Oncology

TOPLINE:

Dysbiosis of the oral microbiome is associated with various upper gastrointestinal (UGI) disorders and precancerous lesions, with specific microbial signatures varying by disease and oral site, research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Emerging evidence suggests that the oral microbiota may contribute to the development of gastrointestinal malignancies, leading to efforts to identify biomarkers for early detection and progress of disease.
• In this population-based cross-sectional study, researchers studied the association between the microbiome of saliva, subgingival, and buccal mucosa and UGI disorders, particularly precancerous lesions.
• Participants included 388 adults who underwent upper endoscopy with biopsies for histopathologic analysis.
• UGI symptoms were evaluated using a validated tool, and 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing was used to characterize microbial diversity and composition of 380 saliva, 200 subgingival, and 267 buccal mucosa samples.

TAKEAWAY:

• Saliva dysbiosis was associated with several UGI disorders, including gastroesophageal reflux symptoms alone, symptomatic esophagitis, combined esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus (BE), Helicobacter pylori–positive histology, chemical reactive gastritis, atrophic H pylori gastritis, and intestinal metaplasia.
• In contrast, dysbiosis in subgingival and buccal mucosa was more specifically associated with BE and atrophic H pylori gastritis.
• Among several identified genera, Prevotella and Fusobacterium in saliva were associated with gastric atrophy and intestinal metaplasia, and in subgingival samples, there was a notable link between Fretibacterium in BE and Fusobacterium in gastric atrophy and intestinal metaplasia.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study for the first time suggests that microbiota in the subgingival and buccal regions may serve as more specific biomarkers for detecting precancerous lesions in asymptomatic patients, particularly for Barrett’s esophagus,” the authors wrote. “Saliva might be more appropriate for monitoring any UGI disorders at the population level.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Fatemeh Sadeghi, PhD, with Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study used bacterial DNA, which cannot distinguish metabolically active bacteria. Data on diet and probiotic use were not collected. The cross-sectional design precludes conclusions about causality.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Research Council.

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

TOPLINE:

Dysbiosis of the oral microbiome is associated with various upper gastrointestinal (UGI) disorders and precancerous lesions, with specific microbial signatures varying by disease and oral site, research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Emerging evidence suggests that the oral microbiota may contribute to the development of gastrointestinal malignancies, leading to efforts to identify biomarkers for early detection and progress of disease.
• In this population-based cross-sectional study, researchers studied the association between the microbiome of saliva, subgingival, and buccal mucosa and UGI disorders, particularly precancerous lesions.
• Participants included 388 adults who underwent upper endoscopy with biopsies for histopathologic analysis.
• UGI symptoms were evaluated using a validated tool, and 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing was used to characterize microbial diversity and composition of 380 saliva, 200 subgingival, and 267 buccal mucosa samples.

TAKEAWAY:

• Saliva dysbiosis was associated with several UGI disorders, including gastroesophageal reflux symptoms alone, symptomatic esophagitis, combined esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus (BE), Helicobacter pylori–positive histology, chemical reactive gastritis, atrophic H pylori gastritis, and intestinal metaplasia.
• In contrast, dysbiosis in subgingival and buccal mucosa was more specifically associated with BE and atrophic H pylori gastritis.
• Among several identified genera, Prevotella and Fusobacterium in saliva were associated with gastric atrophy and intestinal metaplasia, and in subgingival samples, there was a notable link between Fretibacterium in BE and Fusobacterium in gastric atrophy and intestinal metaplasia.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study for the first time suggests that microbiota in the subgingival and buccal regions may serve as more specific biomarkers for detecting precancerous lesions in asymptomatic patients, particularly for Barrett’s esophagus,” the authors wrote. “Saliva might be more appropriate for monitoring any UGI disorders at the population level.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Fatemeh Sadeghi, PhD, with Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study used bacterial DNA, which cannot distinguish metabolically active bacteria. Data on diet and probiotic use were not collected. The cross-sectional design precludes conclusions about causality.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Research Council.

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

TOPLINE:

Dysbiosis of the oral microbiome is associated with various upper gastrointestinal (UGI) disorders and precancerous lesions, with specific microbial signatures varying by disease and oral site, research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Emerging evidence suggests that the oral microbiota may contribute to the development of gastrointestinal malignancies, leading to efforts to identify biomarkers for early detection and progress of disease.
• In this population-based cross-sectional study, researchers studied the association between the microbiome of saliva, subgingival, and buccal mucosa and UGI disorders, particularly precancerous lesions.
• Participants included 388 adults who underwent upper endoscopy with biopsies for histopathologic analysis.
• UGI symptoms were evaluated using a validated tool, and 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing was used to characterize microbial diversity and composition of 380 saliva, 200 subgingival, and 267 buccal mucosa samples.

TAKEAWAY:

• Saliva dysbiosis was associated with several UGI disorders, including gastroesophageal reflux symptoms alone, symptomatic esophagitis, combined esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus (BE), Helicobacter pylori–positive histology, chemical reactive gastritis, atrophic H pylori gastritis, and intestinal metaplasia.
• In contrast, dysbiosis in subgingival and buccal mucosa was more specifically associated with BE and atrophic H pylori gastritis.
• Among several identified genera, Prevotella and Fusobacterium in saliva were associated with gastric atrophy and intestinal metaplasia, and in subgingival samples, there was a notable link between Fretibacterium in BE and Fusobacterium in gastric atrophy and intestinal metaplasia.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study for the first time suggests that microbiota in the subgingival and buccal regions may serve as more specific biomarkers for detecting precancerous lesions in asymptomatic patients, particularly for Barrett’s esophagus,” the authors wrote. “Saliva might be more appropriate for monitoring any UGI disorders at the population level.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Fatemeh Sadeghi, PhD, with Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study used bacterial DNA, which cannot distinguish metabolically active bacteria. Data on diet and probiotic use were not collected. The cross-sectional design precludes conclusions about causality.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Research Council.

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

TOPLINE: More than 28% of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patients with colorectal cancer were diagnosed through emergency presentations, which were associated with a higher mortality risk. Emergency presentations increased during COVID-19 from prepandemic rates.

METHODOLOGY:

•       A retrospective cohort study analyzed 9096 incident colorectal cancer cancer cases diagnosed in the Veterans Health Administration from 2017 to 2021.
•       Researchers applied a validated algorithm to identify emergency presentations, defined as cancer diagnoses within 30 days following emergency care episodes or unplanned hospital admissions.
•       Analysis utilized multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models to examine associations between emergency presentations and cancer stage, treatment, and mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

•      Patients with emergency presentations were more likely to have advanced stage disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.53-1.88) compared to those without emergency presentations.
•      Emergency presentations were associated with lower likelihood of receiving cancer treatment (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.75) and higher mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.56-1.84).
•      The proportion of emergency presentations increased from 26.4% in 2017-2019 to 31.4% during the COVID-19 pandemic years 2020-2021 (P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE: " Our findings from one of the largest studies within a US population to examine emergency presentations among patients with colorectal cancer show that emergency presentations are common and an important negative predictor of cancer outcomes…Our study findings highlight the need for continued research and implementation efforts focused on measurement and mitigation of emergency presentations among patients with colorectal cancer.”

SOURCE: The study was led by the Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety at Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. It was published online on December 11 in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

LIMITATIONS: The study's findings are limited by the predominantly male veteran population with lower socioeconomic status, which may affect generalizability. The equal access health care model used by the VA and its and strong screening programs may result in emergency presentation rates that differ from the private sector.

TOPLINE: More than 28% of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patients with colorectal cancer were diagnosed through emergency presentations, which were associated with a higher mortality risk. Emergency presentations increased during COVID-19 from prepandemic rates.

METHODOLOGY:

•       A retrospective cohort study analyzed 9096 incident colorectal cancer cancer cases diagnosed in the Veterans Health Administration from 2017 to 2021.
•       Researchers applied a validated algorithm to identify emergency presentations, defined as cancer diagnoses within 30 days following emergency care episodes or unplanned hospital admissions.
•       Analysis utilized multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models to examine associations between emergency presentations and cancer stage, treatment, and mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

•      Patients with emergency presentations were more likely to have advanced stage disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.53-1.88) compared to those without emergency presentations.
•      Emergency presentations were associated with lower likelihood of receiving cancer treatment (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.75) and higher mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.56-1.84).
•      The proportion of emergency presentations increased from 26.4% in 2017-2019 to 31.4% during the COVID-19 pandemic years 2020-2021 (P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE: " Our findings from one of the largest studies within a US population to examine emergency presentations among patients with colorectal cancer show that emergency presentations are common and an important negative predictor of cancer outcomes…Our study findings highlight the need for continued research and implementation efforts focused on measurement and mitigation of emergency presentations among patients with colorectal cancer.”

SOURCE: The study was led by the Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety at Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. It was published online on December 11 in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

LIMITATIONS: The study's findings are limited by the predominantly male veteran population with lower socioeconomic status, which may affect generalizability. The equal access health care model used by the VA and its and strong screening programs may result in emergency presentation rates that differ from the private sector.

TOPLINE: More than 28% of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patients with colorectal cancer were diagnosed through emergency presentations, which were associated with a higher mortality risk. Emergency presentations increased during COVID-19 from prepandemic rates.

METHODOLOGY:

•       A retrospective cohort study analyzed 9096 incident colorectal cancer cancer cases diagnosed in the Veterans Health Administration from 2017 to 2021.
•       Researchers applied a validated algorithm to identify emergency presentations, defined as cancer diagnoses within 30 days following emergency care episodes or unplanned hospital admissions.
•       Analysis utilized multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models to examine associations between emergency presentations and cancer stage, treatment, and mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

•      Patients with emergency presentations were more likely to have advanced stage disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.53-1.88) compared to those without emergency presentations.
•      Emergency presentations were associated with lower likelihood of receiving cancer treatment (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.75) and higher mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.56-1.84).
•      The proportion of emergency presentations increased from 26.4% in 2017-2019 to 31.4% during the COVID-19 pandemic years 2020-2021 (P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE: " Our findings from one of the largest studies within a US population to examine emergency presentations among patients with colorectal cancer show that emergency presentations are common and an important negative predictor of cancer outcomes…Our study findings highlight the need for continued research and implementation efforts focused on measurement and mitigation of emergency presentations among patients with colorectal cancer.”

SOURCE: The study was led by the Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety at Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. It was published online on December 11 in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

LIMITATIONS: The study's findings are limited by the predominantly male veteran population with lower socioeconomic status, which may affect generalizability. The equal access health care model used by the VA and its and strong screening programs may result in emergency presentation rates that differ from the private sector.

TOPLINE:

Physical activity before stage I cancer diagnosis is associated with reduced risk for disease progression and mortality. Members engaging in at least 60 minutes of weekly physical activity showed a 27% lower risk for progression and 47% lower risk for mortality compared with inactive individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Physical activity plays a significant role in reducing cancer mortality with high levels having been associated with an 18% reduction in cancer-specific mortality compared with lower levels in patients with pre- and/or post-diagnosed cancer.
• The new analysis included 28,248 members with stage I cancers enrolled in an oncology programme in South Africa, with physical activity recorded through fitness devices, logged gym sessions, and participation in organized events.
• Participants were categorized into three groups: No physical activity (0 min/wk), low physical activity (< 60 min/wk), and moderate to high physical activity (≥ 60 min/wk) based on activity levels 12 months before diagnosis.
• Researchers measured outcomes including time to progression, time to death, and all-cause mortality, with a follow-up period ranging from 1-154 months.
• Analysis adjusted for covariates including age, sex, socioeconomic status, and patient complexity measured by Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups Systems software.

TAKEAWAY:

• Members with low physical activity showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.89) for progression or death compared with those with no activity, whereas those with moderate to high activity showed an HR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.70-0.77).
• For all-cause mortality, low physical activity members demonstrated an HR of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.61-0.74), whereas moderate to high activity members showed an HR of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.50-0.58) compared with inactive members.
• At 24 months post-diagnosis, individuals with moderate to high physical activity showed 80% probability of nonprogression compared with 74% for inactive individuals.
• Survival probability at 24 months was 95% for moderate to high activity members vs 91% for those with no physical activity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Physical activity may be considered to confer substantial benefits in terms of progression and overall mortality to those diagnosed with cancer. In a world where cancer continues to be a significant public health burden, the promotion of physical activity can yield important benefits regarding the progression of cancer as well as its prevention and management,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Ntokozo Mabena of Discovery Vitality in Sandton, South Africa. It was published online in British Journal of Sports Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, potential biases exist from not adjusting for confounding factors such as smoking status and alcohol consumption, along with incomplete body mass index data. The study assumed members without recorded physical activity points were inactive, which may not be accurate for all individuals. The findings may not be generalizable to the broader South African population as the study cohort had access to private medical insurance.

DISCLOSURES:

Authors Mabena, Sandra Lehmann, Deepak Patel, and Mosima Mabunda are employed by Discovery. Other authors Mike Greyling and Jon S. Patricios serve as a consultant for Discovery and an editor of British Journal of Sports Medicine, respectively.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Physical activity before stage I cancer diagnosis is associated with reduced risk for disease progression and mortality. Members engaging in at least 60 minutes of weekly physical activity showed a 27% lower risk for progression and 47% lower risk for mortality compared with inactive individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Physical activity plays a significant role in reducing cancer mortality with high levels having been associated with an 18% reduction in cancer-specific mortality compared with lower levels in patients with pre- and/or post-diagnosed cancer.
• The new analysis included 28,248 members with stage I cancers enrolled in an oncology programme in South Africa, with physical activity recorded through fitness devices, logged gym sessions, and participation in organized events.
• Participants were categorized into three groups: No physical activity (0 min/wk), low physical activity (< 60 min/wk), and moderate to high physical activity (≥ 60 min/wk) based on activity levels 12 months before diagnosis.
• Researchers measured outcomes including time to progression, time to death, and all-cause mortality, with a follow-up period ranging from 1-154 months.
• Analysis adjusted for covariates including age, sex, socioeconomic status, and patient complexity measured by Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups Systems software.

TAKEAWAY:

• Members with low physical activity showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.89) for progression or death compared with those with no activity, whereas those with moderate to high activity showed an HR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.70-0.77).
• For all-cause mortality, low physical activity members demonstrated an HR of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.61-0.74), whereas moderate to high activity members showed an HR of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.50-0.58) compared with inactive members.
• At 24 months post-diagnosis, individuals with moderate to high physical activity showed 80% probability of nonprogression compared with 74% for inactive individuals.
• Survival probability at 24 months was 95% for moderate to high activity members vs 91% for those with no physical activity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Physical activity may be considered to confer substantial benefits in terms of progression and overall mortality to those diagnosed with cancer. In a world where cancer continues to be a significant public health burden, the promotion of physical activity can yield important benefits regarding the progression of cancer as well as its prevention and management,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Ntokozo Mabena of Discovery Vitality in Sandton, South Africa. It was published online in British Journal of Sports Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, potential biases exist from not adjusting for confounding factors such as smoking status and alcohol consumption, along with incomplete body mass index data. The study assumed members without recorded physical activity points were inactive, which may not be accurate for all individuals. The findings may not be generalizable to the broader South African population as the study cohort had access to private medical insurance.

DISCLOSURES:

Authors Mabena, Sandra Lehmann, Deepak Patel, and Mosima Mabunda are employed by Discovery. Other authors Mike Greyling and Jon S. Patricios serve as a consultant for Discovery and an editor of British Journal of Sports Medicine, respectively.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Physical activity before stage I cancer diagnosis is associated with reduced risk for disease progression and mortality. Members engaging in at least 60 minutes of weekly physical activity showed a 27% lower risk for progression and 47% lower risk for mortality compared with inactive individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Physical activity plays a significant role in reducing cancer mortality with high levels having been associated with an 18% reduction in cancer-specific mortality compared with lower levels in patients with pre- and/or post-diagnosed cancer.
• The new analysis included 28,248 members with stage I cancers enrolled in an oncology programme in South Africa, with physical activity recorded through fitness devices, logged gym sessions, and participation in organized events.
• Participants were categorized into three groups: No physical activity (0 min/wk), low physical activity (< 60 min/wk), and moderate to high physical activity (≥ 60 min/wk) based on activity levels 12 months before diagnosis.
• Researchers measured outcomes including time to progression, time to death, and all-cause mortality, with a follow-up period ranging from 1-154 months.
• Analysis adjusted for covariates including age, sex, socioeconomic status, and patient complexity measured by Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups Systems software.

TAKEAWAY:

• Members with low physical activity showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.89) for progression or death compared with those with no activity, whereas those with moderate to high activity showed an HR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.70-0.77).
• For all-cause mortality, low physical activity members demonstrated an HR of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.61-0.74), whereas moderate to high activity members showed an HR of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.50-0.58) compared with inactive members.
• At 24 months post-diagnosis, individuals with moderate to high physical activity showed 80% probability of nonprogression compared with 74% for inactive individuals.
• Survival probability at 24 months was 95% for moderate to high activity members vs 91% for those with no physical activity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Physical activity may be considered to confer substantial benefits in terms of progression and overall mortality to those diagnosed with cancer. In a world where cancer continues to be a significant public health burden, the promotion of physical activity can yield important benefits regarding the progression of cancer as well as its prevention and management,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Ntokozo Mabena of Discovery Vitality in Sandton, South Africa. It was published online in British Journal of Sports Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, potential biases exist from not adjusting for confounding factors such as smoking status and alcohol consumption, along with incomplete body mass index data. The study assumed members without recorded physical activity points were inactive, which may not be accurate for all individuals. The findings may not be generalizable to the broader South African population as the study cohort had access to private medical insurance.

DISCLOSURES:

Authors Mabena, Sandra Lehmann, Deepak Patel, and Mosima Mabunda are employed by Discovery. Other authors Mike Greyling and Jon S. Patricios serve as a consultant for Discovery and an editor of British Journal of Sports Medicine, respectively.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hello. I’m Dr. Maurie Markman from City of Hope. I wanted to briefly discuss a very important paper. This is one that probably didn’t get as much attention as I believe it should. It looks at a very important clinically relevant question, and one that might very much say, can we do more such studies but only do them faster?

This was a trial reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology earlier this year titled, “Radiation Therapy With or Without Cisplatin for Local Recurrences of Endometrial Cancer: Results From an NRG Oncology/GOG Prospective Randomized Multicenter Clinical Study.” 

Fortunately, most patients with endometrial cancer have low-grade cancers and are cured with standard surgery, plus or minus radiation. However, a small percentage of patients, even with low-grade endometrial cancer, will recur.

There are several questions that come up. What is the optimal therapy? What is the outcome for such patients? Should we perhaps give chemotherapy along with the radiation as we do, for example, standardly in cervical cancer?

This study attempted to address that question. There was a total of 165 patients randomized in this trial that went on for 12 years, looking at local radiation vs radiation plus cisplatin — which is, again, standardly given as chemoradiation in cervical cancer.

What were the results? When this paper was reported 16 years after the study was initiated, the results showed the addition of chemotherapy did not add to the benefits of the radiation and in fact increased toxicity. Very importantly, the local control and overall control of the disease was excellent. In fact, at 3 years, 73% of the patients treated with radiation alone were disease-free.

It’s very important to know this, the value of radiation, and that adding chemotherapy with radiation doesn’t make a difference.

One might ask, if this is an important clinical question, is there a way or would there be a way in the future to take a question like this and significantly expand the population of individuals and the population of oncologists that might participate in community-based studies, where you’re asking a very simple question? 

You irradiate vs something else; you have a standard of care; you’re looking at progression-free survival, which is a very valid endpoint, or overall survival, and you don’t anticipate significant differences in toxicity because you might use this therapy otherwise. 

Would it be possible to answer the question not in 12 years, but in half that time or maybe 20% of that time? The results are important for patients being treated today and their doctors who are advising on optimal therapy.

For those of you who are interested in the question of the management of endometrial cancer, this type of pragmatic trial, I would encourage you to read this important paper. Thank you for your attention.

Maurie Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hello. I’m Dr. Maurie Markman from City of Hope. I wanted to briefly discuss a very important paper. This is one that probably didn’t get as much attention as I believe it should. It looks at a very important clinically relevant question, and one that might very much say, can we do more such studies but only do them faster?

This was a trial reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology earlier this year titled, “Radiation Therapy With or Without Cisplatin for Local Recurrences of Endometrial Cancer: Results From an NRG Oncology/GOG Prospective Randomized Multicenter Clinical Study.” 

Fortunately, most patients with endometrial cancer have low-grade cancers and are cured with standard surgery, plus or minus radiation. However, a small percentage of patients, even with low-grade endometrial cancer, will recur.

There are several questions that come up. What is the optimal therapy? What is the outcome for such patients? Should we perhaps give chemotherapy along with the radiation as we do, for example, standardly in cervical cancer?

This study attempted to address that question. There was a total of 165 patients randomized in this trial that went on for 12 years, looking at local radiation vs radiation plus cisplatin — which is, again, standardly given as chemoradiation in cervical cancer.

What were the results? When this paper was reported 16 years after the study was initiated, the results showed the addition of chemotherapy did not add to the benefits of the radiation and in fact increased toxicity. Very importantly, the local control and overall control of the disease was excellent. In fact, at 3 years, 73% of the patients treated with radiation alone were disease-free.

It’s very important to know this, the value of radiation, and that adding chemotherapy with radiation doesn’t make a difference.

One might ask, if this is an important clinical question, is there a way or would there be a way in the future to take a question like this and significantly expand the population of individuals and the population of oncologists that might participate in community-based studies, where you’re asking a very simple question? 

You irradiate vs something else; you have a standard of care; you’re looking at progression-free survival, which is a very valid endpoint, or overall survival, and you don’t anticipate significant differences in toxicity because you might use this therapy otherwise. 

Would it be possible to answer the question not in 12 years, but in half that time or maybe 20% of that time? The results are important for patients being treated today and their doctors who are advising on optimal therapy.

For those of you who are interested in the question of the management of endometrial cancer, this type of pragmatic trial, I would encourage you to read this important paper. Thank you for your attention.

Maurie Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hello. I’m Dr. Maurie Markman from City of Hope. I wanted to briefly discuss a very important paper. This is one that probably didn’t get as much attention as I believe it should. It looks at a very important clinically relevant question, and one that might very much say, can we do more such studies but only do them faster?

This was a trial reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology earlier this year titled, “Radiation Therapy With or Without Cisplatin for Local Recurrences of Endometrial Cancer: Results From an NRG Oncology/GOG Prospective Randomized Multicenter Clinical Study.” 

Fortunately, most patients with endometrial cancer have low-grade cancers and are cured with standard surgery, plus or minus radiation. However, a small percentage of patients, even with low-grade endometrial cancer, will recur.

There are several questions that come up. What is the optimal therapy? What is the outcome for such patients? Should we perhaps give chemotherapy along with the radiation as we do, for example, standardly in cervical cancer?

This study attempted to address that question. There was a total of 165 patients randomized in this trial that went on for 12 years, looking at local radiation vs radiation plus cisplatin — which is, again, standardly given as chemoradiation in cervical cancer.

What were the results? When this paper was reported 16 years after the study was initiated, the results showed the addition of chemotherapy did not add to the benefits of the radiation and in fact increased toxicity. Very importantly, the local control and overall control of the disease was excellent. In fact, at 3 years, 73% of the patients treated with radiation alone were disease-free.

It’s very important to know this, the value of radiation, and that adding chemotherapy with radiation doesn’t make a difference.

One might ask, if this is an important clinical question, is there a way or would there be a way in the future to take a question like this and significantly expand the population of individuals and the population of oncologists that might participate in community-based studies, where you’re asking a very simple question? 

You irradiate vs something else; you have a standard of care; you’re looking at progression-free survival, which is a very valid endpoint, or overall survival, and you don’t anticipate significant differences in toxicity because you might use this therapy otherwise. 

Would it be possible to answer the question not in 12 years, but in half that time or maybe 20% of that time? The results are important for patients being treated today and their doctors who are advising on optimal therapy.

For those of you who are interested in the question of the management of endometrial cancer, this type of pragmatic trial, I would encourage you to read this important paper. Thank you for your attention.

Maurie Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

Exposure to Agent Orange and depleted urology are associated with increased risk of bladder cancer, according to a recent Urology meta-analysis. About 3200 US veterans are diagnosed with bladder cancer each year, which is the fourth most diagnosed cancer among veterans. “Identifying veterans exposed to these risk factors is crucial for implementing screening protocols and connecting them with preventive healthcare measures when possible,” the authors said. 

A meta-analysis using narrative synthesis to incorporate diverse studies examined the impact of exposure to Agent Orange, depleted uranium exposure, contaminated drinking water, and other environmental contaminants. The researchers found 7 studies of Agent Orange exposure that in total showed a statistically significant increase in bladder cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.36; P < .001) among 2,705,283 veterans. Six studies revealed that depleted uranium exposure caused a statistically significant association with bladder cancer as well (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.31-3.48; P = .002) among 28,899 patients. Exposure to contaminated drinking water exposure in 4 studies also suggested an increased bladder cancer risk (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.97-1.61; P = .08) among 370,408 veterans. 

The authors identified other factors that also contributed to increased bladder cancer risk, including smoking, occupational exposures to substances like asbestos and diesel fumes, and exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear tests. “These findings emphasize the urgent need for enhanced clinical management strategies and preventive measures for veterans exposed to these carcinogenic agents,” the authors asserted. 

The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

Exposure to Agent Orange and depleted urology are associated with increased risk of bladder cancer, according to a recent Urology meta-analysis. About 3200 US veterans are diagnosed with bladder cancer each year, which is the fourth most diagnosed cancer among veterans. “Identifying veterans exposed to these risk factors is crucial for implementing screening protocols and connecting them with preventive healthcare measures when possible,” the authors said. 

A meta-analysis using narrative synthesis to incorporate diverse studies examined the impact of exposure to Agent Orange, depleted uranium exposure, contaminated drinking water, and other environmental contaminants. The researchers found 7 studies of Agent Orange exposure that in total showed a statistically significant increase in bladder cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.36; P < .001) among 2,705,283 veterans. Six studies revealed that depleted uranium exposure caused a statistically significant association with bladder cancer as well (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.31-3.48; P = .002) among 28,899 patients. Exposure to contaminated drinking water exposure in 4 studies also suggested an increased bladder cancer risk (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.97-1.61; P = .08) among 370,408 veterans. 

The authors identified other factors that also contributed to increased bladder cancer risk, including smoking, occupational exposures to substances like asbestos and diesel fumes, and exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear tests. “These findings emphasize the urgent need for enhanced clinical management strategies and preventive measures for veterans exposed to these carcinogenic agents,” the authors asserted. 

The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

Exposure to Agent Orange and depleted urology are associated with increased risk of bladder cancer, according to a recent Urology meta-analysis. About 3200 US veterans are diagnosed with bladder cancer each year, which is the fourth most diagnosed cancer among veterans. “Identifying veterans exposed to these risk factors is crucial for implementing screening protocols and connecting them with preventive healthcare measures when possible,” the authors said. 

A meta-analysis using narrative synthesis to incorporate diverse studies examined the impact of exposure to Agent Orange, depleted uranium exposure, contaminated drinking water, and other environmental contaminants. The researchers found 7 studies of Agent Orange exposure that in total showed a statistically significant increase in bladder cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.36; P < .001) among 2,705,283 veterans. Six studies revealed that depleted uranium exposure caused a statistically significant association with bladder cancer as well (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.31-3.48; P = .002) among 28,899 patients. Exposure to contaminated drinking water exposure in 4 studies also suggested an increased bladder cancer risk (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.97-1.61; P = .08) among 370,408 veterans. 

The authors identified other factors that also contributed to increased bladder cancer risk, including smoking, occupational exposures to substances like asbestos and diesel fumes, and exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear tests. “These findings emphasize the urgent need for enhanced clinical management strategies and preventive measures for veterans exposed to these carcinogenic agents,” the authors asserted. 

The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE:

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is less common and is associated with higher mortality rates than melanoma, according to a study that also reported that male gender, older age, and exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) are significant risk factors.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified 19,444 MCC cases and 646,619 melanoma cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2021 using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
• Ambient UVR exposure data were obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s total ozone mapping spectrometer database.
• Risk factors and cancer-specific mortality rates were evaluated for both cancers.

TAKEAWAY:

• Incidence rates per 100,000 person-years of MCC and melanoma were 0.8 and 27.3, respectively.
• Men (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.72 for MCC and 1.23 for melanoma), older age groups (IRR: 2.69 for MCC and 1.62 for melanoma among those 70-79 years; and 5.68 for MCC and 2.26 for melanoma among those 80 years or older) showed higher incidences of MCC and melanoma. Non-Hispanic White individuals were at higher risk for MCC and melanoma than other racial/ethnic groups.
• Exposure to UVR was associated with higher incidences of melanoma (IRR, 1.24-1.49) and MCC (IRR, 1.15-1.20) in non-Hispanic White individuals, particularly on the head and neck. These associations were unclear among racial/ethnic groups.
• Individuals with MCC had a higher risk for cancer-specific mortality than those with melanoma (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.33; 95% CI, 2.26-2.42). Cancer-specific survival for both cancers improved for cases diagnosed during 2012-2021 vs 2004-2011 (MCC: HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89; melanoma: HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.74-0.76).

IN PRACTICE:

“MCC and melanoma are aggressive skin cancers with similar risk factors including male sex, older age, and UV radiation exposure. Clinicians should be alert to diagnosis of these cancers to allow for prompt treatment,” the authors wrote, adding: “It is encouraging that survival for both cancers has increased in recent years, with the largest gains in survival seen in distant stage melanoma, coinciding with the approval of BRAF and PD-1 inhibitors used for distant stage disease,” although mortality for advanced stage tumors “continues to be very high.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jacob T. Tribble, BA, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland. It was published online on January 5 in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on SEER’s general staging system rather than the American Joint Committee on Cancer standard, and UVR exposure estimates did not account for individual sun protection behaviors or prior residential history. Race and ethnicity served as a proxy for UVR sensitivity, which may introduce misclassification bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the American Association for Dental Research, and the Colgate-Palmolive Company. The authors reported no conflict of interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is less common and is associated with higher mortality rates than melanoma, according to a study that also reported that male gender, older age, and exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) are significant risk factors.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified 19,444 MCC cases and 646,619 melanoma cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2021 using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
• Ambient UVR exposure data were obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s total ozone mapping spectrometer database.
• Risk factors and cancer-specific mortality rates were evaluated for both cancers.

TAKEAWAY:

• Incidence rates per 100,000 person-years of MCC and melanoma were 0.8 and 27.3, respectively.
• Men (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.72 for MCC and 1.23 for melanoma), older age groups (IRR: 2.69 for MCC and 1.62 for melanoma among those 70-79 years; and 5.68 for MCC and 2.26 for melanoma among those 80 years or older) showed higher incidences of MCC and melanoma. Non-Hispanic White individuals were at higher risk for MCC and melanoma than other racial/ethnic groups.
• Exposure to UVR was associated with higher incidences of melanoma (IRR, 1.24-1.49) and MCC (IRR, 1.15-1.20) in non-Hispanic White individuals, particularly on the head and neck. These associations were unclear among racial/ethnic groups.
• Individuals with MCC had a higher risk for cancer-specific mortality than those with melanoma (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.33; 95% CI, 2.26-2.42). Cancer-specific survival for both cancers improved for cases diagnosed during 2012-2021 vs 2004-2011 (MCC: HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89; melanoma: HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.74-0.76).

IN PRACTICE:

“MCC and melanoma are aggressive skin cancers with similar risk factors including male sex, older age, and UV radiation exposure. Clinicians should be alert to diagnosis of these cancers to allow for prompt treatment,” the authors wrote, adding: “It is encouraging that survival for both cancers has increased in recent years, with the largest gains in survival seen in distant stage melanoma, coinciding with the approval of BRAF and PD-1 inhibitors used for distant stage disease,” although mortality for advanced stage tumors “continues to be very high.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jacob T. Tribble, BA, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland. It was published online on January 5 in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on SEER’s general staging system rather than the American Joint Committee on Cancer standard, and UVR exposure estimates did not account for individual sun protection behaviors or prior residential history. Race and ethnicity served as a proxy for UVR sensitivity, which may introduce misclassification bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the American Association for Dental Research, and the Colgate-Palmolive Company. The authors reported no conflict of interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is less common and is associated with higher mortality rates than melanoma, according to a study that also reported that male gender, older age, and exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) are significant risk factors.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified 19,444 MCC cases and 646,619 melanoma cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2021 using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
• Ambient UVR exposure data were obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s total ozone mapping spectrometer database.
• Risk factors and cancer-specific mortality rates were evaluated for both cancers.

TAKEAWAY:

• Incidence rates per 100,000 person-years of MCC and melanoma were 0.8 and 27.3, respectively.
• Men (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.72 for MCC and 1.23 for melanoma), older age groups (IRR: 2.69 for MCC and 1.62 for melanoma among those 70-79 years; and 5.68 for MCC and 2.26 for melanoma among those 80 years or older) showed higher incidences of MCC and melanoma. Non-Hispanic White individuals were at higher risk for MCC and melanoma than other racial/ethnic groups.
• Exposure to UVR was associated with higher incidences of melanoma (IRR, 1.24-1.49) and MCC (IRR, 1.15-1.20) in non-Hispanic White individuals, particularly on the head and neck. These associations were unclear among racial/ethnic groups.
• Individuals with MCC had a higher risk for cancer-specific mortality than those with melanoma (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.33; 95% CI, 2.26-2.42). Cancer-specific survival for both cancers improved for cases diagnosed during 2012-2021 vs 2004-2011 (MCC: HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89; melanoma: HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.74-0.76).

IN PRACTICE:

“MCC and melanoma are aggressive skin cancers with similar risk factors including male sex, older age, and UV radiation exposure. Clinicians should be alert to diagnosis of these cancers to allow for prompt treatment,” the authors wrote, adding: “It is encouraging that survival for both cancers has increased in recent years, with the largest gains in survival seen in distant stage melanoma, coinciding with the approval of BRAF and PD-1 inhibitors used for distant stage disease,” although mortality for advanced stage tumors “continues to be very high.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jacob T. Tribble, BA, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland. It was published online on January 5 in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on SEER’s general staging system rather than the American Joint Committee on Cancer standard, and UVR exposure estimates did not account for individual sun protection behaviors or prior residential history. Race and ethnicity served as a proxy for UVR sensitivity, which may introduce misclassification bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the American Association for Dental Research, and the Colgate-Palmolive Company. The authors reported no conflict of interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The latest glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have been heralded for their potential to not only boost weight loss and glucose control but also improve cardiovascular, gastric, hepatic, and renal values.

Throughout 2024, research has also indicated GLP-1 drugs may reduce risks for obesity-related cancer.

In a US study of more than 1.6 million patients with type 2 diabetes, cancer researchers found that patients who took a GLP-1 drug had significant risk reductions for 10 of 13 obesity-associated cancers, as compared with patients who only took insulin.

The research team found a reduction in esophageal, colorectal, endometrial, gallbladder, kidney, liver, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers, as well as meningioma and multiple myeloma. They also saw a declining risk for stomach cancer, though it wasn’t considered statistically significant, but not a reduced risk for postmenopausal breast cancer or thyroid cancer.

The associations make sense, particularly because GLP-1 drugs have unexpected effects on modulating immune functions linked to obesity-associated cancers.

“The protective effects of GLP-1s against obesity-associated cancers likely stem from multiple mechanisms,” said lead author Lindsey Wang, a medical student and research scholar at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

“These drugs promote substantial weight loss, reducing obesity-related cancer risks,” she said. “They also enhance insulin sensitivity and lower insulin levels, decreasing cancer cell growth signals.”

 

Additional GLP-1 Studies

The Case Western team also published a study in December 2023 that found people with type 2 diabetes who took GLP-1s had a 44% lower risk for colorectal cancer than those who took insulin and a 25% lower risk than those who took metformin. The research suggested even greater risk reductions among those with overweight or obesity, with GLP-1 users having a 50% lower risk than those who took insulin and a 42% lower risk than those who took metformin.

In another recent Case Western study, both bariatric surgery and GLP-1 drugs reduced the risk for obesity-related cancers. While those who had bariatric surgery had a 22% risk reduction over 10 years, as compared with those who received no treatment, those taking GLP-1 had a 39% risk reduction.

Other studies worldwide have looked at GLP-1 drugs and tumor effects among various cancer cell lines. In a study using pancreatic cancer cell lines, GLP-1 liraglutide suppressed cancer cell growth and led to cell death. Similarly, a study using breast cancer cells found liraglutide reduced cancer cell viability and the ability for cells to migrate.

As researchers identify additional links between GLP-1s and improvements across organ systems, the knock-on effects could lead to lower cancer risks as well. For example, studies presented at The Liver Meeting in San Diego in November pointed to GLP-1s reducing fatty liver disease, which can slow the progression to liver cancer.

“Separate from obesity, having higher levels of body fat is associated with an increased risk of several forms of cancer,” said Neil Iyengar, MD, an oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Iyengar researches the relationship between obesity and cancer.

“I foresee that this class of drugs will revolutionize obesity and the cancer burden that comes with it, if people can get access,” he said. “This really is an exciting development.”

 

Ongoing GLP-1 Research

On the other hand, cancer researchers have also expressed concerns about potential associations between GLP-1s and increased cancer risks. In the obesity-associated cancer study by Case Western researchers, patients with type 2 diabetes taking a GLP-1 drug appeared to have a slightly higher risk for kidney cancer than those taking metformin.

In addition, GLP-1 studies in animals have indicated that the drugs may increase the risks for medullary thyroid cancer and pancreatic cancer. However, the data on increased risks in humans remain inconclusive, and more recent studies refute these findings.

For instance, cancer researchers in India conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of semaglutide and cancer risks, finding that 37 randomized controlled trials and 19 real-world studies didn’t find increased risks for any cancer, including pancreatic and thyroid cancers.

In another systematic review by Brazilian researchers, 50 trials found GLP-1s didn’t increase the risk for breast cancer or benign breast neoplasms.

In 2025, new retrospective studies will show more nuanced data, especially as more patients — both with and without type 2 diabetes — take semaglutide, tirzepatide, and new GLP-1 drugs in the research pipeline.

“The holy grail has always been getting a medication to treat obesity,” said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and obesity researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle.

“There have been trials focused on these medications’ effects on diabetes and cardiovascular disease treatment, but no trials have tested their effects on cancer risk,” she said. “Usually, many years of follow-up of large numbers of patients are needed to see cancer effects of a carcinogen or cancer-preventing intervention.”

Those clinical trials are likely coming soon, she said. Researchers will need to conduct prospective clinical trials to examine the direct relationship between GLP-1 drugs and cancer risks, as well as the underlying mechanisms linked to cancer cell growth, activation of immune cells, and anti-inflammatory properties.

Because GLP-1 medications aren’t intended to be taken forever, researchers will also need to consider the associations with long-term cancer risks. Even so, weight loss and other obesity-related improvements could contribute to overall lower cancer risks in the end.

“If taking these drugs for a limited amount of time can help people lose weight and get on an exercise plan, then that’s helping lower cancer risk long-term,” said Sonali Thosani, MD, associate professor of endocrine neoplasia and hormonal disorders at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“But it all comes back to someone making lifestyle changes and sticking to them, even after they stop taking the drugs,” she said. “If they can do that, then you’ll probably see a net positive for long-term cancer risks and other long-term health risks.”

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The latest glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have been heralded for their potential to not only boost weight loss and glucose control but also improve cardiovascular, gastric, hepatic, and renal values.

Throughout 2024, research has also indicated GLP-1 drugs may reduce risks for obesity-related cancer.

In a US study of more than 1.6 million patients with type 2 diabetes, cancer researchers found that patients who took a GLP-1 drug had significant risk reductions for 10 of 13 obesity-associated cancers, as compared with patients who only took insulin.

The research team found a reduction in esophageal, colorectal, endometrial, gallbladder, kidney, liver, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers, as well as meningioma and multiple myeloma. They also saw a declining risk for stomach cancer, though it wasn’t considered statistically significant, but not a reduced risk for postmenopausal breast cancer or thyroid cancer.

The associations make sense, particularly because GLP-1 drugs have unexpected effects on modulating immune functions linked to obesity-associated cancers.

“The protective effects of GLP-1s against obesity-associated cancers likely stem from multiple mechanisms,” said lead author Lindsey Wang, a medical student and research scholar at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

“These drugs promote substantial weight loss, reducing obesity-related cancer risks,” she said. “They also enhance insulin sensitivity and lower insulin levels, decreasing cancer cell growth signals.”

 

Additional GLP-1 Studies

The Case Western team also published a study in December 2023 that found people with type 2 diabetes who took GLP-1s had a 44% lower risk for colorectal cancer than those who took insulin and a 25% lower risk than those who took metformin. The research suggested even greater risk reductions among those with overweight or obesity, with GLP-1 users having a 50% lower risk than those who took insulin and a 42% lower risk than those who took metformin.

In another recent Case Western study, both bariatric surgery and GLP-1 drugs reduced the risk for obesity-related cancers. While those who had bariatric surgery had a 22% risk reduction over 10 years, as compared with those who received no treatment, those taking GLP-1 had a 39% risk reduction.

Other studies worldwide have looked at GLP-1 drugs and tumor effects among various cancer cell lines. In a study using pancreatic cancer cell lines, GLP-1 liraglutide suppressed cancer cell growth and led to cell death. Similarly, a study using breast cancer cells found liraglutide reduced cancer cell viability and the ability for cells to migrate.

As researchers identify additional links between GLP-1s and improvements across organ systems, the knock-on effects could lead to lower cancer risks as well. For example, studies presented at The Liver Meeting in San Diego in November pointed to GLP-1s reducing fatty liver disease, which can slow the progression to liver cancer.

“Separate from obesity, having higher levels of body fat is associated with an increased risk of several forms of cancer,” said Neil Iyengar, MD, an oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Iyengar researches the relationship between obesity and cancer.

“I foresee that this class of drugs will revolutionize obesity and the cancer burden that comes with it, if people can get access,” he said. “This really is an exciting development.”

 

Ongoing GLP-1 Research

On the other hand, cancer researchers have also expressed concerns about potential associations between GLP-1s and increased cancer risks. In the obesity-associated cancer study by Case Western researchers, patients with type 2 diabetes taking a GLP-1 drug appeared to have a slightly higher risk for kidney cancer than those taking metformin.

In addition, GLP-1 studies in animals have indicated that the drugs may increase the risks for medullary thyroid cancer and pancreatic cancer. However, the data on increased risks in humans remain inconclusive, and more recent studies refute these findings.

For instance, cancer researchers in India conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of semaglutide and cancer risks, finding that 37 randomized controlled trials and 19 real-world studies didn’t find increased risks for any cancer, including pancreatic and thyroid cancers.

In another systematic review by Brazilian researchers, 50 trials found GLP-1s didn’t increase the risk for breast cancer or benign breast neoplasms.

In 2025, new retrospective studies will show more nuanced data, especially as more patients — both with and without type 2 diabetes — take semaglutide, tirzepatide, and new GLP-1 drugs in the research pipeline.

“The holy grail has always been getting a medication to treat obesity,” said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and obesity researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle.

“There have been trials focused on these medications’ effects on diabetes and cardiovascular disease treatment, but no trials have tested their effects on cancer risk,” she said. “Usually, many years of follow-up of large numbers of patients are needed to see cancer effects of a carcinogen or cancer-preventing intervention.”

Those clinical trials are likely coming soon, she said. Researchers will need to conduct prospective clinical trials to examine the direct relationship between GLP-1 drugs and cancer risks, as well as the underlying mechanisms linked to cancer cell growth, activation of immune cells, and anti-inflammatory properties.

Because GLP-1 medications aren’t intended to be taken forever, researchers will also need to consider the associations with long-term cancer risks. Even so, weight loss and other obesity-related improvements could contribute to overall lower cancer risks in the end.

“If taking these drugs for a limited amount of time can help people lose weight and get on an exercise plan, then that’s helping lower cancer risk long-term,” said Sonali Thosani, MD, associate professor of endocrine neoplasia and hormonal disorders at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“But it all comes back to someone making lifestyle changes and sticking to them, even after they stop taking the drugs,” she said. “If they can do that, then you’ll probably see a net positive for long-term cancer risks and other long-term health risks.”

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The latest glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have been heralded for their potential to not only boost weight loss and glucose control but also improve cardiovascular, gastric, hepatic, and renal values.

Throughout 2024, research has also indicated GLP-1 drugs may reduce risks for obesity-related cancer.

In a US study of more than 1.6 million patients with type 2 diabetes, cancer researchers found that patients who took a GLP-1 drug had significant risk reductions for 10 of 13 obesity-associated cancers, as compared with patients who only took insulin.

The research team found a reduction in esophageal, colorectal, endometrial, gallbladder, kidney, liver, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers, as well as meningioma and multiple myeloma. They also saw a declining risk for stomach cancer, though it wasn’t considered statistically significant, but not a reduced risk for postmenopausal breast cancer or thyroid cancer.

The associations make sense, particularly because GLP-1 drugs have unexpected effects on modulating immune functions linked to obesity-associated cancers.

“The protective effects of GLP-1s against obesity-associated cancers likely stem from multiple mechanisms,” said lead author Lindsey Wang, a medical student and research scholar at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

“These drugs promote substantial weight loss, reducing obesity-related cancer risks,” she said. “They also enhance insulin sensitivity and lower insulin levels, decreasing cancer cell growth signals.”

 

Additional GLP-1 Studies

The Case Western team also published a study in December 2023 that found people with type 2 diabetes who took GLP-1s had a 44% lower risk for colorectal cancer than those who took insulin and a 25% lower risk than those who took metformin. The research suggested even greater risk reductions among those with overweight or obesity, with GLP-1 users having a 50% lower risk than those who took insulin and a 42% lower risk than those who took metformin.

In another recent Case Western study, both bariatric surgery and GLP-1 drugs reduced the risk for obesity-related cancers. While those who had bariatric surgery had a 22% risk reduction over 10 years, as compared with those who received no treatment, those taking GLP-1 had a 39% risk reduction.

Other studies worldwide have looked at GLP-1 drugs and tumor effects among various cancer cell lines. In a study using pancreatic cancer cell lines, GLP-1 liraglutide suppressed cancer cell growth and led to cell death. Similarly, a study using breast cancer cells found liraglutide reduced cancer cell viability and the ability for cells to migrate.

As researchers identify additional links between GLP-1s and improvements across organ systems, the knock-on effects could lead to lower cancer risks as well. For example, studies presented at The Liver Meeting in San Diego in November pointed to GLP-1s reducing fatty liver disease, which can slow the progression to liver cancer.

“Separate from obesity, having higher levels of body fat is associated with an increased risk of several forms of cancer,” said Neil Iyengar, MD, an oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Iyengar researches the relationship between obesity and cancer.

“I foresee that this class of drugs will revolutionize obesity and the cancer burden that comes with it, if people can get access,” he said. “This really is an exciting development.”

 

Ongoing GLP-1 Research

On the other hand, cancer researchers have also expressed concerns about potential associations between GLP-1s and increased cancer risks. In the obesity-associated cancer study by Case Western researchers, patients with type 2 diabetes taking a GLP-1 drug appeared to have a slightly higher risk for kidney cancer than those taking metformin.

In addition, GLP-1 studies in animals have indicated that the drugs may increase the risks for medullary thyroid cancer and pancreatic cancer. However, the data on increased risks in humans remain inconclusive, and more recent studies refute these findings.

For instance, cancer researchers in India conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of semaglutide and cancer risks, finding that 37 randomized controlled trials and 19 real-world studies didn’t find increased risks for any cancer, including pancreatic and thyroid cancers.

In another systematic review by Brazilian researchers, 50 trials found GLP-1s didn’t increase the risk for breast cancer or benign breast neoplasms.

In 2025, new retrospective studies will show more nuanced data, especially as more patients — both with and without type 2 diabetes — take semaglutide, tirzepatide, and new GLP-1 drugs in the research pipeline.

“The holy grail has always been getting a medication to treat obesity,” said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and obesity researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle.

“There have been trials focused on these medications’ effects on diabetes and cardiovascular disease treatment, but no trials have tested their effects on cancer risk,” she said. “Usually, many years of follow-up of large numbers of patients are needed to see cancer effects of a carcinogen or cancer-preventing intervention.”

Those clinical trials are likely coming soon, she said. Researchers will need to conduct prospective clinical trials to examine the direct relationship between GLP-1 drugs and cancer risks, as well as the underlying mechanisms linked to cancer cell growth, activation of immune cells, and anti-inflammatory properties.

Because GLP-1 medications aren’t intended to be taken forever, researchers will also need to consider the associations with long-term cancer risks. Even so, weight loss and other obesity-related improvements could contribute to overall lower cancer risks in the end.

“If taking these drugs for a limited amount of time can help people lose weight and get on an exercise plan, then that’s helping lower cancer risk long-term,” said Sonali Thosani, MD, associate professor of endocrine neoplasia and hormonal disorders at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“But it all comes back to someone making lifestyle changes and sticking to them, even after they stop taking the drugs,” she said. “If they can do that, then you’ll probably see a net positive for long-term cancer risks and other long-term health risks.”

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The evidence is clear: Alcohol can cause cancer.

Earlier this month, US surgeon general Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory, calling for alcoholic beverages to carry a warning label about cancer risk. The advisory flagged alcohol as the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity, and highlighted people’s limited awareness about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk.

But, when it comes to cancer risk, are all types of alcohol created equal?

For many years, red wine seemed to be an outlier, with studies indicating that, in moderation, it might even be good for you. Red wine has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties — most notably, it contains the antioxidant resveratrol. Starting in the 1990s, research began to hint that the compound might protect against heart disease, aging, and cancer, though much of this work was done in animals or test tubes.

The idea that red wine carries health benefits, however, has been called into question more recently. A recent meta-analysis, for instance, suggests that many previous studies touting the health benefits of more moderate drinking were likely biased, potentially leading to “misleading positive health associations.” And one recent study found that alcohol consumption, largely red wine and beer, at all levels was linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

Although wine’s health halo is dwindling, there might be an exception: Cancer risk.

Overall, research shows that even light to moderate drinking increases the risk for at least seven types of cancer, but when focusing on red wine, in particular, that risk calculus can look different.

“It’s very complicated and nuanced,” said Timothy Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “And ‘complicated and nuanced’ doesn’t work very well in public health messages.”

The Knowns About Alcohol and Cancer Risk

Some things about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk are crystal clear. “There’s no question that alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen,” Rebbeck said. “Alcohol can cause cancer.”

Groups including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and American Cancer Society agree that alcohol use is an established cause of seven types of cancer: Those of the oral cavity, larynx, pharynx, esophagus (squamous cell carcinoma), liver (hepatocellular carcinoma), breast, and colon/rectum. Heavy drinking — at least 8 standard drinks a week for women and 15 for men — and binge drinking — 4 or more drinks in 2 hours for women and 5 or more for men — only amplify that risk. (A “standard” drink has 14 g of alcohol, which translates to a 5-oz glass of wine.)

“We’re most concerned about high-risk drinking — more than 2 drinks a day — and/or binge drinking,” said Noelle LoConte, MD, of the Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, who authored a 2018 statement on alcohol and cancer risk from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Compared with not drinking, heavy drinking is linked with a roughly fivefold increase in the risk for oral cavity, pharyngeal, and esophageal cancers, and a 61% increase in the risk for breast cancer, according to LoConte and colleagues.

Things get murkier when it comes to moderate drinking — defined as up to 1 standard drink per day for women and 2 per day for men. There is evidence, LoConte said, that moderate drinking is associated with increased cancer risks, though the magnitude is generally much less than heavier drinking.

Cancer type also matters. One analysis found that the risk for breast cancer increased with even light to moderate alcohol consumption. Compared with no drinking, light to moderate drinking has also been linked to increased risks for oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and esophageal cancers.

As for whether the type of alcoholic beverage matters, LoConte said, there’s no clear physiological reason that wine would be less risky than beer or liquor. Research indicates that ethanol is the problematic ingredient: Once ingested, it’s metabolized into acetaldehyde, a DNA-damaging substance that’s considered a probable human carcinogen. Ethanol can also alter circulating levels of estrogens and androgens, LoConte said, which is thought to drive its association with breast cancer risk.

“It likely doesn’t matter how you choose to get your ethanol,” she said. “It’s a question of volume.”

Hints That Wine Is an Outlier

Still, some studies suggest that how people ingest ethanol could make a difference.

A study published in August in JAMA Network Open is a case in point. The study found that, among older adults, light to heavy drinkers had an increased risk of dying from cancer, compared with occasional drinkers (though the increased risk among light to moderate drinkers occurred only among people who also had chronic health conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, or were of lower socioeconomic status).

Wine drinkers fared differently. Most notably, drinkers who “preferred” wine — consuming over 80% of total ethanol from wine — or those who drank only with meals showed a small reduction in their risk for cancer mortality and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 for both). The small protective association was somewhat stronger among people who reported both patterns (HR, 0.88), especially if they were of lower socioeconomic status (HR, 0.79).

The findings are in line with other research suggesting that wine drinkers may be outliers when it comes to cancer risk. A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 observational studies, for instance, found no association between wine consumption and any cancer type, with the caveat that there was «substantial» heterogeneity among the studies.

This heterogeneity caveat speaks to the inherent limitations of observational research, said Tim Stockwell, PhD, of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.

“Individual studies of alcohol and cancer risk do find differences by type of drink, or patterns of drinking,” Stockwell said. “But it’s so hard to unpack the confounding that goes along with the type of person who’s a wine drinker or a beer drinker or a spirit drinker. The beverage of choice seems to come with a lot of baggage.”

Compared with people who favor beer or liquor, he noted, wine aficionados are typically higher-income, exercise more often, smoke less, and have different diets, for example. The “best” studies, Rebbeck said, try to adjust for those differences, but it’s challenging.

The authors of the 2023 meta-analysis noted that “many components in wine could have anticarcinogenic effects” that theoretically could counter the ill effects of ethanol. Besides resveratrol, which is mainly found in red wine, the list includes anthocyanins, quercetin, and tannins. However, the authors also acknowledged that they couldn’t account for whether other lifestyle habits might explain why wine drinkers, overall, showed no increased cancer risks and sometimes lower risks.

Still, groups such as the IARC and ASCO hold that there is no known “safe” level, or type, of alcohol when it comes to cancer.

In the latest Canadian guidelines on alcohol use, the scientific panel calculated that people who have 6 drinks a week throughout adulthood (whatever the source of the alcohol) could shave 11 weeks from their life expectancy, on average, said Stockwell, who was on the guideline panel. Compare that with heavy drinking, where 4 drinks a day could rob the average person of 2 or 3 years. “If you’re drinking a lot, you could get huge benefits from cutting down,” Stockwell explained. “If you’re a moderate drinker, the benefits would obviously be less.”

Stockwell said that choices around drinking and breast cancer risk, specifically, can be “tough.” Unlike many of the other alcohol-associated cancers, he noted, breast cancer is common — so even small relative risk increases may be concerning. Based on a 2020 meta-analysis of 22 cohort studies, the risk for breast cancer rises by about 10%, on average, for every 10 g of alcohol a woman drinks per day. This study also found no evidence that wine is any different from other types of alcohol.

In real life, the calculus around wine consumption and cancer risk will probably vary widely from person to person, Rebbeck said. One woman with a family history of breast cancer might decide that having wine with dinner isn’t worth it. Another with the same family history might see that glass of wine as a stress reliever and opt to focus on other ways to reduce her breast cancer risk — by exercising and maintaining a healthy weight, for example.

“The bottom line is, in human studies, the data on light to moderate drinking and cancer are limited and messy, and you can’t draw firm conclusions from them,” Rebbeck said. “It probably raises risk in some people, but we don’t know who those people are. And the risk increases are relatively small.”

A Conversation Few Are Having

Even with many studies highlighting the connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk, most people remain unaware about this risk.

A 2023 study by the National Cancer Institute found that only a minority of US adults knew that drinking alcohol is linked to increased cancer risk, and they were much less likely to say that was true of wine: Only 20% did, vs 31% who said that liquor can boost cancer risk. Meanwhile, 10% believed that wine helps prevent cancer. Other studies show that even among cancer survivors and patients undergoing active cancer treatment, many drink — often heavily.

“What we know right now is, physicians almost never talk about this,” LoConte said.

That could be due to time constraints, according to Rebbeck, or clinicians’ perceptions that the subject is too complicated and/or their own confusion about the data. There could also be some “cognitive dissonance” at play, LoConte noted, because many doctors drink alcohol.

It’s critical, she said, that conversations about drinking habits become “normalized,” and that should include informing patients that alcohol use is associated with certain cancers. Again, LoConte said, it’s high-risk drinking that’s most concerning and where reducing intake could have the biggest impact on cancer risk and other health outcomes.

“From a cancer prevention standpoint, it’s probably best not to drink,” she said. “But people don’t make choices based solely on cancer risk. We don’t want to come out with recommendations saying no one should drink. I don’t think the data support that, and people would buck against that advice.”

Rebbeck made a similar point. Even if there’s uncertainty about the risks for a daily glass of wine, he said, people can use that information to make decisions. “Everybody’s preferences and choices are going to be different,” Rebbeck said. “And that’s all we can really do.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The evidence is clear: Alcohol can cause cancer.

Earlier this month, US surgeon general Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory, calling for alcoholic beverages to carry a warning label about cancer risk. The advisory flagged alcohol as the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity, and highlighted people’s limited awareness about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk.

But, when it comes to cancer risk, are all types of alcohol created equal?

For many years, red wine seemed to be an outlier, with studies indicating that, in moderation, it might even be good for you. Red wine has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties — most notably, it contains the antioxidant resveratrol. Starting in the 1990s, research began to hint that the compound might protect against heart disease, aging, and cancer, though much of this work was done in animals or test tubes.

The idea that red wine carries health benefits, however, has been called into question more recently. A recent meta-analysis, for instance, suggests that many previous studies touting the health benefits of more moderate drinking were likely biased, potentially leading to “misleading positive health associations.” And one recent study found that alcohol consumption, largely red wine and beer, at all levels was linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

Although wine’s health halo is dwindling, there might be an exception: Cancer risk.

Overall, research shows that even light to moderate drinking increases the risk for at least seven types of cancer, but when focusing on red wine, in particular, that risk calculus can look different.

“It’s very complicated and nuanced,” said Timothy Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “And ‘complicated and nuanced’ doesn’t work very well in public health messages.”

The Knowns About Alcohol and Cancer Risk

Some things about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk are crystal clear. “There’s no question that alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen,” Rebbeck said. “Alcohol can cause cancer.”

Groups including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and American Cancer Society agree that alcohol use is an established cause of seven types of cancer: Those of the oral cavity, larynx, pharynx, esophagus (squamous cell carcinoma), liver (hepatocellular carcinoma), breast, and colon/rectum. Heavy drinking — at least 8 standard drinks a week for women and 15 for men — and binge drinking — 4 or more drinks in 2 hours for women and 5 or more for men — only amplify that risk. (A “standard” drink has 14 g of alcohol, which translates to a 5-oz glass of wine.)

“We’re most concerned about high-risk drinking — more than 2 drinks a day — and/or binge drinking,” said Noelle LoConte, MD, of the Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, who authored a 2018 statement on alcohol and cancer risk from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Compared with not drinking, heavy drinking is linked with a roughly fivefold increase in the risk for oral cavity, pharyngeal, and esophageal cancers, and a 61% increase in the risk for breast cancer, according to LoConte and colleagues.

Things get murkier when it comes to moderate drinking — defined as up to 1 standard drink per day for women and 2 per day for men. There is evidence, LoConte said, that moderate drinking is associated with increased cancer risks, though the magnitude is generally much less than heavier drinking.

Cancer type also matters. One analysis found that the risk for breast cancer increased with even light to moderate alcohol consumption. Compared with no drinking, light to moderate drinking has also been linked to increased risks for oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and esophageal cancers.

As for whether the type of alcoholic beverage matters, LoConte said, there’s no clear physiological reason that wine would be less risky than beer or liquor. Research indicates that ethanol is the problematic ingredient: Once ingested, it’s metabolized into acetaldehyde, a DNA-damaging substance that’s considered a probable human carcinogen. Ethanol can also alter circulating levels of estrogens and androgens, LoConte said, which is thought to drive its association with breast cancer risk.

“It likely doesn’t matter how you choose to get your ethanol,” she said. “It’s a question of volume.”

Hints That Wine Is an Outlier

Still, some studies suggest that how people ingest ethanol could make a difference.

A study published in August in JAMA Network Open is a case in point. The study found that, among older adults, light to heavy drinkers had an increased risk of dying from cancer, compared with occasional drinkers (though the increased risk among light to moderate drinkers occurred only among people who also had chronic health conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, or were of lower socioeconomic status).

Wine drinkers fared differently. Most notably, drinkers who “preferred” wine — consuming over 80% of total ethanol from wine — or those who drank only with meals showed a small reduction in their risk for cancer mortality and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 for both). The small protective association was somewhat stronger among people who reported both patterns (HR, 0.88), especially if they were of lower socioeconomic status (HR, 0.79).

The findings are in line with other research suggesting that wine drinkers may be outliers when it comes to cancer risk. A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 observational studies, for instance, found no association between wine consumption and any cancer type, with the caveat that there was «substantial» heterogeneity among the studies.

This heterogeneity caveat speaks to the inherent limitations of observational research, said Tim Stockwell, PhD, of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.

“Individual studies of alcohol and cancer risk do find differences by type of drink, or patterns of drinking,” Stockwell said. “But it’s so hard to unpack the confounding that goes along with the type of person who’s a wine drinker or a beer drinker or a spirit drinker. The beverage of choice seems to come with a lot of baggage.”

Compared with people who favor beer or liquor, he noted, wine aficionados are typically higher-income, exercise more often, smoke less, and have different diets, for example. The “best” studies, Rebbeck said, try to adjust for those differences, but it’s challenging.

The authors of the 2023 meta-analysis noted that “many components in wine could have anticarcinogenic effects” that theoretically could counter the ill effects of ethanol. Besides resveratrol, which is mainly found in red wine, the list includes anthocyanins, quercetin, and tannins. However, the authors also acknowledged that they couldn’t account for whether other lifestyle habits might explain why wine drinkers, overall, showed no increased cancer risks and sometimes lower risks.

Still, groups such as the IARC and ASCO hold that there is no known “safe” level, or type, of alcohol when it comes to cancer.

In the latest Canadian guidelines on alcohol use, the scientific panel calculated that people who have 6 drinks a week throughout adulthood (whatever the source of the alcohol) could shave 11 weeks from their life expectancy, on average, said Stockwell, who was on the guideline panel. Compare that with heavy drinking, where 4 drinks a day could rob the average person of 2 or 3 years. “If you’re drinking a lot, you could get huge benefits from cutting down,” Stockwell explained. “If you’re a moderate drinker, the benefits would obviously be less.”

Stockwell said that choices around drinking and breast cancer risk, specifically, can be “tough.” Unlike many of the other alcohol-associated cancers, he noted, breast cancer is common — so even small relative risk increases may be concerning. Based on a 2020 meta-analysis of 22 cohort studies, the risk for breast cancer rises by about 10%, on average, for every 10 g of alcohol a woman drinks per day. This study also found no evidence that wine is any different from other types of alcohol.

In real life, the calculus around wine consumption and cancer risk will probably vary widely from person to person, Rebbeck said. One woman with a family history of breast cancer might decide that having wine with dinner isn’t worth it. Another with the same family history might see that glass of wine as a stress reliever and opt to focus on other ways to reduce her breast cancer risk — by exercising and maintaining a healthy weight, for example.

“The bottom line is, in human studies, the data on light to moderate drinking and cancer are limited and messy, and you can’t draw firm conclusions from them,” Rebbeck said. “It probably raises risk in some people, but we don’t know who those people are. And the risk increases are relatively small.”

A Conversation Few Are Having

Even with many studies highlighting the connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk, most people remain unaware about this risk.

A 2023 study by the National Cancer Institute found that only a minority of US adults knew that drinking alcohol is linked to increased cancer risk, and they were much less likely to say that was true of wine: Only 20% did, vs 31% who said that liquor can boost cancer risk. Meanwhile, 10% believed that wine helps prevent cancer. Other studies show that even among cancer survivors and patients undergoing active cancer treatment, many drink — often heavily.

“What we know right now is, physicians almost never talk about this,” LoConte said.

That could be due to time constraints, according to Rebbeck, or clinicians’ perceptions that the subject is too complicated and/or their own confusion about the data. There could also be some “cognitive dissonance” at play, LoConte noted, because many doctors drink alcohol.

It’s critical, she said, that conversations about drinking habits become “normalized,” and that should include informing patients that alcohol use is associated with certain cancers. Again, LoConte said, it’s high-risk drinking that’s most concerning and where reducing intake could have the biggest impact on cancer risk and other health outcomes.

“From a cancer prevention standpoint, it’s probably best not to drink,” she said. “But people don’t make choices based solely on cancer risk. We don’t want to come out with recommendations saying no one should drink. I don’t think the data support that, and people would buck against that advice.”

Rebbeck made a similar point. Even if there’s uncertainty about the risks for a daily glass of wine, he said, people can use that information to make decisions. “Everybody’s preferences and choices are going to be different,” Rebbeck said. “And that’s all we can really do.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The evidence is clear: Alcohol can cause cancer.

Earlier this month, US surgeon general Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory, calling for alcoholic beverages to carry a warning label about cancer risk. The advisory flagged alcohol as the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity, and highlighted people’s limited awareness about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk.

But, when it comes to cancer risk, are all types of alcohol created equal?

For many years, red wine seemed to be an outlier, with studies indicating that, in moderation, it might even be good for you. Red wine has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties — most notably, it contains the antioxidant resveratrol. Starting in the 1990s, research began to hint that the compound might protect against heart disease, aging, and cancer, though much of this work was done in animals or test tubes.

The idea that red wine carries health benefits, however, has been called into question more recently. A recent meta-analysis, for instance, suggests that many previous studies touting the health benefits of more moderate drinking were likely biased, potentially leading to “misleading positive health associations.” And one recent study found that alcohol consumption, largely red wine and beer, at all levels was linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

Although wine’s health halo is dwindling, there might be an exception: Cancer risk.

Overall, research shows that even light to moderate drinking increases the risk for at least seven types of cancer, but when focusing on red wine, in particular, that risk calculus can look different.

“It’s very complicated and nuanced,” said Timothy Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “And ‘complicated and nuanced’ doesn’t work very well in public health messages.”

The Knowns About Alcohol and Cancer Risk

Some things about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk are crystal clear. “There’s no question that alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen,” Rebbeck said. “Alcohol can cause cancer.”

Groups including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and American Cancer Society agree that alcohol use is an established cause of seven types of cancer: Those of the oral cavity, larynx, pharynx, esophagus (squamous cell carcinoma), liver (hepatocellular carcinoma), breast, and colon/rectum. Heavy drinking — at least 8 standard drinks a week for women and 15 for men — and binge drinking — 4 or more drinks in 2 hours for women and 5 or more for men — only amplify that risk. (A “standard” drink has 14 g of alcohol, which translates to a 5-oz glass of wine.)

“We’re most concerned about high-risk drinking — more than 2 drinks a day — and/or binge drinking,” said Noelle LoConte, MD, of the Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, who authored a 2018 statement on alcohol and cancer risk from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Compared with not drinking, heavy drinking is linked with a roughly fivefold increase in the risk for oral cavity, pharyngeal, and esophageal cancers, and a 61% increase in the risk for breast cancer, according to LoConte and colleagues.

Things get murkier when it comes to moderate drinking — defined as up to 1 standard drink per day for women and 2 per day for men. There is evidence, LoConte said, that moderate drinking is associated with increased cancer risks, though the magnitude is generally much less than heavier drinking.

Cancer type also matters. One analysis found that the risk for breast cancer increased with even light to moderate alcohol consumption. Compared with no drinking, light to moderate drinking has also been linked to increased risks for oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and esophageal cancers.

As for whether the type of alcoholic beverage matters, LoConte said, there’s no clear physiological reason that wine would be less risky than beer or liquor. Research indicates that ethanol is the problematic ingredient: Once ingested, it’s metabolized into acetaldehyde, a DNA-damaging substance that’s considered a probable human carcinogen. Ethanol can also alter circulating levels of estrogens and androgens, LoConte said, which is thought to drive its association with breast cancer risk.

“It likely doesn’t matter how you choose to get your ethanol,” she said. “It’s a question of volume.”

Hints That Wine Is an Outlier

Still, some studies suggest that how people ingest ethanol could make a difference.

A study published in August in JAMA Network Open is a case in point. The study found that, among older adults, light to heavy drinkers had an increased risk of dying from cancer, compared with occasional drinkers (though the increased risk among light to moderate drinkers occurred only among people who also had chronic health conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, or were of lower socioeconomic status).

Wine drinkers fared differently. Most notably, drinkers who “preferred” wine — consuming over 80% of total ethanol from wine — or those who drank only with meals showed a small reduction in their risk for cancer mortality and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 for both). The small protective association was somewhat stronger among people who reported both patterns (HR, 0.88), especially if they were of lower socioeconomic status (HR, 0.79).

The findings are in line with other research suggesting that wine drinkers may be outliers when it comes to cancer risk. A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 observational studies, for instance, found no association between wine consumption and any cancer type, with the caveat that there was «substantial» heterogeneity among the studies.

This heterogeneity caveat speaks to the inherent limitations of observational research, said Tim Stockwell, PhD, of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.

“Individual studies of alcohol and cancer risk do find differences by type of drink, or patterns of drinking,” Stockwell said. “But it’s so hard to unpack the confounding that goes along with the type of person who’s a wine drinker or a beer drinker or a spirit drinker. The beverage of choice seems to come with a lot of baggage.”

Compared with people who favor beer or liquor, he noted, wine aficionados are typically higher-income, exercise more often, smoke less, and have different diets, for example. The “best” studies, Rebbeck said, try to adjust for those differences, but it’s challenging.

The authors of the 2023 meta-analysis noted that “many components in wine could have anticarcinogenic effects” that theoretically could counter the ill effects of ethanol. Besides resveratrol, which is mainly found in red wine, the list includes anthocyanins, quercetin, and tannins. However, the authors also acknowledged that they couldn’t account for whether other lifestyle habits might explain why wine drinkers, overall, showed no increased cancer risks and sometimes lower risks.

Still, groups such as the IARC and ASCO hold that there is no known “safe” level, or type, of alcohol when it comes to cancer.

In the latest Canadian guidelines on alcohol use, the scientific panel calculated that people who have 6 drinks a week throughout adulthood (whatever the source of the alcohol) could shave 11 weeks from their life expectancy, on average, said Stockwell, who was on the guideline panel. Compare that with heavy drinking, where 4 drinks a day could rob the average person of 2 or 3 years. “If you’re drinking a lot, you could get huge benefits from cutting down,” Stockwell explained. “If you’re a moderate drinker, the benefits would obviously be less.”

Stockwell said that choices around drinking and breast cancer risk, specifically, can be “tough.” Unlike many of the other alcohol-associated cancers, he noted, breast cancer is common — so even small relative risk increases may be concerning. Based on a 2020 meta-analysis of 22 cohort studies, the risk for breast cancer rises by about 10%, on average, for every 10 g of alcohol a woman drinks per day. This study also found no evidence that wine is any different from other types of alcohol.

In real life, the calculus around wine consumption and cancer risk will probably vary widely from person to person, Rebbeck said. One woman with a family history of breast cancer might decide that having wine with dinner isn’t worth it. Another with the same family history might see that glass of wine as a stress reliever and opt to focus on other ways to reduce her breast cancer risk — by exercising and maintaining a healthy weight, for example.

“The bottom line is, in human studies, the data on light to moderate drinking and cancer are limited and messy, and you can’t draw firm conclusions from them,” Rebbeck said. “It probably raises risk in some people, but we don’t know who those people are. And the risk increases are relatively small.”

A Conversation Few Are Having

Even with many studies highlighting the connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk, most people remain unaware about this risk.

A 2023 study by the National Cancer Institute found that only a minority of US adults knew that drinking alcohol is linked to increased cancer risk, and they were much less likely to say that was true of wine: Only 20% did, vs 31% who said that liquor can boost cancer risk. Meanwhile, 10% believed that wine helps prevent cancer. Other studies show that even among cancer survivors and patients undergoing active cancer treatment, many drink — often heavily.

“What we know right now is, physicians almost never talk about this,” LoConte said.

That could be due to time constraints, according to Rebbeck, or clinicians’ perceptions that the subject is too complicated and/or their own confusion about the data. There could also be some “cognitive dissonance” at play, LoConte noted, because many doctors drink alcohol.

It’s critical, she said, that conversations about drinking habits become “normalized,” and that should include informing patients that alcohol use is associated with certain cancers. Again, LoConte said, it’s high-risk drinking that’s most concerning and where reducing intake could have the biggest impact on cancer risk and other health outcomes.

“From a cancer prevention standpoint, it’s probably best not to drink,” she said. “But people don’t make choices based solely on cancer risk. We don’t want to come out with recommendations saying no one should drink. I don’t think the data support that, and people would buck against that advice.”

Rebbeck made a similar point. Even if there’s uncertainty about the risks for a daily glass of wine, he said, people can use that information to make decisions. “Everybody’s preferences and choices are going to be different,” Rebbeck said. “And that’s all we can really do.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Adding the CDK 4/6 blocker palbociclib to standard endocrine and antihuman epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapies in metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-positive breast cancer extended patients’ median progression-free survival more than a year, according to the results of the phase 3 PATINA study.

This regimen “may represent a new standard of care” for these patients, said principal investigator and presenter Otto Metzger, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

The open-label PATINA trial, which was conducted in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, included a total of 518 patients. Patients received first-line treatment of six to eight cycles of induction chemotherapy plus anti-HER2 therapy. Researchers then randomized patients to either palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy (n = 261) or to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy alone (n = 257).

Patients did not progress on induction therapy, which likely would have signaled early resistance to anti-HER2 treatment. For anti-HER2 therapy, 97.3% received a combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. For endocrine therapy, 90.9% received an aromatase inhibitor.

Metzger and colleagues found that median progression-free survival was 1.3 years longer in patients receiving palbociclib — 3.7 years in the palbociclib arm vs 2.4 years in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .0074).

Although overall survival outcomes are immature, 5-year survival rates were slightly better in the palbociclib arm — 74.3% with palbociclib vs 69.8% without it — but the difference was not statistically significant.

Grade 3 neutropenia was the most frequent adverse event in the palbociclib arm (63.2% vs 2%). Grades 2 and 3 fatigue, stomatitis, and diarrhea were also more common with palbociclib. Grade 4 adverse events occurred in 12.3% of those receiving palbociclib and 8.9% of those who did not. There were no treatment-related deaths.

“We’re very impressed with the results,” said Metzger.

On the basis of previous studies, it’s believed that CDK 4/6 inhibition counteracts the development of resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies, which likely explains the benefit found in the trial.

But even without CDK 4/6 inhibition, the progression-free survival of 2.4 years in the control arm “far exceed[ed] our expectations,” Metzger reported. This may have occurred because the control arm received endocrine therapy, something previous trials of anti-HER2 therapy have avoided because of tolerability and other concerns.

These findings, however, support “the common use of endocrine therapy,” Metzger said.

 

‘Incredible’ Results

The progression-free survival as well as overall survival results in the trial are “incredible,” said study discussant Sara Hurvitz, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington. This is “historic and very important data.”

Hurvitz even suggested the results might mean that patients who fit the PATINA criteria can avoid the toxicity of upfront trastuzumab deruxtecan and use the PATINA regimen instead, potentially preserving their quality of life for longer.

Another study discussant, Virginia Kaklamani, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Antonio, had a similar thought.

In PATINA, “we’re talking about patients being on a treatment that’s well tolerated, where patients continue to work and continue with their lives despite being on treatment for metastatic breast cancer for 4 years, which is remarkable,” Kaklamani said.

Many of us have dabbled with giving CDK 4/6 inhibitors in triple-positive breast cancer, but “now we have more definitive data,” she said. The approach can help “maintain the quality of life of our patients for a longer period of time” and delay the use of chemotherapy in the second line, she added.

Metzger said Pfizer, the maker of palbociclib, plans to file for a HER2-positive indication with the Food and Drug Administration based on the trial results.

For now, the CDK 4/6 blocker is only indicated in combination with endocrine therapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic disease.

In response to a question about using the PATINA regimen in patients who don’t get chemotherapy induction, Metzger noted that, “while the study didn’t test this directly, I would argue that this data is quite compelling” for using palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy, even without chemotherapy induction.

The work was funded by palbociclib maker Pfizer. Metzger had no disclosures. Hurvitz has numerous industry ties, including being a researcher and advisor to Pfizer. Kaklamani also has numerous industry ties, including reporting personal/consulting fees from Pfizer Canada.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Adding the CDK 4/6 blocker palbociclib to standard endocrine and antihuman epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapies in metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-positive breast cancer extended patients’ median progression-free survival more than a year, according to the results of the phase 3 PATINA study.

This regimen “may represent a new standard of care” for these patients, said principal investigator and presenter Otto Metzger, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

The open-label PATINA trial, which was conducted in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, included a total of 518 patients. Patients received first-line treatment of six to eight cycles of induction chemotherapy plus anti-HER2 therapy. Researchers then randomized patients to either palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy (n = 261) or to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy alone (n = 257).

Patients did not progress on induction therapy, which likely would have signaled early resistance to anti-HER2 treatment. For anti-HER2 therapy, 97.3% received a combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. For endocrine therapy, 90.9% received an aromatase inhibitor.

Metzger and colleagues found that median progression-free survival was 1.3 years longer in patients receiving palbociclib — 3.7 years in the palbociclib arm vs 2.4 years in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .0074).

Although overall survival outcomes are immature, 5-year survival rates were slightly better in the palbociclib arm — 74.3% with palbociclib vs 69.8% without it — but the difference was not statistically significant.

Grade 3 neutropenia was the most frequent adverse event in the palbociclib arm (63.2% vs 2%). Grades 2 and 3 fatigue, stomatitis, and diarrhea were also more common with palbociclib. Grade 4 adverse events occurred in 12.3% of those receiving palbociclib and 8.9% of those who did not. There were no treatment-related deaths.

“We’re very impressed with the results,” said Metzger.

On the basis of previous studies, it’s believed that CDK 4/6 inhibition counteracts the development of resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies, which likely explains the benefit found in the trial.

But even without CDK 4/6 inhibition, the progression-free survival of 2.4 years in the control arm “far exceed[ed] our expectations,” Metzger reported. This may have occurred because the control arm received endocrine therapy, something previous trials of anti-HER2 therapy have avoided because of tolerability and other concerns.

These findings, however, support “the common use of endocrine therapy,” Metzger said.

 

‘Incredible’ Results

The progression-free survival as well as overall survival results in the trial are “incredible,” said study discussant Sara Hurvitz, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington. This is “historic and very important data.”

Hurvitz even suggested the results might mean that patients who fit the PATINA criteria can avoid the toxicity of upfront trastuzumab deruxtecan and use the PATINA regimen instead, potentially preserving their quality of life for longer.

Another study discussant, Virginia Kaklamani, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Antonio, had a similar thought.

In PATINA, “we’re talking about patients being on a treatment that’s well tolerated, where patients continue to work and continue with their lives despite being on treatment for metastatic breast cancer for 4 years, which is remarkable,” Kaklamani said.

Many of us have dabbled with giving CDK 4/6 inhibitors in triple-positive breast cancer, but “now we have more definitive data,” she said. The approach can help “maintain the quality of life of our patients for a longer period of time” and delay the use of chemotherapy in the second line, she added.

Metzger said Pfizer, the maker of palbociclib, plans to file for a HER2-positive indication with the Food and Drug Administration based on the trial results.

For now, the CDK 4/6 blocker is only indicated in combination with endocrine therapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic disease.

In response to a question about using the PATINA regimen in patients who don’t get chemotherapy induction, Metzger noted that, “while the study didn’t test this directly, I would argue that this data is quite compelling” for using palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy, even without chemotherapy induction.

The work was funded by palbociclib maker Pfizer. Metzger had no disclosures. Hurvitz has numerous industry ties, including being a researcher and advisor to Pfizer. Kaklamani also has numerous industry ties, including reporting personal/consulting fees from Pfizer Canada.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Adding the CDK 4/6 blocker palbociclib to standard endocrine and antihuman epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapies in metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-positive breast cancer extended patients’ median progression-free survival more than a year, according to the results of the phase 3 PATINA study.

This regimen “may represent a new standard of care” for these patients, said principal investigator and presenter Otto Metzger, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

The open-label PATINA trial, which was conducted in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, included a total of 518 patients. Patients received first-line treatment of six to eight cycles of induction chemotherapy plus anti-HER2 therapy. Researchers then randomized patients to either palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy (n = 261) or to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy alone (n = 257).

Patients did not progress on induction therapy, which likely would have signaled early resistance to anti-HER2 treatment. For anti-HER2 therapy, 97.3% received a combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. For endocrine therapy, 90.9% received an aromatase inhibitor.

Metzger and colleagues found that median progression-free survival was 1.3 years longer in patients receiving palbociclib — 3.7 years in the palbociclib arm vs 2.4 years in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .0074).

Although overall survival outcomes are immature, 5-year survival rates were slightly better in the palbociclib arm — 74.3% with palbociclib vs 69.8% without it — but the difference was not statistically significant.

Grade 3 neutropenia was the most frequent adverse event in the palbociclib arm (63.2% vs 2%). Grades 2 and 3 fatigue, stomatitis, and diarrhea were also more common with palbociclib. Grade 4 adverse events occurred in 12.3% of those receiving palbociclib and 8.9% of those who did not. There were no treatment-related deaths.

“We’re very impressed with the results,” said Metzger.

On the basis of previous studies, it’s believed that CDK 4/6 inhibition counteracts the development of resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies, which likely explains the benefit found in the trial.

But even without CDK 4/6 inhibition, the progression-free survival of 2.4 years in the control arm “far exceed[ed] our expectations,” Metzger reported. This may have occurred because the control arm received endocrine therapy, something previous trials of anti-HER2 therapy have avoided because of tolerability and other concerns.

These findings, however, support “the common use of endocrine therapy,” Metzger said.

 

‘Incredible’ Results

The progression-free survival as well as overall survival results in the trial are “incredible,” said study discussant Sara Hurvitz, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington. This is “historic and very important data.”

Hurvitz even suggested the results might mean that patients who fit the PATINA criteria can avoid the toxicity of upfront trastuzumab deruxtecan and use the PATINA regimen instead, potentially preserving their quality of life for longer.

Another study discussant, Virginia Kaklamani, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Antonio, had a similar thought.

In PATINA, “we’re talking about patients being on a treatment that’s well tolerated, where patients continue to work and continue with their lives despite being on treatment for metastatic breast cancer for 4 years, which is remarkable,” Kaklamani said.

Many of us have dabbled with giving CDK 4/6 inhibitors in triple-positive breast cancer, but “now we have more definitive data,” she said. The approach can help “maintain the quality of life of our patients for a longer period of time” and delay the use of chemotherapy in the second line, she added.

Metzger said Pfizer, the maker of palbociclib, plans to file for a HER2-positive indication with the Food and Drug Administration based on the trial results.

For now, the CDK 4/6 blocker is only indicated in combination with endocrine therapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic disease.

In response to a question about using the PATINA regimen in patients who don’t get chemotherapy induction, Metzger noted that, “while the study didn’t test this directly, I would argue that this data is quite compelling” for using palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy, even without chemotherapy induction.

The work was funded by palbociclib maker Pfizer. Metzger had no disclosures. Hurvitz has numerous industry ties, including being a researcher and advisor to Pfizer. Kaklamani also has numerous industry ties, including reporting personal/consulting fees from Pfizer Canada.

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