word?

 

A Word’s Heavy Impact

Part of clinicians’ hesitance to use the word cure may stem from a lack of accepted definition for the term in oncology.

For some experts, a cure means patients will have a normal life expectancy not affected by cancer. Being able to confidently tell a patient that “requires very long-term follow-up,” said James Larkin, PhD, a medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, England.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has a similar definition: “Cure means that there are no traces of your cancer after treatment and the cancer will never come back,” the NCI website says.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology, however, defines cure much more narrowly, as “when a person’s cancer has not returned for at least 5 years after treatment.” 

Not having a standard definition of cure in oncology makes it even more challenging for an oncologist to know how to communicate that a cancer very likely won’t return, without overpromising.

Some of the hesitance in framing good news comes from nuances in prognoses that depend on the type and stage of cancer, explained Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

Patients with localized early-stage breast cancer, for instance, have a 5-year survival rate of nearly 100%, and most live 2 decades or longer but, for some, the cancer will return.

“If you talk about early disease, indeed, we cure 80% of breast cancer patients,” Kok said during a press conference at the annual 2024 European Society of Medical Oncology meeting. But sub-dividing breast cancer into tumor type adds complexity. “With triple negative breast cancer, if they relapse, they relapse during the first 2 or 3 years so, at 5 years, the majority are disease free. But that’s different for estrogen receptor positive breast cancer,” in which recurrences can come much later.

In advanced cancers, oncologists may, understandably, be more hesitant to use the word cure. However, ongoing progress in cancer treatments is making the prospect of a cure more likely for some patients.

Take recent findings in melanoma. The landmark CheckMate 067 study in advanced disease revealed that patients receiving the immunotherapy combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a median melanoma-specific survival > 10 years and a median overall survival of about 6 years.

The findings from the trial suggest that “many patients may die from causes unrelated to melanoma — or, in essence, they are cured,” outside expert Elisa Funck-Brentano, MD, PhD, from Ambroise-Paré Hospital in Paris, France, explained to Medscape Medical News.

With CheckMate 067, “what we’re talking about here is potential cure of metastatic solid tumors, which in general is something that’s new,” said senior author Larkin. In fact, late relapses after the 2- to 3-year mark in immunotherapy-treated melanoma are extremely rare.

CheckMate 067 “really made people tempted to use the word cure, and I will say some people in our field do,” said Pauline Funchain, MD, a medical oncologist at Stanford Cancer Institute, and associate professor at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. “The rest of us really, really want to, but are hesitant because of what we know about melanoma.”

Because the reality is late relapse is still possible.

The cancer can show up decades later and I think, as oncologists, that experience has sort of shaken us,” Funchain told this news organization.

“Oncologists are scarred by those examples,” agreed Evan Hall, MD, a medical oncologist at Fred Hutch Cancer Center and assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine, both in Seattle.

Clinical trials also don’t typically frame patient outcomes in terms of being cured. A recent analysis, which examined the use of “cure” and “hope” in 13,363 oncology articles published between 2000 and 2019 in JAMA Oncology and the Journal of Clinical Oncology, found that both words were used infrequently, especially in primary research articles, and their use decreased significantly over time, even as survival rates in oncology improved. The word cure, for instance, appeared in about 0.1% of sentences in primary research papers published in either journal, though the context of its use was not identified.

Outcomes in cancer clinical trials, which may assess hundreds even thousands of patients, are largely framed in terms of risks and rates of survival — 85% of patients who received treatment X are alive at 5 years or patients receiving treatment Y have a 20% risk for recurrence, for instance.

These risks and rates can’t tell an oncologist whether the patient sitting in front of them can close the cancer chapter of their lives for good.

“I just saw a patient the other day who was 30 years out from their melanoma diagnosis, and they had a recurrence,” Hall recalled. That’s why, “ultimately, it’s a hard thing to tell somebody they’re cured,” he said. “I personally don’t really like using that term.”

While the literature on using the word cure in oncology is limited, one older survey of oncology clinicians supports this view that many feel reluctant to use the term. Of 117 oncology clinicians who responded, 81% said they were “hesitant to tell a patient that they are cured,” and 63% said that they “would never tell a patient that they are cured,” while just 36% said they were comfortable saying the word, with most respondents waiting at least 6-10 years before doing so.

A more recent Italian survey, however, revealed a more favorable view of the word cure in oncology. The survey, which included 224 clinicians and 249 patients, reported that > 90% of cancer physicians, which included surgeons, radiotherapists, and medical oncologists, agreed that it’s possible for a patient to be cured, while about 84% of patients believed this. And > 80% of respondents said using the word cure would be “beneficial” to patients.

Still, even for those hearing the word cure and feeling comforted by an oncologist’s reassurance, it may only provide short-term relief. Fear that the cancer will come slinking, even roaring, back eventually may loom. And this lingering worry can haunt cancer survivors for years.

In a recent cross-sectional study of 229 adults who survived childhood cancer and had lived cancer-free for decades, researchers found that one third reported experiencing clinically significant elevated fear that their primary cancer would recur or a subsequent malignant neoplasm would develop. Similar anxiety has been documented in long-term survivors of adult-onset cancers.

To some degree, every survivor will experience fear and anxiety that their cancer will come back and, at a certain level, that is normal, the study’s senior author Nicole Alberts, PhD, a psychologist, associate professor, and Canada research chair in Behavioural Health Intervention at Concordia University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada, told this news organization.

Although an oncologist’s words do matter and clinicians may wrestle with the right words for patients in the moment, it can take more than words to quell patients’ fear, she said.

“What we know about that kind of anxiety is that there’s this cycle where reassurance doesn’t really help in the long-term,” Alberts said. In other words, hearing the word cure from their oncologist initially makes people feel better, but the anxiety may eventually come back.

Alberts tries to help patients acknowledge and accept uncertainty while also calming residual or lingering anxiety about a cancer recurrence. Ultimately, Alberts’ goal is to help cancer survivors “find the sweet spot to live again.”

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

It is the best possible news after an advanced melanoma diagnosis: A clean 10-year scan. This, in all likelihood, means the patient is cured and can leave the office free from their annual ‘scanxiety.’ 

But even in the best-case scenarios, oncologists may dodge the word cure, searching for others such as “remission,” “no evidence of disease,” and “most likely cured” to communicate the good news. Using these more open-ended terms can give patients reassurance without providing false hope that the cancer won’t ever return.

The “risk of future recurrence — even when very small — makes oncologists reluctant to use the word cure, fearing it will be interpreted as a promise, and particularly one that might be broken,” Belinda E. Kiely, MD, and Martin R. Stockler, MD, medical oncologists from the University of Sydney in Australia, wrote in a recent editorial.

Is it ever safe for oncologists to use the word cure? Might doing so backfire? Or does a patient’s underlying fear of recurrence transcend the word?

 

A Word’s Heavy Impact

Part of clinicians’ hesitance to use the word cure may stem from a lack of accepted definition for the term in oncology.

For some experts, a cure means patients will have a normal life expectancy not affected by cancer. Being able to confidently tell a patient that “requires very long-term follow-up,” said James Larkin, PhD, a medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, England.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has a similar definition: “Cure means that there are no traces of your cancer after treatment and the cancer will never come back,” the NCI website says.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology, however, defines cure much more narrowly, as “when a person’s cancer has not returned for at least 5 years after treatment.” 

Not having a standard definition of cure in oncology makes it even more challenging for an oncologist to know how to communicate that a cancer very likely won’t return, without overpromising.

Some of the hesitance in framing good news comes from nuances in prognoses that depend on the type and stage of cancer, explained Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

Patients with localized early-stage breast cancer, for instance, have a 5-year survival rate of nearly 100%, and most live 2 decades or longer but, for some, the cancer will return.

“If you talk about early disease, indeed, we cure 80% of breast cancer patients,” Kok said during a press conference at the annual 2024 European Society of Medical Oncology meeting. But sub-dividing breast cancer into tumor type adds complexity. “With triple negative breast cancer, if they relapse, they relapse during the first 2 or 3 years so, at 5 years, the majority are disease free. But that’s different for estrogen receptor positive breast cancer,” in which recurrences can come much later.

In advanced cancers, oncologists may, understandably, be more hesitant to use the word cure. However, ongoing progress in cancer treatments is making the prospect of a cure more likely for some patients.

Take recent findings in melanoma. The landmark CheckMate 067 study in advanced disease revealed that patients receiving the immunotherapy combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a median melanoma-specific survival > 10 years and a median overall survival of about 6 years.

The findings from the trial suggest that “many patients may die from causes unrelated to melanoma — or, in essence, they are cured,” outside expert Elisa Funck-Brentano, MD, PhD, from Ambroise-Paré Hospital in Paris, France, explained to Medscape Medical News.

With CheckMate 067, “what we’re talking about here is potential cure of metastatic solid tumors, which in general is something that’s new,” said senior author Larkin. In fact, late relapses after the 2- to 3-year mark in immunotherapy-treated melanoma are extremely rare.

CheckMate 067 “really made people tempted to use the word cure, and I will say some people in our field do,” said Pauline Funchain, MD, a medical oncologist at Stanford Cancer Institute, and associate professor at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. “The rest of us really, really want to, but are hesitant because of what we know about melanoma.”

Because the reality is late relapse is still possible.

The cancer can show up decades later and I think, as oncologists, that experience has sort of shaken us,” Funchain told this news organization.

“Oncologists are scarred by those examples,” agreed Evan Hall, MD, a medical oncologist at Fred Hutch Cancer Center and assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine, both in Seattle.

Clinical trials also don’t typically frame patient outcomes in terms of being cured. A recent analysis, which examined the use of “cure” and “hope” in 13,363 oncology articles published between 2000 and 2019 in JAMA Oncology and the Journal of Clinical Oncology, found that both words were used infrequently, especially in primary research articles, and their use decreased significantly over time, even as survival rates in oncology improved. The word cure, for instance, appeared in about 0.1% of sentences in primary research papers published in either journal, though the context of its use was not identified.

Outcomes in cancer clinical trials, which may assess hundreds even thousands of patients, are largely framed in terms of risks and rates of survival — 85% of patients who received treatment X are alive at 5 years or patients receiving treatment Y have a 20% risk for recurrence, for instance.

These risks and rates can’t tell an oncologist whether the patient sitting in front of them can close the cancer chapter of their lives for good.

“I just saw a patient the other day who was 30 years out from their melanoma diagnosis, and they had a recurrence,” Hall recalled. That’s why, “ultimately, it’s a hard thing to tell somebody they’re cured,” he said. “I personally don’t really like using that term.”

While the literature on using the word cure in oncology is limited, one older survey of oncology clinicians supports this view that many feel reluctant to use the term. Of 117 oncology clinicians who responded, 81% said they were “hesitant to tell a patient that they are cured,” and 63% said that they “would never tell a patient that they are cured,” while just 36% said they were comfortable saying the word, with most respondents waiting at least 6-10 years before doing so.

A more recent Italian survey, however, revealed a more favorable view of the word cure in oncology. The survey, which included 224 clinicians and 249 patients, reported that > 90% of cancer physicians, which included surgeons, radiotherapists, and medical oncologists, agreed that it’s possible for a patient to be cured, while about 84% of patients believed this. And > 80% of respondents said using the word cure would be “beneficial” to patients.

Still, even for those hearing the word cure and feeling comforted by an oncologist’s reassurance, it may only provide short-term relief. Fear that the cancer will come slinking, even roaring, back eventually may loom. And this lingering worry can haunt cancer survivors for years.

In a recent cross-sectional study of 229 adults who survived childhood cancer and had lived cancer-free for decades, researchers found that one third reported experiencing clinically significant elevated fear that their primary cancer would recur or a subsequent malignant neoplasm would develop. Similar anxiety has been documented in long-term survivors of adult-onset cancers.

To some degree, every survivor will experience fear and anxiety that their cancer will come back and, at a certain level, that is normal, the study’s senior author Nicole Alberts, PhD, a psychologist, associate professor, and Canada research chair in Behavioural Health Intervention at Concordia University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada, told this news organization.

Although an oncologist’s words do matter and clinicians may wrestle with the right words for patients in the moment, it can take more than words to quell patients’ fear, she said.

“What we know about that kind of anxiety is that there’s this cycle where reassurance doesn’t really help in the long-term,” Alberts said. In other words, hearing the word cure from their oncologist initially makes people feel better, but the anxiety may eventually come back.

Alberts tries to help patients acknowledge and accept uncertainty while also calming residual or lingering anxiety about a cancer recurrence. Ultimately, Alberts’ goal is to help cancer survivors “find the sweet spot to live again.”

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

A burst sprinkler pipe and broken steam system caused significant infrastructure failures and wreaked havoc on patient care at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in January. 

An email sent to Walter Reed staff from the medical center’s director, Navy Capt. Melissa C. Austin, said 60,000 gallons of water, or enough “to fill a 25x50 foot swimming pool” flooded throughout the facility on Jan. 20 before it was contained, damaging 50 rooms and 6 elevators. 

Frozen pipes burst due to extreme cold, and the issues were exacerbated by aging infrastructure and “deferred maintenance due to underfunding,” the Defense Health Agency (DHA), which oversees Walter Reed, said in a public statement. 

The damage was severe enough to impact patient care. The facility had to evacuate the neonatal intensive care unit as well as several clinics. The steam system outages also meant operating rooms had fewer clean surgical tools available and had to send them to regional hospitals for sterilization, staffers told The Washington Post. Health care workers could not “flash sterilize” equipment in emergencies, further risking patient safety.

Rick McNamara, a spokesperson for the Defense Health Network National Capital Region, confirmed other hospitals are “sharing the burden” to sterilize equipment. McNamara said it could take 6 weeks to complete the immediate repairs, which will cost between $1 million and $2 million.

Patient appointments were delayed, and nonemergency procedures were canceled or delayed. Overall, 212 patients were “deferred or rescheduled,” and 56 other patients were sent to other hospitals to receive care.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Jan. 31 the problem was “real and unacceptable” in response to a video circulating on social media that showed flooding.

Acknowledging that the water damage “temporarily impacted health care operations,” the Defense Department says DHA and Walter Reed staff were “working diligently around the clock” to find and implement solutions while minimizing disruptions to patient care: “High waters and loss of steam pressure impacted the capacity of services delivered, but the ability to deliver the hospital’s core capabilities of safe, quality care was never compromised,” the agency said.

In response to the flooding, the hospital moved quickly to provide the required urgent care: “We are utilizing all the hospitals and clinics in the National Capital Region Network from Malcom Grow at Joint Base Andrews to Kimbrough Ambulatory Care Center at Fort Meade to the Alexander T. Augusta Military Medical Center at Fort Belvoir,” Capt. Austin said. 

DHA is also funding emergency work orders and contract modifications required to return Walter Reed to full operational capability. It is prioritizing resources for repairs and is collaborating with the Naval Installations Command and Naval Support Activity Bethesda to implement necessary repairs.

“This acute issue is being managed aggressively to ensure patient care continues to be delivered safely,” DHA said

A burst sprinkler pipe and broken steam system caused significant infrastructure failures and wreaked havoc on patient care at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in January. 

An email sent to Walter Reed staff from the medical center’s director, Navy Capt. Melissa C. Austin, said 60,000 gallons of water, or enough “to fill a 25x50 foot swimming pool” flooded throughout the facility on Jan. 20 before it was contained, damaging 50 rooms and 6 elevators. 

Frozen pipes burst due to extreme cold, and the issues were exacerbated by aging infrastructure and “deferred maintenance due to underfunding,” the Defense Health Agency (DHA), which oversees Walter Reed, said in a public statement. 

The damage was severe enough to impact patient care. The facility had to evacuate the neonatal intensive care unit as well as several clinics. The steam system outages also meant operating rooms had fewer clean surgical tools available and had to send them to regional hospitals for sterilization, staffers told The Washington Post. Health care workers could not “flash sterilize” equipment in emergencies, further risking patient safety.

Rick McNamara, a spokesperson for the Defense Health Network National Capital Region, confirmed other hospitals are “sharing the burden” to sterilize equipment. McNamara said it could take 6 weeks to complete the immediate repairs, which will cost between $1 million and $2 million.

Patient appointments were delayed, and nonemergency procedures were canceled or delayed. Overall, 212 patients were “deferred or rescheduled,” and 56 other patients were sent to other hospitals to receive care.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Jan. 31 the problem was “real and unacceptable” in response to a video circulating on social media that showed flooding.

Acknowledging that the water damage “temporarily impacted health care operations,” the Defense Department says DHA and Walter Reed staff were “working diligently around the clock” to find and implement solutions while minimizing disruptions to patient care: “High waters and loss of steam pressure impacted the capacity of services delivered, but the ability to deliver the hospital’s core capabilities of safe, quality care was never compromised,” the agency said.

In response to the flooding, the hospital moved quickly to provide the required urgent care: “We are utilizing all the hospitals and clinics in the National Capital Region Network from Malcom Grow at Joint Base Andrews to Kimbrough Ambulatory Care Center at Fort Meade to the Alexander T. Augusta Military Medical Center at Fort Belvoir,” Capt. Austin said. 

DHA is also funding emergency work orders and contract modifications required to return Walter Reed to full operational capability. It is prioritizing resources for repairs and is collaborating with the Naval Installations Command and Naval Support Activity Bethesda to implement necessary repairs.

“This acute issue is being managed aggressively to ensure patient care continues to be delivered safely,” DHA said

A burst sprinkler pipe and broken steam system caused significant infrastructure failures and wreaked havoc on patient care at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in January. 

An email sent to Walter Reed staff from the medical center’s director, Navy Capt. Melissa C. Austin, said 60,000 gallons of water, or enough “to fill a 25x50 foot swimming pool” flooded throughout the facility on Jan. 20 before it was contained, damaging 50 rooms and 6 elevators. 

Frozen pipes burst due to extreme cold, and the issues were exacerbated by aging infrastructure and “deferred maintenance due to underfunding,” the Defense Health Agency (DHA), which oversees Walter Reed, said in a public statement. 

The damage was severe enough to impact patient care. The facility had to evacuate the neonatal intensive care unit as well as several clinics. The steam system outages also meant operating rooms had fewer clean surgical tools available and had to send them to regional hospitals for sterilization, staffers told The Washington Post. Health care workers could not “flash sterilize” equipment in emergencies, further risking patient safety.

Rick McNamara, a spokesperson for the Defense Health Network National Capital Region, confirmed other hospitals are “sharing the burden” to sterilize equipment. McNamara said it could take 6 weeks to complete the immediate repairs, which will cost between $1 million and $2 million.

Patient appointments were delayed, and nonemergency procedures were canceled or delayed. Overall, 212 patients were “deferred or rescheduled,” and 56 other patients were sent to other hospitals to receive care.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Jan. 31 the problem was “real and unacceptable” in response to a video circulating on social media that showed flooding.

Acknowledging that the water damage “temporarily impacted health care operations,” the Defense Department says DHA and Walter Reed staff were “working diligently around the clock” to find and implement solutions while minimizing disruptions to patient care: “High waters and loss of steam pressure impacted the capacity of services delivered, but the ability to deliver the hospital’s core capabilities of safe, quality care was never compromised,” the agency said.

In response to the flooding, the hospital moved quickly to provide the required urgent care: “We are utilizing all the hospitals and clinics in the National Capital Region Network from Malcom Grow at Joint Base Andrews to Kimbrough Ambulatory Care Center at Fort Meade to the Alexander T. Augusta Military Medical Center at Fort Belvoir,” Capt. Austin said. 

DHA is also funding emergency work orders and contract modifications required to return Walter Reed to full operational capability. It is prioritizing resources for repairs and is collaborating with the Naval Installations Command and Naval Support Activity Bethesda to implement necessary repairs.

“This acute issue is being managed aggressively to ensure patient care continues to be delivered safely,” DHA said

The risk of detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) increases by up to 13-fold in the presence of prior fecal hemoglobin (f-Hb) concentrations in fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), especially negative ones, according to a large international dose-response meta-analysis.

Although the association with neoplasia decreased as f-Hb levels rose, the findings support the development of risk-stratified screening strategies based on these concentrations, according to researchers led by Danica M.N. van den Berg, MSc, a PhD candidate and econometrics researcher in the department of public health at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Higher f-Hb concentrations in prior negative screening tests are strongly associated with an increased risk of detecting colorectal neoplasia in subsequent screenings, van den Berg said in an interview. “Gastroenterologists and other clinicians should consider the value of f-Hb concentrations in refining screening protocols and personalizing patient care to detect colorectal neoplasia earlier and more accurately.”

Published in Gastroenterology, the study was prompted by prior research showing individuals with f-Hb concentrations just below the positivity cutoff had an elevated CRC risk vs those with low or no f-Hb. “However, global variations in FIT positivity cutoffs and f-Hb category definitions complicated cross-study comparisons,” van den Berg said. 

Given the lack of an established dose-response relationship, the study aimed to clarify how f-Hb levels in previous screenings correlate with colorectal neoplasia detection. “Understanding this relationship is crucial for developing risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening strategies based on prior FIT results, which could improve the harm-benefit balance of screening,” she said.

According to van den Berg, f-Hb concentrations could help determine optimal CRC screening intervals by identifying higher-risk individuals who could benefit from more frequent testing, while those with lower concentrations could be screened less frequently.

 

Study Details

The systematic review and meta-analysis are the first to focus on the dose-response relationship between f-Hb levels in prior FIT screenings and colorectal neoplasia detection, van den Berg said. It included 13 ethnically diverse studies published during 2011-2023 with 4,493,223 individuals from Spain, France, the Netherlands, Taiwan, Denmark, Scotland, Ireland, Korea, Italy, and Norway. Most studies were cohort-based, and one was a randomized controlled trial.

All studies demonstrated a positive association between f-Hb in previous screenings and colorectal neoplasia detection. Almost all reported the f-Hb concentration measured in the prior screening round, while one study combined the f-Hb concentration of two previous screening rounds by using the cumulative f-Hb value. There was, however, wide variability in the stool positivity cut-offs in the included studies, ranging from 10 μg f-Hb/g to 80 μg f-Hb/g.

With an overall effect size of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.59-0.79), pooled analysis revealed that in the next screening round, individuals with f-Hb concentrations in stool of 5, 10, 20, and 40 μg/g had a threefold, fivefold, eightfold, and 13-fold higher risk for colorectal neoplasia, respectively, vs individuals showing 0 μg/g. Although there was significant study heterogeneity (I² = 97.5%, P < .001), sensitivity analyses confirmed the consistency of findings. Interestingly, subgroup analyses indicated that f-Hb concentrations from a previous negative test were especially predictive of advanced neoplasia in subsequent screenings.

“This is a strategy worth pursuing and evaluating in the United States,” said gastroenterologist Theodore R. Levin, MD, a research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Northern California, commenting on the study but not involved in it. “However, there is no currently available FIT brand in the US that reports f-Hb concentration. All FITs in the United States report as a qualitative positive-negative result.”

The Dutch investigation aligns with prior studies demonstrating a positive association between f-Hb concentrations in previous screenings and the detection of colorectal neoplasia. “Our working hypothesis was that risk increases in a decreasing manner as f-Hb concentrations rise, and the findings supported this hypothesis,” van den Berg said.

Other research has projected f-Hb level risk stratification to be effective and perhaps cost-effective in reducing delayed diagnosis of CRC.

 

Feasibility of Implementation

In large national screening programs in Europe, Asia, and Australia, as well as those of Kaiser Permanente and the Veterans Health Administration in the United States, information on f-Hb concentrations is already available.

“Therefore, incorporating an Hb-based approach should be relatively easy and affordable,” van den Berg said, and may help to optimize resource use while maintaining high detection rates. “However, the more critical question is whether such an approach would be acceptable to the target population.” To that end, randomized controlled trials in Italy and the Netherlands are offering tailored invitation intervals based on prior f-Hb concentrations and may provide insight into the real-world application of risk-stratified screening.

Among the many variables to be considered in the context of population-wide screening are cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and practicality, as well as invitation intervals, positivity cut-off levels, and start and stop ages for screening. “A key focus will be understanding the acceptability of risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening based on f-Hb among the target population and addressing any information needs they may have, as these are critical factors for successful implementation,” said van den Berg. Her group is currently studying the most effective and cost-effective risk-based strategy for CRC screening based on f-Hb levels.

The authors cautioned that since individuals with undetectable f-Hb levels make up the majority of those with negative FIT results, care must be taken that reducing screening frequency for this low-risk group does not lead to unfavorable outcomes at the population level.

This study was funded by the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research, which had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing. The authors declared no competing interests. Levin disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

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

The risk of detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) increases by up to 13-fold in the presence of prior fecal hemoglobin (f-Hb) concentrations in fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), especially negative ones, according to a large international dose-response meta-analysis.

Although the association with neoplasia decreased as f-Hb levels rose, the findings support the development of risk-stratified screening strategies based on these concentrations, according to researchers led by Danica M.N. van den Berg, MSc, a PhD candidate and econometrics researcher in the department of public health at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Higher f-Hb concentrations in prior negative screening tests are strongly associated with an increased risk of detecting colorectal neoplasia in subsequent screenings, van den Berg said in an interview. “Gastroenterologists and other clinicians should consider the value of f-Hb concentrations in refining screening protocols and personalizing patient care to detect colorectal neoplasia earlier and more accurately.”

Published in Gastroenterology, the study was prompted by prior research showing individuals with f-Hb concentrations just below the positivity cutoff had an elevated CRC risk vs those with low or no f-Hb. “However, global variations in FIT positivity cutoffs and f-Hb category definitions complicated cross-study comparisons,” van den Berg said. 

Given the lack of an established dose-response relationship, the study aimed to clarify how f-Hb levels in previous screenings correlate with colorectal neoplasia detection. “Understanding this relationship is crucial for developing risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening strategies based on prior FIT results, which could improve the harm-benefit balance of screening,” she said.

According to van den Berg, f-Hb concentrations could help determine optimal CRC screening intervals by identifying higher-risk individuals who could benefit from more frequent testing, while those with lower concentrations could be screened less frequently.

 

Study Details

The systematic review and meta-analysis are the first to focus on the dose-response relationship between f-Hb levels in prior FIT screenings and colorectal neoplasia detection, van den Berg said. It included 13 ethnically diverse studies published during 2011-2023 with 4,493,223 individuals from Spain, France, the Netherlands, Taiwan, Denmark, Scotland, Ireland, Korea, Italy, and Norway. Most studies were cohort-based, and one was a randomized controlled trial.

All studies demonstrated a positive association between f-Hb in previous screenings and colorectal neoplasia detection. Almost all reported the f-Hb concentration measured in the prior screening round, while one study combined the f-Hb concentration of two previous screening rounds by using the cumulative f-Hb value. There was, however, wide variability in the stool positivity cut-offs in the included studies, ranging from 10 μg f-Hb/g to 80 μg f-Hb/g.

With an overall effect size of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.59-0.79), pooled analysis revealed that in the next screening round, individuals with f-Hb concentrations in stool of 5, 10, 20, and 40 μg/g had a threefold, fivefold, eightfold, and 13-fold higher risk for colorectal neoplasia, respectively, vs individuals showing 0 μg/g. Although there was significant study heterogeneity (I² = 97.5%, P < .001), sensitivity analyses confirmed the consistency of findings. Interestingly, subgroup analyses indicated that f-Hb concentrations from a previous negative test were especially predictive of advanced neoplasia in subsequent screenings.

“This is a strategy worth pursuing and evaluating in the United States,” said gastroenterologist Theodore R. Levin, MD, a research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Northern California, commenting on the study but not involved in it. “However, there is no currently available FIT brand in the US that reports f-Hb concentration. All FITs in the United States report as a qualitative positive-negative result.”

The Dutch investigation aligns with prior studies demonstrating a positive association between f-Hb concentrations in previous screenings and the detection of colorectal neoplasia. “Our working hypothesis was that risk increases in a decreasing manner as f-Hb concentrations rise, and the findings supported this hypothesis,” van den Berg said.

Other research has projected f-Hb level risk stratification to be effective and perhaps cost-effective in reducing delayed diagnosis of CRC.

 

Feasibility of Implementation

In large national screening programs in Europe, Asia, and Australia, as well as those of Kaiser Permanente and the Veterans Health Administration in the United States, information on f-Hb concentrations is already available.

“Therefore, incorporating an Hb-based approach should be relatively easy and affordable,” van den Berg said, and may help to optimize resource use while maintaining high detection rates. “However, the more critical question is whether such an approach would be acceptable to the target population.” To that end, randomized controlled trials in Italy and the Netherlands are offering tailored invitation intervals based on prior f-Hb concentrations and may provide insight into the real-world application of risk-stratified screening.

Among the many variables to be considered in the context of population-wide screening are cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and practicality, as well as invitation intervals, positivity cut-off levels, and start and stop ages for screening. “A key focus will be understanding the acceptability of risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening based on f-Hb among the target population and addressing any information needs they may have, as these are critical factors for successful implementation,” said van den Berg. Her group is currently studying the most effective and cost-effective risk-based strategy for CRC screening based on f-Hb levels.

The authors cautioned that since individuals with undetectable f-Hb levels make up the majority of those with negative FIT results, care must be taken that reducing screening frequency for this low-risk group does not lead to unfavorable outcomes at the population level.

This study was funded by the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research, which had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing. The authors declared no competing interests. Levin disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

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

The risk of detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) increases by up to 13-fold in the presence of prior fecal hemoglobin (f-Hb) concentrations in fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), especially negative ones, according to a large international dose-response meta-analysis.

Although the association with neoplasia decreased as f-Hb levels rose, the findings support the development of risk-stratified screening strategies based on these concentrations, according to researchers led by Danica M.N. van den Berg, MSc, a PhD candidate and econometrics researcher in the department of public health at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Higher f-Hb concentrations in prior negative screening tests are strongly associated with an increased risk of detecting colorectal neoplasia in subsequent screenings, van den Berg said in an interview. “Gastroenterologists and other clinicians should consider the value of f-Hb concentrations in refining screening protocols and personalizing patient care to detect colorectal neoplasia earlier and more accurately.”

Published in Gastroenterology, the study was prompted by prior research showing individuals with f-Hb concentrations just below the positivity cutoff had an elevated CRC risk vs those with low or no f-Hb. “However, global variations in FIT positivity cutoffs and f-Hb category definitions complicated cross-study comparisons,” van den Berg said. 

Given the lack of an established dose-response relationship, the study aimed to clarify how f-Hb levels in previous screenings correlate with colorectal neoplasia detection. “Understanding this relationship is crucial for developing risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening strategies based on prior FIT results, which could improve the harm-benefit balance of screening,” she said.

According to van den Berg, f-Hb concentrations could help determine optimal CRC screening intervals by identifying higher-risk individuals who could benefit from more frequent testing, while those with lower concentrations could be screened less frequently.

 

Study Details

The systematic review and meta-analysis are the first to focus on the dose-response relationship between f-Hb levels in prior FIT screenings and colorectal neoplasia detection, van den Berg said. It included 13 ethnically diverse studies published during 2011-2023 with 4,493,223 individuals from Spain, France, the Netherlands, Taiwan, Denmark, Scotland, Ireland, Korea, Italy, and Norway. Most studies were cohort-based, and one was a randomized controlled trial.

All studies demonstrated a positive association between f-Hb in previous screenings and colorectal neoplasia detection. Almost all reported the f-Hb concentration measured in the prior screening round, while one study combined the f-Hb concentration of two previous screening rounds by using the cumulative f-Hb value. There was, however, wide variability in the stool positivity cut-offs in the included studies, ranging from 10 μg f-Hb/g to 80 μg f-Hb/g.

With an overall effect size of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.59-0.79), pooled analysis revealed that in the next screening round, individuals with f-Hb concentrations in stool of 5, 10, 20, and 40 μg/g had a threefold, fivefold, eightfold, and 13-fold higher risk for colorectal neoplasia, respectively, vs individuals showing 0 μg/g. Although there was significant study heterogeneity (I² = 97.5%, P < .001), sensitivity analyses confirmed the consistency of findings. Interestingly, subgroup analyses indicated that f-Hb concentrations from a previous negative test were especially predictive of advanced neoplasia in subsequent screenings.

“This is a strategy worth pursuing and evaluating in the United States,” said gastroenterologist Theodore R. Levin, MD, a research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Northern California, commenting on the study but not involved in it. “However, there is no currently available FIT brand in the US that reports f-Hb concentration. All FITs in the United States report as a qualitative positive-negative result.”

The Dutch investigation aligns with prior studies demonstrating a positive association between f-Hb concentrations in previous screenings and the detection of colorectal neoplasia. “Our working hypothesis was that risk increases in a decreasing manner as f-Hb concentrations rise, and the findings supported this hypothesis,” van den Berg said.

Other research has projected f-Hb level risk stratification to be effective and perhaps cost-effective in reducing delayed diagnosis of CRC.

 

Feasibility of Implementation

In large national screening programs in Europe, Asia, and Australia, as well as those of Kaiser Permanente and the Veterans Health Administration in the United States, information on f-Hb concentrations is already available.

“Therefore, incorporating an Hb-based approach should be relatively easy and affordable,” van den Berg said, and may help to optimize resource use while maintaining high detection rates. “However, the more critical question is whether such an approach would be acceptable to the target population.” To that end, randomized controlled trials in Italy and the Netherlands are offering tailored invitation intervals based on prior f-Hb concentrations and may provide insight into the real-world application of risk-stratified screening.

Among the many variables to be considered in the context of population-wide screening are cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and practicality, as well as invitation intervals, positivity cut-off levels, and start and stop ages for screening. “A key focus will be understanding the acceptability of risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening based on f-Hb among the target population and addressing any information needs they may have, as these are critical factors for successful implementation,” said van den Berg. Her group is currently studying the most effective and cost-effective risk-based strategy for CRC screening based on f-Hb levels.

The authors cautioned that since individuals with undetectable f-Hb levels make up the majority of those with negative FIT results, care must be taken that reducing screening frequency for this low-risk group does not lead to unfavorable outcomes at the population level.

This study was funded by the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research, which had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing. The authors declared no competing interests. Levin disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

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

Quitting smoking is challenging, particularly when resources are limited. A recent study in the United States confirmed that an intensive program combining behavioral therapy and medication, linked to a lung cancer screening program, offers the highest success rate. However, its long-term success was similar to that of telephone counseling and drug therapy.

Pulmonologist and experienced smoking cessation specialist from Stuttgart, Germany, Alexander Rupp, MD, emphasized the importance of leveraging routine healthcare interactions to encourage smoking cessation. “Although every doctor-patient contact offers the opportunity to discuss the risks of smoking and the opportunities for smoking cessation, the ‘window of opportunity’ is very wide, especially during lung cancer screening,” he said.

Germany is preparing to launch a lung cancer screening program for high-risk individuals, primarily current smokers and former smokers. Following the establishment of radiation protection regulations for such a program last year, the German Federal Joint Committee is currently working on its design. The initiative could be a game-changer for smoking cessation.

Lung cancer screening has been available for smokers in the United States for some time. Paul M. Cinciripini, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, examined three smoking cessation strategies with decreasing treatment intensity among screening participants.

 

Unique Opportunity

Previous studies have shown that participation in a lung cancer screening program — typically offered only to high-risk individuals — significantly increases motivation to quit smoking.

“Repeated contact with doctors, repeated CT scans, and especially the findings that require monitoring all contribute to this effect,” explained Rupp, who regularly offers smoking cessation courses.

It has long been known how smoking cessation works best. “The gold standard is a combination of behavioral therapy support and drug treatment — if there is an addiction and withdrawal symptoms occur after quitting, which is the case for the majority of smokers,” Rupp explained.

The US study reinforced what is already well known: More intensive treatment approaches lead to higher quit rates.

“We know that the more intensively we look after smokers, the higher the quit rate. This applies in both areas: The more therapy sessions we do and the more often we prescribe medication, the more likely the patients are to succeed in remaining abstinent,” Rupp said.

However, resources for intensive smoking cessation programs are limited. A database maintained by the German Cancer Research Center and the German Federal Center for Health Education lists only 455 providers of smoking cessation courses in Germany, “not all of which even work on an evidence-based basis,” Rupp emphasized. Given that there are around 16 million smokers in Germany, there is an urgent need for smoking cessation programs that are less resource-intensive.

 

Intensity Variations

The US study compared three smoking cessation strategies of varying intensities, integrating behavioral counseling and medication.

Group 1: An integrated program with eight behavioral therapy sessions and 10-12 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy or medication (bupropion or varenicline).

Group 2: Lighter version of the integrated program. It consisted of four telephone consultations, written materials, online support, and 12 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy or medication prescribed by a radiologist.

Group 3: The least intensive approach, with 12 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy alone.

Each strategy was evaluated in 210 lung cancer screening participants aged 55-64 years who smoked an average of 15-20 cigarettes per day.

After 3 months, significantly more participants in the most intensive program (Group 1, 37.1%) had quit smoking than those in the other two groups (Group 2, 27.1%; Group 3, 25.2%).

But after 6 months, the difference between Groups 1 and 2 was not significant. The quit rates were as follows: Group 1, 32.4%; Group 2, 27.6%; and Group 3, 20.5%.

“It can be concluded from these results that the intensity of smoking cessation can be reduced to a certain extent as long as the combination of behavioral counseling and medication is given,” Rupp concluded.

 

Digital Solutions

Another new possibility, which was not examined in the US study, is digital health applications.

Smoke Free is a digital health application that provides behavioral therapy support for smoking cessation and is available in both German and English. Designed to replicate structured smoking cessation programs and offers an accessible alternative for individuals seeking to quit smoking.

Rupp emphasized the potential of digital tools like Smoke Free to expand access to effective smoking cessation strategies, particularly for those unable to attend in-person programs. While traditional cessation programs are limited in availability, digital apps can increase engagement in and adherence to smoking cessation efforts.

However, the biggest hurdle is smokers’ procrastination: “If you make smokers an offer, they usually do not take action afterward because they are caught in their ambivalence about whether they should quit or not.”

 

Policy Implications

This makes smoking cessation a mandatory component of lung cancer screening in the future. “It’s about cancer, and patients are really afraid of that,” Rupp advocated.

In a position paper, the German Respiratory Society, supported by multiple medical societies, has called for smoking cessation to be integrated into lung cancer screening protocols, with full coverage of counseling and medication by health insurance.

“Smoking cessation must be a mandatory component. If a participant in the lung cancer screening does not want this, then he or she must actively object,” stressed Rupp, lead author of the position paper. Also, the costs of smoking cessation, including those of withdrawal-inhibiting medication, must be fully covered by statutory health insurance, which has not been the case to date.

“That’s the only thing that makes sense. You can’t deny an addict access to proven treatments, especially when we know that a smoker who quits spontaneously without support has a relapse rate of 95%-97%, and the medication per se increases the quit rate by a factor of two or three,” Rupp concluded.

This story was translated and adapted from Medscape’s German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Quitting smoking is challenging, particularly when resources are limited. A recent study in the United States confirmed that an intensive program combining behavioral therapy and medication, linked to a lung cancer screening program, offers the highest success rate. However, its long-term success was similar to that of telephone counseling and drug therapy.

Pulmonologist and experienced smoking cessation specialist from Stuttgart, Germany, Alexander Rupp, MD, emphasized the importance of leveraging routine healthcare interactions to encourage smoking cessation. “Although every doctor-patient contact offers the opportunity to discuss the risks of smoking and the opportunities for smoking cessation, the ‘window of opportunity’ is very wide, especially during lung cancer screening,” he said.

Germany is preparing to launch a lung cancer screening program for high-risk individuals, primarily current smokers and former smokers. Following the establishment of radiation protection regulations for such a program last year, the German Federal Joint Committee is currently working on its design. The initiative could be a game-changer for smoking cessation.

Lung cancer screening has been available for smokers in the United States for some time. Paul M. Cinciripini, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, examined three smoking cessation strategies with decreasing treatment intensity among screening participants.

 

Unique Opportunity

Previous studies have shown that participation in a lung cancer screening program — typically offered only to high-risk individuals — significantly increases motivation to quit smoking.

“Repeated contact with doctors, repeated CT scans, and especially the findings that require monitoring all contribute to this effect,” explained Rupp, who regularly offers smoking cessation courses.

It has long been known how smoking cessation works best. “The gold standard is a combination of behavioral therapy support and drug treatment — if there is an addiction and withdrawal symptoms occur after quitting, which is the case for the majority of smokers,” Rupp explained.

The US study reinforced what is already well known: More intensive treatment approaches lead to higher quit rates.

“We know that the more intensively we look after smokers, the higher the quit rate. This applies in both areas: The more therapy sessions we do and the more often we prescribe medication, the more likely the patients are to succeed in remaining abstinent,” Rupp said.

However, resources for intensive smoking cessation programs are limited. A database maintained by the German Cancer Research Center and the German Federal Center for Health Education lists only 455 providers of smoking cessation courses in Germany, “not all of which even work on an evidence-based basis,” Rupp emphasized. Given that there are around 16 million smokers in Germany, there is an urgent need for smoking cessation programs that are less resource-intensive.

 

Intensity Variations

The US study compared three smoking cessation strategies of varying intensities, integrating behavioral counseling and medication.

Group 1: An integrated program with eight behavioral therapy sessions and 10-12 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy or medication (bupropion or varenicline).

Group 2: Lighter version of the integrated program. It consisted of four telephone consultations, written materials, online support, and 12 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy or medication prescribed by a radiologist.

Group 3: The least intensive approach, with 12 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy alone.

Each strategy was evaluated in 210 lung cancer screening participants aged 55-64 years who smoked an average of 15-20 cigarettes per day.

After 3 months, significantly more participants in the most intensive program (Group 1, 37.1%) had quit smoking than those in the other two groups (Group 2, 27.1%; Group 3, 25.2%).

But after 6 months, the difference between Groups 1 and 2 was not significant. The quit rates were as follows: Group 1, 32.4%; Group 2, 27.6%; and Group 3, 20.5%.

“It can be concluded from these results that the intensity of smoking cessation can be reduced to a certain extent as long as the combination of behavioral counseling and medication is given,” Rupp concluded.

 

Digital Solutions

Another new possibility, which was not examined in the US study, is digital health applications.

Smoke Free is a digital health application that provides behavioral therapy support for smoking cessation and is available in both German and English. Designed to replicate structured smoking cessation programs and offers an accessible alternative for individuals seeking to quit smoking.

Rupp emphasized the potential of digital tools like Smoke Free to expand access to effective smoking cessation strategies, particularly for those unable to attend in-person programs. While traditional cessation programs are limited in availability, digital apps can increase engagement in and adherence to smoking cessation efforts.

However, the biggest hurdle is smokers’ procrastination: “If you make smokers an offer, they usually do not take action afterward because they are caught in their ambivalence about whether they should quit or not.”

 

Policy Implications

This makes smoking cessation a mandatory component of lung cancer screening in the future. “It’s about cancer, and patients are really afraid of that,” Rupp advocated.

In a position paper, the German Respiratory Society, supported by multiple medical societies, has called for smoking cessation to be integrated into lung cancer screening protocols, with full coverage of counseling and medication by health insurance.

“Smoking cessation must be a mandatory component. If a participant in the lung cancer screening does not want this, then he or she must actively object,” stressed Rupp, lead author of the position paper. Also, the costs of smoking cessation, including those of withdrawal-inhibiting medication, must be fully covered by statutory health insurance, which has not been the case to date.

“That’s the only thing that makes sense. You can’t deny an addict access to proven treatments, especially when we know that a smoker who quits spontaneously without support has a relapse rate of 95%-97%, and the medication per se increases the quit rate by a factor of two or three,” Rupp concluded.

This story was translated and adapted from Medscape’s German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Quitting smoking is challenging, particularly when resources are limited. A recent study in the United States confirmed that an intensive program combining behavioral therapy and medication, linked to a lung cancer screening program, offers the highest success rate. However, its long-term success was similar to that of telephone counseling and drug therapy.

Pulmonologist and experienced smoking cessation specialist from Stuttgart, Germany, Alexander Rupp, MD, emphasized the importance of leveraging routine healthcare interactions to encourage smoking cessation. “Although every doctor-patient contact offers the opportunity to discuss the risks of smoking and the opportunities for smoking cessation, the ‘window of opportunity’ is very wide, especially during lung cancer screening,” he said.

Germany is preparing to launch a lung cancer screening program for high-risk individuals, primarily current smokers and former smokers. Following the establishment of radiation protection regulations for such a program last year, the German Federal Joint Committee is currently working on its design. The initiative could be a game-changer for smoking cessation.

Lung cancer screening has been available for smokers in the United States for some time. Paul M. Cinciripini, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, examined three smoking cessation strategies with decreasing treatment intensity among screening participants.

 

Unique Opportunity

Previous studies have shown that participation in a lung cancer screening program — typically offered only to high-risk individuals — significantly increases motivation to quit smoking.

“Repeated contact with doctors, repeated CT scans, and especially the findings that require monitoring all contribute to this effect,” explained Rupp, who regularly offers smoking cessation courses.

It has long been known how smoking cessation works best. “The gold standard is a combination of behavioral therapy support and drug treatment — if there is an addiction and withdrawal symptoms occur after quitting, which is the case for the majority of smokers,” Rupp explained.

The US study reinforced what is already well known: More intensive treatment approaches lead to higher quit rates.

“We know that the more intensively we look after smokers, the higher the quit rate. This applies in both areas: The more therapy sessions we do and the more often we prescribe medication, the more likely the patients are to succeed in remaining abstinent,” Rupp said.

However, resources for intensive smoking cessation programs are limited. A database maintained by the German Cancer Research Center and the German Federal Center for Health Education lists only 455 providers of smoking cessation courses in Germany, “not all of which even work on an evidence-based basis,” Rupp emphasized. Given that there are around 16 million smokers in Germany, there is an urgent need for smoking cessation programs that are less resource-intensive.

 

Intensity Variations

The US study compared three smoking cessation strategies of varying intensities, integrating behavioral counseling and medication.

Group 1: An integrated program with eight behavioral therapy sessions and 10-12 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy or medication (bupropion or varenicline).

Group 2: Lighter version of the integrated program. It consisted of four telephone consultations, written materials, online support, and 12 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy or medication prescribed by a radiologist.

Group 3: The least intensive approach, with 12 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy alone.

Each strategy was evaluated in 210 lung cancer screening participants aged 55-64 years who smoked an average of 15-20 cigarettes per day.

After 3 months, significantly more participants in the most intensive program (Group 1, 37.1%) had quit smoking than those in the other two groups (Group 2, 27.1%; Group 3, 25.2%).

But after 6 months, the difference between Groups 1 and 2 was not significant. The quit rates were as follows: Group 1, 32.4%; Group 2, 27.6%; and Group 3, 20.5%.

“It can be concluded from these results that the intensity of smoking cessation can be reduced to a certain extent as long as the combination of behavioral counseling and medication is given,” Rupp concluded.

 

Digital Solutions

Another new possibility, which was not examined in the US study, is digital health applications.

Smoke Free is a digital health application that provides behavioral therapy support for smoking cessation and is available in both German and English. Designed to replicate structured smoking cessation programs and offers an accessible alternative for individuals seeking to quit smoking.

Rupp emphasized the potential of digital tools like Smoke Free to expand access to effective smoking cessation strategies, particularly for those unable to attend in-person programs. While traditional cessation programs are limited in availability, digital apps can increase engagement in and adherence to smoking cessation efforts.

However, the biggest hurdle is smokers’ procrastination: “If you make smokers an offer, they usually do not take action afterward because they are caught in their ambivalence about whether they should quit or not.”

 

Policy Implications

This makes smoking cessation a mandatory component of lung cancer screening in the future. “It’s about cancer, and patients are really afraid of that,” Rupp advocated.

In a position paper, the German Respiratory Society, supported by multiple medical societies, has called for smoking cessation to be integrated into lung cancer screening protocols, with full coverage of counseling and medication by health insurance.

“Smoking cessation must be a mandatory component. If a participant in the lung cancer screening does not want this, then he or she must actively object,” stressed Rupp, lead author of the position paper. Also, the costs of smoking cessation, including those of withdrawal-inhibiting medication, must be fully covered by statutory health insurance, which has not been the case to date.

“That’s the only thing that makes sense. You can’t deny an addict access to proven treatments, especially when we know that a smoker who quits spontaneously without support has a relapse rate of 95%-97%, and the medication per se increases the quit rate by a factor of two or three,” Rupp concluded.

This story was translated and adapted from Medscape’s German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Headache, including migraine, tension-type, trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia (TAC), and posttraumatic stress headache are significantly associated with both attempted and completed suicide, results of a large study suggested.

The risk for attempted and completed suicide was more than threefold higher for individuals with posttraumatic headache and about twofold higher for those with TAC than their counterparts without headache.

Even those with tension-type headache, one of the milder headache types, carried nearly a twofold increased risk for attempted suicide vs the comparison group with no headache.

First author Holly Elser, MD, MPH, PhD, a resident physician in the Department of Neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News that the findings were “quite striking” and underscore the importance of screening for suicide risk even in patients with mild headache.

The findings were published online on February 3 in JAMA Neurology.

Common, Disabling 

With an estimated global lifetime prevalence of 67%, headache disorders are a leading cause of productivity loss, work absences, and short-term disability.

The mechanisms linking headache disorders to suicide remain unclear for several reasons, the investigators noted.

First, the relationship between headache and psychiatric comorbidities may be complex and bidirectional, with psychiatric symptoms potentially exacerbating headache severity and frequency, the investigators noted.

Secondly, research has shown a consistent link between chronic pain and suicidality, even after adjusting for comorbid psychiatric conditions. Finally, disruptions in serotonergic pathways and increased production of inflammatory cytokines may contribute to both headache disorders and psychiatric symptoms, suggesting a shared biological basis.

The mechanisms linking headache disorders to suicide remain unclear for several reasons, the investigators noted.

First, the relationship between headache and psychiatric comorbidities may be complex and bidirectional, with psychiatric symptoms potentially exacerbating headache severity and frequency, the investigators noted.

Secondly, research has shown a consistent link between chronic pain and suicidality, even after adjusting for comorbid psychiatric conditions. Finally, disruptions in serotonergic pathways and increased production of inflammatory cytokines may contribute to both headache disorders and psychiatric symptoms, suggesting a shared biological basis.

“Patients diagnosed with headache with comorbid psychiatric symptoms may benefit in particular from comanagement with behavioral health specialists,” she added.

Not ‘Just Headaches’

In an interview with Medscape Medical News, Fred Cohen, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and neurology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, shared his perspective on the findings. Cohen, who was not involved in the study agreed with Elser’s point and incorporated screening into his practice.

“As part of my routine at every new patient appointment, I conduct screenings for depression and suicide risk. If a patient responds affirmatively to any of these questions, I make sure they get connected to the mental health resources they need,” Cohen said.

At least one of his patients per week screens positive for depression, he noted.

“Primary headaches, including migraine and trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, are a significant source of disability and suffering,” said Cohen, adding that migraine, in particular, is the leading cause of disability worldwide among women aged 18-50 years. “These conditions are often misunderstood and dismissed as ‘just headaches,’ when in reality, they are much more complex and debilitating.”

Given that depression and anxiety are common co-occurring conditions with primary headache disorders, he said, “depression screenings should be standard practice when evaluating patients with headaches.”

The study’s limitations include dependence on diagnosis codes, which are prone to misclassification, and lack of information about headache chronicity and severity, which could have affected the findings.

There was no information provided about study funding. Elser and Cohen reported no relevant financial relationships.

Headache, including migraine, tension-type, trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia (TAC), and posttraumatic stress headache are significantly associated with both attempted and completed suicide, results of a large study suggested.

The risk for attempted and completed suicide was more than threefold higher for individuals with posttraumatic headache and about twofold higher for those with TAC than their counterparts without headache.

Even those with tension-type headache, one of the milder headache types, carried nearly a twofold increased risk for attempted suicide vs the comparison group with no headache.

First author Holly Elser, MD, MPH, PhD, a resident physician in the Department of Neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News that the findings were “quite striking” and underscore the importance of screening for suicide risk even in patients with mild headache.

The findings were published online on February 3 in JAMA Neurology.

Common, Disabling 

With an estimated global lifetime prevalence of 67%, headache disorders are a leading cause of productivity loss, work absences, and short-term disability.

The mechanisms linking headache disorders to suicide remain unclear for several reasons, the investigators noted.

First, the relationship between headache and psychiatric comorbidities may be complex and bidirectional, with psychiatric symptoms potentially exacerbating headache severity and frequency, the investigators noted.

Secondly, research has shown a consistent link between chronic pain and suicidality, even after adjusting for comorbid psychiatric conditions. Finally, disruptions in serotonergic pathways and increased production of inflammatory cytokines may contribute to both headache disorders and psychiatric symptoms, suggesting a shared biological basis.

The mechanisms linking headache disorders to suicide remain unclear for several reasons, the investigators noted.

First, the relationship between headache and psychiatric comorbidities may be complex and bidirectional, with psychiatric symptoms potentially exacerbating headache severity and frequency, the investigators noted.

Secondly, research has shown a consistent link between chronic pain and suicidality, even after adjusting for comorbid psychiatric conditions. Finally, disruptions in serotonergic pathways and increased production of inflammatory cytokines may contribute to both headache disorders and psychiatric symptoms, suggesting a shared biological basis.

“Patients diagnosed with headache with comorbid psychiatric symptoms may benefit in particular from comanagement with behavioral health specialists,” she added.

Not ‘Just Headaches’

In an interview with Medscape Medical News, Fred Cohen, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and neurology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, shared his perspective on the findings. Cohen, who was not involved in the study agreed with Elser’s point and incorporated screening into his practice.

“As part of my routine at every new patient appointment, I conduct screenings for depression and suicide risk. If a patient responds affirmatively to any of these questions, I make sure they get connected to the mental health resources they need,” Cohen said.

At least one of his patients per week screens positive for depression, he noted.

“Primary headaches, including migraine and trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, are a significant source of disability and suffering,” said Cohen, adding that migraine, in particular, is the leading cause of disability worldwide among women aged 18-50 years. “These conditions are often misunderstood and dismissed as ‘just headaches,’ when in reality, they are much more complex and debilitating.”

Given that depression and anxiety are common co-occurring conditions with primary headache disorders, he said, “depression screenings should be standard practice when evaluating patients with headaches.”

The study’s limitations include dependence on diagnosis codes, which are prone to misclassification, and lack of information about headache chronicity and severity, which could have affected the findings.

There was no information provided about study funding. Elser and Cohen reported no relevant financial relationships.

Headache, including migraine, tension-type, trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia (TAC), and posttraumatic stress headache are significantly associated with both attempted and completed suicide, results of a large study suggested.

The risk for attempted and completed suicide was more than threefold higher for individuals with posttraumatic headache and about twofold higher for those with TAC than their counterparts without headache.

Even those with tension-type headache, one of the milder headache types, carried nearly a twofold increased risk for attempted suicide vs the comparison group with no headache.

First author Holly Elser, MD, MPH, PhD, a resident physician in the Department of Neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News that the findings were “quite striking” and underscore the importance of screening for suicide risk even in patients with mild headache.

The findings were published online on February 3 in JAMA Neurology.

Common, Disabling 

With an estimated global lifetime prevalence of 67%, headache disorders are a leading cause of productivity loss, work absences, and short-term disability.

The mechanisms linking headache disorders to suicide remain unclear for several reasons, the investigators noted.

First, the relationship between headache and psychiatric comorbidities may be complex and bidirectional, with psychiatric symptoms potentially exacerbating headache severity and frequency, the investigators noted.

Secondly, research has shown a consistent link between chronic pain and suicidality, even after adjusting for comorbid psychiatric conditions. Finally, disruptions in serotonergic pathways and increased production of inflammatory cytokines may contribute to both headache disorders and psychiatric symptoms, suggesting a shared biological basis.

The mechanisms linking headache disorders to suicide remain unclear for several reasons, the investigators noted.

First, the relationship between headache and psychiatric comorbidities may be complex and bidirectional, with psychiatric symptoms potentially exacerbating headache severity and frequency, the investigators noted.

Secondly, research has shown a consistent link between chronic pain and suicidality, even after adjusting for comorbid psychiatric conditions. Finally, disruptions in serotonergic pathways and increased production of inflammatory cytokines may contribute to both headache disorders and psychiatric symptoms, suggesting a shared biological basis.

“Patients diagnosed with headache with comorbid psychiatric symptoms may benefit in particular from comanagement with behavioral health specialists,” she added.

Not ‘Just Headaches’

In an interview with Medscape Medical News, Fred Cohen, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and neurology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, shared his perspective on the findings. Cohen, who was not involved in the study agreed with Elser’s point and incorporated screening into his practice.

“As part of my routine at every new patient appointment, I conduct screenings for depression and suicide risk. If a patient responds affirmatively to any of these questions, I make sure they get connected to the mental health resources they need,” Cohen said.

At least one of his patients per week screens positive for depression, he noted.

“Primary headaches, including migraine and trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, are a significant source of disability and suffering,” said Cohen, adding that migraine, in particular, is the leading cause of disability worldwide among women aged 18-50 years. “These conditions are often misunderstood and dismissed as ‘just headaches,’ when in reality, they are much more complex and debilitating.”

Given that depression and anxiety are common co-occurring conditions with primary headache disorders, he said, “depression screenings should be standard practice when evaluating patients with headaches.”

The study’s limitations include dependence on diagnosis codes, which are prone to misclassification, and lack of information about headache chronicity and severity, which could have affected the findings.

There was no information provided about study funding. Elser and Cohen reported no relevant financial relationships.