News

HONOLULU – What we eat and what’s in the gut may influence lung health for better or worse, suggest new data from an ongoing study of lung function in New York City firefighters who were at the World Trade Center site on Sept. 11, 2001, and the days immediately following the 9/11 attacks.

Among NYC firefighters enrolled in the randomized FIREHOUSE (Food Intake Restriction for Health Outcome Support and Education) study who took part in a microbiome substudy, those who followed a low-calorie, Mediterranean-style diet had higher levels in stools samples at 6 months of Bacteroides ovatus, a bacterial species associated with protection against bowel inflammation.

In contrast, participants who followed a usual-care diet had elevated 6-month levels of a species associated with high-fat diets and inflammation, reported Rachel Lam, a predoctoral fellow in the Nolan Lab at NYU Langone Medical Center, at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“Overall, we found that in our validation cohort, Bacteroides ovatus was increased in the LoCalMed arm after 6 months, and this bacterial species is associated with fewer negative health effects,” she said.

Ms. Lam noted that in a murine model of high-fat diets, mice gavaged with Bacteroides ovatus had reductions in body mass index and decreased serum LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels.
 

FIREHOUSE cohort

Senior author Anna Nolan, MD, whose lab members study predictors of lung function loss in a cohort of firefighters who were exposed to the particulate matter clouding the air of lower Manhattan on 9/11 and the ensuing days, told this news organization that the findings, while preliminary, support previous research findings on potential links between intestinal microbiota and lung function.

“It’s interesting that we saw this done in other models, like mouse models and such, where certain bacteria were viewed as healthy for the system, and if they were able to bring that bacteria out in larger amounts they saw anti-inflammatory effects, so we’re hoping to mirror that and also do a mouse model,” she said.

Dr. Nolan’s group has previously shown that markers for the metabolic syndrome, inflammation, and vascular injury detected in serum samples taken within 6 months of 9/11 were predictive for later abnormal lung function. In addition, their group has found that elevated serum levels of an LDL metabolite after intense World Trade Center dust exposure is a risk factor for future impaired lung function as measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁).

In the FIREHOUSE trial, 89 patients were randomly assigned either to a technology-supported educational and behavioral intervention targeting calorie restriction for weight loss while following a low-calorie Mediterranean diet, or to usual care. The usual-care arm included participants who were informed about their weight, BMI, and other standard measures at annual visits and were given general advice about healthy eating, but were not assigned to a specific diet.

Participants in the LoCalMed group had significant decreases in BMI and increases in FEV₁, compared with those in the usual-care group. In addition, the LoCalMed group had improved vascular health, better dietary habits, decreases in fats and calories from sweets, and decreases in inflammation as measured by a lower white blood cell count.
 

Microbiome substudy

At CHEST 2023, Ms. Lam reported on microbiome pilot and validation substudies of FIREHOUSE.

The pilot study included five patients in each arm. The validation sample included 15 participants in the Mediterranean diet group and 16 in the usual-care diet group.

Each participant’s microbiome was assessed with genomic sequencing with sequences aligned to a bacterial database.  The number and diversity of bacterial species in each sample were determined with the Chao1 Index and Shannon Index, respectively.

There were no significant differences among the study groups in mean age, exposure at the World Trade Center site, or years of service.

Although bacterial diversity did not differ between the study arms either at baseline or at 6 months, in both groups it significantly decreased over time (P = .02 in the pilot, P < .0001 in the validation arm).

In the pilot study, there was an increase over 6 months in the usual care arm only of Bilophila wadsworthia, a species associated with high-fat diets and inflammation.

In the validation study, patients in the LoCalMed arm had significant reductions in Ruminococcaceae (P = .015) and increases in both Bacteroides ovatus (P = .03) and Alistipes shahii (P = .038), a recently identified species with uncertain protective or pathogenic potential.

In contrast, there were no significant increases in species in the usual-care group, but there were significant declines in several other bacterial species; Ms.Lam, however, did not say whether these changes had clinical significance. “Future studies will assess microbial association with clinical outcomes,” Ms. Lam said.
 

Confounding factors

Samuel Evans, MD, a pulmonologist at Straub Medical Center in Honolulu who moderated the oral abstract session where the data were presented, commented that the data are interesting but added that associations are difficult to determine given the heterogeneity of exposures that firefighters encounter.

“I think it’s interesting that clearly diet is influencing the type of bacteria in the biome in the gut, and perhaps some are favorable, and some are not favorable,” he told this news organization “We already know that the Mediterranean diet is associated with better health outcomes, so it makes sense, but can we tease out in the microbiome which bacteria are harmful and which are helpful.”

He noted that there are a lot of confounding factors and that “it’s hard to find the right signal when you have so many variables.”

The FIREHOUSE study is supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Ms. Lam, Dr. Nolan, and Dr. Evans report no relevant financial relationships.

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

HONOLULU – What we eat and what’s in the gut may influence lung health for better or worse, suggest new data from an ongoing study of lung function in New York City firefighters who were at the World Trade Center site on Sept. 11, 2001, and the days immediately following the 9/11 attacks.

Among NYC firefighters enrolled in the randomized FIREHOUSE (Food Intake Restriction for Health Outcome Support and Education) study who took part in a microbiome substudy, those who followed a low-calorie, Mediterranean-style diet had higher levels in stools samples at 6 months of Bacteroides ovatus, a bacterial species associated with protection against bowel inflammation.

In contrast, participants who followed a usual-care diet had elevated 6-month levels of a species associated with high-fat diets and inflammation, reported Rachel Lam, a predoctoral fellow in the Nolan Lab at NYU Langone Medical Center, at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“Overall, we found that in our validation cohort, Bacteroides ovatus was increased in the LoCalMed arm after 6 months, and this bacterial species is associated with fewer negative health effects,” she said.

Ms. Lam noted that in a murine model of high-fat diets, mice gavaged with Bacteroides ovatus had reductions in body mass index and decreased serum LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels.
 

FIREHOUSE cohort

Senior author Anna Nolan, MD, whose lab members study predictors of lung function loss in a cohort of firefighters who were exposed to the particulate matter clouding the air of lower Manhattan on 9/11 and the ensuing days, told this news organization that the findings, while preliminary, support previous research findings on potential links between intestinal microbiota and lung function.

“It’s interesting that we saw this done in other models, like mouse models and such, where certain bacteria were viewed as healthy for the system, and if they were able to bring that bacteria out in larger amounts they saw anti-inflammatory effects, so we’re hoping to mirror that and also do a mouse model,” she said.

Dr. Nolan’s group has previously shown that markers for the metabolic syndrome, inflammation, and vascular injury detected in serum samples taken within 6 months of 9/11 were predictive for later abnormal lung function. In addition, their group has found that elevated serum levels of an LDL metabolite after intense World Trade Center dust exposure is a risk factor for future impaired lung function as measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁).

In the FIREHOUSE trial, 89 patients were randomly assigned either to a technology-supported educational and behavioral intervention targeting calorie restriction for weight loss while following a low-calorie Mediterranean diet, or to usual care. The usual-care arm included participants who were informed about their weight, BMI, and other standard measures at annual visits and were given general advice about healthy eating, but were not assigned to a specific diet.

Participants in the LoCalMed group had significant decreases in BMI and increases in FEV₁, compared with those in the usual-care group. In addition, the LoCalMed group had improved vascular health, better dietary habits, decreases in fats and calories from sweets, and decreases in inflammation as measured by a lower white blood cell count.
 

Microbiome substudy

At CHEST 2023, Ms. Lam reported on microbiome pilot and validation substudies of FIREHOUSE.

The pilot study included five patients in each arm. The validation sample included 15 participants in the Mediterranean diet group and 16 in the usual-care diet group.

Each participant’s microbiome was assessed with genomic sequencing with sequences aligned to a bacterial database.  The number and diversity of bacterial species in each sample were determined with the Chao1 Index and Shannon Index, respectively.

There were no significant differences among the study groups in mean age, exposure at the World Trade Center site, or years of service.

Although bacterial diversity did not differ between the study arms either at baseline or at 6 months, in both groups it significantly decreased over time (P = .02 in the pilot, P < .0001 in the validation arm).

In the pilot study, there was an increase over 6 months in the usual care arm only of Bilophila wadsworthia, a species associated with high-fat diets and inflammation.

In the validation study, patients in the LoCalMed arm had significant reductions in Ruminococcaceae (P = .015) and increases in both Bacteroides ovatus (P = .03) and Alistipes shahii (P = .038), a recently identified species with uncertain protective or pathogenic potential.

In contrast, there were no significant increases in species in the usual-care group, but there were significant declines in several other bacterial species; Ms.Lam, however, did not say whether these changes had clinical significance. “Future studies will assess microbial association with clinical outcomes,” Ms. Lam said.
 

Confounding factors

Samuel Evans, MD, a pulmonologist at Straub Medical Center in Honolulu who moderated the oral abstract session where the data were presented, commented that the data are interesting but added that associations are difficult to determine given the heterogeneity of exposures that firefighters encounter.

“I think it’s interesting that clearly diet is influencing the type of bacteria in the biome in the gut, and perhaps some are favorable, and some are not favorable,” he told this news organization “We already know that the Mediterranean diet is associated with better health outcomes, so it makes sense, but can we tease out in the microbiome which bacteria are harmful and which are helpful.”

He noted that there are a lot of confounding factors and that “it’s hard to find the right signal when you have so many variables.”

The FIREHOUSE study is supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Ms. Lam, Dr. Nolan, and Dr. Evans report no relevant financial relationships.

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

HONOLULU – What we eat and what’s in the gut may influence lung health for better or worse, suggest new data from an ongoing study of lung function in New York City firefighters who were at the World Trade Center site on Sept. 11, 2001, and the days immediately following the 9/11 attacks.

Among NYC firefighters enrolled in the randomized FIREHOUSE (Food Intake Restriction for Health Outcome Support and Education) study who took part in a microbiome substudy, those who followed a low-calorie, Mediterranean-style diet had higher levels in stools samples at 6 months of Bacteroides ovatus, a bacterial species associated with protection against bowel inflammation.

In contrast, participants who followed a usual-care diet had elevated 6-month levels of a species associated with high-fat diets and inflammation, reported Rachel Lam, a predoctoral fellow in the Nolan Lab at NYU Langone Medical Center, at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“Overall, we found that in our validation cohort, Bacteroides ovatus was increased in the LoCalMed arm after 6 months, and this bacterial species is associated with fewer negative health effects,” she said.

Ms. Lam noted that in a murine model of high-fat diets, mice gavaged with Bacteroides ovatus had reductions in body mass index and decreased serum LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels.
 

FIREHOUSE cohort

Senior author Anna Nolan, MD, whose lab members study predictors of lung function loss in a cohort of firefighters who were exposed to the particulate matter clouding the air of lower Manhattan on 9/11 and the ensuing days, told this news organization that the findings, while preliminary, support previous research findings on potential links between intestinal microbiota and lung function.

“It’s interesting that we saw this done in other models, like mouse models and such, where certain bacteria were viewed as healthy for the system, and if they were able to bring that bacteria out in larger amounts they saw anti-inflammatory effects, so we’re hoping to mirror that and also do a mouse model,” she said.

Dr. Nolan’s group has previously shown that markers for the metabolic syndrome, inflammation, and vascular injury detected in serum samples taken within 6 months of 9/11 were predictive for later abnormal lung function. In addition, their group has found that elevated serum levels of an LDL metabolite after intense World Trade Center dust exposure is a risk factor for future impaired lung function as measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁).

In the FIREHOUSE trial, 89 patients were randomly assigned either to a technology-supported educational and behavioral intervention targeting calorie restriction for weight loss while following a low-calorie Mediterranean diet, or to usual care. The usual-care arm included participants who were informed about their weight, BMI, and other standard measures at annual visits and were given general advice about healthy eating, but were not assigned to a specific diet.

Participants in the LoCalMed group had significant decreases in BMI and increases in FEV₁, compared with those in the usual-care group. In addition, the LoCalMed group had improved vascular health, better dietary habits, decreases in fats and calories from sweets, and decreases in inflammation as measured by a lower white blood cell count.
 

Microbiome substudy

At CHEST 2023, Ms. Lam reported on microbiome pilot and validation substudies of FIREHOUSE.

The pilot study included five patients in each arm. The validation sample included 15 participants in the Mediterranean diet group and 16 in the usual-care diet group.

Each participant’s microbiome was assessed with genomic sequencing with sequences aligned to a bacterial database.  The number and diversity of bacterial species in each sample were determined with the Chao1 Index and Shannon Index, respectively.

There were no significant differences among the study groups in mean age, exposure at the World Trade Center site, or years of service.

Although bacterial diversity did not differ between the study arms either at baseline or at 6 months, in both groups it significantly decreased over time (P = .02 in the pilot, P < .0001 in the validation arm).

In the pilot study, there was an increase over 6 months in the usual care arm only of Bilophila wadsworthia, a species associated with high-fat diets and inflammation.

In the validation study, patients in the LoCalMed arm had significant reductions in Ruminococcaceae (P = .015) and increases in both Bacteroides ovatus (P = .03) and Alistipes shahii (P = .038), a recently identified species with uncertain protective or pathogenic potential.

In contrast, there were no significant increases in species in the usual-care group, but there were significant declines in several other bacterial species; Ms.Lam, however, did not say whether these changes had clinical significance. “Future studies will assess microbial association with clinical outcomes,” Ms. Lam said.
 

Confounding factors

Samuel Evans, MD, a pulmonologist at Straub Medical Center in Honolulu who moderated the oral abstract session where the data were presented, commented that the data are interesting but added that associations are difficult to determine given the heterogeneity of exposures that firefighters encounter.

“I think it’s interesting that clearly diet is influencing the type of bacteria in the biome in the gut, and perhaps some are favorable, and some are not favorable,” he told this news organization “We already know that the Mediterranean diet is associated with better health outcomes, so it makes sense, but can we tease out in the microbiome which bacteria are harmful and which are helpful.”

He noted that there are a lot of confounding factors and that “it’s hard to find the right signal when you have so many variables.”

The FIREHOUSE study is supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Ms. Lam, Dr. Nolan, and Dr. Evans report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The poster child for a burned-out physician is a young woman practicing in primary care, according to a new study of more than 1,300 clinicians.

The study, published in JAMA Network Open. investigated patterns in physician burnout among 1,373 physicians at Massachusetts General Physicians Organization, a hospital-owned group practice. It assessed burnout in 3 years: 2017, 2019, and 2021.

Rates of burnout appear to be worsening; they increased from 44% to 50% between 2017 and 2021. Respondents were queried about their satisfaction with their career and compensation, as well as their well-being, administrative workload, and leadership and diversity.

Female physicians exhibited a higher burnout rate than male physicians (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.12), while among primary care physicians (PCPs), the burnout rate was almost three times higher than among those in internal medicine (OR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.76-4.50). Among physicians with 30 or more years of experience, the burnout rate was lower than among those with 10 years of experience or less (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.13-0.35).

The fact that burnout disproportionately affects female physicians could reflect the additional household and family obligations women are often expected to handle, as well as their desire to form relationships with their patients, according to Timothy Hoff, PhD, a professor of management, healthcare systems, and health policy at Northeastern University, Boston.

“Female physicians tend to practice differently than their male counterparts,” said Dr. Hoff, who studies primary care. “They may focus more on the relational aspects of care, and that could lead to a higher rate of burnout.”

The study used the Maslach Burnout Inventory and three burnout subscales: exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced personal efficacy. The cohort was composed of 50% men, 67% White respondents, and 87% non-Hispanic respondents. A little over two-thirds of physicians had from 11 to 20 years of experience.

About 93% of those surveyed responded; by comparison, response rates were between 27% and 32% in previous analyses of physician burnout, the study authors say. They attribute this high participation rate to the fact that they compensated each participant with $850, more than is usually offered.

Hilton Gomes, MD, a partner at a concierge primary care practice in Miami – who has been practicing medicine for more than 15 years – said the increased rates of burnout among his younger colleagues are partly the result of a recent shift in what is considered the ideal work-life balance.

“Younger generations of doctors enter the profession with a strong desire for a better work-life balance. Unfortunately, medicine does not typically lend itself to achieving this balance,” he said.

Dr. Gomes recalled a time in medical school when he tried to visit his former pediatrician, who couldn’t be found at home.

“His wife informed me that he was tending to an urgent sick visit at the hospital, while his wife had to deal with their own grandson’s fracture being treated at urgent care,” Dr. Gomes said. “This illustrates, in my experience, how older generations of physicians accepted the demands of the profession as part of their commitment, and this often involved putting our own families second.”

Dr. Gomes, like many other PCPs who have converted to concierge medicine, previously worked at a practice where he saw nearly two dozen patients a day for a maximum of 15 minutes each.

“The structure of managed care often results in primary care physicians spending less time with patients and more time on paperwork, which is not the reason why physicians enter the field of medicine,” Dr. Gomes said.

Physicians are not alone in their feelings of physical and mental exhaustion. In the Medscape Physician Assistant Burnout Report 2023, 16% of respondents said the burnout they experienced was so severe that they were thinking of leaving medicine.

In 2022, PCP burnout cost the United States $260 million in excess health care expenditures. Burnout has also increased rates of physician suicide over the past 50 years and has led to a rise in medical errors.

Physicians say that programs that teach them to perform yoga and take deep breaths – which are offered by their employers – are not the solution.

“We sort of know what the realities of physician burnout are now; the imperative is to address it,” Dr. Hoff said. “We need studies that focus on the concepts of sustainability.”

The study was funded by the Massachusetts General Physicians Organization. A coauthor reports receiving a grant from the American Heart Association. No other disclosures were reported.

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

The poster child for a burned-out physician is a young woman practicing in primary care, according to a new study of more than 1,300 clinicians.

The study, published in JAMA Network Open. investigated patterns in physician burnout among 1,373 physicians at Massachusetts General Physicians Organization, a hospital-owned group practice. It assessed burnout in 3 years: 2017, 2019, and 2021.

Rates of burnout appear to be worsening; they increased from 44% to 50% between 2017 and 2021. Respondents were queried about their satisfaction with their career and compensation, as well as their well-being, administrative workload, and leadership and diversity.

Female physicians exhibited a higher burnout rate than male physicians (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.12), while among primary care physicians (PCPs), the burnout rate was almost three times higher than among those in internal medicine (OR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.76-4.50). Among physicians with 30 or more years of experience, the burnout rate was lower than among those with 10 years of experience or less (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.13-0.35).

The fact that burnout disproportionately affects female physicians could reflect the additional household and family obligations women are often expected to handle, as well as their desire to form relationships with their patients, according to Timothy Hoff, PhD, a professor of management, healthcare systems, and health policy at Northeastern University, Boston.

“Female physicians tend to practice differently than their male counterparts,” said Dr. Hoff, who studies primary care. “They may focus more on the relational aspects of care, and that could lead to a higher rate of burnout.”

The study used the Maslach Burnout Inventory and three burnout subscales: exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced personal efficacy. The cohort was composed of 50% men, 67% White respondents, and 87% non-Hispanic respondents. A little over two-thirds of physicians had from 11 to 20 years of experience.

About 93% of those surveyed responded; by comparison, response rates were between 27% and 32% in previous analyses of physician burnout, the study authors say. They attribute this high participation rate to the fact that they compensated each participant with $850, more than is usually offered.

Hilton Gomes, MD, a partner at a concierge primary care practice in Miami – who has been practicing medicine for more than 15 years – said the increased rates of burnout among his younger colleagues are partly the result of a recent shift in what is considered the ideal work-life balance.

“Younger generations of doctors enter the profession with a strong desire for a better work-life balance. Unfortunately, medicine does not typically lend itself to achieving this balance,” he said.

Dr. Gomes recalled a time in medical school when he tried to visit his former pediatrician, who couldn’t be found at home.

“His wife informed me that he was tending to an urgent sick visit at the hospital, while his wife had to deal with their own grandson’s fracture being treated at urgent care,” Dr. Gomes said. “This illustrates, in my experience, how older generations of physicians accepted the demands of the profession as part of their commitment, and this often involved putting our own families second.”

Dr. Gomes, like many other PCPs who have converted to concierge medicine, previously worked at a practice where he saw nearly two dozen patients a day for a maximum of 15 minutes each.

“The structure of managed care often results in primary care physicians spending less time with patients and more time on paperwork, which is not the reason why physicians enter the field of medicine,” Dr. Gomes said.

Physicians are not alone in their feelings of physical and mental exhaustion. In the Medscape Physician Assistant Burnout Report 2023, 16% of respondents said the burnout they experienced was so severe that they were thinking of leaving medicine.

In 2022, PCP burnout cost the United States $260 million in excess health care expenditures. Burnout has also increased rates of physician suicide over the past 50 years and has led to a rise in medical errors.

Physicians say that programs that teach them to perform yoga and take deep breaths – which are offered by their employers – are not the solution.

“We sort of know what the realities of physician burnout are now; the imperative is to address it,” Dr. Hoff said. “We need studies that focus on the concepts of sustainability.”

The study was funded by the Massachusetts General Physicians Organization. A coauthor reports receiving a grant from the American Heart Association. No other disclosures were reported.

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

The poster child for a burned-out physician is a young woman practicing in primary care, according to a new study of more than 1,300 clinicians.

The study, published in JAMA Network Open. investigated patterns in physician burnout among 1,373 physicians at Massachusetts General Physicians Organization, a hospital-owned group practice. It assessed burnout in 3 years: 2017, 2019, and 2021.

Rates of burnout appear to be worsening; they increased from 44% to 50% between 2017 and 2021. Respondents were queried about their satisfaction with their career and compensation, as well as their well-being, administrative workload, and leadership and diversity.

Female physicians exhibited a higher burnout rate than male physicians (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.12), while among primary care physicians (PCPs), the burnout rate was almost three times higher than among those in internal medicine (OR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.76-4.50). Among physicians with 30 or more years of experience, the burnout rate was lower than among those with 10 years of experience or less (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.13-0.35).

The fact that burnout disproportionately affects female physicians could reflect the additional household and family obligations women are often expected to handle, as well as their desire to form relationships with their patients, according to Timothy Hoff, PhD, a professor of management, healthcare systems, and health policy at Northeastern University, Boston.

“Female physicians tend to practice differently than their male counterparts,” said Dr. Hoff, who studies primary care. “They may focus more on the relational aspects of care, and that could lead to a higher rate of burnout.”

The study used the Maslach Burnout Inventory and three burnout subscales: exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced personal efficacy. The cohort was composed of 50% men, 67% White respondents, and 87% non-Hispanic respondents. A little over two-thirds of physicians had from 11 to 20 years of experience.

About 93% of those surveyed responded; by comparison, response rates were between 27% and 32% in previous analyses of physician burnout, the study authors say. They attribute this high participation rate to the fact that they compensated each participant with $850, more than is usually offered.

Hilton Gomes, MD, a partner at a concierge primary care practice in Miami – who has been practicing medicine for more than 15 years – said the increased rates of burnout among his younger colleagues are partly the result of a recent shift in what is considered the ideal work-life balance.

“Younger generations of doctors enter the profession with a strong desire for a better work-life balance. Unfortunately, medicine does not typically lend itself to achieving this balance,” he said.

Dr. Gomes recalled a time in medical school when he tried to visit his former pediatrician, who couldn’t be found at home.

“His wife informed me that he was tending to an urgent sick visit at the hospital, while his wife had to deal with their own grandson’s fracture being treated at urgent care,” Dr. Gomes said. “This illustrates, in my experience, how older generations of physicians accepted the demands of the profession as part of their commitment, and this often involved putting our own families second.”

Dr. Gomes, like many other PCPs who have converted to concierge medicine, previously worked at a practice where he saw nearly two dozen patients a day for a maximum of 15 minutes each.

“The structure of managed care often results in primary care physicians spending less time with patients and more time on paperwork, which is not the reason why physicians enter the field of medicine,” Dr. Gomes said.

Physicians are not alone in their feelings of physical and mental exhaustion. In the Medscape Physician Assistant Burnout Report 2023, 16% of respondents said the burnout they experienced was so severe that they were thinking of leaving medicine.

In 2022, PCP burnout cost the United States $260 million in excess health care expenditures. Burnout has also increased rates of physician suicide over the past 50 years and has led to a rise in medical errors.

Physicians say that programs that teach them to perform yoga and take deep breaths – which are offered by their employers – are not the solution.

“We sort of know what the realities of physician burnout are now; the imperative is to address it,” Dr. Hoff said. “We need studies that focus on the concepts of sustainability.”

The study was funded by the Massachusetts General Physicians Organization. A coauthor reports receiving a grant from the American Heart Association. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Opposition to the current American Board of Internal Medicine’s (ABIM’s) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) process continues to gain momentum, with the latest condemnation coming from the American Society of Hematology (ASH).

ASH president Robert A. Brodsky, MD, sent a letter to ABIM’s President and Chief Executive Officer Richard Baron, MD, highlighting hematologists’ concerns about the MOC process and outlining immediate actions ABIM should take.

“ASH continues to support the importance of lifelong learning for hematologists via a program that is evidence-based, relevant to one’s practice, and transparent; however, these three basic requirements are not met by the current ABIM MOC program,” Dr. Brodsky stated in the Sept. 27 letter to Baron.

Dr. Brodsky highlighted, for instance, the fact that the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment – the alternative to the 10-year exam – “does not reflect real life practice, nor does it target each individual’s scope of practice.” Dr. Brodsky added that, according to members of ASH, the assessment is also “creating high levels of stress and contributing to burnout.”

The letter from Dr. Brodsky urged ABIM to “establish a new MOC program” that does not involve high-stakes assessments, reduces the number of Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment questions physicians receive, and eliminates redundancy between the MOC requirement to have a current license and the requirement to report continued medical education to ABIM.

The ABIM shared a copy of the letter in a Sept. 28 blog post defending the MOC process, highlighting past collaboration with ASH that “has led to meaningful enhancements to the [MOC] program” and committing to “continue to listen to and learn from the physician community going forward.”

The recent backlash against the MOC process stemmed from a petition demanding an end to the MOC. The petition was launched in July by hematologist-oncologist Aaron Goodman, MD, from the University of California, San Diego, who has been a vocal critic of the MOC process.

The criticism largely centered around the high costs and the “complex and time-consuming process that poses significant challenges to practicing physicians,” Dr. Goodman wrote in the petition, which has garnered more than 20,700 signatures.

In August, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) published “SCAI Position on ABIM Revocation of Certification for Not Participating in MOC.” The Electrophysiology Advocacy Foundation and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) issued statements pushing back on the MOC as well.

On Sept. 21, the SCAI, HRS, American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society of America went a step further and announced plans to create a new certification process that is independent of the ABIM MOC system.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is now also surveying members about their MOC experience. A Sept. 26 announcement encouraged recipients to check their inboxes for a link to an anonymous MOC Experience Questionnaire before Oct. 12 and thanked respondents for their “engagement as ASCO works to address this critical issue for the oncology community.”

After ASH sent its letter to ABIM, Dr. Goodman applauded the society’s stance in a post on his X (formerly Twitter) account. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, a hematologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., commented on ABIM’s response to ASH’s letter via X, noting, “If I were @ASH_hematology leadership, I would take ABIM response as disrespectful. A hasty response within a day is not a sign of good faith.”

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

Opposition to the current American Board of Internal Medicine’s (ABIM’s) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) process continues to gain momentum, with the latest condemnation coming from the American Society of Hematology (ASH).

ASH president Robert A. Brodsky, MD, sent a letter to ABIM’s President and Chief Executive Officer Richard Baron, MD, highlighting hematologists’ concerns about the MOC process and outlining immediate actions ABIM should take.

“ASH continues to support the importance of lifelong learning for hematologists via a program that is evidence-based, relevant to one’s practice, and transparent; however, these three basic requirements are not met by the current ABIM MOC program,” Dr. Brodsky stated in the Sept. 27 letter to Baron.

Dr. Brodsky highlighted, for instance, the fact that the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment – the alternative to the 10-year exam – “does not reflect real life practice, nor does it target each individual’s scope of practice.” Dr. Brodsky added that, according to members of ASH, the assessment is also “creating high levels of stress and contributing to burnout.”

The letter from Dr. Brodsky urged ABIM to “establish a new MOC program” that does not involve high-stakes assessments, reduces the number of Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment questions physicians receive, and eliminates redundancy between the MOC requirement to have a current license and the requirement to report continued medical education to ABIM.

The ABIM shared a copy of the letter in a Sept. 28 blog post defending the MOC process, highlighting past collaboration with ASH that “has led to meaningful enhancements to the [MOC] program” and committing to “continue to listen to and learn from the physician community going forward.”

The recent backlash against the MOC process stemmed from a petition demanding an end to the MOC. The petition was launched in July by hematologist-oncologist Aaron Goodman, MD, from the University of California, San Diego, who has been a vocal critic of the MOC process.

The criticism largely centered around the high costs and the “complex and time-consuming process that poses significant challenges to practicing physicians,” Dr. Goodman wrote in the petition, which has garnered more than 20,700 signatures.

In August, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) published “SCAI Position on ABIM Revocation of Certification for Not Participating in MOC.” The Electrophysiology Advocacy Foundation and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) issued statements pushing back on the MOC as well.

On Sept. 21, the SCAI, HRS, American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society of America went a step further and announced plans to create a new certification process that is independent of the ABIM MOC system.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is now also surveying members about their MOC experience. A Sept. 26 announcement encouraged recipients to check their inboxes for a link to an anonymous MOC Experience Questionnaire before Oct. 12 and thanked respondents for their “engagement as ASCO works to address this critical issue for the oncology community.”

After ASH sent its letter to ABIM, Dr. Goodman applauded the society’s stance in a post on his X (formerly Twitter) account. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, a hematologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., commented on ABIM’s response to ASH’s letter via X, noting, “If I were @ASH_hematology leadership, I would take ABIM response as disrespectful. A hasty response within a day is not a sign of good faith.”

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

Opposition to the current American Board of Internal Medicine’s (ABIM’s) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) process continues to gain momentum, with the latest condemnation coming from the American Society of Hematology (ASH).

ASH president Robert A. Brodsky, MD, sent a letter to ABIM’s President and Chief Executive Officer Richard Baron, MD, highlighting hematologists’ concerns about the MOC process and outlining immediate actions ABIM should take.

“ASH continues to support the importance of lifelong learning for hematologists via a program that is evidence-based, relevant to one’s practice, and transparent; however, these three basic requirements are not met by the current ABIM MOC program,” Dr. Brodsky stated in the Sept. 27 letter to Baron.

Dr. Brodsky highlighted, for instance, the fact that the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment – the alternative to the 10-year exam – “does not reflect real life practice, nor does it target each individual’s scope of practice.” Dr. Brodsky added that, according to members of ASH, the assessment is also “creating high levels of stress and contributing to burnout.”

The letter from Dr. Brodsky urged ABIM to “establish a new MOC program” that does not involve high-stakes assessments, reduces the number of Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment questions physicians receive, and eliminates redundancy between the MOC requirement to have a current license and the requirement to report continued medical education to ABIM.

The ABIM shared a copy of the letter in a Sept. 28 blog post defending the MOC process, highlighting past collaboration with ASH that “has led to meaningful enhancements to the [MOC] program” and committing to “continue to listen to and learn from the physician community going forward.”

The recent backlash against the MOC process stemmed from a petition demanding an end to the MOC. The petition was launched in July by hematologist-oncologist Aaron Goodman, MD, from the University of California, San Diego, who has been a vocal critic of the MOC process.

The criticism largely centered around the high costs and the “complex and time-consuming process that poses significant challenges to practicing physicians,” Dr. Goodman wrote in the petition, which has garnered more than 20,700 signatures.

In August, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) published “SCAI Position on ABIM Revocation of Certification for Not Participating in MOC.” The Electrophysiology Advocacy Foundation and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) issued statements pushing back on the MOC as well.

On Sept. 21, the SCAI, HRS, American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society of America went a step further and announced plans to create a new certification process that is independent of the ABIM MOC system.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is now also surveying members about their MOC experience. A Sept. 26 announcement encouraged recipients to check their inboxes for a link to an anonymous MOC Experience Questionnaire before Oct. 12 and thanked respondents for their “engagement as ASCO works to address this critical issue for the oncology community.”

After ASH sent its letter to ABIM, Dr. Goodman applauded the society’s stance in a post on his X (formerly Twitter) account. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, a hematologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., commented on ABIM’s response to ASH’s letter via X, noting, “If I were @ASH_hematology leadership, I would take ABIM response as disrespectful. A hasty response within a day is not a sign of good faith.”

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

WASHINGTON – Transgender female veterans are more likely to have thyroid cancer at rates comparable with cisgender women rather than cisgender men. Experts urge a cautious interpretation of these recent study results.

“In our clinic of about 50 transgender women, we noticed that we had two diagnosed cases of thyroid cancer in a year,” first author John Christensen, MD, of UC Davis Health, division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, Sacramento, said in an interivew. He presented their findings at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association.

Comparatively, the thyroid cancer prevalence among cisgender male veterans is estimated at about 0.19%; the rate among all those assigned male at birth in the general population is 0.13%, whereas the rate among those assigned female at birth, which has historically been higher for all thyroid cancer subtypes, is 0.44%, according to U.S. cancer statistics for 2020 from the National Cancer Institute.

“About one-third of our [veteran] patients had been receiving estrogen for an average of over 3 years before diagnosis, which could suggest estrogen gender‐affirming hormone therapy [GAHT] may be a potentially important risk factor,” Dr. Christensen said.

Sustained use of external estrogen, especially in cisgender women undergoing fertility treatments, has been linked to an increased risk for thyroid cancer. This is because it can lead to an increase in estrogen receptors in cancerous cells. But experts caution that many other factors also come into play.

“There is definitely an implication that if you give extra estrogen to someone assigned female at birth, you may have an increased risk of thyroid cancer,” Dr. Christensen said. “So, it would stand to reason that even in those who are not assigned female at birth, there may be a risk from exogenous estrogen that may lead to an increased risk of thyroid cancer down the line.”

To investigate the issue in a larger population, Dr. Christensen and colleagues evaluated data from the comprehensive, nationwide Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure database, including approximately 9 million veterans who had outpatient visits between December 2017 and January 2022.

Of the veterans, 9,988 were determined to likely be transgender women, based on either having an ICD-10 diagnosis code for gender dysphoria or being assigned male at birth and having received an estrogen or estradiol prescription.

Of those patients, 76 had an ICD-10 code indicating thyroid cancer and 34 had verification of the thyroid cancer on chart review, representing a prevalence of 0.34% among transgender female veterans.

The average age at thyroid cancer diagnosis among the veterans was 53.8 years, and 29.4% (10 of 34) of those patients had extrathyroidal disease at the time of their thyroid cancer diagnosis. The median body mass index, available for 26 patients, was 32, which is indicative of obesity.

In terms of the patients’ thyroid cancer subtypes, 22 were papillary cancer, 5 were a follicular variant of papillary cancer, 5 were both papillary and follicular cancer, 4 were follicular cancer, 3 were a Hürthle cell variant of follicular cancer, and one was unknown.

Among 11 (32.3%) of the 34 veterans receiving estrogen GAHT at diagnosis, treatment began an average of 3.38 years prior to diagnosis at variable doses and using various routes of administration.

About half of the patients had a history of smoking; however, Dr. Christensen noted that the role of smoking as being a risk factor in estrogenic cancers has been debated. Though most patients were obese, obesity is both very common and not well established in terms of its quantitative impact on the risk for cancer development.

With the small size of the thyroid cancer cohort and omissions in the medical record among the study’s important limitations, Dr. Christensen urged a cautious interpretation of the findings.

“We are certainly suspicious that GAHT may be associated with an increased risk of thyroid cancer, but I would characterize the trends in our data as being potentially suggestive or hypothesis generating – not conclusive,” he added. “I would hate for any transgender women reading this to stop taking GAHT without talking to their doctors first.”

Commenting on the issue, Maurice Garcia, MD, a clinical associate professor of urology and director of the transgender surgery and health program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said that any definitive evidence of an increase in cancer risk among transgender people is lacking.

“With an estimated 1.5 [million] to 1.6 million people in the U.S. who are transgender, with many of them receiving GAHT, we haven’t observed a bump or high incidence of any kind of cancer among these people so far,” he said.

“There’s certainly a high potential that hormone therapy, whether it’s feminizing or masculinizing hormone therapy, can affect an individual’s cancer risk,” he added. “But we don’t know of any [definitive evidence] yet of an increase, and, there’s also even the question of whether there could be an opposite effect.”

Regarding the thyroid cancer data, Dr. Garcia agreed that the preliminary nature of the study is a key limitation. “It’s hard to tell if these were comparable groups, or whether those in the transgender group came in with higher risk factors for thyroid cancer.

“Until more statistical analysis is done, I think all that can be said is that it’s speculative.”

Dr. Garcia, who coauthored a review on cancer screening for transgender individuals, underscored that, despite a lack of data suggesting that transgender patients need cancer screening any more than their matched cisgender counterparts, “the point is that we cannot forget to screen them at all.”

Dr. Christensen and Dr. Garcia had no disclosures to report.

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

WASHINGTON – Transgender female veterans are more likely to have thyroid cancer at rates comparable with cisgender women rather than cisgender men. Experts urge a cautious interpretation of these recent study results.

“In our clinic of about 50 transgender women, we noticed that we had two diagnosed cases of thyroid cancer in a year,” first author John Christensen, MD, of UC Davis Health, division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, Sacramento, said in an interivew. He presented their findings at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association.

Comparatively, the thyroid cancer prevalence among cisgender male veterans is estimated at about 0.19%; the rate among all those assigned male at birth in the general population is 0.13%, whereas the rate among those assigned female at birth, which has historically been higher for all thyroid cancer subtypes, is 0.44%, according to U.S. cancer statistics for 2020 from the National Cancer Institute.

“About one-third of our [veteran] patients had been receiving estrogen for an average of over 3 years before diagnosis, which could suggest estrogen gender‐affirming hormone therapy [GAHT] may be a potentially important risk factor,” Dr. Christensen said.

Sustained use of external estrogen, especially in cisgender women undergoing fertility treatments, has been linked to an increased risk for thyroid cancer. This is because it can lead to an increase in estrogen receptors in cancerous cells. But experts caution that many other factors also come into play.

“There is definitely an implication that if you give extra estrogen to someone assigned female at birth, you may have an increased risk of thyroid cancer,” Dr. Christensen said. “So, it would stand to reason that even in those who are not assigned female at birth, there may be a risk from exogenous estrogen that may lead to an increased risk of thyroid cancer down the line.”

To investigate the issue in a larger population, Dr. Christensen and colleagues evaluated data from the comprehensive, nationwide Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure database, including approximately 9 million veterans who had outpatient visits between December 2017 and January 2022.

Of the veterans, 9,988 were determined to likely be transgender women, based on either having an ICD-10 diagnosis code for gender dysphoria or being assigned male at birth and having received an estrogen or estradiol prescription.

Of those patients, 76 had an ICD-10 code indicating thyroid cancer and 34 had verification of the thyroid cancer on chart review, representing a prevalence of 0.34% among transgender female veterans.

The average age at thyroid cancer diagnosis among the veterans was 53.8 years, and 29.4% (10 of 34) of those patients had extrathyroidal disease at the time of their thyroid cancer diagnosis. The median body mass index, available for 26 patients, was 32, which is indicative of obesity.

In terms of the patients’ thyroid cancer subtypes, 22 were papillary cancer, 5 were a follicular variant of papillary cancer, 5 were both papillary and follicular cancer, 4 were follicular cancer, 3 were a Hürthle cell variant of follicular cancer, and one was unknown.

Among 11 (32.3%) of the 34 veterans receiving estrogen GAHT at diagnosis, treatment began an average of 3.38 years prior to diagnosis at variable doses and using various routes of administration.

About half of the patients had a history of smoking; however, Dr. Christensen noted that the role of smoking as being a risk factor in estrogenic cancers has been debated. Though most patients were obese, obesity is both very common and not well established in terms of its quantitative impact on the risk for cancer development.

With the small size of the thyroid cancer cohort and omissions in the medical record among the study’s important limitations, Dr. Christensen urged a cautious interpretation of the findings.

“We are certainly suspicious that GAHT may be associated with an increased risk of thyroid cancer, but I would characterize the trends in our data as being potentially suggestive or hypothesis generating – not conclusive,” he added. “I would hate for any transgender women reading this to stop taking GAHT without talking to their doctors first.”

Commenting on the issue, Maurice Garcia, MD, a clinical associate professor of urology and director of the transgender surgery and health program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said that any definitive evidence of an increase in cancer risk among transgender people is lacking.

“With an estimated 1.5 [million] to 1.6 million people in the U.S. who are transgender, with many of them receiving GAHT, we haven’t observed a bump or high incidence of any kind of cancer among these people so far,” he said.

“There’s certainly a high potential that hormone therapy, whether it’s feminizing or masculinizing hormone therapy, can affect an individual’s cancer risk,” he added. “But we don’t know of any [definitive evidence] yet of an increase, and, there’s also even the question of whether there could be an opposite effect.”

Regarding the thyroid cancer data, Dr. Garcia agreed that the preliminary nature of the study is a key limitation. “It’s hard to tell if these were comparable groups, or whether those in the transgender group came in with higher risk factors for thyroid cancer.

“Until more statistical analysis is done, I think all that can be said is that it’s speculative.”

Dr. Garcia, who coauthored a review on cancer screening for transgender individuals, underscored that, despite a lack of data suggesting that transgender patients need cancer screening any more than their matched cisgender counterparts, “the point is that we cannot forget to screen them at all.”

Dr. Christensen and Dr. Garcia had no disclosures to report.

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

WASHINGTON – Transgender female veterans are more likely to have thyroid cancer at rates comparable with cisgender women rather than cisgender men. Experts urge a cautious interpretation of these recent study results.

“In our clinic of about 50 transgender women, we noticed that we had two diagnosed cases of thyroid cancer in a year,” first author John Christensen, MD, of UC Davis Health, division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, Sacramento, said in an interivew. He presented their findings at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association.

Comparatively, the thyroid cancer prevalence among cisgender male veterans is estimated at about 0.19%; the rate among all those assigned male at birth in the general population is 0.13%, whereas the rate among those assigned female at birth, which has historically been higher for all thyroid cancer subtypes, is 0.44%, according to U.S. cancer statistics for 2020 from the National Cancer Institute.

“About one-third of our [veteran] patients had been receiving estrogen for an average of over 3 years before diagnosis, which could suggest estrogen gender‐affirming hormone therapy [GAHT] may be a potentially important risk factor,” Dr. Christensen said.

Sustained use of external estrogen, especially in cisgender women undergoing fertility treatments, has been linked to an increased risk for thyroid cancer. This is because it can lead to an increase in estrogen receptors in cancerous cells. But experts caution that many other factors also come into play.

“There is definitely an implication that if you give extra estrogen to someone assigned female at birth, you may have an increased risk of thyroid cancer,” Dr. Christensen said. “So, it would stand to reason that even in those who are not assigned female at birth, there may be a risk from exogenous estrogen that may lead to an increased risk of thyroid cancer down the line.”

To investigate the issue in a larger population, Dr. Christensen and colleagues evaluated data from the comprehensive, nationwide Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure database, including approximately 9 million veterans who had outpatient visits between December 2017 and January 2022.

Of the veterans, 9,988 were determined to likely be transgender women, based on either having an ICD-10 diagnosis code for gender dysphoria or being assigned male at birth and having received an estrogen or estradiol prescription.

Of those patients, 76 had an ICD-10 code indicating thyroid cancer and 34 had verification of the thyroid cancer on chart review, representing a prevalence of 0.34% among transgender female veterans.

The average age at thyroid cancer diagnosis among the veterans was 53.8 years, and 29.4% (10 of 34) of those patients had extrathyroidal disease at the time of their thyroid cancer diagnosis. The median body mass index, available for 26 patients, was 32, which is indicative of obesity.

In terms of the patients’ thyroid cancer subtypes, 22 were papillary cancer, 5 were a follicular variant of papillary cancer, 5 were both papillary and follicular cancer, 4 were follicular cancer, 3 were a Hürthle cell variant of follicular cancer, and one was unknown.

Among 11 (32.3%) of the 34 veterans receiving estrogen GAHT at diagnosis, treatment began an average of 3.38 years prior to diagnosis at variable doses and using various routes of administration.

About half of the patients had a history of smoking; however, Dr. Christensen noted that the role of smoking as being a risk factor in estrogenic cancers has been debated. Though most patients were obese, obesity is both very common and not well established in terms of its quantitative impact on the risk for cancer development.

With the small size of the thyroid cancer cohort and omissions in the medical record among the study’s important limitations, Dr. Christensen urged a cautious interpretation of the findings.

“We are certainly suspicious that GAHT may be associated with an increased risk of thyroid cancer, but I would characterize the trends in our data as being potentially suggestive or hypothesis generating – not conclusive,” he added. “I would hate for any transgender women reading this to stop taking GAHT without talking to their doctors first.”

Commenting on the issue, Maurice Garcia, MD, a clinical associate professor of urology and director of the transgender surgery and health program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said that any definitive evidence of an increase in cancer risk among transgender people is lacking.

“With an estimated 1.5 [million] to 1.6 million people in the U.S. who are transgender, with many of them receiving GAHT, we haven’t observed a bump or high incidence of any kind of cancer among these people so far,” he said.

“There’s certainly a high potential that hormone therapy, whether it’s feminizing or masculinizing hormone therapy, can affect an individual’s cancer risk,” he added. “But we don’t know of any [definitive evidence] yet of an increase, and, there’s also even the question of whether there could be an opposite effect.”

Regarding the thyroid cancer data, Dr. Garcia agreed that the preliminary nature of the study is a key limitation. “It’s hard to tell if these were comparable groups, or whether those in the transgender group came in with higher risk factors for thyroid cancer.

“Until more statistical analysis is done, I think all that can be said is that it’s speculative.”

Dr. Garcia, who coauthored a review on cancer screening for transgender individuals, underscored that, despite a lack of data suggesting that transgender patients need cancer screening any more than their matched cisgender counterparts, “the point is that we cannot forget to screen them at all.”

Dr. Christensen and Dr. Garcia had no disclosures to report.

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

“The doctor won’t see you now.”

The editor of the alumni magazine had succeeded in getting my attention. The shock value of the headline hooked me and I was drawn in to chase down the research. A study by a team of researchers at Harvard Medical School has published a study in the British Medical Journal revealing that “from 2013 to 2019 the share of U.S. health care visits delivered by nonphysicians such as nurse practitioners or physician assistants increased from 14% to 26%.” In other words, at more than a quarter of the health care visits in this country the patient is not seen by a physician. The percent seen by advanced-practice providers varied by complaint and specialty. For example, 47% of patients with a respiratory complaint saw a nurse practitioner or physicians assistant, while for an eye condition only 13% were seen by an advanced-practice provider. However, overall the increase was dramatic.

It doesn’t require much deep thinking to come up with some explanations for this shift in provider involvement. It boils down to supply and demand. Compared with other similar nations, we have fewer physicians. Physicians are leaving the profession for a variety of reasons, including disappointment with their work-life balance and a sense that too much of their day is devoted to meaningless work with user unfriendly computer systems.

The number of nurse practitioners and physician assistants is growing faster than that of physicians. In fact it has been predicted that over the next 2 decades advanced-practice providers will increase by more than 50% while the physician pool will grow by less than 5%.

We can mull over the how-we-got-here ad infinitum, but this recent study suggests that we had better hustle and invest some time rethinking the role of a physician and how we should adapt our education system to better prepare for those choosing the path through medical school. This mirror gazing is particularly critical for those of us doing primary care.

While in years past I often heard a discontented grumble from patients that “I was ‘only’ seen by the nurse practitioner,” this complaint has become much less frequent as patients have gained more experience with advanced-practice providers and have begun to accept the new reality and see the change as inevitable.

When someone tells me that their daughter or nephew or second cousin is planning on becoming a doctor, I pause and listen patiently as they go on proudly about it before asking if the young person has considered becoming a physician assistant. I say, “Ya know, if I were 60 years younger I think I would bypass medical school and become a nurse practitioner because they get to do all the cool things that I enjoyed about seeing patients. Sure, my mother wouldn’t have been able to introduce me as her son the doctor. But, my parents and I would have spent less time and money on my training, and I would have had less administrative hassle heaped on me once I went into practice.”

The essence of good primary care is Availability, Continuity, and Expertise. The first two attributes aren’t taught in medical school and rely on commitment and having enough bodies to deliver the care. When it comes to expertise, how important is the broad and deep education of traditional medical school when the provider is seeing the relatively narrow spectrum of bread-and-butter everyday complaints that fill the day for most primary care providers? Particularly, when the population has already been preselected by age, geography, and socioeconomic factors.

The usual argument against my assertion is that a higher-priced and more arduous education pathway better provides the physician with the tools to deal with the outliers, the diagnostic enigmas. My reply is that any good provider regardless of his or her years spent in training is taught to first admit what they don’t know. When faced with an enigma, call a consultant or, in the near future, access a Chatbot.

If the natural market and economic forces continue to drive the growth of advanced-practice providers, what role(s) remains for the medical school–trained primary care provider? Does she or he remain the leader of a team of providers? Does she or he still see patients and somehow remain the first among equals?

While patients seem to be warming to the notion of seeing a nonphysician provider, I often still hear the complaint but “I see a different provider every time I go to the office.” Continuity is one of those three keystones of quality primary care. It is not incompatible with a team concept of care delivery, but it does require a commitment to the concept and creative scheduling that allows the patient to see the same provider at almost every visit. I’m not sure where having a first-among-equals provider fits into that scheme. Is it just one more “different” provider?

Maybe the medical school–trained provider becomes a consultant physician, much as the British and Canadian systems seem to work. She or he would see patients only after the advanced primary care provider has done an evaluation and is unsure of the next step. Would this be at the same site or electronically? Is there a time lag? In my old-school interpretation, if the visit is not the same day or maybe the next day then it doesn’t satisfy my Availability requirement of primary care.

I’m beginning to believe that the best role for the medical school–trained primary care specialist is someone who has a broad and deep understanding of the organizational issues around primary care. Primarily an educator who generally doesn’t see patients but instead trains advanced primary care providers, organizes them into teams that function to provide care in a timely fashion that emphasizes Continuity, and then performs ongoing, real time assessments to assure that care provided is at the highest level of Expertise.

It sounds like an interesting and challenging job description requiring a deep and broad education. Just not one that appeals to me. I would rather be a nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant who is on the front line and hands on.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com

“The doctor won’t see you now.”

The editor of the alumni magazine had succeeded in getting my attention. The shock value of the headline hooked me and I was drawn in to chase down the research. A study by a team of researchers at Harvard Medical School has published a study in the British Medical Journal revealing that “from 2013 to 2019 the share of U.S. health care visits delivered by nonphysicians such as nurse practitioners or physician assistants increased from 14% to 26%.” In other words, at more than a quarter of the health care visits in this country the patient is not seen by a physician. The percent seen by advanced-practice providers varied by complaint and specialty. For example, 47% of patients with a respiratory complaint saw a nurse practitioner or physicians assistant, while for an eye condition only 13% were seen by an advanced-practice provider. However, overall the increase was dramatic.

It doesn’t require much deep thinking to come up with some explanations for this shift in provider involvement. It boils down to supply and demand. Compared with other similar nations, we have fewer physicians. Physicians are leaving the profession for a variety of reasons, including disappointment with their work-life balance and a sense that too much of their day is devoted to meaningless work with user unfriendly computer systems.

The number of nurse practitioners and physician assistants is growing faster than that of physicians. In fact it has been predicted that over the next 2 decades advanced-practice providers will increase by more than 50% while the physician pool will grow by less than 5%.

We can mull over the how-we-got-here ad infinitum, but this recent study suggests that we had better hustle and invest some time rethinking the role of a physician and how we should adapt our education system to better prepare for those choosing the path through medical school. This mirror gazing is particularly critical for those of us doing primary care.

While in years past I often heard a discontented grumble from patients that “I was ‘only’ seen by the nurse practitioner,” this complaint has become much less frequent as patients have gained more experience with advanced-practice providers and have begun to accept the new reality and see the change as inevitable.

When someone tells me that their daughter or nephew or second cousin is planning on becoming a doctor, I pause and listen patiently as they go on proudly about it before asking if the young person has considered becoming a physician assistant. I say, “Ya know, if I were 60 years younger I think I would bypass medical school and become a nurse practitioner because they get to do all the cool things that I enjoyed about seeing patients. Sure, my mother wouldn’t have been able to introduce me as her son the doctor. But, my parents and I would have spent less time and money on my training, and I would have had less administrative hassle heaped on me once I went into practice.”

The essence of good primary care is Availability, Continuity, and Expertise. The first two attributes aren’t taught in medical school and rely on commitment and having enough bodies to deliver the care. When it comes to expertise, how important is the broad and deep education of traditional medical school when the provider is seeing the relatively narrow spectrum of bread-and-butter everyday complaints that fill the day for most primary care providers? Particularly, when the population has already been preselected by age, geography, and socioeconomic factors.

The usual argument against my assertion is that a higher-priced and more arduous education pathway better provides the physician with the tools to deal with the outliers, the diagnostic enigmas. My reply is that any good provider regardless of his or her years spent in training is taught to first admit what they don’t know. When faced with an enigma, call a consultant or, in the near future, access a Chatbot.

If the natural market and economic forces continue to drive the growth of advanced-practice providers, what role(s) remains for the medical school–trained primary care provider? Does she or he remain the leader of a team of providers? Does she or he still see patients and somehow remain the first among equals?

While patients seem to be warming to the notion of seeing a nonphysician provider, I often still hear the complaint but “I see a different provider every time I go to the office.” Continuity is one of those three keystones of quality primary care. It is not incompatible with a team concept of care delivery, but it does require a commitment to the concept and creative scheduling that allows the patient to see the same provider at almost every visit. I’m not sure where having a first-among-equals provider fits into that scheme. Is it just one more “different” provider?

Maybe the medical school–trained provider becomes a consultant physician, much as the British and Canadian systems seem to work. She or he would see patients only after the advanced primary care provider has done an evaluation and is unsure of the next step. Would this be at the same site or electronically? Is there a time lag? In my old-school interpretation, if the visit is not the same day or maybe the next day then it doesn’t satisfy my Availability requirement of primary care.

I’m beginning to believe that the best role for the medical school–trained primary care specialist is someone who has a broad and deep understanding of the organizational issues around primary care. Primarily an educator who generally doesn’t see patients but instead trains advanced primary care providers, organizes them into teams that function to provide care in a timely fashion that emphasizes Continuity, and then performs ongoing, real time assessments to assure that care provided is at the highest level of Expertise.

It sounds like an interesting and challenging job description requiring a deep and broad education. Just not one that appeals to me. I would rather be a nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant who is on the front line and hands on.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com

“The doctor won’t see you now.”

The editor of the alumni magazine had succeeded in getting my attention. The shock value of the headline hooked me and I was drawn in to chase down the research. A study by a team of researchers at Harvard Medical School has published a study in the British Medical Journal revealing that “from 2013 to 2019 the share of U.S. health care visits delivered by nonphysicians such as nurse practitioners or physician assistants increased from 14% to 26%.” In other words, at more than a quarter of the health care visits in this country the patient is not seen by a physician. The percent seen by advanced-practice providers varied by complaint and specialty. For example, 47% of patients with a respiratory complaint saw a nurse practitioner or physicians assistant, while for an eye condition only 13% were seen by an advanced-practice provider. However, overall the increase was dramatic.

It doesn’t require much deep thinking to come up with some explanations for this shift in provider involvement. It boils down to supply and demand. Compared with other similar nations, we have fewer physicians. Physicians are leaving the profession for a variety of reasons, including disappointment with their work-life balance and a sense that too much of their day is devoted to meaningless work with user unfriendly computer systems.

The number of nurse practitioners and physician assistants is growing faster than that of physicians. In fact it has been predicted that over the next 2 decades advanced-practice providers will increase by more than 50% while the physician pool will grow by less than 5%.

We can mull over the how-we-got-here ad infinitum, but this recent study suggests that we had better hustle and invest some time rethinking the role of a physician and how we should adapt our education system to better prepare for those choosing the path through medical school. This mirror gazing is particularly critical for those of us doing primary care.

While in years past I often heard a discontented grumble from patients that “I was ‘only’ seen by the nurse practitioner,” this complaint has become much less frequent as patients have gained more experience with advanced-practice providers and have begun to accept the new reality and see the change as inevitable.

When someone tells me that their daughter or nephew or second cousin is planning on becoming a doctor, I pause and listen patiently as they go on proudly about it before asking if the young person has considered becoming a physician assistant. I say, “Ya know, if I were 60 years younger I think I would bypass medical school and become a nurse practitioner because they get to do all the cool things that I enjoyed about seeing patients. Sure, my mother wouldn’t have been able to introduce me as her son the doctor. But, my parents and I would have spent less time and money on my training, and I would have had less administrative hassle heaped on me once I went into practice.”

The essence of good primary care is Availability, Continuity, and Expertise. The first two attributes aren’t taught in medical school and rely on commitment and having enough bodies to deliver the care. When it comes to expertise, how important is the broad and deep education of traditional medical school when the provider is seeing the relatively narrow spectrum of bread-and-butter everyday complaints that fill the day for most primary care providers? Particularly, when the population has already been preselected by age, geography, and socioeconomic factors.

The usual argument against my assertion is that a higher-priced and more arduous education pathway better provides the physician with the tools to deal with the outliers, the diagnostic enigmas. My reply is that any good provider regardless of his or her years spent in training is taught to first admit what they don’t know. When faced with an enigma, call a consultant or, in the near future, access a Chatbot.

If the natural market and economic forces continue to drive the growth of advanced-practice providers, what role(s) remains for the medical school–trained primary care provider? Does she or he remain the leader of a team of providers? Does she or he still see patients and somehow remain the first among equals?

While patients seem to be warming to the notion of seeing a nonphysician provider, I often still hear the complaint but “I see a different provider every time I go to the office.” Continuity is one of those three keystones of quality primary care. It is not incompatible with a team concept of care delivery, but it does require a commitment to the concept and creative scheduling that allows the patient to see the same provider at almost every visit. I’m not sure where having a first-among-equals provider fits into that scheme. Is it just one more “different” provider?

Maybe the medical school–trained provider becomes a consultant physician, much as the British and Canadian systems seem to work. She or he would see patients only after the advanced primary care provider has done an evaluation and is unsure of the next step. Would this be at the same site or electronically? Is there a time lag? In my old-school interpretation, if the visit is not the same day or maybe the next day then it doesn’t satisfy my Availability requirement of primary care.

I’m beginning to believe that the best role for the medical school–trained primary care specialist is someone who has a broad and deep understanding of the organizational issues around primary care. Primarily an educator who generally doesn’t see patients but instead trains advanced primary care providers, organizes them into teams that function to provide care in a timely fashion that emphasizes Continuity, and then performs ongoing, real time assessments to assure that care provided is at the highest level of Expertise.

It sounds like an interesting and challenging job description requiring a deep and broad education. Just not one that appeals to me. I would rather be a nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant who is on the front line and hands on.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – Patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) had improved overall survival and progression-free survival when they received higher-dose thoracic radiotherapy instead of the standard treatment, according to a new multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III trial.

Among 224 patients in China, aged 18-70, those randomly assigned to receive volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy of high-dose, hypofractionated thoracic radiotherapy of 54 Gy in 30 fractions had a much higher median overall survival (62.4 months) than those who received the standard dose of 45 Gy in 30 fractions (43.1 months, P = .001), reported Jiayi Yu, PhD, of Beijing University Cancer Hospital and Institute and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Median progression-free survival was also higher in the 54 Gy group (30.5 months vs. 16.7 months in the 45 Gy group, P = .044).

Kristin Higgins, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, provided perspective at the ASTRO session following Dr. Yu’s presentation. She noted that the study population is quite different than that of LS-SCLC patients in the United States, where patients are often older and more likely to have a history of smoking.

“We need more technical details to understand how to deliver this regimen in clinical practice, and it may not be applicable for all patients,” she said. Still, she added that “a key takeaway here is that optimizing the radiotherapy component of treatment is very important.”

Both groups received chemotherapy. “Higher-dose thoracic radiation therapy concurrently with chemotherapy is an alternative therapeutic option,” Dr. Yu said at an ASTRO presentation.

As Dr. Yu noted, twice-daily thoracic radiotherapy of 45 Gy in 30 fractions and concurrent chemotherapy has been the standard treatment for LS-SCLC for the last 20 years. Trials failed to show benefits for once-daily 66-Gy (33 fractions) or 70-Gy treatment (35 fractions), but a phase 2 trial published in 2023 did indicate that twice-daily treatment of 60 Gy (40 fractions) improved survival without boosting side effects.

For the new study, researchers tracked 224 patients from 2017 to 2021 who were previously untreated or had received specific chemotherapy treatments and had ECOG performance status scores of 0 or 1; 108 patients were randomly assigned to the 54-Gy arm and 116 to the 45-Gy arm. All were recruited at 16 public hospitals in China.

The median age in the two groups were 60 in the 54-Gy arm and 62 in the 45-Gy arm; the percentages of women were similar (45.4% and 45.7%, respectively). Most were current or former smokers (62.0% and 61.2%, respectively).

The researchers closed the trial in April 2021 because of the survival benefit in the 54-Gy arm, and patients were tracked through January 2023 for a median 45 months.

Nearly three-quarters of patients in the 54-Gy arm survived to 2 years (77.7%) vs. 53.4% in the 45-Gy arm, a 41% reduction in risk of death. Adverse events were similar between the groups, with 1 reported treatment-related death (myocardial infarction), in the 54-Gy group.

In an interview, Kenneth Rosenzweig, MD, chairman of the department of radiation oncology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, praised the study. It’s “no surprise” that higher radiation doses are well-tolerated since “our ability to shield normal tissue has improved” over the years, said Dr. Rosenzweig, who served as a moderator of the ASTRO session where the research was presented.

However, he cautioned that hypofractionation is still “intense” and may not be appropriate for certain patients. And he added that some clinics may not be set up to provide twice-daily treatments.

Information about study funding was not provided. The study authors have no disclosures. Dr. Higgins discloses relationships with AstraZeneca and Regeneron (advisory board), Jazz (funded research), and Janssen and Picture Health (consulting). Dr. Rosenzweig has no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) had improved overall survival and progression-free survival when they received higher-dose thoracic radiotherapy instead of the standard treatment, according to a new multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III trial.

Among 224 patients in China, aged 18-70, those randomly assigned to receive volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy of high-dose, hypofractionated thoracic radiotherapy of 54 Gy in 30 fractions had a much higher median overall survival (62.4 months) than those who received the standard dose of 45 Gy in 30 fractions (43.1 months, P = .001), reported Jiayi Yu, PhD, of Beijing University Cancer Hospital and Institute and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Median progression-free survival was also higher in the 54 Gy group (30.5 months vs. 16.7 months in the 45 Gy group, P = .044).

Kristin Higgins, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, provided perspective at the ASTRO session following Dr. Yu’s presentation. She noted that the study population is quite different than that of LS-SCLC patients in the United States, where patients are often older and more likely to have a history of smoking.

“We need more technical details to understand how to deliver this regimen in clinical practice, and it may not be applicable for all patients,” she said. Still, she added that “a key takeaway here is that optimizing the radiotherapy component of treatment is very important.”

Both groups received chemotherapy. “Higher-dose thoracic radiation therapy concurrently with chemotherapy is an alternative therapeutic option,” Dr. Yu said at an ASTRO presentation.

As Dr. Yu noted, twice-daily thoracic radiotherapy of 45 Gy in 30 fractions and concurrent chemotherapy has been the standard treatment for LS-SCLC for the last 20 years. Trials failed to show benefits for once-daily 66-Gy (33 fractions) or 70-Gy treatment (35 fractions), but a phase 2 trial published in 2023 did indicate that twice-daily treatment of 60 Gy (40 fractions) improved survival without boosting side effects.

For the new study, researchers tracked 224 patients from 2017 to 2021 who were previously untreated or had received specific chemotherapy treatments and had ECOG performance status scores of 0 or 1; 108 patients were randomly assigned to the 54-Gy arm and 116 to the 45-Gy arm. All were recruited at 16 public hospitals in China.

The median age in the two groups were 60 in the 54-Gy arm and 62 in the 45-Gy arm; the percentages of women were similar (45.4% and 45.7%, respectively). Most were current or former smokers (62.0% and 61.2%, respectively).

The researchers closed the trial in April 2021 because of the survival benefit in the 54-Gy arm, and patients were tracked through January 2023 for a median 45 months.

Nearly three-quarters of patients in the 54-Gy arm survived to 2 years (77.7%) vs. 53.4% in the 45-Gy arm, a 41% reduction in risk of death. Adverse events were similar between the groups, with 1 reported treatment-related death (myocardial infarction), in the 54-Gy group.

In an interview, Kenneth Rosenzweig, MD, chairman of the department of radiation oncology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, praised the study. It’s “no surprise” that higher radiation doses are well-tolerated since “our ability to shield normal tissue has improved” over the years, said Dr. Rosenzweig, who served as a moderator of the ASTRO session where the research was presented.

However, he cautioned that hypofractionation is still “intense” and may not be appropriate for certain patients. And he added that some clinics may not be set up to provide twice-daily treatments.

Information about study funding was not provided. The study authors have no disclosures. Dr. Higgins discloses relationships with AstraZeneca and Regeneron (advisory board), Jazz (funded research), and Janssen and Picture Health (consulting). Dr. Rosenzweig has no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) had improved overall survival and progression-free survival when they received higher-dose thoracic radiotherapy instead of the standard treatment, according to a new multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III trial.

Among 224 patients in China, aged 18-70, those randomly assigned to receive volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy of high-dose, hypofractionated thoracic radiotherapy of 54 Gy in 30 fractions had a much higher median overall survival (62.4 months) than those who received the standard dose of 45 Gy in 30 fractions (43.1 months, P = .001), reported Jiayi Yu, PhD, of Beijing University Cancer Hospital and Institute and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Median progression-free survival was also higher in the 54 Gy group (30.5 months vs. 16.7 months in the 45 Gy group, P = .044).

Kristin Higgins, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, provided perspective at the ASTRO session following Dr. Yu’s presentation. She noted that the study population is quite different than that of LS-SCLC patients in the United States, where patients are often older and more likely to have a history of smoking.

“We need more technical details to understand how to deliver this regimen in clinical practice, and it may not be applicable for all patients,” she said. Still, she added that “a key takeaway here is that optimizing the radiotherapy component of treatment is very important.”

Both groups received chemotherapy. “Higher-dose thoracic radiation therapy concurrently with chemotherapy is an alternative therapeutic option,” Dr. Yu said at an ASTRO presentation.

As Dr. Yu noted, twice-daily thoracic radiotherapy of 45 Gy in 30 fractions and concurrent chemotherapy has been the standard treatment for LS-SCLC for the last 20 years. Trials failed to show benefits for once-daily 66-Gy (33 fractions) or 70-Gy treatment (35 fractions), but a phase 2 trial published in 2023 did indicate that twice-daily treatment of 60 Gy (40 fractions) improved survival without boosting side effects.

For the new study, researchers tracked 224 patients from 2017 to 2021 who were previously untreated or had received specific chemotherapy treatments and had ECOG performance status scores of 0 or 1; 108 patients were randomly assigned to the 54-Gy arm and 116 to the 45-Gy arm. All were recruited at 16 public hospitals in China.

The median age in the two groups were 60 in the 54-Gy arm and 62 in the 45-Gy arm; the percentages of women were similar (45.4% and 45.7%, respectively). Most were current or former smokers (62.0% and 61.2%, respectively).

The researchers closed the trial in April 2021 because of the survival benefit in the 54-Gy arm, and patients were tracked through January 2023 for a median 45 months.

Nearly three-quarters of patients in the 54-Gy arm survived to 2 years (77.7%) vs. 53.4% in the 45-Gy arm, a 41% reduction in risk of death. Adverse events were similar between the groups, with 1 reported treatment-related death (myocardial infarction), in the 54-Gy group.

In an interview, Kenneth Rosenzweig, MD, chairman of the department of radiation oncology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, praised the study. It’s “no surprise” that higher radiation doses are well-tolerated since “our ability to shield normal tissue has improved” over the years, said Dr. Rosenzweig, who served as a moderator of the ASTRO session where the research was presented.

However, he cautioned that hypofractionation is still “intense” and may not be appropriate for certain patients. And he added that some clinics may not be set up to provide twice-daily treatments.

Information about study funding was not provided. The study authors have no disclosures. Dr. Higgins discloses relationships with AstraZeneca and Regeneron (advisory board), Jazz (funded research), and Janssen and Picture Health (consulting). Dr. Rosenzweig has no disclosures.

For patients with up to 10 brain metastases from small cell lung cancer (SCLC), stereotactic radiosurgery was associated with less cognitive impairment than whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) without compromising overall survival, results of the randomized ENCEPHALON (ARO 2018-9) trial suggest.

Among 56 patients with one to 10 SCLC brain metastases, 24% of those who received WBRT demonstrated significant declines in memory function 3 months after treatment, compared with 7% of patients whose metastases were treated with stereotactic radiosurgery alone. Preliminary data showed no significant differences in overall survival between the treatment groups at 6 months of follow-up, Denise Bernhardt, MD, from the Technical University of Munich, reported at the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting.

“We propose stereotactic radiosurgery should be an option for patients with up to 10 brain metastases in small cell lung cancer,” Dr. Bernhardt said during her presentation.

Vinai Gondi, MD, who was not involved in the study, said that the primary results from the trial – while limited by the study’s small size and missing data – are notable.

Patients with brain metastases from most cancer types typically receive stereotactic radiosurgery but WBRT has remained the standard of care to control brain metastases among patients with SCLC.

“This is the first prospective trial of radiosurgery versus whole-brain radiotherapy for small cell lung cancer brain metastases, and it’s important to recognize how important this is,” said Dr. Gondi, director of Radiation Oncology and codirector of the Brain Tumor Center at Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center, Warrenville, Ill.

Prior trials that have asked the same question did not include SCLC because many of those patients received prophylactic cranial irradiation, Dr. Gondi explained. Prophylactic cranial irradiation, however, has been on the decline among patients with brain metastases from SCLC, following a study from Japan showing no difference in survival among those who received the therapy and those followed with observation as well as evidence demonstrating significant toxicities associated with the technique.

Now “with the declining use of prophylactic cranial irradiation, the emergence of brain metastases is increasing significantly in volume in the small cell lung cancer population,” said Dr. Gondi, who is principal investigator on a phase 3 trial exploring stereotactic radiosurgery versus WBRT in a similar patient population.

In a previous retrospective trial), Dr. Bernhardt and colleagues found that first-line stereotactic radiosurgery did not compromise survival, compared with WBRT, but patients receiving stereotactic radiosurgery did have a higher risk for intracranial failure.

In the current study, the investigators compared the neurocognitive responses in patients with brain metastases from SCLC treated with stereotactic radiosurgery or WBRT.

Enrolled patients had histologically confirmed extensive disease with up to 10 metastatic brain lesions and had not previously received either therapeutic or prophylactic brain irradiation. After stratifying patients by synchronous versus metachronous disease, 56 patients were randomly assigned to either WBRT, at a total dose of 30 Gy delivered in 10 fractions, or to stereotactic radiosurgery with 20 Gy, 18 Gy, or fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery with 30 Gy in 5 Gy fractions for lesions larger than 3 cm.

The primary endpoint was neurocognition after radiation therapy as defined by a decline from baseline of at least five points on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) total recall subscale at 3 months. Secondary endpoints included survival outcomes, additional neurocognitive assessments of motor skills, executive function, attention, memory, and processing as well as quality-of-life measures.

The investigators expected a high rate of study dropout and planned their statistical analysis accordingly, using a method for estimating the likely values of missing data based on observed data.

Among 26 patients who eventually underwent stereotactic radiosurgery, 18 did not meet the primary endpoint and 2 (7%) demonstrated declines on the HVLT-R subscale of 5 or more points. Data for the remaining 6 patients were missing.

Among the 25 who underwent WBRT, 13 did not meet the primary endpoint and 6 (24%) demonstrated declines of at least 5 points. Data for 6 of the remaining patients were missing.

Although more patients in the WBRT arm had significant declines in neurocognitive function, the difference between the groups was not significant, due to the high proportion of study dropouts – approximately one-fourth of patients in each arm. But the analysis suggested that the neuroprotective effect of stereotactic radiosurgery was notable, Dr. Bernhardt said.

At 6 months, the team also found no significant difference in the survival probability between the treatment groups (P = .36). The median time to death was 124 days among patients who received stereotactic radiosurgery and 131 days among patients who received WBRT. 

Dr. Gondi said the data from ENCEPHALON, while promising, need to be carefully scrutinized because of the small sample sizes and the possibility for unintended bias.

ARO 2018-9 is an investigator-initiated trial funded by Accuray. Dr. Bernhardt disclosed consulting actives, fees, travel expenses, and research funding from Accuray and others. Dr. Gondi disclosed honoraria from UpToDate.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with up to 10 brain metastases from small cell lung cancer (SCLC), stereotactic radiosurgery was associated with less cognitive impairment than whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) without compromising overall survival, results of the randomized ENCEPHALON (ARO 2018-9) trial suggest.

Among 56 patients with one to 10 SCLC brain metastases, 24% of those who received WBRT demonstrated significant declines in memory function 3 months after treatment, compared with 7% of patients whose metastases were treated with stereotactic radiosurgery alone. Preliminary data showed no significant differences in overall survival between the treatment groups at 6 months of follow-up, Denise Bernhardt, MD, from the Technical University of Munich, reported at the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting.

“We propose stereotactic radiosurgery should be an option for patients with up to 10 brain metastases in small cell lung cancer,” Dr. Bernhardt said during her presentation.

Vinai Gondi, MD, who was not involved in the study, said that the primary results from the trial – while limited by the study’s small size and missing data – are notable.

Patients with brain metastases from most cancer types typically receive stereotactic radiosurgery but WBRT has remained the standard of care to control brain metastases among patients with SCLC.

“This is the first prospective trial of radiosurgery versus whole-brain radiotherapy for small cell lung cancer brain metastases, and it’s important to recognize how important this is,” said Dr. Gondi, director of Radiation Oncology and codirector of the Brain Tumor Center at Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center, Warrenville, Ill.

Prior trials that have asked the same question did not include SCLC because many of those patients received prophylactic cranial irradiation, Dr. Gondi explained. Prophylactic cranial irradiation, however, has been on the decline among patients with brain metastases from SCLC, following a study from Japan showing no difference in survival among those who received the therapy and those followed with observation as well as evidence demonstrating significant toxicities associated with the technique.

Now “with the declining use of prophylactic cranial irradiation, the emergence of brain metastases is increasing significantly in volume in the small cell lung cancer population,” said Dr. Gondi, who is principal investigator on a phase 3 trial exploring stereotactic radiosurgery versus WBRT in a similar patient population.

In a previous retrospective trial), Dr. Bernhardt and colleagues found that first-line stereotactic radiosurgery did not compromise survival, compared with WBRT, but patients receiving stereotactic radiosurgery did have a higher risk for intracranial failure.

In the current study, the investigators compared the neurocognitive responses in patients with brain metastases from SCLC treated with stereotactic radiosurgery or WBRT.

Enrolled patients had histologically confirmed extensive disease with up to 10 metastatic brain lesions and had not previously received either therapeutic or prophylactic brain irradiation. After stratifying patients by synchronous versus metachronous disease, 56 patients were randomly assigned to either WBRT, at a total dose of 30 Gy delivered in 10 fractions, or to stereotactic radiosurgery with 20 Gy, 18 Gy, or fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery with 30 Gy in 5 Gy fractions for lesions larger than 3 cm.

The primary endpoint was neurocognition after radiation therapy as defined by a decline from baseline of at least five points on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) total recall subscale at 3 months. Secondary endpoints included survival outcomes, additional neurocognitive assessments of motor skills, executive function, attention, memory, and processing as well as quality-of-life measures.

The investigators expected a high rate of study dropout and planned their statistical analysis accordingly, using a method for estimating the likely values of missing data based on observed data.

Among 26 patients who eventually underwent stereotactic radiosurgery, 18 did not meet the primary endpoint and 2 (7%) demonstrated declines on the HVLT-R subscale of 5 or more points. Data for the remaining 6 patients were missing.

Among the 25 who underwent WBRT, 13 did not meet the primary endpoint and 6 (24%) demonstrated declines of at least 5 points. Data for 6 of the remaining patients were missing.

Although more patients in the WBRT arm had significant declines in neurocognitive function, the difference between the groups was not significant, due to the high proportion of study dropouts – approximately one-fourth of patients in each arm. But the analysis suggested that the neuroprotective effect of stereotactic radiosurgery was notable, Dr. Bernhardt said.

At 6 months, the team also found no significant difference in the survival probability between the treatment groups (P = .36). The median time to death was 124 days among patients who received stereotactic radiosurgery and 131 days among patients who received WBRT. 

Dr. Gondi said the data from ENCEPHALON, while promising, need to be carefully scrutinized because of the small sample sizes and the possibility for unintended bias.

ARO 2018-9 is an investigator-initiated trial funded by Accuray. Dr. Bernhardt disclosed consulting actives, fees, travel expenses, and research funding from Accuray and others. Dr. Gondi disclosed honoraria from UpToDate.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with up to 10 brain metastases from small cell lung cancer (SCLC), stereotactic radiosurgery was associated with less cognitive impairment than whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) without compromising overall survival, results of the randomized ENCEPHALON (ARO 2018-9) trial suggest.

Among 56 patients with one to 10 SCLC brain metastases, 24% of those who received WBRT demonstrated significant declines in memory function 3 months after treatment, compared with 7% of patients whose metastases were treated with stereotactic radiosurgery alone. Preliminary data showed no significant differences in overall survival between the treatment groups at 6 months of follow-up, Denise Bernhardt, MD, from the Technical University of Munich, reported at the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting.

“We propose stereotactic radiosurgery should be an option for patients with up to 10 brain metastases in small cell lung cancer,” Dr. Bernhardt said during her presentation.

Vinai Gondi, MD, who was not involved in the study, said that the primary results from the trial – while limited by the study’s small size and missing data – are notable.

Patients with brain metastases from most cancer types typically receive stereotactic radiosurgery but WBRT has remained the standard of care to control brain metastases among patients with SCLC.

“This is the first prospective trial of radiosurgery versus whole-brain radiotherapy for small cell lung cancer brain metastases, and it’s important to recognize how important this is,” said Dr. Gondi, director of Radiation Oncology and codirector of the Brain Tumor Center at Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center, Warrenville, Ill.

Prior trials that have asked the same question did not include SCLC because many of those patients received prophylactic cranial irradiation, Dr. Gondi explained. Prophylactic cranial irradiation, however, has been on the decline among patients with brain metastases from SCLC, following a study from Japan showing no difference in survival among those who received the therapy and those followed with observation as well as evidence demonstrating significant toxicities associated with the technique.

Now “with the declining use of prophylactic cranial irradiation, the emergence of brain metastases is increasing significantly in volume in the small cell lung cancer population,” said Dr. Gondi, who is principal investigator on a phase 3 trial exploring stereotactic radiosurgery versus WBRT in a similar patient population.

In a previous retrospective trial), Dr. Bernhardt and colleagues found that first-line stereotactic radiosurgery did not compromise survival, compared with WBRT, but patients receiving stereotactic radiosurgery did have a higher risk for intracranial failure.

In the current study, the investigators compared the neurocognitive responses in patients with brain metastases from SCLC treated with stereotactic radiosurgery or WBRT.

Enrolled patients had histologically confirmed extensive disease with up to 10 metastatic brain lesions and had not previously received either therapeutic or prophylactic brain irradiation. After stratifying patients by synchronous versus metachronous disease, 56 patients were randomly assigned to either WBRT, at a total dose of 30 Gy delivered in 10 fractions, or to stereotactic radiosurgery with 20 Gy, 18 Gy, or fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery with 30 Gy in 5 Gy fractions for lesions larger than 3 cm.

The primary endpoint was neurocognition after radiation therapy as defined by a decline from baseline of at least five points on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) total recall subscale at 3 months. Secondary endpoints included survival outcomes, additional neurocognitive assessments of motor skills, executive function, attention, memory, and processing as well as quality-of-life measures.

The investigators expected a high rate of study dropout and planned their statistical analysis accordingly, using a method for estimating the likely values of missing data based on observed data.

Among 26 patients who eventually underwent stereotactic radiosurgery, 18 did not meet the primary endpoint and 2 (7%) demonstrated declines on the HVLT-R subscale of 5 or more points. Data for the remaining 6 patients were missing.

Among the 25 who underwent WBRT, 13 did not meet the primary endpoint and 6 (24%) demonstrated declines of at least 5 points. Data for 6 of the remaining patients were missing.

Although more patients in the WBRT arm had significant declines in neurocognitive function, the difference between the groups was not significant, due to the high proportion of study dropouts – approximately one-fourth of patients in each arm. But the analysis suggested that the neuroprotective effect of stereotactic radiosurgery was notable, Dr. Bernhardt said.

At 6 months, the team also found no significant difference in the survival probability between the treatment groups (P = .36). The median time to death was 124 days among patients who received stereotactic radiosurgery and 131 days among patients who received WBRT. 

Dr. Gondi said the data from ENCEPHALON, while promising, need to be carefully scrutinized because of the small sample sizes and the possibility for unintended bias.

ARO 2018-9 is an investigator-initiated trial funded by Accuray. Dr. Bernhardt disclosed consulting actives, fees, travel expenses, and research funding from Accuray and others. Dr. Gondi disclosed honoraria from UpToDate.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – With just five fractions of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer can have 5-year disease control as good as that provided by conventional external-beam radiation therapy delivered at higher doses in 20-39 fractions, according to new data from the phase 3 randomized PACE-B trial.

Overall, the 5-year event-free survival rates were 95.8% among patients who received SBRT and 94.6% among those who had conventional radiation. The incidence of adverse events was also low in both groups, with no significant differences observed between the trial arms.

The similar event-free survival and toxicity profiles in both groups provide more support for SBRT, which treats prostate cancer with larger radiation fractions over a shorter time period.

“I think we can also say now with a high level of confidence that SBRT can be considered a new standard of care for low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” said Nicholas van As, MD, MB, from the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research in London, who presented efficacy and safety results from the noninferiority trial at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting. SBRT is more convenient for patients and more cost-effective for health care providers, Dr. Van As added.

Invited discussant Alejandro Berlin, MD, MSc, from Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, agreed “that this should be a standard of care for low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” an option already endorsed by relevant guidelines.

But, Dr. Berlin noted, SBRT requires careful attention to technique to achieve the desired results. Further research will be needed to identify and potentially reduce variability among radiation oncology practice regarding margins, dosimetry goals, dose heterogeneity, treatment schedules, and other factors, he said.
 

An international trial

PACE-B is one of three branches of a multi-center collaboration among 37 radiation therapy centers in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Canada.

In the trial, investigators enrolled 874 patients with T1c or T2c prostate cancer, Gleason score of 3+4 or less, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level no higher than 20 ng/mL, MRI staging, and no prior androgen deprivation therapy. Investigators then randomly assigned them on a 1:1 basis to receive either conventional radiation (n = 441) or SBRT (n = 433).

At the start of the trial, patients who were assigned to the conventional radiation group received 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 4-8 weeks. However, after results from the CHHiP trial, which showed that a 60-Gy, 20-fraction regimen was not inferior to a 74-Gy, 37-fraction regimen, the PACE-B investigators modified the protocol to 62 Gy delivered in 20 fractions.

Patients assigned to SBRT received 36.25 Gy divided into give fractions delivered over 1-2 weeks, with 40 Gy to the clinical target volume.

The primary outcome was noninferiority of SBRT, measured as whether patients remained free of biochemical clinical failure. Biochemical clinical failure was defined as evidence that the cancer was returning, such as an increase in PSA levels or distant metastases or death from prostate cancer.

At a median follow-up of 73.1 months, 5-year event-free survival rates were 94.6% for patients who received conventional radiation therapy and 95.8% for patients who received SBRT, meeting the prespecified criteria for noninferiority of SBRT (P = .007).

Freedom from biochemical and clinical failure, the trial’s primary endpoint, “was significantly better on both arms than our original power calculation, where we expected control rates of approximately 85%,” Dr. Van As said in an ASTRO plenary session.

Toxicity rates were also low in both study arms. The rate of grade 2 or greater urogenital side effects at 5 years was 5.5% in the SBRT arm and 3.2% in the conventional therapy arm. Grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal side effects occurred in only two patients, one in each study arm.

Given the findings, “I think it’s now imperative that our surgeons discuss this data with their patients before they perform prostatectomies,” Dr. Van As said.

Neha Vapiwala, MD, president-elect of ASTRO who moderated a media briefing where Dr. Van As summarized the PACE-B data, commented that “this study was conducted very rigorously, with excellent quality assurance.”

The study also highlights that clinicians in the United States have considerable catching up to do, said Dr. Vapiwala, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In the United States, “we are way behind our colleagues on the other side of the pond,” she said. “We are way behind in our uptake of ultra-hypofractionated radiation [such as SBRT], and I do believe that some of that comes from the lack of feeling comfortable with the techniques that are needed and the expertise that is needed.”

PACE-B was funded by Accuray. Dr. Van As disclosed research grants from the company and consulting fees from Varian. Dr. Berlin reported no conflict of interest relevant to the study. Dr. Vapiwala has disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Bayer.

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

SAN DIEGO – With just five fractions of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer can have 5-year disease control as good as that provided by conventional external-beam radiation therapy delivered at higher doses in 20-39 fractions, according to new data from the phase 3 randomized PACE-B trial.

Overall, the 5-year event-free survival rates were 95.8% among patients who received SBRT and 94.6% among those who had conventional radiation. The incidence of adverse events was also low in both groups, with no significant differences observed between the trial arms.

The similar event-free survival and toxicity profiles in both groups provide more support for SBRT, which treats prostate cancer with larger radiation fractions over a shorter time period.

“I think we can also say now with a high level of confidence that SBRT can be considered a new standard of care for low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” said Nicholas van As, MD, MB, from the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research in London, who presented efficacy and safety results from the noninferiority trial at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting. SBRT is more convenient for patients and more cost-effective for health care providers, Dr. Van As added.

Invited discussant Alejandro Berlin, MD, MSc, from Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, agreed “that this should be a standard of care for low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” an option already endorsed by relevant guidelines.

But, Dr. Berlin noted, SBRT requires careful attention to technique to achieve the desired results. Further research will be needed to identify and potentially reduce variability among radiation oncology practice regarding margins, dosimetry goals, dose heterogeneity, treatment schedules, and other factors, he said.
 

An international trial

PACE-B is one of three branches of a multi-center collaboration among 37 radiation therapy centers in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Canada.

In the trial, investigators enrolled 874 patients with T1c or T2c prostate cancer, Gleason score of 3+4 or less, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level no higher than 20 ng/mL, MRI staging, and no prior androgen deprivation therapy. Investigators then randomly assigned them on a 1:1 basis to receive either conventional radiation (n = 441) or SBRT (n = 433).

At the start of the trial, patients who were assigned to the conventional radiation group received 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 4-8 weeks. However, after results from the CHHiP trial, which showed that a 60-Gy, 20-fraction regimen was not inferior to a 74-Gy, 37-fraction regimen, the PACE-B investigators modified the protocol to 62 Gy delivered in 20 fractions.

Patients assigned to SBRT received 36.25 Gy divided into give fractions delivered over 1-2 weeks, with 40 Gy to the clinical target volume.

The primary outcome was noninferiority of SBRT, measured as whether patients remained free of biochemical clinical failure. Biochemical clinical failure was defined as evidence that the cancer was returning, such as an increase in PSA levels or distant metastases or death from prostate cancer.

At a median follow-up of 73.1 months, 5-year event-free survival rates were 94.6% for patients who received conventional radiation therapy and 95.8% for patients who received SBRT, meeting the prespecified criteria for noninferiority of SBRT (P = .007).

Freedom from biochemical and clinical failure, the trial’s primary endpoint, “was significantly better on both arms than our original power calculation, where we expected control rates of approximately 85%,” Dr. Van As said in an ASTRO plenary session.

Toxicity rates were also low in both study arms. The rate of grade 2 or greater urogenital side effects at 5 years was 5.5% in the SBRT arm and 3.2% in the conventional therapy arm. Grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal side effects occurred in only two patients, one in each study arm.

Given the findings, “I think it’s now imperative that our surgeons discuss this data with their patients before they perform prostatectomies,” Dr. Van As said.

Neha Vapiwala, MD, president-elect of ASTRO who moderated a media briefing where Dr. Van As summarized the PACE-B data, commented that “this study was conducted very rigorously, with excellent quality assurance.”

The study also highlights that clinicians in the United States have considerable catching up to do, said Dr. Vapiwala, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In the United States, “we are way behind our colleagues on the other side of the pond,” she said. “We are way behind in our uptake of ultra-hypofractionated radiation [such as SBRT], and I do believe that some of that comes from the lack of feeling comfortable with the techniques that are needed and the expertise that is needed.”

PACE-B was funded by Accuray. Dr. Van As disclosed research grants from the company and consulting fees from Varian. Dr. Berlin reported no conflict of interest relevant to the study. Dr. Vapiwala has disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Bayer.

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

SAN DIEGO – With just five fractions of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer can have 5-year disease control as good as that provided by conventional external-beam radiation therapy delivered at higher doses in 20-39 fractions, according to new data from the phase 3 randomized PACE-B trial.

Overall, the 5-year event-free survival rates were 95.8% among patients who received SBRT and 94.6% among those who had conventional radiation. The incidence of adverse events was also low in both groups, with no significant differences observed between the trial arms.

The similar event-free survival and toxicity profiles in both groups provide more support for SBRT, which treats prostate cancer with larger radiation fractions over a shorter time period.

“I think we can also say now with a high level of confidence that SBRT can be considered a new standard of care for low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” said Nicholas van As, MD, MB, from the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research in London, who presented efficacy and safety results from the noninferiority trial at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting. SBRT is more convenient for patients and more cost-effective for health care providers, Dr. Van As added.

Invited discussant Alejandro Berlin, MD, MSc, from Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, agreed “that this should be a standard of care for low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” an option already endorsed by relevant guidelines.

But, Dr. Berlin noted, SBRT requires careful attention to technique to achieve the desired results. Further research will be needed to identify and potentially reduce variability among radiation oncology practice regarding margins, dosimetry goals, dose heterogeneity, treatment schedules, and other factors, he said.
 

An international trial

PACE-B is one of three branches of a multi-center collaboration among 37 radiation therapy centers in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Canada.

In the trial, investigators enrolled 874 patients with T1c or T2c prostate cancer, Gleason score of 3+4 or less, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level no higher than 20 ng/mL, MRI staging, and no prior androgen deprivation therapy. Investigators then randomly assigned them on a 1:1 basis to receive either conventional radiation (n = 441) or SBRT (n = 433).

At the start of the trial, patients who were assigned to the conventional radiation group received 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 4-8 weeks. However, after results from the CHHiP trial, which showed that a 60-Gy, 20-fraction regimen was not inferior to a 74-Gy, 37-fraction regimen, the PACE-B investigators modified the protocol to 62 Gy delivered in 20 fractions.

Patients assigned to SBRT received 36.25 Gy divided into give fractions delivered over 1-2 weeks, with 40 Gy to the clinical target volume.

The primary outcome was noninferiority of SBRT, measured as whether patients remained free of biochemical clinical failure. Biochemical clinical failure was defined as evidence that the cancer was returning, such as an increase in PSA levels or distant metastases or death from prostate cancer.

At a median follow-up of 73.1 months, 5-year event-free survival rates were 94.6% for patients who received conventional radiation therapy and 95.8% for patients who received SBRT, meeting the prespecified criteria for noninferiority of SBRT (P = .007).

Freedom from biochemical and clinical failure, the trial’s primary endpoint, “was significantly better on both arms than our original power calculation, where we expected control rates of approximately 85%,” Dr. Van As said in an ASTRO plenary session.

Toxicity rates were also low in both study arms. The rate of grade 2 or greater urogenital side effects at 5 years was 5.5% in the SBRT arm and 3.2% in the conventional therapy arm. Grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal side effects occurred in only two patients, one in each study arm.

Given the findings, “I think it’s now imperative that our surgeons discuss this data with their patients before they perform prostatectomies,” Dr. Van As said.

Neha Vapiwala, MD, president-elect of ASTRO who moderated a media briefing where Dr. Van As summarized the PACE-B data, commented that “this study was conducted very rigorously, with excellent quality assurance.”

The study also highlights that clinicians in the United States have considerable catching up to do, said Dr. Vapiwala, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In the United States, “we are way behind our colleagues on the other side of the pond,” she said. “We are way behind in our uptake of ultra-hypofractionated radiation [such as SBRT], and I do believe that some of that comes from the lack of feeling comfortable with the techniques that are needed and the expertise that is needed.”

PACE-B was funded by Accuray. Dr. Van As disclosed research grants from the company and consulting fees from Varian. Dr. Berlin reported no conflict of interest relevant to the study. Dr. Vapiwala has disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Bayer.

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

SAN DIEGO – Women with breast cancer who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction benefited from shorter bursts of higher-dose radiation, compared with the standard therapy, according to a new prospective, randomized study.

Side effects and physical well-being scores were similar among 400 women who received the two treatment regimens, and outcomes were similar or slightly better in the higher-dose group, reported Rinaa Punglia, MD, MPH, an associate professor of radiation oncology at Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center in Boston and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology. In a press statement, Dr. Punglia noted that the outcomes weren’t as impressive as researchers had hoped, but it’s positive that higher doses didn’t cause more side effects.

The use of the higher-dose approach, known as hypofractionation, “resulted in fewer treatment breaks and less financial toxicity” vs. conventional fractionation, Dr. Punglia said at a news briefing. The findings of the FABREC study “support the use of hypofractionated postmastectomy radiation for patients with basic reconstruction.”

According to Dr. Punglia, “postmastectomy radiation therapy is indicated for almost one-third of mastectomy patients and improves the lives of patients who are at an elevated risk for recurrence.” However, “the addition of radiation therapy greatly increases the risk of reconstruction complications.”

The typical radiation treatment period is 5-6 weeks in these patients, a major hardship for patients that can take them away from their families for extended periods of time. The researchers sought to understand whether another approach – hypofractionation over 3-4 weeks – is a better option. The strategy is widely used after breast-conserving surgery, she said, and has been linked to similar cancer outcomes, improved quality of life, and improved breast appearance.

From 2018 to 2021, the researchers recruited 400 patients with stage 0-III breast cancer who were treated with mastectomy and immediately underwent implant-based reconstruction (median age = 47.0, 23-79). None had tumors growing into the chest wall or skin.

The patients, spread nationwide across 16 institutions, were randomized to receive conventional fractionation (n = 201, 25 fractions, 5 days a week for 5 weeks of 200 cGy) or hypofractionation (n=199, 16 fractions, 5 days a week, for about 3 weeks of 266 cGy).

The researchers tracked 385 patients over a median follow-up of 40.4 months. There was no statistically significant difference in distant recurrence (12 in conventional fractionation arm, 11 in hypofractionation arm), death (2 in each arm), local recurrence (1 in each arm), or toxicity in the chest wall area (20 in conventional fractionation arm, 19 in hypofractionation arm). Changes in physical well-being scores, the primary endpoint, were similar after controlling for age.

“We found that younger patients randomized to hypofractionation were less bothered by side effects of treatment at 6 months relative to their counterparts who received conventional fractionation,” Dr. Punglia said.

Treatment breaks were more common in the conventional fractionation arm (7.7%, mean = 3.3 days) vs. the hypofractionation arm (2.7%, mean = 2.8 days, P = .03).

Among 51 patients who took unpaid time off work, those who underwent hypofractionation took fewer mean days off (73.7 days vs. 125.8 days for conventional fractionation, P = .046).

The study is the first of its kind to compare conventional fractionation to hypofractionation in this population in a randomized, phase III study, Dr. Punglia said.

At the news briefing, an independent expert – Lori Pierce, MD, a professor of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan – said the new study is a “game changer.”

The findings about the benefits of hypofractionation “will potentially impact thousands of women,” said Dr. Pierce, former president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The shorter course of radiation is more convenient for patients, she said, and reduces hardship.

“Without a doubt, these results should be discussed with all patients who have had mastectomy and implant-based reconstruction,” she said.

In an interview, Bruce G. Haffty, MD, MS, professor and chair of Radiation Oncology at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, said the study adds to existing data suggesting that shorter courses of therapy “are probably OK.” The new findings “give people a little more confidence that [short courses are] safe in terms of well-being and toxicity.”

However, the follow-up in the trial is relatively short, he said, and longer-term research will be needed to change the standard of care in these patients. “It’ll be an evolving story over the next 5-10 years,” he said.

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Punglia has no disclosures; disclosures for other authors were not provided. Disclosure information for Dr. Pierce was not provided. Dr. Haffty is an investigator in a similar study called RT CHARM.

SAN DIEGO – Women with breast cancer who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction benefited from shorter bursts of higher-dose radiation, compared with the standard therapy, according to a new prospective, randomized study.

Side effects and physical well-being scores were similar among 400 women who received the two treatment regimens, and outcomes were similar or slightly better in the higher-dose group, reported Rinaa Punglia, MD, MPH, an associate professor of radiation oncology at Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center in Boston and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology. In a press statement, Dr. Punglia noted that the outcomes weren’t as impressive as researchers had hoped, but it’s positive that higher doses didn’t cause more side effects.

The use of the higher-dose approach, known as hypofractionation, “resulted in fewer treatment breaks and less financial toxicity” vs. conventional fractionation, Dr. Punglia said at a news briefing. The findings of the FABREC study “support the use of hypofractionated postmastectomy radiation for patients with basic reconstruction.”

According to Dr. Punglia, “postmastectomy radiation therapy is indicated for almost one-third of mastectomy patients and improves the lives of patients who are at an elevated risk for recurrence.” However, “the addition of radiation therapy greatly increases the risk of reconstruction complications.”

The typical radiation treatment period is 5-6 weeks in these patients, a major hardship for patients that can take them away from their families for extended periods of time. The researchers sought to understand whether another approach – hypofractionation over 3-4 weeks – is a better option. The strategy is widely used after breast-conserving surgery, she said, and has been linked to similar cancer outcomes, improved quality of life, and improved breast appearance.

From 2018 to 2021, the researchers recruited 400 patients with stage 0-III breast cancer who were treated with mastectomy and immediately underwent implant-based reconstruction (median age = 47.0, 23-79). None had tumors growing into the chest wall or skin.

The patients, spread nationwide across 16 institutions, were randomized to receive conventional fractionation (n = 201, 25 fractions, 5 days a week for 5 weeks of 200 cGy) or hypofractionation (n=199, 16 fractions, 5 days a week, for about 3 weeks of 266 cGy).

The researchers tracked 385 patients over a median follow-up of 40.4 months. There was no statistically significant difference in distant recurrence (12 in conventional fractionation arm, 11 in hypofractionation arm), death (2 in each arm), local recurrence (1 in each arm), or toxicity in the chest wall area (20 in conventional fractionation arm, 19 in hypofractionation arm). Changes in physical well-being scores, the primary endpoint, were similar after controlling for age.

“We found that younger patients randomized to hypofractionation were less bothered by side effects of treatment at 6 months relative to their counterparts who received conventional fractionation,” Dr. Punglia said.

Treatment breaks were more common in the conventional fractionation arm (7.7%, mean = 3.3 days) vs. the hypofractionation arm (2.7%, mean = 2.8 days, P = .03).

Among 51 patients who took unpaid time off work, those who underwent hypofractionation took fewer mean days off (73.7 days vs. 125.8 days for conventional fractionation, P = .046).

The study is the first of its kind to compare conventional fractionation to hypofractionation in this population in a randomized, phase III study, Dr. Punglia said.

At the news briefing, an independent expert – Lori Pierce, MD, a professor of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan – said the new study is a “game changer.”

The findings about the benefits of hypofractionation “will potentially impact thousands of women,” said Dr. Pierce, former president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The shorter course of radiation is more convenient for patients, she said, and reduces hardship.

“Without a doubt, these results should be discussed with all patients who have had mastectomy and implant-based reconstruction,” she said.

In an interview, Bruce G. Haffty, MD, MS, professor and chair of Radiation Oncology at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, said the study adds to existing data suggesting that shorter courses of therapy “are probably OK.” The new findings “give people a little more confidence that [short courses are] safe in terms of well-being and toxicity.”

However, the follow-up in the trial is relatively short, he said, and longer-term research will be needed to change the standard of care in these patients. “It’ll be an evolving story over the next 5-10 years,” he said.

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Punglia has no disclosures; disclosures for other authors were not provided. Disclosure information for Dr. Pierce was not provided. Dr. Haffty is an investigator in a similar study called RT CHARM.

SAN DIEGO – Women with breast cancer who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction benefited from shorter bursts of higher-dose radiation, compared with the standard therapy, according to a new prospective, randomized study.

Side effects and physical well-being scores were similar among 400 women who received the two treatment regimens, and outcomes were similar or slightly better in the higher-dose group, reported Rinaa Punglia, MD, MPH, an associate professor of radiation oncology at Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center in Boston and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology. In a press statement, Dr. Punglia noted that the outcomes weren’t as impressive as researchers had hoped, but it’s positive that higher doses didn’t cause more side effects.

The use of the higher-dose approach, known as hypofractionation, “resulted in fewer treatment breaks and less financial toxicity” vs. conventional fractionation, Dr. Punglia said at a news briefing. The findings of the FABREC study “support the use of hypofractionated postmastectomy radiation for patients with basic reconstruction.”

According to Dr. Punglia, “postmastectomy radiation therapy is indicated for almost one-third of mastectomy patients and improves the lives of patients who are at an elevated risk for recurrence.” However, “the addition of radiation therapy greatly increases the risk of reconstruction complications.”

The typical radiation treatment period is 5-6 weeks in these patients, a major hardship for patients that can take them away from their families for extended periods of time. The researchers sought to understand whether another approach – hypofractionation over 3-4 weeks – is a better option. The strategy is widely used after breast-conserving surgery, she said, and has been linked to similar cancer outcomes, improved quality of life, and improved breast appearance.

From 2018 to 2021, the researchers recruited 400 patients with stage 0-III breast cancer who were treated with mastectomy and immediately underwent implant-based reconstruction (median age = 47.0, 23-79). None had tumors growing into the chest wall or skin.

The patients, spread nationwide across 16 institutions, were randomized to receive conventional fractionation (n = 201, 25 fractions, 5 days a week for 5 weeks of 200 cGy) or hypofractionation (n=199, 16 fractions, 5 days a week, for about 3 weeks of 266 cGy).

The researchers tracked 385 patients over a median follow-up of 40.4 months. There was no statistically significant difference in distant recurrence (12 in conventional fractionation arm, 11 in hypofractionation arm), death (2 in each arm), local recurrence (1 in each arm), or toxicity in the chest wall area (20 in conventional fractionation arm, 19 in hypofractionation arm). Changes in physical well-being scores, the primary endpoint, were similar after controlling for age.

“We found that younger patients randomized to hypofractionation were less bothered by side effects of treatment at 6 months relative to their counterparts who received conventional fractionation,” Dr. Punglia said.

Treatment breaks were more common in the conventional fractionation arm (7.7%, mean = 3.3 days) vs. the hypofractionation arm (2.7%, mean = 2.8 days, P = .03).

Among 51 patients who took unpaid time off work, those who underwent hypofractionation took fewer mean days off (73.7 days vs. 125.8 days for conventional fractionation, P = .046).

The study is the first of its kind to compare conventional fractionation to hypofractionation in this population in a randomized, phase III study, Dr. Punglia said.

At the news briefing, an independent expert – Lori Pierce, MD, a professor of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan – said the new study is a “game changer.”

The findings about the benefits of hypofractionation “will potentially impact thousands of women,” said Dr. Pierce, former president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The shorter course of radiation is more convenient for patients, she said, and reduces hardship.

“Without a doubt, these results should be discussed with all patients who have had mastectomy and implant-based reconstruction,” she said.

In an interview, Bruce G. Haffty, MD, MS, professor and chair of Radiation Oncology at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, said the study adds to existing data suggesting that shorter courses of therapy “are probably OK.” The new findings “give people a little more confidence that [short courses are] safe in terms of well-being and toxicity.”

However, the follow-up in the trial is relatively short, he said, and longer-term research will be needed to change the standard of care in these patients. “It’ll be an evolving story over the next 5-10 years,” he said.

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Punglia has no disclosures; disclosures for other authors were not provided. Disclosure information for Dr. Pierce was not provided. Dr. Haffty is an investigator in a similar study called RT CHARM.

Multicancer early-detection blood (MCED) tests are the focus of intensive development. What techniques do these tests use? What potential do they show? Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc, oncologist, breast cancer specialist, and director of the individualized cancer prevention program (Interception) at the Gustave Roussy Institute in Villejuif, France, looks into these “liquid biopsies” and shares her reservations about their potential marketing, especially to the organized care plans.

Question: What are the general principles underpinning these MCED tests?

Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc: Despite their specificities, the general idea is to detect certain cancer markers in various body fluids (blood, urine, saliva, etc.), for example, molecules released by cancer cells (cytokines, inflammatory proteins, leptin, etc.) or distinctive features of the DNA in tumor cells. In blood, these molecules can be found in plasma or in serum. In urine, it’s more about detecting kidney, bladder, and urinary tract cancers.

Q: What sort of time frame are we looking at for these MCED tests to be used in routine practice?

Dr. Delaloge: They first appeared around 10 years ago. Development of these tests has intensified in recent years. There are numerous research laboratories, both public and private, that are developing different early-detection tests for cancer.

Some of these development processes are about to come to an end and are expected to be in regular, concrete use within 5-10 years. For the most advanced developments, the main biologic material researched and analyzed is DNA from cancer cells. We all have fragments of DNA from dead cells in our plasma (apoptosis), but cancer cells release more of these than others, and most importantly, their DNA has distinctive characteristics. The idea is to develop tests capable of detecting these characteristics.

Liquid biopsies based on genomic biomarkers could make MCED a reality, especially for cancers for which there is no standard screening process. But at this stage of the research, there are limitations, including low sensitivity for detecting stage I cancers in validation studies and an increased risk for overdiagnosis.

Q: What specific set of characteristics are the most advanced approaches based on?

Dr. Delaloge: They’re based on the analysis of DNA methylation, a biological process by which CH3 methyl groups are added to the DNA molecule and that determines gene expression. This phenomenon differs depending on whether the cell is cancerous. Among the tests currently under development making use of this specific characteristic is the Galleri test, which is the most advanced of them all.

A previous British National Health Service study, SYMPLIFY, which was published in 2023 by researchers at the University of Oxford, was conducted in symptomatic patients attending a health center. It offers promising results in a diagnostic situation. It has nothing at all to do with screening here. A large, randomized English study, NHS-Galleri, is underway, this time involving the general population, with the aim of assessing the potential benefit of the same test as screening in 140,000 people between ages 50 and 77 years.

In the SYMPLIFY study, which was carried out in symptomatic patients attending a health center, the Galleri MCED test had a positive predictive value of 75.5%, a negative predictive value of 97.6%, a sensitivity of 66.3%, and a specificity of 98.4%. Sensitivity increased with age and cancer stage from 24.2% at stage I to 95.3% at stage IV. For cases for which a cancer signal was detected in patients with cancer, the prediction of the original site of the cancer by the MCED test was accurate in 85.2% of cases. This large-scale prospective evaluation of an MCED diagnostic test confirms its feasibility in a symptomatic population but is not yet sufficiently accurate to “confirm or rule out the presence of cancer.” According to the authors, “in cases in which the MCED test detects a cancer signal in this context, the probability of a diagnosis of cancer being made is considerably higher and may identify cancers at sites other than those suspected during the initial referral phase, thus reducing delays in diagnosis.” A negative test means a lower likelihood of cancer but not so low that proper investigation can be ruled out. Further tests will be needed to optimize use of a negative predictive value.

Q: Does MCED testing concern all types of cancer?

Dr. Delaloge: The Galleri test is based on full profiling of DNA methylation. This allows for early diagnosis of cancer even before it can be seen on imaging tests. The issue with these tests is that they aren’t that good at early diagnosis of the most common types of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical, etc.) for which we already have more efficient means such as the fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer, mammography, HPV testing, and so on.

These blood tests would thus not be aimed at replacing routine screening but rather at screening asymptomatic individuals or those with nonspecific signs for cancers for which we have few or no screening measures and which are on the rise, such as deep tumors and cancer diagnosed at a late stage, namely pancreas, bile duct, ovarian, esophageal, lung, stomach, etc.

The results from the studies published are promising, but others are underway to confirm the benefit of these MCEDs. The challenge is to identify cancer at an early stage, at a stage where it will be easier to cure the patient and control its growth using treatments that are less onerous for the patient and that have fewer aftereffects but not at the expense of a massive increase in overdiagnosis, as seen with prostate-specific antigen levels in prostate cancer a few years ago!

Q: What would be the focus of these MCED tests?

Dr. Delaloge: We must be alert to the risk for the market development of MCED tests. For now, they are mostly, especially the Galleri test, developed in the general population to screen for types of cancer that could not be detected in any other way but also because it’s the most financially beneficial situation. The designers want to position themselves in the general population, regardless of whether this means they’ll have to test hundreds of people to find one for whom the test is beneficial. What’s more, developing tests in isolation, without considering their place in ad hoc treatment pathways, is not realistic. It’s likely that some of these tests will be marketed within the next 10 years, but the health care systems destined to receive them are not remotely ready to do so.

Q: An even more recent publication, from late July 2023, is even more exciting in relation to early detection of lung cancer using circulating DNA sequencing. What are your thoughts on it?

Dr. Delaloge: Initially overtaken by other technologies in favor of MCED approaches, DNA sequencing as a technique to detect somatic mutations seems to have reentered the competition with this new-generation research. The authors published some very interesting results, especially for stage I lung cancer with a very high sensitivity of 75%. [Editor’s note: A machine-learning model using genome-wide mutational profiles combined with other features and followed by CT imaging detected more than 90% of patients with lung cancer, including those with stage I and II disease.]

This research illustrates the difficulty of providing high performance while covering a broad range of cancers. Here, the good results mainly concern lung cancer. Researchers and health care authorities must be alert to ensuring that MCED tests prove themselves in terms of sensitivity and specificity in responding to a medical need and in their impact on specific mortality. This craze for MCED tests must not hinder the development of “single-cancer” technologies that may be much better for detecting specific cancers. This recent publication is interesting in this respect, because this sequencing test seems to be particularly good at detecting lung cancer.

Q: Another approach used in MCED tests is based on analyzing the size of DNA fragments in the blood. Can you explain how this works?

Dr. Delaloge: When cancer is not present, the size of DNA fragments in cells is much more homogeneous. Here also, the benefit of MCED based on this technique rests on the very early detection of cancers that are less common than those for which we already have good screening methods available.

Other approaches, still at the experimental stage, detect certain proteins, certain inflammatory molecules, RNA, etc. But for many researchers, the future will involve pairing tests on the basis of circulating DNA in the blood with the detection of specific molecules indicating the presence of cancer to obtain early screening tests that are even more effective or that possibly even allow us to identify an appropriate treatment at an early stage.

The development of a simple test based on a blood draw that allows us to screen early for all cancers and that would replace all current screening measures is, therefore, not imminent, although it could potentially be on the horizon in years to come. Alongside this, an important issue is the benefit of cancer screening in the general population vs. in a targeted population with a specific risk. The latter option is in development but requires an individualized screening pathway based on blood testing and current screening methods: imaging, etc. It also depends on an individual’s cancer risk profile such as age, personal and family medical history, genetic predisposition, and so on.

According to recent modeling, these multicancer tests could theoretically prevent a minimum of 2,000 deaths from cancer per 100,000 people between ages 50 and 79 years screened per year (17% fewer deaths from cancer per year).

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Multicancer early-detection blood (MCED) tests are the focus of intensive development. What techniques do these tests use? What potential do they show? Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc, oncologist, breast cancer specialist, and director of the individualized cancer prevention program (Interception) at the Gustave Roussy Institute in Villejuif, France, looks into these “liquid biopsies” and shares her reservations about their potential marketing, especially to the organized care plans.

Question: What are the general principles underpinning these MCED tests?

Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc: Despite their specificities, the general idea is to detect certain cancer markers in various body fluids (blood, urine, saliva, etc.), for example, molecules released by cancer cells (cytokines, inflammatory proteins, leptin, etc.) or distinctive features of the DNA in tumor cells. In blood, these molecules can be found in plasma or in serum. In urine, it’s more about detecting kidney, bladder, and urinary tract cancers.

Q: What sort of time frame are we looking at for these MCED tests to be used in routine practice?

Dr. Delaloge: They first appeared around 10 years ago. Development of these tests has intensified in recent years. There are numerous research laboratories, both public and private, that are developing different early-detection tests for cancer.

Some of these development processes are about to come to an end and are expected to be in regular, concrete use within 5-10 years. For the most advanced developments, the main biologic material researched and analyzed is DNA from cancer cells. We all have fragments of DNA from dead cells in our plasma (apoptosis), but cancer cells release more of these than others, and most importantly, their DNA has distinctive characteristics. The idea is to develop tests capable of detecting these characteristics.

Liquid biopsies based on genomic biomarkers could make MCED a reality, especially for cancers for which there is no standard screening process. But at this stage of the research, there are limitations, including low sensitivity for detecting stage I cancers in validation studies and an increased risk for overdiagnosis.

Q: What specific set of characteristics are the most advanced approaches based on?

Dr. Delaloge: They’re based on the analysis of DNA methylation, a biological process by which CH3 methyl groups are added to the DNA molecule and that determines gene expression. This phenomenon differs depending on whether the cell is cancerous. Among the tests currently under development making use of this specific characteristic is the Galleri test, which is the most advanced of them all.

A previous British National Health Service study, SYMPLIFY, which was published in 2023 by researchers at the University of Oxford, was conducted in symptomatic patients attending a health center. It offers promising results in a diagnostic situation. It has nothing at all to do with screening here. A large, randomized English study, NHS-Galleri, is underway, this time involving the general population, with the aim of assessing the potential benefit of the same test as screening in 140,000 people between ages 50 and 77 years.

In the SYMPLIFY study, which was carried out in symptomatic patients attending a health center, the Galleri MCED test had a positive predictive value of 75.5%, a negative predictive value of 97.6%, a sensitivity of 66.3%, and a specificity of 98.4%. Sensitivity increased with age and cancer stage from 24.2% at stage I to 95.3% at stage IV. For cases for which a cancer signal was detected in patients with cancer, the prediction of the original site of the cancer by the MCED test was accurate in 85.2% of cases. This large-scale prospective evaluation of an MCED diagnostic test confirms its feasibility in a symptomatic population but is not yet sufficiently accurate to “confirm or rule out the presence of cancer.” According to the authors, “in cases in which the MCED test detects a cancer signal in this context, the probability of a diagnosis of cancer being made is considerably higher and may identify cancers at sites other than those suspected during the initial referral phase, thus reducing delays in diagnosis.” A negative test means a lower likelihood of cancer but not so low that proper investigation can be ruled out. Further tests will be needed to optimize use of a negative predictive value.

Q: Does MCED testing concern all types of cancer?

Dr. Delaloge: The Galleri test is based on full profiling of DNA methylation. This allows for early diagnosis of cancer even before it can be seen on imaging tests. The issue with these tests is that they aren’t that good at early diagnosis of the most common types of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical, etc.) for which we already have more efficient means such as the fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer, mammography, HPV testing, and so on.

These blood tests would thus not be aimed at replacing routine screening but rather at screening asymptomatic individuals or those with nonspecific signs for cancers for which we have few or no screening measures and which are on the rise, such as deep tumors and cancer diagnosed at a late stage, namely pancreas, bile duct, ovarian, esophageal, lung, stomach, etc.

The results from the studies published are promising, but others are underway to confirm the benefit of these MCEDs. The challenge is to identify cancer at an early stage, at a stage where it will be easier to cure the patient and control its growth using treatments that are less onerous for the patient and that have fewer aftereffects but not at the expense of a massive increase in overdiagnosis, as seen with prostate-specific antigen levels in prostate cancer a few years ago!

Q: What would be the focus of these MCED tests?

Dr. Delaloge: We must be alert to the risk for the market development of MCED tests. For now, they are mostly, especially the Galleri test, developed in the general population to screen for types of cancer that could not be detected in any other way but also because it’s the most financially beneficial situation. The designers want to position themselves in the general population, regardless of whether this means they’ll have to test hundreds of people to find one for whom the test is beneficial. What’s more, developing tests in isolation, without considering their place in ad hoc treatment pathways, is not realistic. It’s likely that some of these tests will be marketed within the next 10 years, but the health care systems destined to receive them are not remotely ready to do so.

Q: An even more recent publication, from late July 2023, is even more exciting in relation to early detection of lung cancer using circulating DNA sequencing. What are your thoughts on it?

Dr. Delaloge: Initially overtaken by other technologies in favor of MCED approaches, DNA sequencing as a technique to detect somatic mutations seems to have reentered the competition with this new-generation research. The authors published some very interesting results, especially for stage I lung cancer with a very high sensitivity of 75%. [Editor’s note: A machine-learning model using genome-wide mutational profiles combined with other features and followed by CT imaging detected more than 90% of patients with lung cancer, including those with stage I and II disease.]

This research illustrates the difficulty of providing high performance while covering a broad range of cancers. Here, the good results mainly concern lung cancer. Researchers and health care authorities must be alert to ensuring that MCED tests prove themselves in terms of sensitivity and specificity in responding to a medical need and in their impact on specific mortality. This craze for MCED tests must not hinder the development of “single-cancer” technologies that may be much better for detecting specific cancers. This recent publication is interesting in this respect, because this sequencing test seems to be particularly good at detecting lung cancer.

Q: Another approach used in MCED tests is based on analyzing the size of DNA fragments in the blood. Can you explain how this works?

Dr. Delaloge: When cancer is not present, the size of DNA fragments in cells is much more homogeneous. Here also, the benefit of MCED based on this technique rests on the very early detection of cancers that are less common than those for which we already have good screening methods available.

Other approaches, still at the experimental stage, detect certain proteins, certain inflammatory molecules, RNA, etc. But for many researchers, the future will involve pairing tests on the basis of circulating DNA in the blood with the detection of specific molecules indicating the presence of cancer to obtain early screening tests that are even more effective or that possibly even allow us to identify an appropriate treatment at an early stage.

The development of a simple test based on a blood draw that allows us to screen early for all cancers and that would replace all current screening measures is, therefore, not imminent, although it could potentially be on the horizon in years to come. Alongside this, an important issue is the benefit of cancer screening in the general population vs. in a targeted population with a specific risk. The latter option is in development but requires an individualized screening pathway based on blood testing and current screening methods: imaging, etc. It also depends on an individual’s cancer risk profile such as age, personal and family medical history, genetic predisposition, and so on.

According to recent modeling, these multicancer tests could theoretically prevent a minimum of 2,000 deaths from cancer per 100,000 people between ages 50 and 79 years screened per year (17% fewer deaths from cancer per year).

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Multicancer early-detection blood (MCED) tests are the focus of intensive development. What techniques do these tests use? What potential do they show? Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc, oncologist, breast cancer specialist, and director of the individualized cancer prevention program (Interception) at the Gustave Roussy Institute in Villejuif, France, looks into these “liquid biopsies” and shares her reservations about their potential marketing, especially to the organized care plans.

Question: What are the general principles underpinning these MCED tests?

Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc: Despite their specificities, the general idea is to detect certain cancer markers in various body fluids (blood, urine, saliva, etc.), for example, molecules released by cancer cells (cytokines, inflammatory proteins, leptin, etc.) or distinctive features of the DNA in tumor cells. In blood, these molecules can be found in plasma or in serum. In urine, it’s more about detecting kidney, bladder, and urinary tract cancers.

Q: What sort of time frame are we looking at for these MCED tests to be used in routine practice?

Dr. Delaloge: They first appeared around 10 years ago. Development of these tests has intensified in recent years. There are numerous research laboratories, both public and private, that are developing different early-detection tests for cancer.

Some of these development processes are about to come to an end and are expected to be in regular, concrete use within 5-10 years. For the most advanced developments, the main biologic material researched and analyzed is DNA from cancer cells. We all have fragments of DNA from dead cells in our plasma (apoptosis), but cancer cells release more of these than others, and most importantly, their DNA has distinctive characteristics. The idea is to develop tests capable of detecting these characteristics.

Liquid biopsies based on genomic biomarkers could make MCED a reality, especially for cancers for which there is no standard screening process. But at this stage of the research, there are limitations, including low sensitivity for detecting stage I cancers in validation studies and an increased risk for overdiagnosis.

Q: What specific set of characteristics are the most advanced approaches based on?

Dr. Delaloge: They’re based on the analysis of DNA methylation, a biological process by which CH3 methyl groups are added to the DNA molecule and that determines gene expression. This phenomenon differs depending on whether the cell is cancerous. Among the tests currently under development making use of this specific characteristic is the Galleri test, which is the most advanced of them all.

A previous British National Health Service study, SYMPLIFY, which was published in 2023 by researchers at the University of Oxford, was conducted in symptomatic patients attending a health center. It offers promising results in a diagnostic situation. It has nothing at all to do with screening here. A large, randomized English study, NHS-Galleri, is underway, this time involving the general population, with the aim of assessing the potential benefit of the same test as screening in 140,000 people between ages 50 and 77 years.

In the SYMPLIFY study, which was carried out in symptomatic patients attending a health center, the Galleri MCED test had a positive predictive value of 75.5%, a negative predictive value of 97.6%, a sensitivity of 66.3%, and a specificity of 98.4%. Sensitivity increased with age and cancer stage from 24.2% at stage I to 95.3% at stage IV. For cases for which a cancer signal was detected in patients with cancer, the prediction of the original site of the cancer by the MCED test was accurate in 85.2% of cases. This large-scale prospective evaluation of an MCED diagnostic test confirms its feasibility in a symptomatic population but is not yet sufficiently accurate to “confirm or rule out the presence of cancer.” According to the authors, “in cases in which the MCED test detects a cancer signal in this context, the probability of a diagnosis of cancer being made is considerably higher and may identify cancers at sites other than those suspected during the initial referral phase, thus reducing delays in diagnosis.” A negative test means a lower likelihood of cancer but not so low that proper investigation can be ruled out. Further tests will be needed to optimize use of a negative predictive value.

Q: Does MCED testing concern all types of cancer?

Dr. Delaloge: The Galleri test is based on full profiling of DNA methylation. This allows for early diagnosis of cancer even before it can be seen on imaging tests. The issue with these tests is that they aren’t that good at early diagnosis of the most common types of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical, etc.) for which we already have more efficient means such as the fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer, mammography, HPV testing, and so on.

These blood tests would thus not be aimed at replacing routine screening but rather at screening asymptomatic individuals or those with nonspecific signs for cancers for which we have few or no screening measures and which are on the rise, such as deep tumors and cancer diagnosed at a late stage, namely pancreas, bile duct, ovarian, esophageal, lung, stomach, etc.

The results from the studies published are promising, but others are underway to confirm the benefit of these MCEDs. The challenge is to identify cancer at an early stage, at a stage where it will be easier to cure the patient and control its growth using treatments that are less onerous for the patient and that have fewer aftereffects but not at the expense of a massive increase in overdiagnosis, as seen with prostate-specific antigen levels in prostate cancer a few years ago!

Q: What would be the focus of these MCED tests?

Dr. Delaloge: We must be alert to the risk for the market development of MCED tests. For now, they are mostly, especially the Galleri test, developed in the general population to screen for types of cancer that could not be detected in any other way but also because it’s the most financially beneficial situation. The designers want to position themselves in the general population, regardless of whether this means they’ll have to test hundreds of people to find one for whom the test is beneficial. What’s more, developing tests in isolation, without considering their place in ad hoc treatment pathways, is not realistic. It’s likely that some of these tests will be marketed within the next 10 years, but the health care systems destined to receive them are not remotely ready to do so.

Q: An even more recent publication, from late July 2023, is even more exciting in relation to early detection of lung cancer using circulating DNA sequencing. What are your thoughts on it?

Dr. Delaloge: Initially overtaken by other technologies in favor of MCED approaches, DNA sequencing as a technique to detect somatic mutations seems to have reentered the competition with this new-generation research. The authors published some very interesting results, especially for stage I lung cancer with a very high sensitivity of 75%. [Editor’s note: A machine-learning model using genome-wide mutational profiles combined with other features and followed by CT imaging detected more than 90% of patients with lung cancer, including those with stage I and II disease.]

This research illustrates the difficulty of providing high performance while covering a broad range of cancers. Here, the good results mainly concern lung cancer. Researchers and health care authorities must be alert to ensuring that MCED tests prove themselves in terms of sensitivity and specificity in responding to a medical need and in their impact on specific mortality. This craze for MCED tests must not hinder the development of “single-cancer” technologies that may be much better for detecting specific cancers. This recent publication is interesting in this respect, because this sequencing test seems to be particularly good at detecting lung cancer.

Q: Another approach used in MCED tests is based on analyzing the size of DNA fragments in the blood. Can you explain how this works?

Dr. Delaloge: When cancer is not present, the size of DNA fragments in cells is much more homogeneous. Here also, the benefit of MCED based on this technique rests on the very early detection of cancers that are less common than those for which we already have good screening methods available.

Other approaches, still at the experimental stage, detect certain proteins, certain inflammatory molecules, RNA, etc. But for many researchers, the future will involve pairing tests on the basis of circulating DNA in the blood with the detection of specific molecules indicating the presence of cancer to obtain early screening tests that are even more effective or that possibly even allow us to identify an appropriate treatment at an early stage.

The development of a simple test based on a blood draw that allows us to screen early for all cancers and that would replace all current screening measures is, therefore, not imminent, although it could potentially be on the horizon in years to come. Alongside this, an important issue is the benefit of cancer screening in the general population vs. in a targeted population with a specific risk. The latter option is in development but requires an individualized screening pathway based on blood testing and current screening methods: imaging, etc. It also depends on an individual’s cancer risk profile such as age, personal and family medical history, genetic predisposition, and so on.

According to recent modeling, these multicancer tests could theoretically prevent a minimum of 2,000 deaths from cancer per 100,000 people between ages 50 and 79 years screened per year (17% fewer deaths from cancer per year).

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.