Latest News

Anxiety, depression, and suicide rates are elevated for veterans who are survivors of testicular cancer (TC) compared with veterans without cancer, a retrospective analysis finds.

Over 5 years, the cumulative incidence of anxiety and depression was 53.4% in veterans with TC vs 35.0% in matched controls (P < .001; hazard ratio [HR], 1.66), reported Aditya Bagrodia, MD, professor of urology and radiation oncology at the University of California San Diego, et al in Cancer Medicine. The cumulative incidence of suicidality was 5.0% and 0.1%, respectively (P < .001; HR, 22.99).

“More than half of men with testicular cancer contend with these diagnoses,” Bagrodia told Federal Practitioner. “There are risk factors, including chemotherapy, being single or divorced, or unemployed.”

Patients in these groups warrant aggressive screening and intervention, Bagrodia said. TC is the most common cancer in men in the military and the most common malignancy in men aged 18 to 45 years, Bagrodia said: “The vast majority of men who have testicular cancer are curable.”

Patients, however, face an intense burden. 

“One theme that comes up consistently from patients and caregivers is centered around mental health impact, brain fog, anxiety, depression, and difficulty concentrating,” Bagrodia said. “We wanted to dig into this a little bit further. The idea is to shed light on how common these diagnoses are on these young cancer survivors and intervene so we could positively impact their quality of life.”

The study analyzed 2022 patients with TC and 6375 matched controls enrolled at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from 1990 through 2016. In the cancer cohort, the mean age at diagnosis was 42.46 years, and ages ranged from 18 to 88 years; 89.7% of patients were White, 6.0% were Black, 2.4% were other race, 1.2% were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.7% were Native; 6.2% were Hispanic; and 19.9% were diagnosed between 1990 and 1999.

Factors linked to higher rates of anxiety/depression among patients with TC included divorce (HR 1.15, P = .044), unemployment (HR 1.68, P < .001), and receipt of chemotherapy (HR 1.20, P < .001).

The incidence of de novo anxiety/depression was 30.1% for patients with TC vs 16.7% for controls (P < .001), and the incidence of de novo suicidality was 2.4% for patients and 0.1% for controls.

“These are men who are going to beat their cancer and go on to live for decades and decades,” Bagrodia said. “We found that the impact of a diagnosis and chemotherapy can persist beyond the initial time frame.”

It’s not clear, however, why chemotherapy boosts the risk, Bagrodia said. Clinicians who treat patients with TC should let them know that anxiety, depression, and suicidality are common and treatable concerns.

“We've got some wonderful support services, therapy, and medications that can help out with those diagnoses,” Bagrodia said.

The study authors noted limitations such as the retrospective study design and limited consideration of factors that may affect mental health.

“Additionally, the baseline rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality are high in the VA population, which may limit ability to apply results to the civilian population,” Bagrodia said.

Genitourinary oncologist Philippe Spiess, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, praised the study in an interview, saying it provides stronger evidence than previous research. 

"It's not only about screening but surveillance, because you never know what kind of challenges they have in their lives,” Spiess told Federal Practitioner, emphasizing the need for clinicians to continue to monitor patients. “They're young, they're vulnerable. Don’t assume they're going to get help somewhere else. You need to be that source that facilitates it.”

No funding is reported. Bagrodia and other authors have no disclosures. Spiess has no disclosures. 

Anxiety, depression, and suicide rates are elevated for veterans who are survivors of testicular cancer (TC) compared with veterans without cancer, a retrospective analysis finds.

Over 5 years, the cumulative incidence of anxiety and depression was 53.4% in veterans with TC vs 35.0% in matched controls (P < .001; hazard ratio [HR], 1.66), reported Aditya Bagrodia, MD, professor of urology and radiation oncology at the University of California San Diego, et al in Cancer Medicine. The cumulative incidence of suicidality was 5.0% and 0.1%, respectively (P < .001; HR, 22.99).

“More than half of men with testicular cancer contend with these diagnoses,” Bagrodia told Federal Practitioner. “There are risk factors, including chemotherapy, being single or divorced, or unemployed.”

Patients in these groups warrant aggressive screening and intervention, Bagrodia said. TC is the most common cancer in men in the military and the most common malignancy in men aged 18 to 45 years, Bagrodia said: “The vast majority of men who have testicular cancer are curable.”

Patients, however, face an intense burden. 

“One theme that comes up consistently from patients and caregivers is centered around mental health impact, brain fog, anxiety, depression, and difficulty concentrating,” Bagrodia said. “We wanted to dig into this a little bit further. The idea is to shed light on how common these diagnoses are on these young cancer survivors and intervene so we could positively impact their quality of life.”

The study analyzed 2022 patients with TC and 6375 matched controls enrolled at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from 1990 through 2016. In the cancer cohort, the mean age at diagnosis was 42.46 years, and ages ranged from 18 to 88 years; 89.7% of patients were White, 6.0% were Black, 2.4% were other race, 1.2% were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.7% were Native; 6.2% were Hispanic; and 19.9% were diagnosed between 1990 and 1999.

Factors linked to higher rates of anxiety/depression among patients with TC included divorce (HR 1.15, P = .044), unemployment (HR 1.68, P < .001), and receipt of chemotherapy (HR 1.20, P < .001).

The incidence of de novo anxiety/depression was 30.1% for patients with TC vs 16.7% for controls (P < .001), and the incidence of de novo suicidality was 2.4% for patients and 0.1% for controls.

“These are men who are going to beat their cancer and go on to live for decades and decades,” Bagrodia said. “We found that the impact of a diagnosis and chemotherapy can persist beyond the initial time frame.”

It’s not clear, however, why chemotherapy boosts the risk, Bagrodia said. Clinicians who treat patients with TC should let them know that anxiety, depression, and suicidality are common and treatable concerns.

“We've got some wonderful support services, therapy, and medications that can help out with those diagnoses,” Bagrodia said.

The study authors noted limitations such as the retrospective study design and limited consideration of factors that may affect mental health.

“Additionally, the baseline rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality are high in the VA population, which may limit ability to apply results to the civilian population,” Bagrodia said.

Genitourinary oncologist Philippe Spiess, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, praised the study in an interview, saying it provides stronger evidence than previous research. 

"It's not only about screening but surveillance, because you never know what kind of challenges they have in their lives,” Spiess told Federal Practitioner, emphasizing the need for clinicians to continue to monitor patients. “They're young, they're vulnerable. Don’t assume they're going to get help somewhere else. You need to be that source that facilitates it.”

No funding is reported. Bagrodia and other authors have no disclosures. Spiess has no disclosures. 

Anxiety, depression, and suicide rates are elevated for veterans who are survivors of testicular cancer (TC) compared with veterans without cancer, a retrospective analysis finds.

Over 5 years, the cumulative incidence of anxiety and depression was 53.4% in veterans with TC vs 35.0% in matched controls (P < .001; hazard ratio [HR], 1.66), reported Aditya Bagrodia, MD, professor of urology and radiation oncology at the University of California San Diego, et al in Cancer Medicine. The cumulative incidence of suicidality was 5.0% and 0.1%, respectively (P < .001; HR, 22.99).

“More than half of men with testicular cancer contend with these diagnoses,” Bagrodia told Federal Practitioner. “There are risk factors, including chemotherapy, being single or divorced, or unemployed.”

Patients in these groups warrant aggressive screening and intervention, Bagrodia said. TC is the most common cancer in men in the military and the most common malignancy in men aged 18 to 45 years, Bagrodia said: “The vast majority of men who have testicular cancer are curable.”

Patients, however, face an intense burden. 

“One theme that comes up consistently from patients and caregivers is centered around mental health impact, brain fog, anxiety, depression, and difficulty concentrating,” Bagrodia said. “We wanted to dig into this a little bit further. The idea is to shed light on how common these diagnoses are on these young cancer survivors and intervene so we could positively impact their quality of life.”

The study analyzed 2022 patients with TC and 6375 matched controls enrolled at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from 1990 through 2016. In the cancer cohort, the mean age at diagnosis was 42.46 years, and ages ranged from 18 to 88 years; 89.7% of patients were White, 6.0% were Black, 2.4% were other race, 1.2% were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.7% were Native; 6.2% were Hispanic; and 19.9% were diagnosed between 1990 and 1999.

Factors linked to higher rates of anxiety/depression among patients with TC included divorce (HR 1.15, P = .044), unemployment (HR 1.68, P < .001), and receipt of chemotherapy (HR 1.20, P < .001).

The incidence of de novo anxiety/depression was 30.1% for patients with TC vs 16.7% for controls (P < .001), and the incidence of de novo suicidality was 2.4% for patients and 0.1% for controls.

“These are men who are going to beat their cancer and go on to live for decades and decades,” Bagrodia said. “We found that the impact of a diagnosis and chemotherapy can persist beyond the initial time frame.”

It’s not clear, however, why chemotherapy boosts the risk, Bagrodia said. Clinicians who treat patients with TC should let them know that anxiety, depression, and suicidality are common and treatable concerns.

“We've got some wonderful support services, therapy, and medications that can help out with those diagnoses,” Bagrodia said.

The study authors noted limitations such as the retrospective study design and limited consideration of factors that may affect mental health.

“Additionally, the baseline rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality are high in the VA population, which may limit ability to apply results to the civilian population,” Bagrodia said.

Genitourinary oncologist Philippe Spiess, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, praised the study in an interview, saying it provides stronger evidence than previous research. 

"It's not only about screening but surveillance, because you never know what kind of challenges they have in their lives,” Spiess told Federal Practitioner, emphasizing the need for clinicians to continue to monitor patients. “They're young, they're vulnerable. Don’t assume they're going to get help somewhere else. You need to be that source that facilitates it.”

No funding is reported. Bagrodia and other authors have no disclosures. Spiess has no disclosures. 

An international study of nearly 2 million people suggests that meat-free diets can help stave off several major cancers — but it also reached some unexpected conclusions.

In what researchers describe as the largest-ever meta-analysis of meatless diets and cancer risk, compared with meat-eaters, vegetarians showed reduced risks for five cancers, including breast, prostate, and pancreatic. That was independent of factors such as physical activity, body weight, smoking habits, alcohol intake, and medical history.

“This study is really good news for those that follow a vegetarian diet because they have a lower risk of five cancer sites, some of which are really prevalent in the population,” study lead author Yashvee Dunneram, PhD, of Newcastle University, Tyne, England, said at a press briefing on the findings.

The analysis, published in the British Journal of Cancer, looked at data from nine observational studies conducted in the UK, US, India, and Taiwan. In total, they included more than 1.8 million participants who completed detailed questionnaires on lifestyle and medical factors and were followed for a median of 16 years.

While most were omnivores, the population included over 63,000 vegetarians. And compared with their meat-eating counterparts, vegetarians had reduced risks for:

• Multiple myeloma, 31% lower (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51-0.93);
• Kidney cancer, 28% lower (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.92);
• Pancreatic cancer, 21% lower (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.97);
• Prostate cancer, 12% lower (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97); and
• Breast cancer, 9% lower (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.97).

On the other hand, vegetarians were no less likely to develop colorectal cancer than meat-eaters — which would seem to conflict with a large body of evidence linking high intake of red and processed meats to an increased risk for the disease and consumption of whole grains and fiber to a protective effect.

Dunneram said her team was, in fact, “quite surprised with this finding.”

But the researchers also stressed that the reported intake of processed meats in this global study was low, at a median of about 16 g/d. For comparison, the average intake in the UK general population is more than double that amount.

That point was echoed by Dagfinn Aune, PhD, a researcher at Imperial College London, London, England, who was not involved in the study.

“It’s possible that lumping all meat-eaters (regardless of how much or little meat they ate) together may have diluted any effects of vegetarian diets on cancer risk, particularly if meat intake was low in some studies,” Aune said in comments shared via Science Media Centre.

In another unexpected finding, vegetarians had nearly double the risk for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma compared with meat-eaters.

Senior author Aurora Perez-Cornago, PhD, a nutritional epidemiologist at the University of Oxford, Oxford, England, said she could only speculate on the reasons.

It’s possible, for example, that people who exclude meat from their diets are more likely to have certain nutritional deficiencies. Perez-Cornago noted that low intake of riboflavin (vitamin B2, largely found in meat) has been tied to esophageal cancer risk.

Perhaps most surprising of all, vegans — who eschew all animal products, including dairy foods — had a 40% greater risk for colorectal cancer than meat-eaters (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.12-1.75).

Again, the reasons are unclear, but Dunneram said it could be related to a mineral lacking in some vegans’ diets: calcium. Research has tied higher intake of dairy products, and specifically calcium, to lower colorectal cancer risk.

However, the findings on vegan diets could also come down to numbers, the researchers pointed out: The analysis included 8849 vegans in total and found only 93 cases of colorectal cancer among vegans across seven studies from the US and UK.

Aune said that studies including a “much larger” number of vegans are needed. He also noted that based on prior cohort studies, vegans (and vegetarians) may have a lower overall cancer incidence than meat-eaters.

On balance, the study authors said, meat-free diets may help reduce cancer risk — but vegetarians and vegans might need to boost their intake of certain nutrients, from fortified foods or supplements.

The analysis did have several limitations, according to Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a professor at Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, who studies lifestyle factors and cancer risk.

Besides the relatively small number of vegans, the study lacked data on Black and Hispanic individuals, which limits its generalizability, McTiernan told Medscape Medical News.

And as with any observational research, confounders are an issue. People who follow meat-free diets tend to maintain a lower body weight over time, for example.

Still, McTiernan doubted that body weight fully accounts for the reduced cancer risks seen here as the researchers adjusted for BMI (with weight and height self-reported in some studies and measured in others).

As for the take-home message, McTiernan agreed that vegans, in particular, may want to be careful that they are getting enough of certain vitamins and minerals.

But overall, the findings support the types of plant-rich diets long endorsed by groups such as the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research, the experts said.

The analysis also hinted at benefits from cutting out red and processed meat alone.

Among nearly 43,000 pescatarians — people who eat fish but no meat or poultry — the risks for breast (HR, 0.93), colorectal (HR, 0.85), and kidney (HR, 0.73) cancers were reduced relative to meat-eaters. Meanwhile, men who reported eating poultry, but no red or processed meat, had a decreased risk for prostate cancer (HR, 0.93).

In sum, Aune said, “these findings provide further support for dietary recommendations that emphasize higher intakes of whole plant foods, such as whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes and less meat.” And, McTiernan noted, it’s never too late for people to change their dietary habits.

“Clinical trials have shown immediate benefits to vegetarian diets, like reductions in lipids and weight loss — things that can affect health across the board,” she said.

This study was funded by the World Cancer Research Fund, Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council and others. The authors declared having no competing interests.

Ernie Mundell is a freelance medical journalist based in Los Angeles. He has more than 30 years of experience, including editorial positions at Reuters Health and HealthDay.

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

An international study of nearly 2 million people suggests that meat-free diets can help stave off several major cancers — but it also reached some unexpected conclusions.

In what researchers describe as the largest-ever meta-analysis of meatless diets and cancer risk, compared with meat-eaters, vegetarians showed reduced risks for five cancers, including breast, prostate, and pancreatic. That was independent of factors such as physical activity, body weight, smoking habits, alcohol intake, and medical history.

“This study is really good news for those that follow a vegetarian diet because they have a lower risk of five cancer sites, some of which are really prevalent in the population,” study lead author Yashvee Dunneram, PhD, of Newcastle University, Tyne, England, said at a press briefing on the findings.

The analysis, published in the British Journal of Cancer, looked at data from nine observational studies conducted in the UK, US, India, and Taiwan. In total, they included more than 1.8 million participants who completed detailed questionnaires on lifestyle and medical factors and were followed for a median of 16 years.

While most were omnivores, the population included over 63,000 vegetarians. And compared with their meat-eating counterparts, vegetarians had reduced risks for:

• Multiple myeloma, 31% lower (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51-0.93);
• Kidney cancer, 28% lower (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.92);
• Pancreatic cancer, 21% lower (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.97);
• Prostate cancer, 12% lower (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97); and
• Breast cancer, 9% lower (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.97).

On the other hand, vegetarians were no less likely to develop colorectal cancer than meat-eaters — which would seem to conflict with a large body of evidence linking high intake of red and processed meats to an increased risk for the disease and consumption of whole grains and fiber to a protective effect.

Dunneram said her team was, in fact, “quite surprised with this finding.”

But the researchers also stressed that the reported intake of processed meats in this global study was low, at a median of about 16 g/d. For comparison, the average intake in the UK general population is more than double that amount.

That point was echoed by Dagfinn Aune, PhD, a researcher at Imperial College London, London, England, who was not involved in the study.

“It’s possible that lumping all meat-eaters (regardless of how much or little meat they ate) together may have diluted any effects of vegetarian diets on cancer risk, particularly if meat intake was low in some studies,” Aune said in comments shared via Science Media Centre.

In another unexpected finding, vegetarians had nearly double the risk for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma compared with meat-eaters.

Senior author Aurora Perez-Cornago, PhD, a nutritional epidemiologist at the University of Oxford, Oxford, England, said she could only speculate on the reasons.

It’s possible, for example, that people who exclude meat from their diets are more likely to have certain nutritional deficiencies. Perez-Cornago noted that low intake of riboflavin (vitamin B2, largely found in meat) has been tied to esophageal cancer risk.

Perhaps most surprising of all, vegans — who eschew all animal products, including dairy foods — had a 40% greater risk for colorectal cancer than meat-eaters (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.12-1.75).

Again, the reasons are unclear, but Dunneram said it could be related to a mineral lacking in some vegans’ diets: calcium. Research has tied higher intake of dairy products, and specifically calcium, to lower colorectal cancer risk.

However, the findings on vegan diets could also come down to numbers, the researchers pointed out: The analysis included 8849 vegans in total and found only 93 cases of colorectal cancer among vegans across seven studies from the US and UK.

Aune said that studies including a “much larger” number of vegans are needed. He also noted that based on prior cohort studies, vegans (and vegetarians) may have a lower overall cancer incidence than meat-eaters.

On balance, the study authors said, meat-free diets may help reduce cancer risk — but vegetarians and vegans might need to boost their intake of certain nutrients, from fortified foods or supplements.

The analysis did have several limitations, according to Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a professor at Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, who studies lifestyle factors and cancer risk.

Besides the relatively small number of vegans, the study lacked data on Black and Hispanic individuals, which limits its generalizability, McTiernan told Medscape Medical News.

And as with any observational research, confounders are an issue. People who follow meat-free diets tend to maintain a lower body weight over time, for example.

Still, McTiernan doubted that body weight fully accounts for the reduced cancer risks seen here as the researchers adjusted for BMI (with weight and height self-reported in some studies and measured in others).

As for the take-home message, McTiernan agreed that vegans, in particular, may want to be careful that they are getting enough of certain vitamins and minerals.

But overall, the findings support the types of plant-rich diets long endorsed by groups such as the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research, the experts said.

The analysis also hinted at benefits from cutting out red and processed meat alone.

Among nearly 43,000 pescatarians — people who eat fish but no meat or poultry — the risks for breast (HR, 0.93), colorectal (HR, 0.85), and kidney (HR, 0.73) cancers were reduced relative to meat-eaters. Meanwhile, men who reported eating poultry, but no red or processed meat, had a decreased risk for prostate cancer (HR, 0.93).

In sum, Aune said, “these findings provide further support for dietary recommendations that emphasize higher intakes of whole plant foods, such as whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes and less meat.” And, McTiernan noted, it’s never too late for people to change their dietary habits.

“Clinical trials have shown immediate benefits to vegetarian diets, like reductions in lipids and weight loss — things that can affect health across the board,” she said.

This study was funded by the World Cancer Research Fund, Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council and others. The authors declared having no competing interests.

Ernie Mundell is a freelance medical journalist based in Los Angeles. He has more than 30 years of experience, including editorial positions at Reuters Health and HealthDay.

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

An international study of nearly 2 million people suggests that meat-free diets can help stave off several major cancers — but it also reached some unexpected conclusions.

In what researchers describe as the largest-ever meta-analysis of meatless diets and cancer risk, compared with meat-eaters, vegetarians showed reduced risks for five cancers, including breast, prostate, and pancreatic. That was independent of factors such as physical activity, body weight, smoking habits, alcohol intake, and medical history.

“This study is really good news for those that follow a vegetarian diet because they have a lower risk of five cancer sites, some of which are really prevalent in the population,” study lead author Yashvee Dunneram, PhD, of Newcastle University, Tyne, England, said at a press briefing on the findings.

The analysis, published in the British Journal of Cancer, looked at data from nine observational studies conducted in the UK, US, India, and Taiwan. In total, they included more than 1.8 million participants who completed detailed questionnaires on lifestyle and medical factors and were followed for a median of 16 years.

While most were omnivores, the population included over 63,000 vegetarians. And compared with their meat-eating counterparts, vegetarians had reduced risks for:

• Multiple myeloma, 31% lower (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51-0.93);
• Kidney cancer, 28% lower (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.92);
• Pancreatic cancer, 21% lower (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.97);
• Prostate cancer, 12% lower (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97); and
• Breast cancer, 9% lower (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.97).

On the other hand, vegetarians were no less likely to develop colorectal cancer than meat-eaters — which would seem to conflict with a large body of evidence linking high intake of red and processed meats to an increased risk for the disease and consumption of whole grains and fiber to a protective effect.

Dunneram said her team was, in fact, “quite surprised with this finding.”

But the researchers also stressed that the reported intake of processed meats in this global study was low, at a median of about 16 g/d. For comparison, the average intake in the UK general population is more than double that amount.

That point was echoed by Dagfinn Aune, PhD, a researcher at Imperial College London, London, England, who was not involved in the study.

“It’s possible that lumping all meat-eaters (regardless of how much or little meat they ate) together may have diluted any effects of vegetarian diets on cancer risk, particularly if meat intake was low in some studies,” Aune said in comments shared via Science Media Centre.

In another unexpected finding, vegetarians had nearly double the risk for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma compared with meat-eaters.

Senior author Aurora Perez-Cornago, PhD, a nutritional epidemiologist at the University of Oxford, Oxford, England, said she could only speculate on the reasons.

It’s possible, for example, that people who exclude meat from their diets are more likely to have certain nutritional deficiencies. Perez-Cornago noted that low intake of riboflavin (vitamin B2, largely found in meat) has been tied to esophageal cancer risk.

Perhaps most surprising of all, vegans — who eschew all animal products, including dairy foods — had a 40% greater risk for colorectal cancer than meat-eaters (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.12-1.75).

Again, the reasons are unclear, but Dunneram said it could be related to a mineral lacking in some vegans’ diets: calcium. Research has tied higher intake of dairy products, and specifically calcium, to lower colorectal cancer risk.

However, the findings on vegan diets could also come down to numbers, the researchers pointed out: The analysis included 8849 vegans in total and found only 93 cases of colorectal cancer among vegans across seven studies from the US and UK.

Aune said that studies including a “much larger” number of vegans are needed. He also noted that based on prior cohort studies, vegans (and vegetarians) may have a lower overall cancer incidence than meat-eaters.

On balance, the study authors said, meat-free diets may help reduce cancer risk — but vegetarians and vegans might need to boost their intake of certain nutrients, from fortified foods or supplements.

The analysis did have several limitations, according to Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a professor at Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, who studies lifestyle factors and cancer risk.

Besides the relatively small number of vegans, the study lacked data on Black and Hispanic individuals, which limits its generalizability, McTiernan told Medscape Medical News.

And as with any observational research, confounders are an issue. People who follow meat-free diets tend to maintain a lower body weight over time, for example.

Still, McTiernan doubted that body weight fully accounts for the reduced cancer risks seen here as the researchers adjusted for BMI (with weight and height self-reported in some studies and measured in others).

As for the take-home message, McTiernan agreed that vegans, in particular, may want to be careful that they are getting enough of certain vitamins and minerals.

But overall, the findings support the types of plant-rich diets long endorsed by groups such as the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research, the experts said.

The analysis also hinted at benefits from cutting out red and processed meat alone.

Among nearly 43,000 pescatarians — people who eat fish but no meat or poultry — the risks for breast (HR, 0.93), colorectal (HR, 0.85), and kidney (HR, 0.73) cancers were reduced relative to meat-eaters. Meanwhile, men who reported eating poultry, but no red or processed meat, had a decreased risk for prostate cancer (HR, 0.93).

In sum, Aune said, “these findings provide further support for dietary recommendations that emphasize higher intakes of whole plant foods, such as whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes and less meat.” And, McTiernan noted, it’s never too late for people to change their dietary habits.

“Clinical trials have shown immediate benefits to vegetarian diets, like reductions in lipids and weight loss — things that can affect health across the board,” she said.

This study was funded by the World Cancer Research Fund, Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council and others. The authors declared having no competing interests.

Ernie Mundell is a freelance medical journalist based in Los Angeles. He has more than 30 years of experience, including editorial positions at Reuters Health and HealthDay.

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

A trio of new studies, published simultaneously in February in Nature Medicine, add to growing evidence that manipulating the gut microbiome may enhance responses to immunotherapy in selected patients with cancer.

In these small, early-phase studies involving patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and melanoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) was associated with objective response rates that compared favorably with historical or prespecified benchmarks.

The idea that microbiome modulation via FMT “can augment immunotherapy efficacy is probably a good one and these studies certainly support that hypothesis,” said Diwakar Davar, MD, assistant professor of medicine and an oncologist/hematologist at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who wasn’t part of the new work.While “an intriguing approach and certainly worthy of further evaluation,” Davar cautioned that the latest studies are not robust enough to answer the question conclusively.

Although ICIs have improved outcomes for patients with melanoma, NSCLC, and RCC, many patients still do not respond or eventually develop resistance. A growing body of evidence suggests that the gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of ICI therapy. However, much of this evidence comes from preclinical studies showing that modulating the microbiome via FMT can alter responses to immunotherapy, along with small proof-of-concept human studies — predominantly in melanoma — suggesting this approach may help overcome primary or acquired resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy.

The new studies aimed to build on this foundation by exploring whether FMT could improve ICI responses and clinical outcomes in patients with NSCLC, melanoma, and RCC.

In the phase 2, open-label FMT-LUMINate trial, researchers tested a healthy-donor FMT delivered as oral capsules before patients began immunotherapy. FMT capsules were produced using 80-100 g of feces per dose from screened healthy donors, and patients consumed 30-40 capsules while under supervision. The study included 20 patients with NSCLC and high PD-L1 tumor expression receiving FMT before standard first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy and 20 patients with cutaneous melanoma receiving FMT before ipilimumab plus nivolumab.

In the NSCLC cohort, 16 patients (80%) achieved an objective response. The 80% objective response rate exceeded the prespecified efficacy threshold of 64% and was higher than previously described historical data, which ranged from 39% to 46%, the study team noted.

In the melanoma cohort, FMT before nivolumab and ipilimumab yielded an objective response rate of 75%, also exceeding the historical expected response rates of 50% to 58% among patients receiving this ICI combination.

In patients with NSCLC, no grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported. However, grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 13 (65%) patients in the melanoma group, suggesting a potentially accelerated onset of immune-related adverse events. Researchers also observed a higher-than-expected frequency of myocarditis in melanoma patients (15%). These toxicities clustered among patients who had FMT donors enriched in Prevotella spp, highlighting the importance of donor selection for future trials, the researchers explained.

The team plans to assess the potential of FMT to overcome primary resistance to ICI as part of the phase 2 CanBiome2 randomized trial, which aims to enroll 128 patients.

The RCC Data

The other two studies focused on FMT in patients with metastatic RCC. In the phase 1 PERFORM study, 20 treatment-naive patients with metastatic RCC added encapsulated healthy-donor FMT to standard ICI-based regimens — most commonly ipilimumab plus nivolumab, with some patients receiving pembrolizumab plus axitinib or pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib.

The primary endpoint was safety defined by the incidence and severity of immune-related adverse events. The safety endpoint was met; 50% of patients (10 of 20) experienced grade 3 immune-related adverse events, and there were no serious FMT-related toxicities and no grade 4 or 5 events.

Among 18 evaluable patients, nine (50%) achieved an objective response, including two who had complete responses (11%). Notably, most treatment responders did not develop any grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events, the researchers reported.

Finally, in the phase 2a TACITO trial, 45 patients with treatment-naive metastatic RCC were randomly allocated to receive donor FMT or placebo FMT. Patients received three administrations over 6 months — first via colonoscopy then as capsulized doses, alongside pembrolizumab plus axitinib.

The primary endpoint of 12-month progression-free survival narrowly missed statistical significance — 70% vs 41% (P = .053) — but suggested a benefit in the donor FMT group.

“We need more than 1 year to appreciate statistical significance in terms of progression-free survival,” study investigator Gianluca Ianiro, MD, PhD, with Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, told Medscape Medical News.

As for secondary endpoints, median progression-free survival was significantly longer with donor FMT (24.0 vs 9.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.50; P = .035) and the objective response rate was higher with donor FMT (52% vs 32%).

Why Might FMT Boost ICI Response?

Conceptually, FMT is intended to reshape the gut ecosystem in ways that favor antitumor immunity, and possibly reduce immune dysregulation.

Across these new studies, the mechanistic story is moving beyond the idea that more diversity is good and toward a model that suggests a benefit to removing or suppressing taxa associated with resistance or inflammatory toxicity.

For example, in the TACITO trial, microbiome analysis confirmed that acquisition or loss of specific bacterial strains was associated with 12-month progression-free survival.

Additionally, results of the FMT-LUMINate trial hinted that the therapeutic benefit of FMT may be driven by eliminating harmful bacteria present at baseline, most notably Enterocloster, Clostridium and Streptococcus spp.

“This bacterial depletion was associated with a favorable immunometabolic milieu,” the FMT-LUMINate researchers wrote. Additionally, the results suggest that “failure to eliminate baseline deleterious taxa may sustain an immunosuppressive metabolic and systemic immune milieu that compromises ICI responses.”

Is FMT Ready for Prime Time?

Ianiro told Medscape Medical News he “definitely” thinks microbiome modulation could eventually become part of standard immunotherapy regimens.

Although the “signal” of benefit is clearly there, Davar cautioned that it’s too early to justify routine, off-trial use of FMT specifically to improve ICI response.

“These remain small, proof-of-concept studies. They are not adequately powered trials of fecal transplants and multiple different covariates haven’t been considered,” Davar said.

The study researchers noted that issues around donor selection and availability, dosing schedules, product standardization, and safety risk stratification need to be resolved.

For example, TACITO’s real-world experience shows logistics can matter. Delays occurred due to capsule unavailability and other scheduling barriers, which led to late dosing and missed or shifted treatments in some patients.

That’s a reminder that scaling FMT for oncology would require robust manufacturing, distribution, and time-sensitive coordination with ICI start dates.

More broadly, “whether FMT is the most suitable method of essentially changing the gut microbiome remains unclear,” explained Davar, who suggested that engineered microbiome therapeutics or tailored therapies may be a preferable, more scalable and tailored long-term solution.

Overall, does this new research provide impetus to develop stool banks? “Probably not,” Davar said.

But is it a call for interested parties to think about clinical trials and experimental products that could influence the gut microbiome? “Those are all probably good ideas,” he said.

The PERFORM, TACITO and FMT-LUMINate trials had no commercial funding. Saman Maleki Vareki, PhD, of the PERFORM trial, is a cofounder of LND Therapeutics Inc and has submitted a US patent application related to FMT donor screening. Ianiro has received personal fees for acting as a speaker for Biocodex and Illumina and for acting as a consultant/advisor for Ferring Therapeutics. Arielle Elkrief, MD, of the FMT-LUMINate trial, has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and EMD Serono; consulting fees from EverImmune, NECBio, and Sanofi-Pasteur; and is an inventor on a patent regarding the microbiome and immunotherapy response. Davar had no relevant disclosures.

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

A trio of new studies, published simultaneously in February in Nature Medicine, add to growing evidence that manipulating the gut microbiome may enhance responses to immunotherapy in selected patients with cancer.

In these small, early-phase studies involving patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and melanoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) was associated with objective response rates that compared favorably with historical or prespecified benchmarks.

The idea that microbiome modulation via FMT “can augment immunotherapy efficacy is probably a good one and these studies certainly support that hypothesis,” said Diwakar Davar, MD, assistant professor of medicine and an oncologist/hematologist at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who wasn’t part of the new work.While “an intriguing approach and certainly worthy of further evaluation,” Davar cautioned that the latest studies are not robust enough to answer the question conclusively.

Although ICIs have improved outcomes for patients with melanoma, NSCLC, and RCC, many patients still do not respond or eventually develop resistance. A growing body of evidence suggests that the gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of ICI therapy. However, much of this evidence comes from preclinical studies showing that modulating the microbiome via FMT can alter responses to immunotherapy, along with small proof-of-concept human studies — predominantly in melanoma — suggesting this approach may help overcome primary or acquired resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy.

The new studies aimed to build on this foundation by exploring whether FMT could improve ICI responses and clinical outcomes in patients with NSCLC, melanoma, and RCC.

In the phase 2, open-label FMT-LUMINate trial, researchers tested a healthy-donor FMT delivered as oral capsules before patients began immunotherapy. FMT capsules were produced using 80-100 g of feces per dose from screened healthy donors, and patients consumed 30-40 capsules while under supervision. The study included 20 patients with NSCLC and high PD-L1 tumor expression receiving FMT before standard first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy and 20 patients with cutaneous melanoma receiving FMT before ipilimumab plus nivolumab.

In the NSCLC cohort, 16 patients (80%) achieved an objective response. The 80% objective response rate exceeded the prespecified efficacy threshold of 64% and was higher than previously described historical data, which ranged from 39% to 46%, the study team noted.

In the melanoma cohort, FMT before nivolumab and ipilimumab yielded an objective response rate of 75%, also exceeding the historical expected response rates of 50% to 58% among patients receiving this ICI combination.

In patients with NSCLC, no grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported. However, grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 13 (65%) patients in the melanoma group, suggesting a potentially accelerated onset of immune-related adverse events. Researchers also observed a higher-than-expected frequency of myocarditis in melanoma patients (15%). These toxicities clustered among patients who had FMT donors enriched in Prevotella spp, highlighting the importance of donor selection for future trials, the researchers explained.

The team plans to assess the potential of FMT to overcome primary resistance to ICI as part of the phase 2 CanBiome2 randomized trial, which aims to enroll 128 patients.

The RCC Data

The other two studies focused on FMT in patients with metastatic RCC. In the phase 1 PERFORM study, 20 treatment-naive patients with metastatic RCC added encapsulated healthy-donor FMT to standard ICI-based regimens — most commonly ipilimumab plus nivolumab, with some patients receiving pembrolizumab plus axitinib or pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib.

The primary endpoint was safety defined by the incidence and severity of immune-related adverse events. The safety endpoint was met; 50% of patients (10 of 20) experienced grade 3 immune-related adverse events, and there were no serious FMT-related toxicities and no grade 4 or 5 events.

Among 18 evaluable patients, nine (50%) achieved an objective response, including two who had complete responses (11%). Notably, most treatment responders did not develop any grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events, the researchers reported.

Finally, in the phase 2a TACITO trial, 45 patients with treatment-naive metastatic RCC were randomly allocated to receive donor FMT or placebo FMT. Patients received three administrations over 6 months — first via colonoscopy then as capsulized doses, alongside pembrolizumab plus axitinib.

The primary endpoint of 12-month progression-free survival narrowly missed statistical significance — 70% vs 41% (P = .053) — but suggested a benefit in the donor FMT group.

“We need more than 1 year to appreciate statistical significance in terms of progression-free survival,” study investigator Gianluca Ianiro, MD, PhD, with Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, told Medscape Medical News.

As for secondary endpoints, median progression-free survival was significantly longer with donor FMT (24.0 vs 9.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.50; P = .035) and the objective response rate was higher with donor FMT (52% vs 32%).

Why Might FMT Boost ICI Response?

Conceptually, FMT is intended to reshape the gut ecosystem in ways that favor antitumor immunity, and possibly reduce immune dysregulation.

Across these new studies, the mechanistic story is moving beyond the idea that more diversity is good and toward a model that suggests a benefit to removing or suppressing taxa associated with resistance or inflammatory toxicity.

For example, in the TACITO trial, microbiome analysis confirmed that acquisition or loss of specific bacterial strains was associated with 12-month progression-free survival.

Additionally, results of the FMT-LUMINate trial hinted that the therapeutic benefit of FMT may be driven by eliminating harmful bacteria present at baseline, most notably Enterocloster, Clostridium and Streptococcus spp.

“This bacterial depletion was associated with a favorable immunometabolic milieu,” the FMT-LUMINate researchers wrote. Additionally, the results suggest that “failure to eliminate baseline deleterious taxa may sustain an immunosuppressive metabolic and systemic immune milieu that compromises ICI responses.”

Is FMT Ready for Prime Time?

Ianiro told Medscape Medical News he “definitely” thinks microbiome modulation could eventually become part of standard immunotherapy regimens.

Although the “signal” of benefit is clearly there, Davar cautioned that it’s too early to justify routine, off-trial use of FMT specifically to improve ICI response.

“These remain small, proof-of-concept studies. They are not adequately powered trials of fecal transplants and multiple different covariates haven’t been considered,” Davar said.

The study researchers noted that issues around donor selection and availability, dosing schedules, product standardization, and safety risk stratification need to be resolved.

For example, TACITO’s real-world experience shows logistics can matter. Delays occurred due to capsule unavailability and other scheduling barriers, which led to late dosing and missed or shifted treatments in some patients.

That’s a reminder that scaling FMT for oncology would require robust manufacturing, distribution, and time-sensitive coordination with ICI start dates.

More broadly, “whether FMT is the most suitable method of essentially changing the gut microbiome remains unclear,” explained Davar, who suggested that engineered microbiome therapeutics or tailored therapies may be a preferable, more scalable and tailored long-term solution.

Overall, does this new research provide impetus to develop stool banks? “Probably not,” Davar said.

But is it a call for interested parties to think about clinical trials and experimental products that could influence the gut microbiome? “Those are all probably good ideas,” he said.

The PERFORM, TACITO and FMT-LUMINate trials had no commercial funding. Saman Maleki Vareki, PhD, of the PERFORM trial, is a cofounder of LND Therapeutics Inc and has submitted a US patent application related to FMT donor screening. Ianiro has received personal fees for acting as a speaker for Biocodex and Illumina and for acting as a consultant/advisor for Ferring Therapeutics. Arielle Elkrief, MD, of the FMT-LUMINate trial, has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and EMD Serono; consulting fees from EverImmune, NECBio, and Sanofi-Pasteur; and is an inventor on a patent regarding the microbiome and immunotherapy response. Davar had no relevant disclosures.

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

A trio of new studies, published simultaneously in February in Nature Medicine, add to growing evidence that manipulating the gut microbiome may enhance responses to immunotherapy in selected patients with cancer.

In these small, early-phase studies involving patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and melanoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) was associated with objective response rates that compared favorably with historical or prespecified benchmarks.

The idea that microbiome modulation via FMT “can augment immunotherapy efficacy is probably a good one and these studies certainly support that hypothesis,” said Diwakar Davar, MD, assistant professor of medicine and an oncologist/hematologist at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who wasn’t part of the new work.While “an intriguing approach and certainly worthy of further evaluation,” Davar cautioned that the latest studies are not robust enough to answer the question conclusively.

Although ICIs have improved outcomes for patients with melanoma, NSCLC, and RCC, many patients still do not respond or eventually develop resistance. A growing body of evidence suggests that the gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of ICI therapy. However, much of this evidence comes from preclinical studies showing that modulating the microbiome via FMT can alter responses to immunotherapy, along with small proof-of-concept human studies — predominantly in melanoma — suggesting this approach may help overcome primary or acquired resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy.

The new studies aimed to build on this foundation by exploring whether FMT could improve ICI responses and clinical outcomes in patients with NSCLC, melanoma, and RCC.

In the phase 2, open-label FMT-LUMINate trial, researchers tested a healthy-donor FMT delivered as oral capsules before patients began immunotherapy. FMT capsules were produced using 80-100 g of feces per dose from screened healthy donors, and patients consumed 30-40 capsules while under supervision. The study included 20 patients with NSCLC and high PD-L1 tumor expression receiving FMT before standard first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy and 20 patients with cutaneous melanoma receiving FMT before ipilimumab plus nivolumab.

In the NSCLC cohort, 16 patients (80%) achieved an objective response. The 80% objective response rate exceeded the prespecified efficacy threshold of 64% and was higher than previously described historical data, which ranged from 39% to 46%, the study team noted.

In the melanoma cohort, FMT before nivolumab and ipilimumab yielded an objective response rate of 75%, also exceeding the historical expected response rates of 50% to 58% among patients receiving this ICI combination.

In patients with NSCLC, no grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported. However, grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 13 (65%) patients in the melanoma group, suggesting a potentially accelerated onset of immune-related adverse events. Researchers also observed a higher-than-expected frequency of myocarditis in melanoma patients (15%). These toxicities clustered among patients who had FMT donors enriched in Prevotella spp, highlighting the importance of donor selection for future trials, the researchers explained.

The team plans to assess the potential of FMT to overcome primary resistance to ICI as part of the phase 2 CanBiome2 randomized trial, which aims to enroll 128 patients.

The RCC Data

The other two studies focused on FMT in patients with metastatic RCC. In the phase 1 PERFORM study, 20 treatment-naive patients with metastatic RCC added encapsulated healthy-donor FMT to standard ICI-based regimens — most commonly ipilimumab plus nivolumab, with some patients receiving pembrolizumab plus axitinib or pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib.

The primary endpoint was safety defined by the incidence and severity of immune-related adverse events. The safety endpoint was met; 50% of patients (10 of 20) experienced grade 3 immune-related adverse events, and there were no serious FMT-related toxicities and no grade 4 or 5 events.

Among 18 evaluable patients, nine (50%) achieved an objective response, including two who had complete responses (11%). Notably, most treatment responders did not develop any grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events, the researchers reported.

Finally, in the phase 2a TACITO trial, 45 patients with treatment-naive metastatic RCC were randomly allocated to receive donor FMT or placebo FMT. Patients received three administrations over 6 months — first via colonoscopy then as capsulized doses, alongside pembrolizumab plus axitinib.

The primary endpoint of 12-month progression-free survival narrowly missed statistical significance — 70% vs 41% (P = .053) — but suggested a benefit in the donor FMT group.

“We need more than 1 year to appreciate statistical significance in terms of progression-free survival,” study investigator Gianluca Ianiro, MD, PhD, with Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, told Medscape Medical News.

As for secondary endpoints, median progression-free survival was significantly longer with donor FMT (24.0 vs 9.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.50; P = .035) and the objective response rate was higher with donor FMT (52% vs 32%).

Why Might FMT Boost ICI Response?

Conceptually, FMT is intended to reshape the gut ecosystem in ways that favor antitumor immunity, and possibly reduce immune dysregulation.

Across these new studies, the mechanistic story is moving beyond the idea that more diversity is good and toward a model that suggests a benefit to removing or suppressing taxa associated with resistance or inflammatory toxicity.

For example, in the TACITO trial, microbiome analysis confirmed that acquisition or loss of specific bacterial strains was associated with 12-month progression-free survival.

Additionally, results of the FMT-LUMINate trial hinted that the therapeutic benefit of FMT may be driven by eliminating harmful bacteria present at baseline, most notably Enterocloster, Clostridium and Streptococcus spp.

“This bacterial depletion was associated with a favorable immunometabolic milieu,” the FMT-LUMINate researchers wrote. Additionally, the results suggest that “failure to eliminate baseline deleterious taxa may sustain an immunosuppressive metabolic and systemic immune milieu that compromises ICI responses.”

Is FMT Ready for Prime Time?

Ianiro told Medscape Medical News he “definitely” thinks microbiome modulation could eventually become part of standard immunotherapy regimens.

Although the “signal” of benefit is clearly there, Davar cautioned that it’s too early to justify routine, off-trial use of FMT specifically to improve ICI response.

“These remain small, proof-of-concept studies. They are not adequately powered trials of fecal transplants and multiple different covariates haven’t been considered,” Davar said.

The study researchers noted that issues around donor selection and availability, dosing schedules, product standardization, and safety risk stratification need to be resolved.

For example, TACITO’s real-world experience shows logistics can matter. Delays occurred due to capsule unavailability and other scheduling barriers, which led to late dosing and missed or shifted treatments in some patients.

That’s a reminder that scaling FMT for oncology would require robust manufacturing, distribution, and time-sensitive coordination with ICI start dates.

More broadly, “whether FMT is the most suitable method of essentially changing the gut microbiome remains unclear,” explained Davar, who suggested that engineered microbiome therapeutics or tailored therapies may be a preferable, more scalable and tailored long-term solution.

Overall, does this new research provide impetus to develop stool banks? “Probably not,” Davar said.

But is it a call for interested parties to think about clinical trials and experimental products that could influence the gut microbiome? “Those are all probably good ideas,” he said.

The PERFORM, TACITO and FMT-LUMINate trials had no commercial funding. Saman Maleki Vareki, PhD, of the PERFORM trial, is a cofounder of LND Therapeutics Inc and has submitted a US patent application related to FMT donor screening. Ianiro has received personal fees for acting as a speaker for Biocodex and Illumina and for acting as a consultant/advisor for Ferring Therapeutics. Arielle Elkrief, MD, of the FMT-LUMINate trial, has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and EMD Serono; consulting fees from EverImmune, NECBio, and Sanofi-Pasteur; and is an inventor on a patent regarding the microbiome and immunotherapy response. Davar had no relevant disclosures.

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

While the incidence of lung cancer is decreasing in men, it continues to rise in women. With more than 19,000 new cases in France each year, lung cancer is now the third most commonly diagnosed cancer among women. This trend is also seen in other European countries but appears to be region-specific because other continents report a decline in incidence among women. Moreover, although overall prognosis remains better in the female population, the trend is worrying: Mortality associated with the disease is increasing in women, unlike in men with lung cancer. A session at the French-Language Pneumology Congress held from January 30 to February 1, 2026, in Lille, France, provided an opportunity to review the situation.

Efficacy and Toxicity

Lung tumors in women have a distinct tumor profile: Women have a higher proportion of adenocarcinomas than men and a higher frequency of somatic mutations (EGFR, BRAF, or HER2), including in nonsmokers. In addition, 65% of lung cancers in women are associated with smoking compared with 87% of those in men.

The role of estrogens is central because they interact directly with tumor growth signaling pathways. Moreover, “sex is the second leading factor of variability in drug pharmacokinetics after weight and accounts for 28% of anticancer drug kinetics,” emphasized Julien Mazières, pulmonologist, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France. Also involved in this equation are a higher body fat percentage, lower gastric acidity, and, above all, reduced renal and hepatic clearance.

As a result, exposure to drugs — represented by the area under the curve — is often greater in women and translates into not only improved progression-free survival with targeted therapies and chemotherapy but also increased toxicity. Carboplatin and paclitaxel are among the drugs whose kinetics are most affected by clearance. There are differences in clearance of more than 20% for these drugs in women vs men, though dosages are not systematically adjusted except for weight-based dosing. This vulnerability to adverse effects is particularly pronounced with targeted therapies, with more neuropsychiatric and gastrointestinal disorders. Data on the efficacy of immunotherapy in lung cancer by sex are contradictory. However, endocrine-related adverse effects and pneumonitis are more frequent in women, especially before menopause.

Women remain underrepresented in clinical trials, and sex-specific analyses of results are too rarely performed, which limits understanding of mechanisms and prevents tailoring management recommendations according to sex.

Impaired Quality of Life

Lung cancer most severely impairs physical functioning in women. “In the absence of sex-stratified studies, psycho-oncologists’ experience suggests that women have more cognitive disorders, anxiety, and depression associated with this disease. Its impact on quality of life is major, with deterioration of social relationships and reduced treatment adherence,” summarized Céline Mascaux, MD, PhD, pulmonologist, Strasbourg University Hospital, Strasbourg, France. Women also face social and family pressure — a mental burden that pushes them to “hold on” for their loved ones. Regarding sexual health, women with lung cancer who are sexually active often report dissatisfaction with the quality of their sexual relations because of fatigue, lack of energy, sadness, and shortness of breath, not to mention treatment-related sexual dysfunction. These problems are often not given sufficient attention by physicians.

Finally, fertility requires greater attention from the medical community: According to the VICAN study conducted by France’s National Health Insurance Fund, a discussion about fertility preservation did not take place at the time of cancer diagnosis for 60% of men and 67% of women of childbearing age. “In lung cancer specifically, the desire for children nevertheless exists in nearly 40% of patients of childbearing age,” regretted Jacques Cadranel, pulmonologist, Tenon Hospital, Paris, France. This desire does not appear to have influenced therapeutic strategy, and fertility preservation was ultimately proposed in only a third of cases and was carried out in only 3% of women compared with21% of men.

This story has been translated from Univadis France, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com

While the incidence of lung cancer is decreasing in men, it continues to rise in women. With more than 19,000 new cases in France each year, lung cancer is now the third most commonly diagnosed cancer among women. This trend is also seen in other European countries but appears to be region-specific because other continents report a decline in incidence among women. Moreover, although overall prognosis remains better in the female population, the trend is worrying: Mortality associated with the disease is increasing in women, unlike in men with lung cancer. A session at the French-Language Pneumology Congress held from January 30 to February 1, 2026, in Lille, France, provided an opportunity to review the situation.

Efficacy and Toxicity

Lung tumors in women have a distinct tumor profile: Women have a higher proportion of adenocarcinomas than men and a higher frequency of somatic mutations (EGFR, BRAF, or HER2), including in nonsmokers. In addition, 65% of lung cancers in women are associated with smoking compared with 87% of those in men.

The role of estrogens is central because they interact directly with tumor growth signaling pathways. Moreover, “sex is the second leading factor of variability in drug pharmacokinetics after weight and accounts for 28% of anticancer drug kinetics,” emphasized Julien Mazières, pulmonologist, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France. Also involved in this equation are a higher body fat percentage, lower gastric acidity, and, above all, reduced renal and hepatic clearance.

As a result, exposure to drugs — represented by the area under the curve — is often greater in women and translates into not only improved progression-free survival with targeted therapies and chemotherapy but also increased toxicity. Carboplatin and paclitaxel are among the drugs whose kinetics are most affected by clearance. There are differences in clearance of more than 20% for these drugs in women vs men, though dosages are not systematically adjusted except for weight-based dosing. This vulnerability to adverse effects is particularly pronounced with targeted therapies, with more neuropsychiatric and gastrointestinal disorders. Data on the efficacy of immunotherapy in lung cancer by sex are contradictory. However, endocrine-related adverse effects and pneumonitis are more frequent in women, especially before menopause.

Women remain underrepresented in clinical trials, and sex-specific analyses of results are too rarely performed, which limits understanding of mechanisms and prevents tailoring management recommendations according to sex.

Impaired Quality of Life

Lung cancer most severely impairs physical functioning in women. “In the absence of sex-stratified studies, psycho-oncologists’ experience suggests that women have more cognitive disorders, anxiety, and depression associated with this disease. Its impact on quality of life is major, with deterioration of social relationships and reduced treatment adherence,” summarized Céline Mascaux, MD, PhD, pulmonologist, Strasbourg University Hospital, Strasbourg, France. Women also face social and family pressure — a mental burden that pushes them to “hold on” for their loved ones. Regarding sexual health, women with lung cancer who are sexually active often report dissatisfaction with the quality of their sexual relations because of fatigue, lack of energy, sadness, and shortness of breath, not to mention treatment-related sexual dysfunction. These problems are often not given sufficient attention by physicians.

Finally, fertility requires greater attention from the medical community: According to the VICAN study conducted by France’s National Health Insurance Fund, a discussion about fertility preservation did not take place at the time of cancer diagnosis for 60% of men and 67% of women of childbearing age. “In lung cancer specifically, the desire for children nevertheless exists in nearly 40% of patients of childbearing age,” regretted Jacques Cadranel, pulmonologist, Tenon Hospital, Paris, France. This desire does not appear to have influenced therapeutic strategy, and fertility preservation was ultimately proposed in only a third of cases and was carried out in only 3% of women compared with21% of men.

This story has been translated from Univadis France, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com

While the incidence of lung cancer is decreasing in men, it continues to rise in women. With more than 19,000 new cases in France each year, lung cancer is now the third most commonly diagnosed cancer among women. This trend is also seen in other European countries but appears to be region-specific because other continents report a decline in incidence among women. Moreover, although overall prognosis remains better in the female population, the trend is worrying: Mortality associated with the disease is increasing in women, unlike in men with lung cancer. A session at the French-Language Pneumology Congress held from January 30 to February 1, 2026, in Lille, France, provided an opportunity to review the situation.

Efficacy and Toxicity

Lung tumors in women have a distinct tumor profile: Women have a higher proportion of adenocarcinomas than men and a higher frequency of somatic mutations (EGFR, BRAF, or HER2), including in nonsmokers. In addition, 65% of lung cancers in women are associated with smoking compared with 87% of those in men.

The role of estrogens is central because they interact directly with tumor growth signaling pathways. Moreover, “sex is the second leading factor of variability in drug pharmacokinetics after weight and accounts for 28% of anticancer drug kinetics,” emphasized Julien Mazières, pulmonologist, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France. Also involved in this equation are a higher body fat percentage, lower gastric acidity, and, above all, reduced renal and hepatic clearance.

As a result, exposure to drugs — represented by the area under the curve — is often greater in women and translates into not only improved progression-free survival with targeted therapies and chemotherapy but also increased toxicity. Carboplatin and paclitaxel are among the drugs whose kinetics are most affected by clearance. There are differences in clearance of more than 20% for these drugs in women vs men, though dosages are not systematically adjusted except for weight-based dosing. This vulnerability to adverse effects is particularly pronounced with targeted therapies, with more neuropsychiatric and gastrointestinal disorders. Data on the efficacy of immunotherapy in lung cancer by sex are contradictory. However, endocrine-related adverse effects and pneumonitis are more frequent in women, especially before menopause.

Women remain underrepresented in clinical trials, and sex-specific analyses of results are too rarely performed, which limits understanding of mechanisms and prevents tailoring management recommendations according to sex.

Impaired Quality of Life

Lung cancer most severely impairs physical functioning in women. “In the absence of sex-stratified studies, psycho-oncologists’ experience suggests that women have more cognitive disorders, anxiety, and depression associated with this disease. Its impact on quality of life is major, with deterioration of social relationships and reduced treatment adherence,” summarized Céline Mascaux, MD, PhD, pulmonologist, Strasbourg University Hospital, Strasbourg, France. Women also face social and family pressure — a mental burden that pushes them to “hold on” for their loved ones. Regarding sexual health, women with lung cancer who are sexually active often report dissatisfaction with the quality of their sexual relations because of fatigue, lack of energy, sadness, and shortness of breath, not to mention treatment-related sexual dysfunction. These problems are often not given sufficient attention by physicians.

Finally, fertility requires greater attention from the medical community: According to the VICAN study conducted by France’s National Health Insurance Fund, a discussion about fertility preservation did not take place at the time of cancer diagnosis for 60% of men and 67% of women of childbearing age. “In lung cancer specifically, the desire for children nevertheless exists in nearly 40% of patients of childbearing age,” regretted Jacques Cadranel, pulmonologist, Tenon Hospital, Paris, France. This desire does not appear to have influenced therapeutic strategy, and fertility preservation was ultimately proposed in only a third of cases and was carried out in only 3% of women compared with21% of men.

This story has been translated from Univadis France, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com

TOPLINE:

In a review of physician-related malpractice cases from 1930 to 2025, melanoma was the most frequently litigated skin cancer, and failure or delay in diagnosis was the most common allegation, with documented death in nearly one third of cases.

METHODOLOGY:

Researchers conducted a review of physician-related medicolegal cases involving skin cancer using the LexisNexis legal database and identified 188 unique cases from 1930 through May 2025.

Cases were included if physicians were named as defendants and the litigation centered on diagnosis or management of a cutaneous malignancy.

Study outcomes examined case characteristics including cancer type, practice setting, defendant specialty, primary allegations, clinical outcomes, and case verdicts across the US.

TAKEAWAY:

Melanoma accounted for 49.5% of litigated cases, followed by squamous cell carcinoma (21.6%), basal cell carcinoma (14.2%), unspecified skin cancer (11.6%), and other rare tumors (3.1%). Death was reported in 29.8% of cases and metastatic disease in 39.9%.

Failure or delay in diagnosis was the leading allegation (38.1%), followed by treatment or management errors (24.2%), misdiagnosis (11.4%), “deliberate indifference” (8.3%), inadequate informed consent (7.5%), and pathology-related errors (7.2%).

Family physicians were the most common defendants (27.5%), followed by dermatologists, including Mohs surgeons (20.1%), and pathologists or dermatopathologists (14.4%), followed by general or plastic surgeons (7.9%), and internists (4.4%). Most cases originated in private practices (59.7%), and New York (16.0%) and California (13.3%) were the states with the most cases.

Among 109 closed cases, 5.5% resulted in plaintiff verdicts, whereas defense verdicts predominated in 55.0%. Plaintiff awards ranged from $10,000 to $4.25 million.

IN PRACTICE:

“This comprehensive review demonstrates that melanoma is the most frequently litigated skin cancer, particularly in cases involving metastatic disease or death, and that family physicians are the most commonly named defendants overall,” the authors wrote. “By examining both allegations and outcomes,” they added, “this analysis provides a pragmatic assessment of real-world litigation exposure and the clinical scenarios that expose physicians to legal proceedings, financial cost, reputational harm, and psychological burden, regardless of case disposition.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ghassan Barnawi, MD, Division of Dermatology, McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and was published online on February 20, 2026, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on published court decisions, which likely underestimated malpractice burden by excluding settlements and unreported claims.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported having 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.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

TOPLINE:

In a review of physician-related malpractice cases from 1930 to 2025, melanoma was the most frequently litigated skin cancer, and failure or delay in diagnosis was the most common allegation, with documented death in nearly one third of cases.

METHODOLOGY:

Researchers conducted a review of physician-related medicolegal cases involving skin cancer using the LexisNexis legal database and identified 188 unique cases from 1930 through May 2025.

Cases were included if physicians were named as defendants and the litigation centered on diagnosis or management of a cutaneous malignancy.

Study outcomes examined case characteristics including cancer type, practice setting, defendant specialty, primary allegations, clinical outcomes, and case verdicts across the US.

TAKEAWAY:

Melanoma accounted for 49.5% of litigated cases, followed by squamous cell carcinoma (21.6%), basal cell carcinoma (14.2%), unspecified skin cancer (11.6%), and other rare tumors (3.1%). Death was reported in 29.8% of cases and metastatic disease in 39.9%.

Failure or delay in diagnosis was the leading allegation (38.1%), followed by treatment or management errors (24.2%), misdiagnosis (11.4%), “deliberate indifference” (8.3%), inadequate informed consent (7.5%), and pathology-related errors (7.2%).

Family physicians were the most common defendants (27.5%), followed by dermatologists, including Mohs surgeons (20.1%), and pathologists or dermatopathologists (14.4%), followed by general or plastic surgeons (7.9%), and internists (4.4%). Most cases originated in private practices (59.7%), and New York (16.0%) and California (13.3%) were the states with the most cases.

Among 109 closed cases, 5.5% resulted in plaintiff verdicts, whereas defense verdicts predominated in 55.0%. Plaintiff awards ranged from $10,000 to $4.25 million.

IN PRACTICE:

“This comprehensive review demonstrates that melanoma is the most frequently litigated skin cancer, particularly in cases involving metastatic disease or death, and that family physicians are the most commonly named defendants overall,” the authors wrote. “By examining both allegations and outcomes,” they added, “this analysis provides a pragmatic assessment of real-world litigation exposure and the clinical scenarios that expose physicians to legal proceedings, financial cost, reputational harm, and psychological burden, regardless of case disposition.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ghassan Barnawi, MD, Division of Dermatology, McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and was published online on February 20, 2026, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on published court decisions, which likely underestimated malpractice burden by excluding settlements and unreported claims.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported having 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.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

TOPLINE:

In a review of physician-related malpractice cases from 1930 to 2025, melanoma was the most frequently litigated skin cancer, and failure or delay in diagnosis was the most common allegation, with documented death in nearly one third of cases.

METHODOLOGY:

Researchers conducted a review of physician-related medicolegal cases involving skin cancer using the LexisNexis legal database and identified 188 unique cases from 1930 through May 2025.

Cases were included if physicians were named as defendants and the litigation centered on diagnosis or management of a cutaneous malignancy.

Study outcomes examined case characteristics including cancer type, practice setting, defendant specialty, primary allegations, clinical outcomes, and case verdicts across the US.

TAKEAWAY:

Melanoma accounted for 49.5% of litigated cases, followed by squamous cell carcinoma (21.6%), basal cell carcinoma (14.2%), unspecified skin cancer (11.6%), and other rare tumors (3.1%). Death was reported in 29.8% of cases and metastatic disease in 39.9%.

Failure or delay in diagnosis was the leading allegation (38.1%), followed by treatment or management errors (24.2%), misdiagnosis (11.4%), “deliberate indifference” (8.3%), inadequate informed consent (7.5%), and pathology-related errors (7.2%).

Family physicians were the most common defendants (27.5%), followed by dermatologists, including Mohs surgeons (20.1%), and pathologists or dermatopathologists (14.4%), followed by general or plastic surgeons (7.9%), and internists (4.4%). Most cases originated in private practices (59.7%), and New York (16.0%) and California (13.3%) were the states with the most cases.

Among 109 closed cases, 5.5% resulted in plaintiff verdicts, whereas defense verdicts predominated in 55.0%. Plaintiff awards ranged from $10,000 to $4.25 million.

IN PRACTICE:

“This comprehensive review demonstrates that melanoma is the most frequently litigated skin cancer, particularly in cases involving metastatic disease or death, and that family physicians are the most commonly named defendants overall,” the authors wrote. “By examining both allegations and outcomes,” they added, “this analysis provides a pragmatic assessment of real-world litigation exposure and the clinical scenarios that expose physicians to legal proceedings, financial cost, reputational harm, and psychological burden, regardless of case disposition.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ghassan Barnawi, MD, Division of Dermatology, McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and was published online on February 20, 2026, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on published court decisions, which likely underestimated malpractice burden by excluding settlements and unreported claims.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported having 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.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

A pilot program appeared to more than double the rate of germline genetic testing among veterans with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) by using remote communication rather than relying on clinicians for in-person outreach to patients. 

Of 1952 veterans with mPC, 681 (34.9%) provided consent and 459 (23.5%) completed testing, exceeding the usual 10% to 12% of patients who undergo testing, reported Bruce Montgomery, MD, et al in Cancer.

Although testing is recommended for all patients with mPC to guide therapy and alert relatives who may be at risk, 23.5% is still an impressive number, Montgomery, an oncologist with Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle told Federal Practitioner: “With a letter and very little money and very little real time from clinicians, we could get testing done at 3 times the rate happening out there in the big wide world,” he said. “For 2000 patients, we needed one research coordinator and a small part of a genetic counselor's time.”

According to the study, germline genetic testing—which examines inherited DNA—is now recommended for all men with mPC by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American Urological Association. Germline genetic testing differs from somatic testing, which seeks genetic changes in the tumors themselves.

In the VA and community at large, the percentage of men with mPC who undergo germline genetic testing is low, Montgomery said. Research suggests < 40% of patients undergo somatic testing.

Germline genetic testing only costs about 10% compared with somatic testing, Montgomery said, and can be conducted at any time. In about 10% of mPC cases, the testing provides insight into the best treatment, he said.

Montgomery noted another benefit to germline genetic testing: It can raise the alarm about pathogenic variants that could boost cancer risk in family members, allowing them to get screened and take action.

There are many reasons veterans do not get tested, Montgomery said. The process is not automatic because patient consent is needed, and clinicians often fail to ask. In some cases, veterans worry about privacy or whether they will lose service-connected benefits if their cancer is blamed on genetics.

The study focused on 2104 veterans with mPC who had already agreed to take part in the Million Veteran Program, a prospective cohort study examining genetic and nongenetic risk for disease. The genetic analysis from that project did not provide guidance about mPC, so researchers approached the veterans directly.

Patients were enrolled from February 2021 to October 2023. A total of 1952 veterans did not opt out when contacted by mail (median age, 75 years; 63% White, 25% Black; 74% urban and 24% rural). The median age of those who consented and completed testing after phone contact was 74 years; 67% of patients were White and 22% were Black; 78% of patients lived in urban communities and 20% lived in rural communities.

Fifty-nine patients (13%) had pathogenic variants, and 37 of those had variants that indicated treatment with targeted therapies. Of the 37, 14 received targeted therapy, 18 were not at the point where targeted therapy was indicated, and 5 were not treated with targeted therapy for various reasons before they died.

Twelve of the 59 patients with pathogenic variants agreed to let the study team contact their first-degree relatives. Thirty relatives underwent testing, and 10 of them were positive for the variants.

Following completion of the study, researchers examined electronic records for the 59 patients with pathogenic variants and found that 19% did not have documentation of the germline finding in the medical record. The authors cited an “urgent need” to standardize where genetic information is included in the records.

While “it seems like a very small number of patients took up testing,” Montgomery said, the study findings are promising: “If we did the same thing nationally in the VA, there would be 15,000 men with metastatic disease, and we’d be testing 5000 of them with almost no effort.”

In an interview, Susan Vadaparampil, PhD, MPH, associate center director of Community Outreach and Engagement at Moffitt Cancer Center, who studies genetic testing, praised the strengths of the study. Vadaparampil, who did not take part in the research, told Federal Practitioner that the study relies on “an intervention that could likely be incorporated into routine clinical practice, a less resource-intensive model that provides posttest counseling for those who test positive, and support to share results with family members.”

However, she said, “testing uptake was uneven based on participant sociodemographic characteristics. It's important to consider how discussions and resources to facilitate testing may need to be adapted to meet the needs of all patients.

“Strategies that facilitate clinicians’ knowledge, comfort, and consistency in discussing testing with all mPC patients are essential,” Vadaparampil added. “Simultaneously using multiple strategies targeted to different levels can further help boost uptake.”

The study was funded by the VA Office of Research and Development, Prostate Cancer Foundation, Pacific Northwest Prostate Cancer SPORE, Institute for Prostate Cancer Research, Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP), and Put VA Data to Work for Veterans. 

Montgomery discloses relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, INmune Bio, Clovis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson and Johnson, and Merck. Some other authors report various disclosures. Vadaparampil has no disclosures.

A pilot program appeared to more than double the rate of germline genetic testing among veterans with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) by using remote communication rather than relying on clinicians for in-person outreach to patients. 

Of 1952 veterans with mPC, 681 (34.9%) provided consent and 459 (23.5%) completed testing, exceeding the usual 10% to 12% of patients who undergo testing, reported Bruce Montgomery, MD, et al in Cancer.

Although testing is recommended for all patients with mPC to guide therapy and alert relatives who may be at risk, 23.5% is still an impressive number, Montgomery, an oncologist with Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle told Federal Practitioner: “With a letter and very little money and very little real time from clinicians, we could get testing done at 3 times the rate happening out there in the big wide world,” he said. “For 2000 patients, we needed one research coordinator and a small part of a genetic counselor's time.”

According to the study, germline genetic testing—which examines inherited DNA—is now recommended for all men with mPC by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American Urological Association. Germline genetic testing differs from somatic testing, which seeks genetic changes in the tumors themselves.

In the VA and community at large, the percentage of men with mPC who undergo germline genetic testing is low, Montgomery said. Research suggests < 40% of patients undergo somatic testing.

Germline genetic testing only costs about 10% compared with somatic testing, Montgomery said, and can be conducted at any time. In about 10% of mPC cases, the testing provides insight into the best treatment, he said.

Montgomery noted another benefit to germline genetic testing: It can raise the alarm about pathogenic variants that could boost cancer risk in family members, allowing them to get screened and take action.

There are many reasons veterans do not get tested, Montgomery said. The process is not automatic because patient consent is needed, and clinicians often fail to ask. In some cases, veterans worry about privacy or whether they will lose service-connected benefits if their cancer is blamed on genetics.

The study focused on 2104 veterans with mPC who had already agreed to take part in the Million Veteran Program, a prospective cohort study examining genetic and nongenetic risk for disease. The genetic analysis from that project did not provide guidance about mPC, so researchers approached the veterans directly.

Patients were enrolled from February 2021 to October 2023. A total of 1952 veterans did not opt out when contacted by mail (median age, 75 years; 63% White, 25% Black; 74% urban and 24% rural). The median age of those who consented and completed testing after phone contact was 74 years; 67% of patients were White and 22% were Black; 78% of patients lived in urban communities and 20% lived in rural communities.

Fifty-nine patients (13%) had pathogenic variants, and 37 of those had variants that indicated treatment with targeted therapies. Of the 37, 14 received targeted therapy, 18 were not at the point where targeted therapy was indicated, and 5 were not treated with targeted therapy for various reasons before they died.

Twelve of the 59 patients with pathogenic variants agreed to let the study team contact their first-degree relatives. Thirty relatives underwent testing, and 10 of them were positive for the variants.

Following completion of the study, researchers examined electronic records for the 59 patients with pathogenic variants and found that 19% did not have documentation of the germline finding in the medical record. The authors cited an “urgent need” to standardize where genetic information is included in the records.

While “it seems like a very small number of patients took up testing,” Montgomery said, the study findings are promising: “If we did the same thing nationally in the VA, there would be 15,000 men with metastatic disease, and we’d be testing 5000 of them with almost no effort.”

In an interview, Susan Vadaparampil, PhD, MPH, associate center director of Community Outreach and Engagement at Moffitt Cancer Center, who studies genetic testing, praised the strengths of the study. Vadaparampil, who did not take part in the research, told Federal Practitioner that the study relies on “an intervention that could likely be incorporated into routine clinical practice, a less resource-intensive model that provides posttest counseling for those who test positive, and support to share results with family members.”

However, she said, “testing uptake was uneven based on participant sociodemographic characteristics. It's important to consider how discussions and resources to facilitate testing may need to be adapted to meet the needs of all patients.

“Strategies that facilitate clinicians’ knowledge, comfort, and consistency in discussing testing with all mPC patients are essential,” Vadaparampil added. “Simultaneously using multiple strategies targeted to different levels can further help boost uptake.”

The study was funded by the VA Office of Research and Development, Prostate Cancer Foundation, Pacific Northwest Prostate Cancer SPORE, Institute for Prostate Cancer Research, Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP), and Put VA Data to Work for Veterans. 

Montgomery discloses relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, INmune Bio, Clovis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson and Johnson, and Merck. Some other authors report various disclosures. Vadaparampil has no disclosures.

A pilot program appeared to more than double the rate of germline genetic testing among veterans with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) by using remote communication rather than relying on clinicians for in-person outreach to patients. 

Of 1952 veterans with mPC, 681 (34.9%) provided consent and 459 (23.5%) completed testing, exceeding the usual 10% to 12% of patients who undergo testing, reported Bruce Montgomery, MD, et al in Cancer.

Although testing is recommended for all patients with mPC to guide therapy and alert relatives who may be at risk, 23.5% is still an impressive number, Montgomery, an oncologist with Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle told Federal Practitioner: “With a letter and very little money and very little real time from clinicians, we could get testing done at 3 times the rate happening out there in the big wide world,” he said. “For 2000 patients, we needed one research coordinator and a small part of a genetic counselor's time.”

According to the study, germline genetic testing—which examines inherited DNA—is now recommended for all men with mPC by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American Urological Association. Germline genetic testing differs from somatic testing, which seeks genetic changes in the tumors themselves.

In the VA and community at large, the percentage of men with mPC who undergo germline genetic testing is low, Montgomery said. Research suggests < 40% of patients undergo somatic testing.

Germline genetic testing only costs about 10% compared with somatic testing, Montgomery said, and can be conducted at any time. In about 10% of mPC cases, the testing provides insight into the best treatment, he said.

Montgomery noted another benefit to germline genetic testing: It can raise the alarm about pathogenic variants that could boost cancer risk in family members, allowing them to get screened and take action.

There are many reasons veterans do not get tested, Montgomery said. The process is not automatic because patient consent is needed, and clinicians often fail to ask. In some cases, veterans worry about privacy or whether they will lose service-connected benefits if their cancer is blamed on genetics.

The study focused on 2104 veterans with mPC who had already agreed to take part in the Million Veteran Program, a prospective cohort study examining genetic and nongenetic risk for disease. The genetic analysis from that project did not provide guidance about mPC, so researchers approached the veterans directly.

Patients were enrolled from February 2021 to October 2023. A total of 1952 veterans did not opt out when contacted by mail (median age, 75 years; 63% White, 25% Black; 74% urban and 24% rural). The median age of those who consented and completed testing after phone contact was 74 years; 67% of patients were White and 22% were Black; 78% of patients lived in urban communities and 20% lived in rural communities.

Fifty-nine patients (13%) had pathogenic variants, and 37 of those had variants that indicated treatment with targeted therapies. Of the 37, 14 received targeted therapy, 18 were not at the point where targeted therapy was indicated, and 5 were not treated with targeted therapy for various reasons before they died.

Twelve of the 59 patients with pathogenic variants agreed to let the study team contact their first-degree relatives. Thirty relatives underwent testing, and 10 of them were positive for the variants.

Following completion of the study, researchers examined electronic records for the 59 patients with pathogenic variants and found that 19% did not have documentation of the germline finding in the medical record. The authors cited an “urgent need” to standardize where genetic information is included in the records.

While “it seems like a very small number of patients took up testing,” Montgomery said, the study findings are promising: “If we did the same thing nationally in the VA, there would be 15,000 men with metastatic disease, and we’d be testing 5000 of them with almost no effort.”

In an interview, Susan Vadaparampil, PhD, MPH, associate center director of Community Outreach and Engagement at Moffitt Cancer Center, who studies genetic testing, praised the strengths of the study. Vadaparampil, who did not take part in the research, told Federal Practitioner that the study relies on “an intervention that could likely be incorporated into routine clinical practice, a less resource-intensive model that provides posttest counseling for those who test positive, and support to share results with family members.”

However, she said, “testing uptake was uneven based on participant sociodemographic characteristics. It's important to consider how discussions and resources to facilitate testing may need to be adapted to meet the needs of all patients.

“Strategies that facilitate clinicians’ knowledge, comfort, and consistency in discussing testing with all mPC patients are essential,” Vadaparampil added. “Simultaneously using multiple strategies targeted to different levels can further help boost uptake.”

The study was funded by the VA Office of Research and Development, Prostate Cancer Foundation, Pacific Northwest Prostate Cancer SPORE, Institute for Prostate Cancer Research, Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP), and Put VA Data to Work for Veterans. 

Montgomery discloses relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, INmune Bio, Clovis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson and Johnson, and Merck. Some other authors report various disclosures. Vadaparampil has no disclosures.

New research challenges the assumption that long-term cannabis use improves symptoms or functioning in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

On the contrary, researchers found that abstaining from cannabis for 3 months was associated with significantly greater reductions in PTSD symptoms in adults with PTSD and comorbid cannabis use disorder (CUD).

The data suggest that continued cannabis use could limit recovery in some domains — underscoring the need to routinely assess cannabis use during PTSD treatment and to educate patients on the potential consequences of continued use, the researchers said. 

The study was published online February 18 in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 

Helpful or Harmful? 

PTSD is a debilitating psychiatric condition marked by intrusive memories, avoidance, negative changes in mood and cognition, and hyperarousal. Many patients turn to cannabis to ease symptoms. In one recent study, roughly 28% of individuals with PTSD reported past-year cannabis use and 9% met criteria for CUD. 

Although some studies have suggested PTSD symptom reduction with cannabis or cannabinoid-based treatments, others have identified potential risks, such as disrupted fear-extinction learning and worse clinical and treatment outcomes. 

A recent systematic review found mixed evidence overall, with six studies suggesting benefits, five reporting worsening of symptoms, and three showing no significant impact of cannabis use in the setting of PTSD.

Led by Ahmed Hassan, MD, University of Toronto, Ontario, the researchers recruited adults aged 18-65 years with confirmed PTSD and CUD through the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto and asked them to discontinue cannabis for 12 weeks.

Abstinence was defined as a urine 11-nor-9-carboxy-tetrahydrocannabinol level of 50 ng/mL or lower with no self-reported use, verified at multiple timepoints. Participants received escalating cash incentives for remaining abstinent at weeks 4, 8, and 12.

Eleven (52%) of the 21 participants who completed the 12-week protocol achieved biochemically verified abstinence, while 10 did not.

Those who achieved abstinence reported significantly greater reductions in total PTSD symptom severity and symptom count compared to those who did not. 

Total severity scores on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 dropped from 36.2 at baseline to 10.5 at week 12 among abstainers vs 34.6 to 21.8 among those who did not maintain abstinence (P = .001).

A similar pattern emerged for total symptom count, with abstinent participants dropping from 14.3 symptoms at baseline to 4.1 at week 12, compared to a decrease from 13.5 to 8.9 among nonabstainers.

Notably, the investigators observed that individuals who remained abstinent showed greater reductions in several core symptom clusters, including avoidance, negative alterations in mood, cognition, and hyperarousal — domains that are often cited as targets for cannabis-based self-medication among individuals with PTSD. 

“However, in this comorbid PTSD and CUD sample, sustained cannabis abstinence was associated with symptom improvement, thereby challenging assumptions about its clinical utility in this population,” they wrote. 

Interestingly, they added that there were no differential effects on reexperiencing symptoms such as flashbacks, intrusive memories, and nightmares. Both abstinent and nonabstinent participants reported similar improvements in reexperiencing, suggesting that factors unrelated to cannabis use may have contributed to symptom change or insufficient power, the authors said. 

The researchers called for larger randomized trials to “replicate and extend” these preliminary findings and to investigate mechanisms through which abstinence may relate to symptom changes in PTSD with CUD.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

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

New research challenges the assumption that long-term cannabis use improves symptoms or functioning in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

On the contrary, researchers found that abstaining from cannabis for 3 months was associated with significantly greater reductions in PTSD symptoms in adults with PTSD and comorbid cannabis use disorder (CUD).

The data suggest that continued cannabis use could limit recovery in some domains — underscoring the need to routinely assess cannabis use during PTSD treatment and to educate patients on the potential consequences of continued use, the researchers said. 

The study was published online February 18 in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 

Helpful or Harmful? 

PTSD is a debilitating psychiatric condition marked by intrusive memories, avoidance, negative changes in mood and cognition, and hyperarousal. Many patients turn to cannabis to ease symptoms. In one recent study, roughly 28% of individuals with PTSD reported past-year cannabis use and 9% met criteria for CUD. 

Although some studies have suggested PTSD symptom reduction with cannabis or cannabinoid-based treatments, others have identified potential risks, such as disrupted fear-extinction learning and worse clinical and treatment outcomes. 

A recent systematic review found mixed evidence overall, with six studies suggesting benefits, five reporting worsening of symptoms, and three showing no significant impact of cannabis use in the setting of PTSD.

Led by Ahmed Hassan, MD, University of Toronto, Ontario, the researchers recruited adults aged 18-65 years with confirmed PTSD and CUD through the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto and asked them to discontinue cannabis for 12 weeks.

Abstinence was defined as a urine 11-nor-9-carboxy-tetrahydrocannabinol level of 50 ng/mL or lower with no self-reported use, verified at multiple timepoints. Participants received escalating cash incentives for remaining abstinent at weeks 4, 8, and 12.

Eleven (52%) of the 21 participants who completed the 12-week protocol achieved biochemically verified abstinence, while 10 did not.

Those who achieved abstinence reported significantly greater reductions in total PTSD symptom severity and symptom count compared to those who did not. 

Total severity scores on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 dropped from 36.2 at baseline to 10.5 at week 12 among abstainers vs 34.6 to 21.8 among those who did not maintain abstinence (P = .001).

A similar pattern emerged for total symptom count, with abstinent participants dropping from 14.3 symptoms at baseline to 4.1 at week 12, compared to a decrease from 13.5 to 8.9 among nonabstainers.

Notably, the investigators observed that individuals who remained abstinent showed greater reductions in several core symptom clusters, including avoidance, negative alterations in mood, cognition, and hyperarousal — domains that are often cited as targets for cannabis-based self-medication among individuals with PTSD. 

“However, in this comorbid PTSD and CUD sample, sustained cannabis abstinence was associated with symptom improvement, thereby challenging assumptions about its clinical utility in this population,” they wrote. 

Interestingly, they added that there were no differential effects on reexperiencing symptoms such as flashbacks, intrusive memories, and nightmares. Both abstinent and nonabstinent participants reported similar improvements in reexperiencing, suggesting that factors unrelated to cannabis use may have contributed to symptom change or insufficient power, the authors said. 

The researchers called for larger randomized trials to “replicate and extend” these preliminary findings and to investigate mechanisms through which abstinence may relate to symptom changes in PTSD with CUD.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

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

New research challenges the assumption that long-term cannabis use improves symptoms or functioning in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

On the contrary, researchers found that abstaining from cannabis for 3 months was associated with significantly greater reductions in PTSD symptoms in adults with PTSD and comorbid cannabis use disorder (CUD).

The data suggest that continued cannabis use could limit recovery in some domains — underscoring the need to routinely assess cannabis use during PTSD treatment and to educate patients on the potential consequences of continued use, the researchers said. 

The study was published online February 18 in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 

Helpful or Harmful? 

PTSD is a debilitating psychiatric condition marked by intrusive memories, avoidance, negative changes in mood and cognition, and hyperarousal. Many patients turn to cannabis to ease symptoms. In one recent study, roughly 28% of individuals with PTSD reported past-year cannabis use and 9% met criteria for CUD. 

Although some studies have suggested PTSD symptom reduction with cannabis or cannabinoid-based treatments, others have identified potential risks, such as disrupted fear-extinction learning and worse clinical and treatment outcomes. 

A recent systematic review found mixed evidence overall, with six studies suggesting benefits, five reporting worsening of symptoms, and three showing no significant impact of cannabis use in the setting of PTSD.

Led by Ahmed Hassan, MD, University of Toronto, Ontario, the researchers recruited adults aged 18-65 years with confirmed PTSD and CUD through the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto and asked them to discontinue cannabis for 12 weeks.

Abstinence was defined as a urine 11-nor-9-carboxy-tetrahydrocannabinol level of 50 ng/mL or lower with no self-reported use, verified at multiple timepoints. Participants received escalating cash incentives for remaining abstinent at weeks 4, 8, and 12.

Eleven (52%) of the 21 participants who completed the 12-week protocol achieved biochemically verified abstinence, while 10 did not.

Those who achieved abstinence reported significantly greater reductions in total PTSD symptom severity and symptom count compared to those who did not. 

Total severity scores on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 dropped from 36.2 at baseline to 10.5 at week 12 among abstainers vs 34.6 to 21.8 among those who did not maintain abstinence (P = .001).

A similar pattern emerged for total symptom count, with abstinent participants dropping from 14.3 symptoms at baseline to 4.1 at week 12, compared to a decrease from 13.5 to 8.9 among nonabstainers.

Notably, the investigators observed that individuals who remained abstinent showed greater reductions in several core symptom clusters, including avoidance, negative alterations in mood, cognition, and hyperarousal — domains that are often cited as targets for cannabis-based self-medication among individuals with PTSD. 

“However, in this comorbid PTSD and CUD sample, sustained cannabis abstinence was associated with symptom improvement, thereby challenging assumptions about its clinical utility in this population,” they wrote. 

Interestingly, they added that there were no differential effects on reexperiencing symptoms such as flashbacks, intrusive memories, and nightmares. Both abstinent and nonabstinent participants reported similar improvements in reexperiencing, suggesting that factors unrelated to cannabis use may have contributed to symptom change or insufficient power, the authors said. 

The researchers called for larger randomized trials to “replicate and extend” these preliminary findings and to investigate mechanisms through which abstinence may relate to symptom changes in PTSD with CUD.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

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

Patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to have a survival benefit if they receive influenza vaccination, a new retrospective analysis found. The results also suggest no increase in the risk for immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) in these patients and that the improvement in survival outcomes may be stronger among those with cutaneous malignant melanoma.

“Our findings align with a growing body of evidence, mainly from retrospective studies, that suggest a potential association between influenza vaccination during immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment and improved survival among patients with cancer,” wrote senior author Antonis Valachis, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in JCO Clinical Practice on February 9. “An additional clinically relevant observation is that the association between influenza vaccination and survival may vary by tumor type.”

The new research supports “current recommendations to offer influenza vaccination to all patients undergoing cancer therapy, including those receiving the drugs,” Valachis, of the Department of Oncology, Örebro University in Örebro, Sweden, and his coauthors wrote.

“What we observed is that influenza vaccination is safe for patients under immunotherapy treatment,” Valachis told Medscape Medical News. But “whether influenza vaccination can be used to boost immunotherapy effectiveness should be tested in a study with a different design,” such as a prospective interventional trial.

Discussing potential explanations for why influenza vaccination could affect immunotherapy outcomes without affecting rates of IRAEs, Valachis said that this “cannot be answered within the constraints of our study design, since all patients were treated with immunotherapy.”

It may nevertheless be hypothesized that “immune activation triggered by vaccination preferentially stimulates immune mechanisms that enhance immunotherapy efficacy, while sparing those that contribute to IRAEs.”

Steady Was 'Relatively Modestly Sized'

Question marks were raised over the study itself and, as a result, its findings.

Justin Jee, MD, PhD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, told Medscape Medical News that there are “a lot of challenges when looking at retrospective data.”

“The authors did a very reasonable job of trying to control for confounders and certain time dependent issues, like immortality bias,” he said. “That said, it’s a relatively modestly sized retrospective study for looking at something that has enormous potential for confounding bias that really can’t be captured with any standard statistical method.”

Jee pointed to factors such as providers potentially being more likely to refer people for vaccination if they’re healthier “vs if the patient is in hospice care,” or individuals simply not getting vaccinated because it is not uppermost in their mind.

“Those things are very, very difficult to control for.”

Jee also said he believes the benefit with influenza vaccination being stronger in cutaneous malignant melanoma could be a study artifact, while the lack of difference in rates of IRAEs could be the result of selection bias, but “it’s just impossible to say with a study like this.”

“I’ve seen several studies looking at both COVID and flu vaccines and whether or not they improve immune checkpoint blockade efficacy,” he added, explaining that “some of them say COVID vaccine good, flu vaccine not as good; others say both flu and COVID vaccines good; others say flu vaccine good, COVID vaccine not as good.”

All Patients With Cancer Should Be Vaccinated

What is clear is that “patients with cancer are [at] especially high risk of developing complications from viral illnesses, including flu, including COVID, and vaccines are a very important part of reducing morbidity, mortality, and spread,” Jee said. The “big picture” is that everyone should get the influenza vaccine, especially patients with cancer, “so in that sense I agree with that part of the conclusion of the paper” and that’s “an important message.”

Mini Kamboj, MD, chief medical epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, agreed, saying that the results are “consistent with other research showing that vaccines are safe and beneficial for patients on checkpoint inhibitors.”

“While vaccinated patients with melanoma showed the greatest survival benefit, the authors note small sample size and unrecognized differences between the groups as a potential explanation for their findings. This does not change vaccine recommendations as evidence already supports flu vaccine safety and effectiveness in people with lung cancer on checkpoint inhibitors.”

Nearly 600 Patients With Advanced Cancer

The researchers performed a retrospective cohort study of patients from three regions in Sweden who had advanced solid tumors and were treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy, or PD-1 combination therapy with a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor, between January 1, 2016, until December 31, 2021. Treatment was given either routinely or as part of a clinical trial.

Electronic medical records were examined to gather data on a range of variables, including age at diagnosis, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, type of cancer, primary treatment at diagnosis, number of previous lines of treatment, best treatment response, IRAEs, influenza vaccination status, and date and cause of death.

In all, 587 patients were treated with immune checkpoint inhibition over the study period. They had a median age of 66 years, and 58.1% were men. The most common malignancies were nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), cutaneous malignant melanoma (32.5%), and renal cell carcinoma (14.7%).

The most commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitor was nivolumab, which was administered to 47.9% of patients, followed by pembrolizumab (34.6%), atezolizumab (9.4%), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (6.8%).

Only Patients With Malignant Melanoma Benefit

Over the study period, 17.7% of patients underwent influenza vaccination, at a median time between initiation of immune checkpoint inhibition and vaccination of 2 months. Ninety per cent of patients received the vaccine within 9 months of starting treatment.

Time-dependent Cox regression analysis revealed that real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was significantly longer with vaccinated patients than unvaccinated patients at a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79), as was overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42-0.75).

There was no significant difference in rwPFS and overall survival between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients among those with NSCLC, but significant differences were seen in those with cutaneous malignant melanoma, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96) and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96), respectively.

Restricting the analysis to immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy indicated that vaccinated patients had significantly longer rwPFS and overall survival than unvaccinated patients, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.43-0.79) and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.38-0.76), respectively.

Finally, the team found that there were no significant differences in the rates of any grade IRAEs between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, at 48.4% vs 51.2% (P = .455), or in rates of multiple IRAEs, at 15.1% vs 19.2% (P = .297). The therapeutic management and outcomes of IRAEs were also comparable.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to have a survival benefit if they receive influenza vaccination, a new retrospective analysis found. The results also suggest no increase in the risk for immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) in these patients and that the improvement in survival outcomes may be stronger among those with cutaneous malignant melanoma.

“Our findings align with a growing body of evidence, mainly from retrospective studies, that suggest a potential association between influenza vaccination during immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment and improved survival among patients with cancer,” wrote senior author Antonis Valachis, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in JCO Clinical Practice on February 9. “An additional clinically relevant observation is that the association between influenza vaccination and survival may vary by tumor type.”

The new research supports “current recommendations to offer influenza vaccination to all patients undergoing cancer therapy, including those receiving the drugs,” Valachis, of the Department of Oncology, Örebro University in Örebro, Sweden, and his coauthors wrote.

“What we observed is that influenza vaccination is safe for patients under immunotherapy treatment,” Valachis told Medscape Medical News. But “whether influenza vaccination can be used to boost immunotherapy effectiveness should be tested in a study with a different design,” such as a prospective interventional trial.

Discussing potential explanations for why influenza vaccination could affect immunotherapy outcomes without affecting rates of IRAEs, Valachis said that this “cannot be answered within the constraints of our study design, since all patients were treated with immunotherapy.”

It may nevertheless be hypothesized that “immune activation triggered by vaccination preferentially stimulates immune mechanisms that enhance immunotherapy efficacy, while sparing those that contribute to IRAEs.”

Steady Was 'Relatively Modestly Sized'

Question marks were raised over the study itself and, as a result, its findings.

Justin Jee, MD, PhD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, told Medscape Medical News that there are “a lot of challenges when looking at retrospective data.”

“The authors did a very reasonable job of trying to control for confounders and certain time dependent issues, like immortality bias,” he said. “That said, it’s a relatively modestly sized retrospective study for looking at something that has enormous potential for confounding bias that really can’t be captured with any standard statistical method.”

Jee pointed to factors such as providers potentially being more likely to refer people for vaccination if they’re healthier “vs if the patient is in hospice care,” or individuals simply not getting vaccinated because it is not uppermost in their mind.

“Those things are very, very difficult to control for.”

Jee also said he believes the benefit with influenza vaccination being stronger in cutaneous malignant melanoma could be a study artifact, while the lack of difference in rates of IRAEs could be the result of selection bias, but “it’s just impossible to say with a study like this.”

“I’ve seen several studies looking at both COVID and flu vaccines and whether or not they improve immune checkpoint blockade efficacy,” he added, explaining that “some of them say COVID vaccine good, flu vaccine not as good; others say both flu and COVID vaccines good; others say flu vaccine good, COVID vaccine not as good.”

All Patients With Cancer Should Be Vaccinated

What is clear is that “patients with cancer are [at] especially high risk of developing complications from viral illnesses, including flu, including COVID, and vaccines are a very important part of reducing morbidity, mortality, and spread,” Jee said. The “big picture” is that everyone should get the influenza vaccine, especially patients with cancer, “so in that sense I agree with that part of the conclusion of the paper” and that’s “an important message.”

Mini Kamboj, MD, chief medical epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, agreed, saying that the results are “consistent with other research showing that vaccines are safe and beneficial for patients on checkpoint inhibitors.”

“While vaccinated patients with melanoma showed the greatest survival benefit, the authors note small sample size and unrecognized differences between the groups as a potential explanation for their findings. This does not change vaccine recommendations as evidence already supports flu vaccine safety and effectiveness in people with lung cancer on checkpoint inhibitors.”

Nearly 600 Patients With Advanced Cancer

The researchers performed a retrospective cohort study of patients from three regions in Sweden who had advanced solid tumors and were treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy, or PD-1 combination therapy with a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor, between January 1, 2016, until December 31, 2021. Treatment was given either routinely or as part of a clinical trial.

Electronic medical records were examined to gather data on a range of variables, including age at diagnosis, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, type of cancer, primary treatment at diagnosis, number of previous lines of treatment, best treatment response, IRAEs, influenza vaccination status, and date and cause of death.

In all, 587 patients were treated with immune checkpoint inhibition over the study period. They had a median age of 66 years, and 58.1% were men. The most common malignancies were nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), cutaneous malignant melanoma (32.5%), and renal cell carcinoma (14.7%).

The most commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitor was nivolumab, which was administered to 47.9% of patients, followed by pembrolizumab (34.6%), atezolizumab (9.4%), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (6.8%).

Only Patients With Malignant Melanoma Benefit

Over the study period, 17.7% of patients underwent influenza vaccination, at a median time between initiation of immune checkpoint inhibition and vaccination of 2 months. Ninety per cent of patients received the vaccine within 9 months of starting treatment.

Time-dependent Cox regression analysis revealed that real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was significantly longer with vaccinated patients than unvaccinated patients at a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79), as was overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42-0.75).

There was no significant difference in rwPFS and overall survival between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients among those with NSCLC, but significant differences were seen in those with cutaneous malignant melanoma, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96) and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96), respectively.

Restricting the analysis to immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy indicated that vaccinated patients had significantly longer rwPFS and overall survival than unvaccinated patients, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.43-0.79) and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.38-0.76), respectively.

Finally, the team found that there were no significant differences in the rates of any grade IRAEs between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, at 48.4% vs 51.2% (P = .455), or in rates of multiple IRAEs, at 15.1% vs 19.2% (P = .297). The therapeutic management and outcomes of IRAEs were also comparable.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to have a survival benefit if they receive influenza vaccination, a new retrospective analysis found. The results also suggest no increase in the risk for immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) in these patients and that the improvement in survival outcomes may be stronger among those with cutaneous malignant melanoma.

“Our findings align with a growing body of evidence, mainly from retrospective studies, that suggest a potential association between influenza vaccination during immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment and improved survival among patients with cancer,” wrote senior author Antonis Valachis, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in JCO Clinical Practice on February 9. “An additional clinically relevant observation is that the association between influenza vaccination and survival may vary by tumor type.”

The new research supports “current recommendations to offer influenza vaccination to all patients undergoing cancer therapy, including those receiving the drugs,” Valachis, of the Department of Oncology, Örebro University in Örebro, Sweden, and his coauthors wrote.

“What we observed is that influenza vaccination is safe for patients under immunotherapy treatment,” Valachis told Medscape Medical News. But “whether influenza vaccination can be used to boost immunotherapy effectiveness should be tested in a study with a different design,” such as a prospective interventional trial.

Discussing potential explanations for why influenza vaccination could affect immunotherapy outcomes without affecting rates of IRAEs, Valachis said that this “cannot be answered within the constraints of our study design, since all patients were treated with immunotherapy.”

It may nevertheless be hypothesized that “immune activation triggered by vaccination preferentially stimulates immune mechanisms that enhance immunotherapy efficacy, while sparing those that contribute to IRAEs.”

Steady Was 'Relatively Modestly Sized'

Question marks were raised over the study itself and, as a result, its findings.

Justin Jee, MD, PhD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, told Medscape Medical News that there are “a lot of challenges when looking at retrospective data.”

“The authors did a very reasonable job of trying to control for confounders and certain time dependent issues, like immortality bias,” he said. “That said, it’s a relatively modestly sized retrospective study for looking at something that has enormous potential for confounding bias that really can’t be captured with any standard statistical method.”

Jee pointed to factors such as providers potentially being more likely to refer people for vaccination if they’re healthier “vs if the patient is in hospice care,” or individuals simply not getting vaccinated because it is not uppermost in their mind.

“Those things are very, very difficult to control for.”

Jee also said he believes the benefit with influenza vaccination being stronger in cutaneous malignant melanoma could be a study artifact, while the lack of difference in rates of IRAEs could be the result of selection bias, but “it’s just impossible to say with a study like this.”

“I’ve seen several studies looking at both COVID and flu vaccines and whether or not they improve immune checkpoint blockade efficacy,” he added, explaining that “some of them say COVID vaccine good, flu vaccine not as good; others say both flu and COVID vaccines good; others say flu vaccine good, COVID vaccine not as good.”

All Patients With Cancer Should Be Vaccinated

What is clear is that “patients with cancer are [at] especially high risk of developing complications from viral illnesses, including flu, including COVID, and vaccines are a very important part of reducing morbidity, mortality, and spread,” Jee said. The “big picture” is that everyone should get the influenza vaccine, especially patients with cancer, “so in that sense I agree with that part of the conclusion of the paper” and that’s “an important message.”

Mini Kamboj, MD, chief medical epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, agreed, saying that the results are “consistent with other research showing that vaccines are safe and beneficial for patients on checkpoint inhibitors.”

“While vaccinated patients with melanoma showed the greatest survival benefit, the authors note small sample size and unrecognized differences between the groups as a potential explanation for their findings. This does not change vaccine recommendations as evidence already supports flu vaccine safety and effectiveness in people with lung cancer on checkpoint inhibitors.”

Nearly 600 Patients With Advanced Cancer

The researchers performed a retrospective cohort study of patients from three regions in Sweden who had advanced solid tumors and were treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy, or PD-1 combination therapy with a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor, between January 1, 2016, until December 31, 2021. Treatment was given either routinely or as part of a clinical trial.

Electronic medical records were examined to gather data on a range of variables, including age at diagnosis, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, type of cancer, primary treatment at diagnosis, number of previous lines of treatment, best treatment response, IRAEs, influenza vaccination status, and date and cause of death.

In all, 587 patients were treated with immune checkpoint inhibition over the study period. They had a median age of 66 years, and 58.1% were men. The most common malignancies were nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), cutaneous malignant melanoma (32.5%), and renal cell carcinoma (14.7%).

The most commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitor was nivolumab, which was administered to 47.9% of patients, followed by pembrolizumab (34.6%), atezolizumab (9.4%), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (6.8%).

Only Patients With Malignant Melanoma Benefit

Over the study period, 17.7% of patients underwent influenza vaccination, at a median time between initiation of immune checkpoint inhibition and vaccination of 2 months. Ninety per cent of patients received the vaccine within 9 months of starting treatment.

Time-dependent Cox regression analysis revealed that real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was significantly longer with vaccinated patients than unvaccinated patients at a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79), as was overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42-0.75).

There was no significant difference in rwPFS and overall survival between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients among those with NSCLC, but significant differences were seen in those with cutaneous malignant melanoma, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96) and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96), respectively.

Restricting the analysis to immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy indicated that vaccinated patients had significantly longer rwPFS and overall survival than unvaccinated patients, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.43-0.79) and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.38-0.76), respectively.

Finally, the team found that there were no significant differences in the rates of any grade IRAEs between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, at 48.4% vs 51.2% (P = .455), or in rates of multiple IRAEs, at 15.1% vs 19.2% (P = .297). The therapeutic management and outcomes of IRAEs were also comparable.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

US service members and veterans were less likely to die than the general population from most causes of death over a 17-year period, a population-based, prospective analysis found. But there was a glaring exception: suicide by firearm.

Among 201,618 subjects tracked from 2001 to 2018 by the Millennium Cohort Study, the overall death rate was less than half that of a comparable group of US adults (standardized mortality ratios [SMR], 0.44), reported Edward J. Boyko, MD, MPH, staff physician with the Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System and professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues in BMC Public Health. However, suicides by firearm—while rare—were more common overall (SMR, 1.42), among military men only (SMR, 1.33), and among military women only (SMR, 2.83) than civilians. 

The findings about the overall death rate may reflect the better health of those who join the military and have access to health care during and after service, Boyko told Federal Practitioner. The suicide data may reflect higher access to firearms, he said, although “more research is needed to identify what types of military exposures or physical and mental health predictors are associated with increased mortality risk due to suicide.”

The ongoing Millennium Cohort Study began in 2001 to track the health of military personnel over time. The study has spawned > 180 reports “used to inform and guide policy, guidelines, and health promotion efforts within the military and VA,” Boyko said. “As the Millennium Cohort Study approaches its 25-year anniversary, it seemed like an ideal time to assess mortality, especially cause-specific mortality, as a way to measure the impact of military service on long-term health.”

The analysis tracks 4 panels of subjects enrolled at various times between 2001 and 2013. Of the 201,619 participants, 3018 (1.5%) died by 2018. Of the 198,01 nondeceased participants, 69.2% were male; 8.1% were born before 1960, 16.1% were born from 1960 to 1969, 24.4% were born from 1970 to 1979, and 51.5% were born in or after 1980. The racial/ethnic makeup was 72.7% non-Hispanic White, 12.2% non-Hispanic Black, 7.9% Hispanic, and 7.1% other. Two-thirds (66.4%) were active duty, and 33.6% were in the Reserve or National Guard.

Of the 3018 deceased participants, 81.2% were male. In terms of birth year, 32.4% were born before 1960, 22.1% were born from 1960 to 1969, 18.2% were born from 1970 to 1979, and 27.3% were born in or after 1980. The racial/ethnic makeup was 77.7% non-Hispanic White, 11.9% non-Hispanic Black, 5.5% Hispanic, and 4.9% other. About half (51.0%) were active duty, and 49.0% were in the Reserve or National Guard.

Most deaths were due to natural causes (57.0%), followed by accident (20.1%), suicide (17.1%), operations of war (3.0%), homicide (2.1%), and other causes (1.2%). The new report noted that the Millennium Cohort Study and other research have identified a “healthy soldier effect, in which military populations tend to be healthier than the general US population.”

Boyko explained that “the fitness requirements for joining the military may favor the selection of healthier individuals from the general population. Another benefit of military service is free access to health care, especially among those on active duty, as well as eligibility for VA health care and other benefits after leaving service. This would allow for greater access to preventive care and treatments, as well as routine screening for health conditions such as cancer, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.”

Overall suicide rates were higher among female subjects than among civilians (SMR, 1.65), but no statistically significant difference was seen in men (SMR, 0.96) or across all participants (SMR, 1.03). Regarding the large gaps in firearm suicide rates in military subjects vs civilians, Boyko said, “accessibility and familiarity with firearms, a highly lethal means of suicide, may be driving the elevated risk of suicide by firearms … prior research has found that unsecure firearms storage—such as unlocked, loaded firearms—increases the risk of suicide by firearms.”

Rachel Sayko Adams, PhD, MPH, a research associate professor with the Department of Health Law, Policy and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, is familiar with the study findings. Adams, a principal investigator at the VA Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center for Suicide Prevention, told Federal Practitioner that “efforts to further develop suicide prevention programs that consider the unique needs and preferences of female service members and veterans are critical to prevent future suicide mortality in this population.”

Adams added: “Just because service members and veterans have a lower all-cause mortality rate compared to the general US population, we should not assume that they are universally low risk or that we can reduce our public health prevention efforts targeting this population.”

Boyko highlighted KeepItSecure.net, which “helps veterans and service members protect themselves and their families by making it easier to store firearms securely during stressful or high-risk periods.” The site offers practical, judgment-free guidance with powerful storytelling and public outreach, with clear, actionable steps—such as using a cable gun lock or lockbox—to lower suicide risk long before a crisis occurs. The VA, Boyko said, provides free cable gun locks nationwide.

The Millennium Cohort Study is funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense Military Operational Medicine Research Program and Defense Health Program. The report authors and Adams have no disclosures. 

US service members and veterans were less likely to die than the general population from most causes of death over a 17-year period, a population-based, prospective analysis found. But there was a glaring exception: suicide by firearm.

Among 201,618 subjects tracked from 2001 to 2018 by the Millennium Cohort Study, the overall death rate was less than half that of a comparable group of US adults (standardized mortality ratios [SMR], 0.44), reported Edward J. Boyko, MD, MPH, staff physician with the Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System and professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues in BMC Public Health. However, suicides by firearm—while rare—were more common overall (SMR, 1.42), among military men only (SMR, 1.33), and among military women only (SMR, 2.83) than civilians. 

The findings about the overall death rate may reflect the better health of those who join the military and have access to health care during and after service, Boyko told Federal Practitioner. The suicide data may reflect higher access to firearms, he said, although “more research is needed to identify what types of military exposures or physical and mental health predictors are associated with increased mortality risk due to suicide.”

The ongoing Millennium Cohort Study began in 2001 to track the health of military personnel over time. The study has spawned > 180 reports “used to inform and guide policy, guidelines, and health promotion efforts within the military and VA,” Boyko said. “As the Millennium Cohort Study approaches its 25-year anniversary, it seemed like an ideal time to assess mortality, especially cause-specific mortality, as a way to measure the impact of military service on long-term health.”

The analysis tracks 4 panels of subjects enrolled at various times between 2001 and 2013. Of the 201,619 participants, 3018 (1.5%) died by 2018. Of the 198,01 nondeceased participants, 69.2% were male; 8.1% were born before 1960, 16.1% were born from 1960 to 1969, 24.4% were born from 1970 to 1979, and 51.5% were born in or after 1980. The racial/ethnic makeup was 72.7% non-Hispanic White, 12.2% non-Hispanic Black, 7.9% Hispanic, and 7.1% other. Two-thirds (66.4%) were active duty, and 33.6% were in the Reserve or National Guard.

Of the 3018 deceased participants, 81.2% were male. In terms of birth year, 32.4% were born before 1960, 22.1% were born from 1960 to 1969, 18.2% were born from 1970 to 1979, and 27.3% were born in or after 1980. The racial/ethnic makeup was 77.7% non-Hispanic White, 11.9% non-Hispanic Black, 5.5% Hispanic, and 4.9% other. About half (51.0%) were active duty, and 49.0% were in the Reserve or National Guard.

Most deaths were due to natural causes (57.0%), followed by accident (20.1%), suicide (17.1%), operations of war (3.0%), homicide (2.1%), and other causes (1.2%). The new report noted that the Millennium Cohort Study and other research have identified a “healthy soldier effect, in which military populations tend to be healthier than the general US population.”

Boyko explained that “the fitness requirements for joining the military may favor the selection of healthier individuals from the general population. Another benefit of military service is free access to health care, especially among those on active duty, as well as eligibility for VA health care and other benefits after leaving service. This would allow for greater access to preventive care and treatments, as well as routine screening for health conditions such as cancer, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.”

Overall suicide rates were higher among female subjects than among civilians (SMR, 1.65), but no statistically significant difference was seen in men (SMR, 0.96) or across all participants (SMR, 1.03). Regarding the large gaps in firearm suicide rates in military subjects vs civilians, Boyko said, “accessibility and familiarity with firearms, a highly lethal means of suicide, may be driving the elevated risk of suicide by firearms … prior research has found that unsecure firearms storage—such as unlocked, loaded firearms—increases the risk of suicide by firearms.”

Rachel Sayko Adams, PhD, MPH, a research associate professor with the Department of Health Law, Policy and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, is familiar with the study findings. Adams, a principal investigator at the VA Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center for Suicide Prevention, told Federal Practitioner that “efforts to further develop suicide prevention programs that consider the unique needs and preferences of female service members and veterans are critical to prevent future suicide mortality in this population.”

Adams added: “Just because service members and veterans have a lower all-cause mortality rate compared to the general US population, we should not assume that they are universally low risk or that we can reduce our public health prevention efforts targeting this population.”

Boyko highlighted KeepItSecure.net, which “helps veterans and service members protect themselves and their families by making it easier to store firearms securely during stressful or high-risk periods.” The site offers practical, judgment-free guidance with powerful storytelling and public outreach, with clear, actionable steps—such as using a cable gun lock or lockbox—to lower suicide risk long before a crisis occurs. The VA, Boyko said, provides free cable gun locks nationwide.

The Millennium Cohort Study is funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense Military Operational Medicine Research Program and Defense Health Program. The report authors and Adams have no disclosures. 

US service members and veterans were less likely to die than the general population from most causes of death over a 17-year period, a population-based, prospective analysis found. But there was a glaring exception: suicide by firearm.

Among 201,618 subjects tracked from 2001 to 2018 by the Millennium Cohort Study, the overall death rate was less than half that of a comparable group of US adults (standardized mortality ratios [SMR], 0.44), reported Edward J. Boyko, MD, MPH, staff physician with the Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System and professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues in BMC Public Health. However, suicides by firearm—while rare—were more common overall (SMR, 1.42), among military men only (SMR, 1.33), and among military women only (SMR, 2.83) than civilians. 

The findings about the overall death rate may reflect the better health of those who join the military and have access to health care during and after service, Boyko told Federal Practitioner. The suicide data may reflect higher access to firearms, he said, although “more research is needed to identify what types of military exposures or physical and mental health predictors are associated with increased mortality risk due to suicide.”

The ongoing Millennium Cohort Study began in 2001 to track the health of military personnel over time. The study has spawned > 180 reports “used to inform and guide policy, guidelines, and health promotion efforts within the military and VA,” Boyko said. “As the Millennium Cohort Study approaches its 25-year anniversary, it seemed like an ideal time to assess mortality, especially cause-specific mortality, as a way to measure the impact of military service on long-term health.”

The analysis tracks 4 panels of subjects enrolled at various times between 2001 and 2013. Of the 201,619 participants, 3018 (1.5%) died by 2018. Of the 198,01 nondeceased participants, 69.2% were male; 8.1% were born before 1960, 16.1% were born from 1960 to 1969, 24.4% were born from 1970 to 1979, and 51.5% were born in or after 1980. The racial/ethnic makeup was 72.7% non-Hispanic White, 12.2% non-Hispanic Black, 7.9% Hispanic, and 7.1% other. Two-thirds (66.4%) were active duty, and 33.6% were in the Reserve or National Guard.

Of the 3018 deceased participants, 81.2% were male. In terms of birth year, 32.4% were born before 1960, 22.1% were born from 1960 to 1969, 18.2% were born from 1970 to 1979, and 27.3% were born in or after 1980. The racial/ethnic makeup was 77.7% non-Hispanic White, 11.9% non-Hispanic Black, 5.5% Hispanic, and 4.9% other. About half (51.0%) were active duty, and 49.0% were in the Reserve or National Guard.

Most deaths were due to natural causes (57.0%), followed by accident (20.1%), suicide (17.1%), operations of war (3.0%), homicide (2.1%), and other causes (1.2%). The new report noted that the Millennium Cohort Study and other research have identified a “healthy soldier effect, in which military populations tend to be healthier than the general US population.”

Boyko explained that “the fitness requirements for joining the military may favor the selection of healthier individuals from the general population. Another benefit of military service is free access to health care, especially among those on active duty, as well as eligibility for VA health care and other benefits after leaving service. This would allow for greater access to preventive care and treatments, as well as routine screening for health conditions such as cancer, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.”

Overall suicide rates were higher among female subjects than among civilians (SMR, 1.65), but no statistically significant difference was seen in men (SMR, 0.96) or across all participants (SMR, 1.03). Regarding the large gaps in firearm suicide rates in military subjects vs civilians, Boyko said, “accessibility and familiarity with firearms, a highly lethal means of suicide, may be driving the elevated risk of suicide by firearms … prior research has found that unsecure firearms storage—such as unlocked, loaded firearms—increases the risk of suicide by firearms.”

Rachel Sayko Adams, PhD, MPH, a research associate professor with the Department of Health Law, Policy and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, is familiar with the study findings. Adams, a principal investigator at the VA Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center for Suicide Prevention, told Federal Practitioner that “efforts to further develop suicide prevention programs that consider the unique needs and preferences of female service members and veterans are critical to prevent future suicide mortality in this population.”

Adams added: “Just because service members and veterans have a lower all-cause mortality rate compared to the general US population, we should not assume that they are universally low risk or that we can reduce our public health prevention efforts targeting this population.”

Boyko highlighted KeepItSecure.net, which “helps veterans and service members protect themselves and their families by making it easier to store firearms securely during stressful or high-risk periods.” The site offers practical, judgment-free guidance with powerful storytelling and public outreach, with clear, actionable steps—such as using a cable gun lock or lockbox—to lower suicide risk long before a crisis occurs. The VA, Boyko said, provides free cable gun locks nationwide.

The Millennium Cohort Study is funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense Military Operational Medicine Research Program and Defense Health Program. The report authors and Adams have no disclosures. 

One of the most common questions my patients ask is, “What diet can help me beat this cancer?” It is a profoundly important question that is worthy of our efforts to answer. In this brief essay, I will take a deep dive into this question in depth and explore the broader clinical and scientific themes it brings into play.

Low-Hanging Fruit: Nutrition Science

A cancer diagnosis can be a deeply disempowering experience. Although I have not lived with cancer myself, I have seen this play out repeatedly over the past 5 years in my role as an oncologist treating patients with hematologic malignancies.

Our diet is an important part of our personal identity, culturally and spiritually. If lifestyle changes, such as a modified diet or more exercise, can contribute to cancer treatment, it may help us regain a sense of control over our lives, one that cancer so often cruelly strips away. I hypothesize that, among other factors, this is why diet is so important to our patients.

Another factor is exposure to a compelling diet-cancer narrative. Nearly every day, a media headline appears claiming that eating a particular food, or drinking coffee, can either increase or decrease your risk for a certain disease.

These claims, however, are often based on studies of large observational datasets where individuals fill out surveys about their dietary habits and are subsequently assessed for disease outcomes. In these studies, people aren’t asked to eat a particular diet; instead, their dietary habits are analyzed by researchers who have endless permutations to explore. This, in a nutshell, is the field of nutritional epidemiology.

In my opinion, nutritional epidemiology represents the collision of the well-intentioned effort to answer clinically meaningful questions with the ease — and near-infinite permutations — of dietary questions that can be asked from an increasingly larger number of different datasets.

Now, factor in the never-ending appetite (pun intended) of journalism and the public’s desire for dietary studies, and you create the perfect storm of incentives that drives a flood of low-quality nutritional science. These studies are highly malleable to analytical choices and can essentially produce results consistent with your prior beliefs, regardless of the philosophical inclination you have (pro keto-diet, pro-vegan, etc.). I love quoting this study to my trainees that, depending on what variables are included and how the analysis is conducted, the same dataset could be used to show that red meat either increases, decreases, or has no effect on all-cause mortality. Unfortunately, much of the evidence base for diet in cancer comes from similarly confounded, low-quality studies.

Diet and Cancer

So, what do randomized trials show for diet and cancer?

The highest-quality evidence is generated from randomized controlled trials. One of their key advantages is the ability to control both measured and unmeasured confounders.

Unfortunately, the evidence supporting diet as an anticancer modality in randomized trials in patients with cancer is bleak. We did a systematic review of all randomized trials of dietary intervention ever done in patients with cancer. Most of the trials measured outcomes such as feasibility (often small pilot studies that measure variables such as weight changes or lab values). The trials that measure clinical endpoints, such as survival, were largely negative and demonstrated no meaningful effect of diet on outcomes. Take trials exploring whether a Mediterranean diet helps prevent breast cancer recurrence, or whether a diet rich in fruits and vegetables improves prostate cancer outcomes. Although these diets may offer benefits, these studies found that specific diets did not change the natural history of cancer.

Myeloma and Diet

In my specialty, multiple myeloma, I am thankful that some trials are beginning to shed light on whether diet influences cancer outcomes.

One study, which was recently published in Cancer Discovery, explored whether a high-fiber, plant-based diet could potentially slow or delay progression from myeloma precursor conditions toward full-blown multiple myeloma. The trial enrolled 23 participants, with the primary endpoints of dietary adherence and changes to BMI. Measures of progression to multiple myeloma were exploratory at best. Yet, the media coverage, as well as the majority of the discussion and results sections of this study manuscript, claimed that the diet changes can prevent progression to myeloma.

However, the study design and conclusions were flawed. The paper focused on two patients who had some improvement in disease trajectory, while descriptions of patients who had an increase in their bone marrow plasma cell percentage were relegated to the supplemental section.

As a primary investigator of a trial in smoldering myeloma where we use advanced imaging as an alternative to pharmacologic treatment, I frequently see myeloma markers fluctuate and often decrease. I attribute these changes to random variation, or possibly regression to the mean, rather than the effect of any intervention.

Future randomized studies by this group used primary endpoints of stool butyrate level and implement dietary interventions for a limited period— 2 weeks in one study and 12 weeks in another — to again assess the impact of a high-fiber, plant-based diet on progression to myeloma. Although there are no data yet, the limited timeframes in these studies severely limits generalizability for outcomes that would truly matter, such as cancer control and longevity. There is also no evidence that changes in stool butyrate levels influence patient outcomes.

High-quality science — whether it is evaluating diet or other interventions—requires high-quality data, effort, funding, and time. It is not impossible.

We can draw inspiration from the CHALLENGE trial. This large, randomized trial, which took over a decade to complete, assessed the benefit of a structured exercise program in the adjuvant setting for colon cancer. The endpoint of this study was disease-free survival, and the intervention was deployed over a much longer period: 3 years, as opposed to a 2-week intervention. This trial took years from inception to completion, but it yielded a conclusive result and will probably lead to more dedicated efforts to facilitate exercise programs for patients with cancer.

Our patients deserve the same effort as the CHALLENGE trial to answer their important dietary questions. Until such trials are completed, we must acknowledge, with humility, that despite the common sense and feel-good factor that many diets offer us, their impact on cancer remains uncertain.

Conversely, we must recognize that even if diet does not cure or alter the course of a certain cancer, it can still impact quality of life, treatment tolerance, and other supportive care outcomes, making it an important factor in patient care.

This is what I tell my patients that it is unlikely any one diet will change the trajectory of your cancer. Focus on eating healthy, and remember that most things in moderation are fine. Your diet remains an important risk factor and determinant for health outcomes beyond cancer. Eat what makes you happy. You are going through a tough time, and this is not the moment to impose stringent restrictions on yourself.

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

One of the most common questions my patients ask is, “What diet can help me beat this cancer?” It is a profoundly important question that is worthy of our efforts to answer. In this brief essay, I will take a deep dive into this question in depth and explore the broader clinical and scientific themes it brings into play.

Low-Hanging Fruit: Nutrition Science

A cancer diagnosis can be a deeply disempowering experience. Although I have not lived with cancer myself, I have seen this play out repeatedly over the past 5 years in my role as an oncologist treating patients with hematologic malignancies.

Our diet is an important part of our personal identity, culturally and spiritually. If lifestyle changes, such as a modified diet or more exercise, can contribute to cancer treatment, it may help us regain a sense of control over our lives, one that cancer so often cruelly strips away. I hypothesize that, among other factors, this is why diet is so important to our patients.

Another factor is exposure to a compelling diet-cancer narrative. Nearly every day, a media headline appears claiming that eating a particular food, or drinking coffee, can either increase or decrease your risk for a certain disease.

These claims, however, are often based on studies of large observational datasets where individuals fill out surveys about their dietary habits and are subsequently assessed for disease outcomes. In these studies, people aren’t asked to eat a particular diet; instead, their dietary habits are analyzed by researchers who have endless permutations to explore. This, in a nutshell, is the field of nutritional epidemiology.

In my opinion, nutritional epidemiology represents the collision of the well-intentioned effort to answer clinically meaningful questions with the ease — and near-infinite permutations — of dietary questions that can be asked from an increasingly larger number of different datasets.

Now, factor in the never-ending appetite (pun intended) of journalism and the public’s desire for dietary studies, and you create the perfect storm of incentives that drives a flood of low-quality nutritional science. These studies are highly malleable to analytical choices and can essentially produce results consistent with your prior beliefs, regardless of the philosophical inclination you have (pro keto-diet, pro-vegan, etc.). I love quoting this study to my trainees that, depending on what variables are included and how the analysis is conducted, the same dataset could be used to show that red meat either increases, decreases, or has no effect on all-cause mortality. Unfortunately, much of the evidence base for diet in cancer comes from similarly confounded, low-quality studies.

Diet and Cancer

So, what do randomized trials show for diet and cancer?

The highest-quality evidence is generated from randomized controlled trials. One of their key advantages is the ability to control both measured and unmeasured confounders.

Unfortunately, the evidence supporting diet as an anticancer modality in randomized trials in patients with cancer is bleak. We did a systematic review of all randomized trials of dietary intervention ever done in patients with cancer. Most of the trials measured outcomes such as feasibility (often small pilot studies that measure variables such as weight changes or lab values). The trials that measure clinical endpoints, such as survival, were largely negative and demonstrated no meaningful effect of diet on outcomes. Take trials exploring whether a Mediterranean diet helps prevent breast cancer recurrence, or whether a diet rich in fruits and vegetables improves prostate cancer outcomes. Although these diets may offer benefits, these studies found that specific diets did not change the natural history of cancer.

Myeloma and Diet

In my specialty, multiple myeloma, I am thankful that some trials are beginning to shed light on whether diet influences cancer outcomes.

One study, which was recently published in Cancer Discovery, explored whether a high-fiber, plant-based diet could potentially slow or delay progression from myeloma precursor conditions toward full-blown multiple myeloma. The trial enrolled 23 participants, with the primary endpoints of dietary adherence and changes to BMI. Measures of progression to multiple myeloma were exploratory at best. Yet, the media coverage, as well as the majority of the discussion and results sections of this study manuscript, claimed that the diet changes can prevent progression to myeloma.

However, the study design and conclusions were flawed. The paper focused on two patients who had some improvement in disease trajectory, while descriptions of patients who had an increase in their bone marrow plasma cell percentage were relegated to the supplemental section.

As a primary investigator of a trial in smoldering myeloma where we use advanced imaging as an alternative to pharmacologic treatment, I frequently see myeloma markers fluctuate and often decrease. I attribute these changes to random variation, or possibly regression to the mean, rather than the effect of any intervention.

Future randomized studies by this group used primary endpoints of stool butyrate level and implement dietary interventions for a limited period— 2 weeks in one study and 12 weeks in another — to again assess the impact of a high-fiber, plant-based diet on progression to myeloma. Although there are no data yet, the limited timeframes in these studies severely limits generalizability for outcomes that would truly matter, such as cancer control and longevity. There is also no evidence that changes in stool butyrate levels influence patient outcomes.

High-quality science — whether it is evaluating diet or other interventions—requires high-quality data, effort, funding, and time. It is not impossible.

We can draw inspiration from the CHALLENGE trial. This large, randomized trial, which took over a decade to complete, assessed the benefit of a structured exercise program in the adjuvant setting for colon cancer. The endpoint of this study was disease-free survival, and the intervention was deployed over a much longer period: 3 years, as opposed to a 2-week intervention. This trial took years from inception to completion, but it yielded a conclusive result and will probably lead to more dedicated efforts to facilitate exercise programs for patients with cancer.

Our patients deserve the same effort as the CHALLENGE trial to answer their important dietary questions. Until such trials are completed, we must acknowledge, with humility, that despite the common sense and feel-good factor that many diets offer us, their impact on cancer remains uncertain.

Conversely, we must recognize that even if diet does not cure or alter the course of a certain cancer, it can still impact quality of life, treatment tolerance, and other supportive care outcomes, making it an important factor in patient care.

This is what I tell my patients that it is unlikely any one diet will change the trajectory of your cancer. Focus on eating healthy, and remember that most things in moderation are fine. Your diet remains an important risk factor and determinant for health outcomes beyond cancer. Eat what makes you happy. You are going through a tough time, and this is not the moment to impose stringent restrictions on yourself.

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

One of the most common questions my patients ask is, “What diet can help me beat this cancer?” It is a profoundly important question that is worthy of our efforts to answer. In this brief essay, I will take a deep dive into this question in depth and explore the broader clinical and scientific themes it brings into play.

Low-Hanging Fruit: Nutrition Science

A cancer diagnosis can be a deeply disempowering experience. Although I have not lived with cancer myself, I have seen this play out repeatedly over the past 5 years in my role as an oncologist treating patients with hematologic malignancies.

Our diet is an important part of our personal identity, culturally and spiritually. If lifestyle changes, such as a modified diet or more exercise, can contribute to cancer treatment, it may help us regain a sense of control over our lives, one that cancer so often cruelly strips away. I hypothesize that, among other factors, this is why diet is so important to our patients.

Another factor is exposure to a compelling diet-cancer narrative. Nearly every day, a media headline appears claiming that eating a particular food, or drinking coffee, can either increase or decrease your risk for a certain disease.

These claims, however, are often based on studies of large observational datasets where individuals fill out surveys about their dietary habits and are subsequently assessed for disease outcomes. In these studies, people aren’t asked to eat a particular diet; instead, their dietary habits are analyzed by researchers who have endless permutations to explore. This, in a nutshell, is the field of nutritional epidemiology.

In my opinion, nutritional epidemiology represents the collision of the well-intentioned effort to answer clinically meaningful questions with the ease — and near-infinite permutations — of dietary questions that can be asked from an increasingly larger number of different datasets.

Now, factor in the never-ending appetite (pun intended) of journalism and the public’s desire for dietary studies, and you create the perfect storm of incentives that drives a flood of low-quality nutritional science. These studies are highly malleable to analytical choices and can essentially produce results consistent with your prior beliefs, regardless of the philosophical inclination you have (pro keto-diet, pro-vegan, etc.). I love quoting this study to my trainees that, depending on what variables are included and how the analysis is conducted, the same dataset could be used to show that red meat either increases, decreases, or has no effect on all-cause mortality. Unfortunately, much of the evidence base for diet in cancer comes from similarly confounded, low-quality studies.

Diet and Cancer

So, what do randomized trials show for diet and cancer?

The highest-quality evidence is generated from randomized controlled trials. One of their key advantages is the ability to control both measured and unmeasured confounders.

Unfortunately, the evidence supporting diet as an anticancer modality in randomized trials in patients with cancer is bleak. We did a systematic review of all randomized trials of dietary intervention ever done in patients with cancer. Most of the trials measured outcomes such as feasibility (often small pilot studies that measure variables such as weight changes or lab values). The trials that measure clinical endpoints, such as survival, were largely negative and demonstrated no meaningful effect of diet on outcomes. Take trials exploring whether a Mediterranean diet helps prevent breast cancer recurrence, or whether a diet rich in fruits and vegetables improves prostate cancer outcomes. Although these diets may offer benefits, these studies found that specific diets did not change the natural history of cancer.

Myeloma and Diet

In my specialty, multiple myeloma, I am thankful that some trials are beginning to shed light on whether diet influences cancer outcomes.

One study, which was recently published in Cancer Discovery, explored whether a high-fiber, plant-based diet could potentially slow or delay progression from myeloma precursor conditions toward full-blown multiple myeloma. The trial enrolled 23 participants, with the primary endpoints of dietary adherence and changes to BMI. Measures of progression to multiple myeloma were exploratory at best. Yet, the media coverage, as well as the majority of the discussion and results sections of this study manuscript, claimed that the diet changes can prevent progression to myeloma.

However, the study design and conclusions were flawed. The paper focused on two patients who had some improvement in disease trajectory, while descriptions of patients who had an increase in their bone marrow plasma cell percentage were relegated to the supplemental section.

As a primary investigator of a trial in smoldering myeloma where we use advanced imaging as an alternative to pharmacologic treatment, I frequently see myeloma markers fluctuate and often decrease. I attribute these changes to random variation, or possibly regression to the mean, rather than the effect of any intervention.

Future randomized studies by this group used primary endpoints of stool butyrate level and implement dietary interventions for a limited period— 2 weeks in one study and 12 weeks in another — to again assess the impact of a high-fiber, plant-based diet on progression to myeloma. Although there are no data yet, the limited timeframes in these studies severely limits generalizability for outcomes that would truly matter, such as cancer control and longevity. There is also no evidence that changes in stool butyrate levels influence patient outcomes.

High-quality science — whether it is evaluating diet or other interventions—requires high-quality data, effort, funding, and time. It is not impossible.

We can draw inspiration from the CHALLENGE trial. This large, randomized trial, which took over a decade to complete, assessed the benefit of a structured exercise program in the adjuvant setting for colon cancer. The endpoint of this study was disease-free survival, and the intervention was deployed over a much longer period: 3 years, as opposed to a 2-week intervention. This trial took years from inception to completion, but it yielded a conclusive result and will probably lead to more dedicated efforts to facilitate exercise programs for patients with cancer.

Our patients deserve the same effort as the CHALLENGE trial to answer their important dietary questions. Until such trials are completed, we must acknowledge, with humility, that despite the common sense and feel-good factor that many diets offer us, their impact on cancer remains uncertain.

Conversely, we must recognize that even if diet does not cure or alter the course of a certain cancer, it can still impact quality of life, treatment tolerance, and other supportive care outcomes, making it an important factor in patient care.

This is what I tell my patients that it is unlikely any one diet will change the trajectory of your cancer. Focus on eating healthy, and remember that most things in moderation are fine. Your diet remains an important risk factor and determinant for health outcomes beyond cancer. Eat what makes you happy. You are going through a tough time, and this is not the moment to impose stringent restrictions on yourself.

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