Breast Cancer

Key clinical point: In patients with early, operable breast cancer (BC), peritumoral injection of a local anesthetic (lidocaine) prior to surgery improved survival outcomes.

Major finding: Peritumoral infiltration of lidocaine at the time of surgery led to 26% improvement in disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74; P = .017) and 29% improvement in overall survival (HR 0.71; P = .019) at a median follow-up of 68 months. No adverse events related to injection of lidocaine were reported.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 study including 1583 patients with early, operable BC who did not receive prior neoadjuvant treatment and were randomly assigned to undergo surgery with or without a peritumoral injection of 0.5% lidocaine 7-10 minutes preoperatively.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Department of Atomic Energy, India. Dr. Sudeep Gupta declared receiving research funding from several sources.

Source: Badwe RA et al. Effect of peritumoral infiltration of local anesthetic before surgery on survival in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2023 (Apr 6). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01966

Key clinical point: In patients with early, operable breast cancer (BC), peritumoral injection of a local anesthetic (lidocaine) prior to surgery improved survival outcomes.

Major finding: Peritumoral infiltration of lidocaine at the time of surgery led to 26% improvement in disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74; P = .017) and 29% improvement in overall survival (HR 0.71; P = .019) at a median follow-up of 68 months. No adverse events related to injection of lidocaine were reported.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 study including 1583 patients with early, operable BC who did not receive prior neoadjuvant treatment and were randomly assigned to undergo surgery with or without a peritumoral injection of 0.5% lidocaine 7-10 minutes preoperatively.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Department of Atomic Energy, India. Dr. Sudeep Gupta declared receiving research funding from several sources.

Source: Badwe RA et al. Effect of peritumoral infiltration of local anesthetic before surgery on survival in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2023 (Apr 6). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01966

Key clinical point: In patients with early, operable breast cancer (BC), peritumoral injection of a local anesthetic (lidocaine) prior to surgery improved survival outcomes.

Major finding: Peritumoral infiltration of lidocaine at the time of surgery led to 26% improvement in disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74; P = .017) and 29% improvement in overall survival (HR 0.71; P = .019) at a median follow-up of 68 months. No adverse events related to injection of lidocaine were reported.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 study including 1583 patients with early, operable BC who did not receive prior neoadjuvant treatment and were randomly assigned to undergo surgery with or without a peritumoral injection of 0.5% lidocaine 7-10 minutes preoperatively.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Department of Atomic Energy, India. Dr. Sudeep Gupta declared receiving research funding from several sources.

Source: Badwe RA et al. Effect of peritumoral infiltration of local anesthetic before surgery on survival in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2023 (Apr 6). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01966

Key clinical point: In women with 2-3 ipsilateral foci of breast cancer (BC), breast-conserving surgery (BCS; lumpectomy plus adjuvant radiation) resulted in a local recurrence rate that was below the a priori determined clinically acceptable threshold of 8%.

Major finding: BCS resulted in a highly acceptable 5-year local recurrence rate of 3.1% (95% CI 1.3%-6.4%) in patients with multiple ipsilateral BC.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z11102 (Alliance) trial including 204 women aged ≥40 years with multiple ipsilateral BC who underwent BCS.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the US National Institutes of Health. Some authors declared owning stocks; serving on editorial boards, in leadership positions, or as employees; receiving research funding, honoraria, or travel and accommodation expenses; or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Boughey JC et al. Local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy in patients with multiple ipsilateral breast cancer: Results from ACOSOG Z11102 (Alliance). J Clin Oncol. 2023 (Mar 28). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.02553

Key clinical point: In women with 2-3 ipsilateral foci of breast cancer (BC), breast-conserving surgery (BCS; lumpectomy plus adjuvant radiation) resulted in a local recurrence rate that was below the a priori determined clinically acceptable threshold of 8%.

Major finding: BCS resulted in a highly acceptable 5-year local recurrence rate of 3.1% (95% CI 1.3%-6.4%) in patients with multiple ipsilateral BC.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z11102 (Alliance) trial including 204 women aged ≥40 years with multiple ipsilateral BC who underwent BCS.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the US National Institutes of Health. Some authors declared owning stocks; serving on editorial boards, in leadership positions, or as employees; receiving research funding, honoraria, or travel and accommodation expenses; or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Boughey JC et al. Local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy in patients with multiple ipsilateral breast cancer: Results from ACOSOG Z11102 (Alliance). J Clin Oncol. 2023 (Mar 28). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.02553

Key clinical point: In women with 2-3 ipsilateral foci of breast cancer (BC), breast-conserving surgery (BCS; lumpectomy plus adjuvant radiation) resulted in a local recurrence rate that was below the a priori determined clinically acceptable threshold of 8%.

Major finding: BCS resulted in a highly acceptable 5-year local recurrence rate of 3.1% (95% CI 1.3%-6.4%) in patients with multiple ipsilateral BC.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z11102 (Alliance) trial including 204 women aged ≥40 years with multiple ipsilateral BC who underwent BCS.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the US National Institutes of Health. Some authors declared owning stocks; serving on editorial boards, in leadership positions, or as employees; receiving research funding, honoraria, or travel and accommodation expenses; or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Boughey JC et al. Local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy in patients with multiple ipsilateral breast cancer: Results from ACOSOG Z11102 (Alliance). J Clin Oncol. 2023 (Mar 28). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.02553

Key clinical point: A dose of 25 mg exemestane 3 times weekly was noninferior to the standard once-daily dose in decreasing serum estradiol levels in postmenopausal women with stage 0-II estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: Compared with once-daily exemestane, 3-times-weekly exemestane was noninferior (difference in percentage change 2.0%; P for noninferiority = .02) whereas once-weekly exemestane was less effective in decreasing serum estradiol levels in participants who received ≥80% of the active scheduled pills and underwent blood testing as per protocol. The adverse event rate was similar across all treatment arms.

Study details: This phase 2b trial included 180 postmenopausal women with stage 0-II, ER+ BC who were randomly assigned to receive 25 mg exemestane once daily, 3 times weekly, or once weekly for 4-6 weeks before surgery.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the US National Cancer Institute and other sources. Two authors declared being principal investigators, holding stocks, or receiving partial salary support or personal fees from various sources.

Source: Serrano D et al. Efficacy of alternative dose regimens of exemestane in postmenopausal women with stage 0 to II estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2023 (Mar 23). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.0089

Key clinical point: A dose of 25 mg exemestane 3 times weekly was noninferior to the standard once-daily dose in decreasing serum estradiol levels in postmenopausal women with stage 0-II estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: Compared with once-daily exemestane, 3-times-weekly exemestane was noninferior (difference in percentage change 2.0%; P for noninferiority = .02) whereas once-weekly exemestane was less effective in decreasing serum estradiol levels in participants who received ≥80% of the active scheduled pills and underwent blood testing as per protocol. The adverse event rate was similar across all treatment arms.

Study details: This phase 2b trial included 180 postmenopausal women with stage 0-II, ER+ BC who were randomly assigned to receive 25 mg exemestane once daily, 3 times weekly, or once weekly for 4-6 weeks before surgery.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the US National Cancer Institute and other sources. Two authors declared being principal investigators, holding stocks, or receiving partial salary support or personal fees from various sources.

Source: Serrano D et al. Efficacy of alternative dose regimens of exemestane in postmenopausal women with stage 0 to II estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2023 (Mar 23). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.0089

Key clinical point: A dose of 25 mg exemestane 3 times weekly was noninferior to the standard once-daily dose in decreasing serum estradiol levels in postmenopausal women with stage 0-II estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: Compared with once-daily exemestane, 3-times-weekly exemestane was noninferior (difference in percentage change 2.0%; P for noninferiority = .02) whereas once-weekly exemestane was less effective in decreasing serum estradiol levels in participants who received ≥80% of the active scheduled pills and underwent blood testing as per protocol. The adverse event rate was similar across all treatment arms.

Study details: This phase 2b trial included 180 postmenopausal women with stage 0-II, ER+ BC who were randomly assigned to receive 25 mg exemestane once daily, 3 times weekly, or once weekly for 4-6 weeks before surgery.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the US National Cancer Institute and other sources. Two authors declared being principal investigators, holding stocks, or receiving partial salary support or personal fees from various sources.

Source: Serrano D et al. Efficacy of alternative dose regimens of exemestane in postmenopausal women with stage 0 to II estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2023 (Mar 23). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.0089

Women harboring BRCA1/2 gene mutations are at high risk for breast cancer, and thus it’s recommended they undergo annual breast MRI screening in addition to mammogram screening.
 

However, some women are finding that their insurer is refusing to cover the cost of the MRI.

A new study exploring this issue was presented at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

“Despite guidelines supporting annual breast MRI for screening in patients with gBRCA1/2, insurance denials were present in 11% of patients,” said lead author Sushmita Gordhandas, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “In a high-resource setting, up to 14% of patients who were denied coverage did not undergo recommended MRI screening.”

She also pointed out that the rate of denials was rising. “Compared to 2020, there were significantly more denials, and denials on appeal, in 2021,” Dr. Gordhandas said. “This suggested worsening barriers and added burden on health care systems.”

The addition of MRI to mammography is a standard recommendation for women with BRCA mutations, she pointed out, as it has been shown improve detection of early disease and decrease interval cancer development.

An expert not involved in the study noted that the recommendation for annual MRI screening in women at high risk for breast cancer is “substantiated by many publications, including multiple prospective clinical trials.”

Linda Moy, MD, a radiologist at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center and professor of radiology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, both in New York, noted that the American Cancer Society’s Guidelines for screening breast MRI recommends annual breast MRI in women with a lifetime risk of greater than 20% – which includes women who are BRCA carriers – and recommends the screening begins at age 30.

“The lifetime breast cancer risk is 72% among BRCA1 and 69% among BRCA2 carriers,” she said, adding that the “American College of Radiology also recommends for BRCA carriers to undergo annual screening MRI at age 30.”

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends that women at high risk for breast cancer undergo a mammogram and breast MRI every year starting at age 25 to 40, depending on the type of gene mutation, noted Dr. Gordhandas. “These guidelines are consistent with those from American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology.”
 

Denials increased over time

For the study, Dr. Gordhandas and colleagues looked at the frequency of insurance denials for indicated breast MRI screening in women with germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, and also looked at recent trends in denials over time.

The cohort comprised 682 women with BRCA1/2 gene mutations who were followed in a specialized high-risk breast cancer clinic, and who had breast MRIs ordered from 2020 to 2021. They were then cross-referenced with a database of insurance denials. Radiology records were also accessed to determine if screening breast MRIs had been performed in 2020 and 2021, and rates of MRI denials and results after appeals were determined. The rates between the 2 years were then compared.

The team found that overall, 73 women (11%) had an MRI denied. The median age of women who received a denial was 38 years, whereas those who had it approved was 44 years. “Patients with denials were significantly younger and more likely to be in the Medicaid population,” said Dr. Gordhandas.

In 2020, 29 breast MRIs (5%) were denied, and on appeal, 8 (28%) were denied and 21 (72%) approved. The number of denials rose in 2021 but approvals remained the same; 45 breast MRIs were denied (8%); on appeal, 23 (51%) were denied, and 22 (49%) approved.

Thus, noted the authors, there were significantly more denials in 2021 as compared with 2020 (P = .044), and the denials in 2021 denials were statistically more likely to be denied on appeal (P = .045).

Among the women whose coverage was denied, four (14%) in 2020 and five (11%) in 2021 did not have an MRI screening performed. And within this group, 17 women (2.5%) received a diagnosis of cancer; 12 (1.8%) had invasive carcinoma, and 5 (0.7%) had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). One patient with DCIS had an MRI denial prior to receiving her diagnosis.

“The top reasons given for denials were that they were outside the approved time frame, authorization on file for a similar study, and that the clinician failed to show medical necessity,” she explained.

Additional data are needed to establish a trend. “We are working to increase the approval time frame, which is currently 45 days, and provide resources for the patient to deal with denials,” Dr. Gordhandas added. “We also have to advocate for updates to [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force] screening recommendations in high-risk patients.”

Dr. Gordhandas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women harboring BRCA1/2 gene mutations are at high risk for breast cancer, and thus it’s recommended they undergo annual breast MRI screening in addition to mammogram screening.
 

However, some women are finding that their insurer is refusing to cover the cost of the MRI.

A new study exploring this issue was presented at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

“Despite guidelines supporting annual breast MRI for screening in patients with gBRCA1/2, insurance denials were present in 11% of patients,” said lead author Sushmita Gordhandas, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “In a high-resource setting, up to 14% of patients who were denied coverage did not undergo recommended MRI screening.”

She also pointed out that the rate of denials was rising. “Compared to 2020, there were significantly more denials, and denials on appeal, in 2021,” Dr. Gordhandas said. “This suggested worsening barriers and added burden on health care systems.”

The addition of MRI to mammography is a standard recommendation for women with BRCA mutations, she pointed out, as it has been shown improve detection of early disease and decrease interval cancer development.

An expert not involved in the study noted that the recommendation for annual MRI screening in women at high risk for breast cancer is “substantiated by many publications, including multiple prospective clinical trials.”

Linda Moy, MD, a radiologist at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center and professor of radiology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, both in New York, noted that the American Cancer Society’s Guidelines for screening breast MRI recommends annual breast MRI in women with a lifetime risk of greater than 20% – which includes women who are BRCA carriers – and recommends the screening begins at age 30.

“The lifetime breast cancer risk is 72% among BRCA1 and 69% among BRCA2 carriers,” she said, adding that the “American College of Radiology also recommends for BRCA carriers to undergo annual screening MRI at age 30.”

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends that women at high risk for breast cancer undergo a mammogram and breast MRI every year starting at age 25 to 40, depending on the type of gene mutation, noted Dr. Gordhandas. “These guidelines are consistent with those from American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology.”
 

Denials increased over time

For the study, Dr. Gordhandas and colleagues looked at the frequency of insurance denials for indicated breast MRI screening in women with germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, and also looked at recent trends in denials over time.

The cohort comprised 682 women with BRCA1/2 gene mutations who were followed in a specialized high-risk breast cancer clinic, and who had breast MRIs ordered from 2020 to 2021. They were then cross-referenced with a database of insurance denials. Radiology records were also accessed to determine if screening breast MRIs had been performed in 2020 and 2021, and rates of MRI denials and results after appeals were determined. The rates between the 2 years were then compared.

The team found that overall, 73 women (11%) had an MRI denied. The median age of women who received a denial was 38 years, whereas those who had it approved was 44 years. “Patients with denials were significantly younger and more likely to be in the Medicaid population,” said Dr. Gordhandas.

In 2020, 29 breast MRIs (5%) were denied, and on appeal, 8 (28%) were denied and 21 (72%) approved. The number of denials rose in 2021 but approvals remained the same; 45 breast MRIs were denied (8%); on appeal, 23 (51%) were denied, and 22 (49%) approved.

Thus, noted the authors, there were significantly more denials in 2021 as compared with 2020 (P = .044), and the denials in 2021 denials were statistically more likely to be denied on appeal (P = .045).

Among the women whose coverage was denied, four (14%) in 2020 and five (11%) in 2021 did not have an MRI screening performed. And within this group, 17 women (2.5%) received a diagnosis of cancer; 12 (1.8%) had invasive carcinoma, and 5 (0.7%) had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). One patient with DCIS had an MRI denial prior to receiving her diagnosis.

“The top reasons given for denials were that they were outside the approved time frame, authorization on file for a similar study, and that the clinician failed to show medical necessity,” she explained.

Additional data are needed to establish a trend. “We are working to increase the approval time frame, which is currently 45 days, and provide resources for the patient to deal with denials,” Dr. Gordhandas added. “We also have to advocate for updates to [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force] screening recommendations in high-risk patients.”

Dr. Gordhandas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women harboring BRCA1/2 gene mutations are at high risk for breast cancer, and thus it’s recommended they undergo annual breast MRI screening in addition to mammogram screening.
 

However, some women are finding that their insurer is refusing to cover the cost of the MRI.

A new study exploring this issue was presented at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

“Despite guidelines supporting annual breast MRI for screening in patients with gBRCA1/2, insurance denials were present in 11% of patients,” said lead author Sushmita Gordhandas, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “In a high-resource setting, up to 14% of patients who were denied coverage did not undergo recommended MRI screening.”

She also pointed out that the rate of denials was rising. “Compared to 2020, there were significantly more denials, and denials on appeal, in 2021,” Dr. Gordhandas said. “This suggested worsening barriers and added burden on health care systems.”

The addition of MRI to mammography is a standard recommendation for women with BRCA mutations, she pointed out, as it has been shown improve detection of early disease and decrease interval cancer development.

An expert not involved in the study noted that the recommendation for annual MRI screening in women at high risk for breast cancer is “substantiated by many publications, including multiple prospective clinical trials.”

Linda Moy, MD, a radiologist at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center and professor of radiology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, both in New York, noted that the American Cancer Society’s Guidelines for screening breast MRI recommends annual breast MRI in women with a lifetime risk of greater than 20% – which includes women who are BRCA carriers – and recommends the screening begins at age 30.

“The lifetime breast cancer risk is 72% among BRCA1 and 69% among BRCA2 carriers,” she said, adding that the “American College of Radiology also recommends for BRCA carriers to undergo annual screening MRI at age 30.”

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends that women at high risk for breast cancer undergo a mammogram and breast MRI every year starting at age 25 to 40, depending on the type of gene mutation, noted Dr. Gordhandas. “These guidelines are consistent with those from American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology.”
 

Denials increased over time

For the study, Dr. Gordhandas and colleagues looked at the frequency of insurance denials for indicated breast MRI screening in women with germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, and also looked at recent trends in denials over time.

The cohort comprised 682 women with BRCA1/2 gene mutations who were followed in a specialized high-risk breast cancer clinic, and who had breast MRIs ordered from 2020 to 2021. They were then cross-referenced with a database of insurance denials. Radiology records were also accessed to determine if screening breast MRIs had been performed in 2020 and 2021, and rates of MRI denials and results after appeals were determined. The rates between the 2 years were then compared.

The team found that overall, 73 women (11%) had an MRI denied. The median age of women who received a denial was 38 years, whereas those who had it approved was 44 years. “Patients with denials were significantly younger and more likely to be in the Medicaid population,” said Dr. Gordhandas.

In 2020, 29 breast MRIs (5%) were denied, and on appeal, 8 (28%) were denied and 21 (72%) approved. The number of denials rose in 2021 but approvals remained the same; 45 breast MRIs were denied (8%); on appeal, 23 (51%) were denied, and 22 (49%) approved.

Thus, noted the authors, there were significantly more denials in 2021 as compared with 2020 (P = .044), and the denials in 2021 denials were statistically more likely to be denied on appeal (P = .045).

Among the women whose coverage was denied, four (14%) in 2020 and five (11%) in 2021 did not have an MRI screening performed. And within this group, 17 women (2.5%) received a diagnosis of cancer; 12 (1.8%) had invasive carcinoma, and 5 (0.7%) had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). One patient with DCIS had an MRI denial prior to receiving her diagnosis.

“The top reasons given for denials were that they were outside the approved time frame, authorization on file for a similar study, and that the clinician failed to show medical necessity,” she explained.

Additional data are needed to establish a trend. “We are working to increase the approval time frame, which is currently 45 days, and provide resources for the patient to deal with denials,” Dr. Gordhandas added. “We also have to advocate for updates to [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force] screening recommendations in high-risk patients.”

Dr. Gordhandas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a known and serious side effect of some cancer treatments, but it is underreported in cancer drug trials, French investigators said in a new report.

As a result, oncologists likely underestimate the risk of atrial fibrillation when new cancer drugs come to market, they said.

The team came to these conclusions after conducting a meta-analysis of 191 phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included 26,604 patients. The trials investigated 15 anticancer drugs used as monotherapy.

The meta-analysis showed that the annualized incidence rate of AFib ranged from 0.26 cases per 100 person-years – about the same as placebo – to 4.92 cases, a nearly 20 times’ higher risk.

Rates were the highest for ibrutinib, clofarabine, and ponatinib.

The study was published in JACC: CardioOncology, a journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Actual rates of AFib are probably higher than what they found in this meta-analysis, the authors suspect, because most oncology trials only identify and report severe cases of AFib that require immediate medical attention. Less severe cases can also lead to serious complications, including strokes, but they go unreported, said the investigators, led by Joachim Alexandre, MD, PhD, a member of the cardio-oncology program at the University of Caen Normandie Hospital Center, France.

“These findings suggest a global and systemic underreporting and/or underidentification of cardiotoxicity among cancer clinical trial participants,” and AFib reporting is “particularly affected,” they said.
 

Call for routine monitoring

The root of the problem is the lack of routine rhythm monitoring in cancer trials. This in turn “leads to a significant underestimation of AFib incidence” and rates “markedly lower than those observed among real-life” patients, the authors pointed out.

To address the issue, Dr. Alexandre and his team called for routine cardiac monitoring in trials to capture the true incidence of AFib and to “clearly define which anticancer drugs are significantly associated” with the condition.

Approached for comment, Michael G. Fradley, MD, medical director of cardio-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“It’s incredibly important” to “identify the drugs most likely to cause arrhythmias and determine the best prevention and treatment strategies. Unfortunately, systematic evaluation of arrhythmias in cancer clinical trials has often been lacking,” Dr. Fradley told this news organization.

The investigators said the issue is particularly pressing for drugs known to be associated with AFib. For Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, for instance, they call for standardize AFib detection in trials “not only on 12-lead ECGs” for symptomatic AFib but also with “longer-term ambulatory monitoring or insertable cardiac monitors to detect subclinical AFib.”

Dr. Fradley said there might also be a role for newer wearable technologies that can detect arrhythmias through a skin patch or by other means.
 

Details of the meta-analysis

The investigators pulled the 191 studies they used in their meta-analysis from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The trials covered anticancer drugs used as monotherapy up to Sept. 18, 2020. Almost half were randomized trials, but only seven had placebo arms. Trials involving hematologic cancers outnumbered those involving solid tumors.

The 15 drugs examined were dacarbazine, abiraterone, clofarabine, azacitidine, ibrutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, midostaurin, ipilimumab, aldesleukin, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, rituximab, bortezomib, and docetaxel.

The annualized incidence AFib rates per 100 person-years were 4.92 cases for ibrutinib, 2.38 cases for clofarabine, and 2.35 cases for ponatinib.

The lowest AFib rates were for ipilimumab (0.26 cases), rituximab (0.27), and nilotinib (0.29).

For placebo, the annualized rate was 0.25 cases per 100 person-years.

The team said caution is warranted regarding their estimations for clofarabine and midostaurin (0.65 cases) because no trials were registered after September 2009, when adverse event reporting became mandatory. As a result, estimates may be artificially low.

One of the limits of the study is that it focused on monotherapy in an age when combination treatment is generally the rule for cancer, the authors noted.

No external funding was reported for the study. Dr. Alexandre has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bioserenity.
 

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

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a known and serious side effect of some cancer treatments, but it is underreported in cancer drug trials, French investigators said in a new report.

As a result, oncologists likely underestimate the risk of atrial fibrillation when new cancer drugs come to market, they said.

The team came to these conclusions after conducting a meta-analysis of 191 phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included 26,604 patients. The trials investigated 15 anticancer drugs used as monotherapy.

The meta-analysis showed that the annualized incidence rate of AFib ranged from 0.26 cases per 100 person-years – about the same as placebo – to 4.92 cases, a nearly 20 times’ higher risk.

Rates were the highest for ibrutinib, clofarabine, and ponatinib.

The study was published in JACC: CardioOncology, a journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Actual rates of AFib are probably higher than what they found in this meta-analysis, the authors suspect, because most oncology trials only identify and report severe cases of AFib that require immediate medical attention. Less severe cases can also lead to serious complications, including strokes, but they go unreported, said the investigators, led by Joachim Alexandre, MD, PhD, a member of the cardio-oncology program at the University of Caen Normandie Hospital Center, France.

“These findings suggest a global and systemic underreporting and/or underidentification of cardiotoxicity among cancer clinical trial participants,” and AFib reporting is “particularly affected,” they said.
 

Call for routine monitoring

The root of the problem is the lack of routine rhythm monitoring in cancer trials. This in turn “leads to a significant underestimation of AFib incidence” and rates “markedly lower than those observed among real-life” patients, the authors pointed out.

To address the issue, Dr. Alexandre and his team called for routine cardiac monitoring in trials to capture the true incidence of AFib and to “clearly define which anticancer drugs are significantly associated” with the condition.

Approached for comment, Michael G. Fradley, MD, medical director of cardio-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“It’s incredibly important” to “identify the drugs most likely to cause arrhythmias and determine the best prevention and treatment strategies. Unfortunately, systematic evaluation of arrhythmias in cancer clinical trials has often been lacking,” Dr. Fradley told this news organization.

The investigators said the issue is particularly pressing for drugs known to be associated with AFib. For Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, for instance, they call for standardize AFib detection in trials “not only on 12-lead ECGs” for symptomatic AFib but also with “longer-term ambulatory monitoring or insertable cardiac monitors to detect subclinical AFib.”

Dr. Fradley said there might also be a role for newer wearable technologies that can detect arrhythmias through a skin patch or by other means.
 

Details of the meta-analysis

The investigators pulled the 191 studies they used in their meta-analysis from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The trials covered anticancer drugs used as monotherapy up to Sept. 18, 2020. Almost half were randomized trials, but only seven had placebo arms. Trials involving hematologic cancers outnumbered those involving solid tumors.

The 15 drugs examined were dacarbazine, abiraterone, clofarabine, azacitidine, ibrutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, midostaurin, ipilimumab, aldesleukin, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, rituximab, bortezomib, and docetaxel.

The annualized incidence AFib rates per 100 person-years were 4.92 cases for ibrutinib, 2.38 cases for clofarabine, and 2.35 cases for ponatinib.

The lowest AFib rates were for ipilimumab (0.26 cases), rituximab (0.27), and nilotinib (0.29).

For placebo, the annualized rate was 0.25 cases per 100 person-years.

The team said caution is warranted regarding their estimations for clofarabine and midostaurin (0.65 cases) because no trials were registered after September 2009, when adverse event reporting became mandatory. As a result, estimates may be artificially low.

One of the limits of the study is that it focused on monotherapy in an age when combination treatment is generally the rule for cancer, the authors noted.

No external funding was reported for the study. Dr. Alexandre has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bioserenity.
 

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

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a known and serious side effect of some cancer treatments, but it is underreported in cancer drug trials, French investigators said in a new report.

As a result, oncologists likely underestimate the risk of atrial fibrillation when new cancer drugs come to market, they said.

The team came to these conclusions after conducting a meta-analysis of 191 phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included 26,604 patients. The trials investigated 15 anticancer drugs used as monotherapy.

The meta-analysis showed that the annualized incidence rate of AFib ranged from 0.26 cases per 100 person-years – about the same as placebo – to 4.92 cases, a nearly 20 times’ higher risk.

Rates were the highest for ibrutinib, clofarabine, and ponatinib.

The study was published in JACC: CardioOncology, a journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Actual rates of AFib are probably higher than what they found in this meta-analysis, the authors suspect, because most oncology trials only identify and report severe cases of AFib that require immediate medical attention. Less severe cases can also lead to serious complications, including strokes, but they go unreported, said the investigators, led by Joachim Alexandre, MD, PhD, a member of the cardio-oncology program at the University of Caen Normandie Hospital Center, France.

“These findings suggest a global and systemic underreporting and/or underidentification of cardiotoxicity among cancer clinical trial participants,” and AFib reporting is “particularly affected,” they said.
 

Call for routine monitoring

The root of the problem is the lack of routine rhythm monitoring in cancer trials. This in turn “leads to a significant underestimation of AFib incidence” and rates “markedly lower than those observed among real-life” patients, the authors pointed out.

To address the issue, Dr. Alexandre and his team called for routine cardiac monitoring in trials to capture the true incidence of AFib and to “clearly define which anticancer drugs are significantly associated” with the condition.

Approached for comment, Michael G. Fradley, MD, medical director of cardio-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“It’s incredibly important” to “identify the drugs most likely to cause arrhythmias and determine the best prevention and treatment strategies. Unfortunately, systematic evaluation of arrhythmias in cancer clinical trials has often been lacking,” Dr. Fradley told this news organization.

The investigators said the issue is particularly pressing for drugs known to be associated with AFib. For Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, for instance, they call for standardize AFib detection in trials “not only on 12-lead ECGs” for symptomatic AFib but also with “longer-term ambulatory monitoring or insertable cardiac monitors to detect subclinical AFib.”

Dr. Fradley said there might also be a role for newer wearable technologies that can detect arrhythmias through a skin patch or by other means.
 

Details of the meta-analysis

The investigators pulled the 191 studies they used in their meta-analysis from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The trials covered anticancer drugs used as monotherapy up to Sept. 18, 2020. Almost half were randomized trials, but only seven had placebo arms. Trials involving hematologic cancers outnumbered those involving solid tumors.

The 15 drugs examined were dacarbazine, abiraterone, clofarabine, azacitidine, ibrutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, midostaurin, ipilimumab, aldesleukin, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, rituximab, bortezomib, and docetaxel.

The annualized incidence AFib rates per 100 person-years were 4.92 cases for ibrutinib, 2.38 cases for clofarabine, and 2.35 cases for ponatinib.

The lowest AFib rates were for ipilimumab (0.26 cases), rituximab (0.27), and nilotinib (0.29).

For placebo, the annualized rate was 0.25 cases per 100 person-years.

The team said caution is warranted regarding their estimations for clofarabine and midostaurin (0.65 cases) because no trials were registered after September 2009, when adverse event reporting became mandatory. As a result, estimates may be artificially low.

One of the limits of the study is that it focused on monotherapy in an age when combination treatment is generally the rule for cancer, the authors noted.

No external funding was reported for the study. Dr. Alexandre has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bioserenity.
 

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

Among a sample of younger women with invasive breast cancer and employer-sponsored insurance, outpatient-related out-of-pocket (OOP) costs were greater than drug costs.

For these same patients, prescriptions were largely for nonproprietary anticancer drugs and entailed limited OOP costs. For women with high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) and commercially driven health plans (CDHPs), OOP costs were higher, compared with coverage by more generous plans, according to the Research Letter published in JAMA Network Open.

“You would expect that people undergoing cancer treatment should not have to face very high out-of-pocket costs associated with care regardless of treatment modality because their treatment is largely guideline-indicated, and they have no choices,” stated corresponding author Rena Conti, PhD, associate professor with the school of business, Boston University, in an interview. “If you are diagnosed with cancer and undergoing treatment, you’re following the recommendation of your doctor, and your doctor is following standard protocols for treatment. In that scenario, Economics 101 suggests that people should not have to pay anything or [should pay] very little, especially for things that are cheap and are known to be effective, because there’s no overuse. Where normally we think that out-of-pocket costs are meant to control overuse, people with breast cancer are not opting to get more than indicated chemotherapy or radiation.”

The analysis of 25,224 women with invasive breast cancer diagnosis and claims for 1 or more of 14 oral anticancer drugs revealed that OOP costs for nondrug outpatient claims represented 79.0% of total costs. OOP drug costs were modest, with a 30-day supply ranging from $0.57-$0.60 for tamoxifen to $134.08-$141.07 for palbociclib.

“We were interested in understanding to what extent women who are insured with private insurance are exposed to out-of-pocket costs for standard breast cancer treatment, both in looking at drugs, but also the other aspects of the treatments they undergo.”

High OOP costs for the oral anticancer prescription drugs that are central to breast cancer treatment are associated with treatment nonadherence and discontinuation. Little has been known, however, about OOP costs of treatment associated with invasive breast cancer among employer-insured women younger than 65 years, the paper says.

“This population may face significant financial burdens related to long-term hormonal-based prevention and enrollment in high-deductible health plans and consumer-driven health plans,” the authors state in their paper.

In the cross-sectional study, which used the national 2018 Marative MarketScan database, 23.1% were HDHP- or CDHP-insured. Fifty-one percent had no OOP costs for drugs. The total mean estimated OOP cost, however, was $1,502.23 per patient, with inpatient costs representing only $112.41 (95% confidence interval, $112.40-$112.42); outpatient costs were $1,186.27 (95% CI, $1,185.67-$1,188.16). Pharmaceutical costs were $203.55 (95% CI, $203.34-$203.78).“We were surprised to find that the vast majority were getting breast cancer treatment with older, very effective, very safe, relatively inexpensive drugs and had limited out-of-pocket costs with some variation – higher costs for the few receiving newer, expensive drugs. The backbone of treatment is the older, generic drugs, which are cheap for both the insurers and the patients. But we found also that women are facing high out-of-pocket costs for nondrug-based therapy – specifically for doctor visits, getting check-ups, diagnostic scans, and maybe other types of treatment, as well. ... It’s a very different story than the one typically being told about the preponderance of out-of-pocket costs being drug-related,” Dr. Conti said.

The explanation may be that progress in breast cancer treatment over the last decades has led to effective treatments that are largely now inexpensive. The situation is different with ovarian cancer and many blood cancers such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia and multiple myeloma. For them, the new, innovative, safe, and effective drugs are very expensive, she noted.

“I think that insurers can modulate the out-of-pocket costs associated with drug treatment through formulary design and other tools they have. It’s less easy for them to modulate out-of-pocket costs associated with other modalties of care. Still, for medical care that is obviously necessary, there needs to be a cap on what women should have to pay,” Dr. Conti said.

A further concern raised by Dr. Conti is shrinking Medicaid coverage with the expiration of COVID-specific expanded Medicaid eligibility.

“Policy folks are closely watching the size of uninsured populations and also the growing importance of the high deductible and consumer-driven plans in which patients face high out-of-pocket first dollar coverage for care. With Medicaid rolls shrinking, we’ll see more people in low-premium, not well-insured plans. Americans’ exposure to higher costs for guideline-recommended care might grow, especially as more of them are independent contractors in the gig economy and not working for big corporations.”

“We worry that if and when they get a diagnosis of breast cancer, which is common among younger women, they are going to be faced with costs associated with their care that are going to have to be paid out-of-pocket – and it’s not going to be for the drug, it’s the other types of care. Doctors should know that the younger patient population that they are serving might be facing burdens associated with their care.”

Dr. Conti added, “Among women who are underinsured, there is a clear burden associated with cancer treatment. Reform efforts have largely focused on reducing out-of-pocket costs for seniors and have not focused much on guideline-consistent care for those under 65 who are working. Their burden can be quite onerous and cause financial harm for them and their families, resulting in worse health,” she continued, “Policy attention should go to unburdening people who have a serious diagnosis and who really have to be treated. There’s very good evidence that imposing additional out-of-pocket costs for guideline-consistent care causes people to make really hard decisions about paying rent versus paying for meds, about splitting pills and not doing all the things their physician is recommending, and about staying in jobs they don’t love but are locked into [because of health coverage].”

Dr. Conti concluded, “The good news is that, in breast cancer, the drugs work and are cheap. But the bad news is that there are many people who are underinsured and therefore, their care still has a high out-of-pocket burden. ACA radically changed working age people’s ability to qualify for insurance and be insured, but that didn’t mean that they are really well-covered when they become sick. They are still in peril over high out-of-pocket costs because of the proliferation of plans that are very skimpy. Women think they are insured until they get a diagnosis.”

Noting study limitations, Dr. Conti said that OOP costs cited are an underestimate, because many patients will also be treated for other comorbidities and complications related to treatment.

The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the American Cancer Society.

Among a sample of younger women with invasive breast cancer and employer-sponsored insurance, outpatient-related out-of-pocket (OOP) costs were greater than drug costs.

For these same patients, prescriptions were largely for nonproprietary anticancer drugs and entailed limited OOP costs. For women with high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) and commercially driven health plans (CDHPs), OOP costs were higher, compared with coverage by more generous plans, according to the Research Letter published in JAMA Network Open.

“You would expect that people undergoing cancer treatment should not have to face very high out-of-pocket costs associated with care regardless of treatment modality because their treatment is largely guideline-indicated, and they have no choices,” stated corresponding author Rena Conti, PhD, associate professor with the school of business, Boston University, in an interview. “If you are diagnosed with cancer and undergoing treatment, you’re following the recommendation of your doctor, and your doctor is following standard protocols for treatment. In that scenario, Economics 101 suggests that people should not have to pay anything or [should pay] very little, especially for things that are cheap and are known to be effective, because there’s no overuse. Where normally we think that out-of-pocket costs are meant to control overuse, people with breast cancer are not opting to get more than indicated chemotherapy or radiation.”

The analysis of 25,224 women with invasive breast cancer diagnosis and claims for 1 or more of 14 oral anticancer drugs revealed that OOP costs for nondrug outpatient claims represented 79.0% of total costs. OOP drug costs were modest, with a 30-day supply ranging from $0.57-$0.60 for tamoxifen to $134.08-$141.07 for palbociclib.

“We were interested in understanding to what extent women who are insured with private insurance are exposed to out-of-pocket costs for standard breast cancer treatment, both in looking at drugs, but also the other aspects of the treatments they undergo.”

High OOP costs for the oral anticancer prescription drugs that are central to breast cancer treatment are associated with treatment nonadherence and discontinuation. Little has been known, however, about OOP costs of treatment associated with invasive breast cancer among employer-insured women younger than 65 years, the paper says.

“This population may face significant financial burdens related to long-term hormonal-based prevention and enrollment in high-deductible health plans and consumer-driven health plans,” the authors state in their paper.

In the cross-sectional study, which used the national 2018 Marative MarketScan database, 23.1% were HDHP- or CDHP-insured. Fifty-one percent had no OOP costs for drugs. The total mean estimated OOP cost, however, was $1,502.23 per patient, with inpatient costs representing only $112.41 (95% confidence interval, $112.40-$112.42); outpatient costs were $1,186.27 (95% CI, $1,185.67-$1,188.16). Pharmaceutical costs were $203.55 (95% CI, $203.34-$203.78).“We were surprised to find that the vast majority were getting breast cancer treatment with older, very effective, very safe, relatively inexpensive drugs and had limited out-of-pocket costs with some variation – higher costs for the few receiving newer, expensive drugs. The backbone of treatment is the older, generic drugs, which are cheap for both the insurers and the patients. But we found also that women are facing high out-of-pocket costs for nondrug-based therapy – specifically for doctor visits, getting check-ups, diagnostic scans, and maybe other types of treatment, as well. ... It’s a very different story than the one typically being told about the preponderance of out-of-pocket costs being drug-related,” Dr. Conti said.

The explanation may be that progress in breast cancer treatment over the last decades has led to effective treatments that are largely now inexpensive. The situation is different with ovarian cancer and many blood cancers such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia and multiple myeloma. For them, the new, innovative, safe, and effective drugs are very expensive, she noted.

“I think that insurers can modulate the out-of-pocket costs associated with drug treatment through formulary design and other tools they have. It’s less easy for them to modulate out-of-pocket costs associated with other modalties of care. Still, for medical care that is obviously necessary, there needs to be a cap on what women should have to pay,” Dr. Conti said.

A further concern raised by Dr. Conti is shrinking Medicaid coverage with the expiration of COVID-specific expanded Medicaid eligibility.

“Policy folks are closely watching the size of uninsured populations and also the growing importance of the high deductible and consumer-driven plans in which patients face high out-of-pocket first dollar coverage for care. With Medicaid rolls shrinking, we’ll see more people in low-premium, not well-insured plans. Americans’ exposure to higher costs for guideline-recommended care might grow, especially as more of them are independent contractors in the gig economy and not working for big corporations.”

“We worry that if and when they get a diagnosis of breast cancer, which is common among younger women, they are going to be faced with costs associated with their care that are going to have to be paid out-of-pocket – and it’s not going to be for the drug, it’s the other types of care. Doctors should know that the younger patient population that they are serving might be facing burdens associated with their care.”

Dr. Conti added, “Among women who are underinsured, there is a clear burden associated with cancer treatment. Reform efforts have largely focused on reducing out-of-pocket costs for seniors and have not focused much on guideline-consistent care for those under 65 who are working. Their burden can be quite onerous and cause financial harm for them and their families, resulting in worse health,” she continued, “Policy attention should go to unburdening people who have a serious diagnosis and who really have to be treated. There’s very good evidence that imposing additional out-of-pocket costs for guideline-consistent care causes people to make really hard decisions about paying rent versus paying for meds, about splitting pills and not doing all the things their physician is recommending, and about staying in jobs they don’t love but are locked into [because of health coverage].”

Dr. Conti concluded, “The good news is that, in breast cancer, the drugs work and are cheap. But the bad news is that there are many people who are underinsured and therefore, their care still has a high out-of-pocket burden. ACA radically changed working age people’s ability to qualify for insurance and be insured, but that didn’t mean that they are really well-covered when they become sick. They are still in peril over high out-of-pocket costs because of the proliferation of plans that are very skimpy. Women think they are insured until they get a diagnosis.”

Noting study limitations, Dr. Conti said that OOP costs cited are an underestimate, because many patients will also be treated for other comorbidities and complications related to treatment.

The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the American Cancer Society.

Among a sample of younger women with invasive breast cancer and employer-sponsored insurance, outpatient-related out-of-pocket (OOP) costs were greater than drug costs.

For these same patients, prescriptions were largely for nonproprietary anticancer drugs and entailed limited OOP costs. For women with high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) and commercially driven health plans (CDHPs), OOP costs were higher, compared with coverage by more generous plans, according to the Research Letter published in JAMA Network Open.

“You would expect that people undergoing cancer treatment should not have to face very high out-of-pocket costs associated with care regardless of treatment modality because their treatment is largely guideline-indicated, and they have no choices,” stated corresponding author Rena Conti, PhD, associate professor with the school of business, Boston University, in an interview. “If you are diagnosed with cancer and undergoing treatment, you’re following the recommendation of your doctor, and your doctor is following standard protocols for treatment. In that scenario, Economics 101 suggests that people should not have to pay anything or [should pay] very little, especially for things that are cheap and are known to be effective, because there’s no overuse. Where normally we think that out-of-pocket costs are meant to control overuse, people with breast cancer are not opting to get more than indicated chemotherapy or radiation.”

The analysis of 25,224 women with invasive breast cancer diagnosis and claims for 1 or more of 14 oral anticancer drugs revealed that OOP costs for nondrug outpatient claims represented 79.0% of total costs. OOP drug costs were modest, with a 30-day supply ranging from $0.57-$0.60 for tamoxifen to $134.08-$141.07 for palbociclib.

“We were interested in understanding to what extent women who are insured with private insurance are exposed to out-of-pocket costs for standard breast cancer treatment, both in looking at drugs, but also the other aspects of the treatments they undergo.”

High OOP costs for the oral anticancer prescription drugs that are central to breast cancer treatment are associated with treatment nonadherence and discontinuation. Little has been known, however, about OOP costs of treatment associated with invasive breast cancer among employer-insured women younger than 65 years, the paper says.

“This population may face significant financial burdens related to long-term hormonal-based prevention and enrollment in high-deductible health plans and consumer-driven health plans,” the authors state in their paper.

In the cross-sectional study, which used the national 2018 Marative MarketScan database, 23.1% were HDHP- or CDHP-insured. Fifty-one percent had no OOP costs for drugs. The total mean estimated OOP cost, however, was $1,502.23 per patient, with inpatient costs representing only $112.41 (95% confidence interval, $112.40-$112.42); outpatient costs were $1,186.27 (95% CI, $1,185.67-$1,188.16). Pharmaceutical costs were $203.55 (95% CI, $203.34-$203.78).“We were surprised to find that the vast majority were getting breast cancer treatment with older, very effective, very safe, relatively inexpensive drugs and had limited out-of-pocket costs with some variation – higher costs for the few receiving newer, expensive drugs. The backbone of treatment is the older, generic drugs, which are cheap for both the insurers and the patients. But we found also that women are facing high out-of-pocket costs for nondrug-based therapy – specifically for doctor visits, getting check-ups, diagnostic scans, and maybe other types of treatment, as well. ... It’s a very different story than the one typically being told about the preponderance of out-of-pocket costs being drug-related,” Dr. Conti said.

The explanation may be that progress in breast cancer treatment over the last decades has led to effective treatments that are largely now inexpensive. The situation is different with ovarian cancer and many blood cancers such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia and multiple myeloma. For them, the new, innovative, safe, and effective drugs are very expensive, she noted.

“I think that insurers can modulate the out-of-pocket costs associated with drug treatment through formulary design and other tools they have. It’s less easy for them to modulate out-of-pocket costs associated with other modalties of care. Still, for medical care that is obviously necessary, there needs to be a cap on what women should have to pay,” Dr. Conti said.

A further concern raised by Dr. Conti is shrinking Medicaid coverage with the expiration of COVID-specific expanded Medicaid eligibility.

“Policy folks are closely watching the size of uninsured populations and also the growing importance of the high deductible and consumer-driven plans in which patients face high out-of-pocket first dollar coverage for care. With Medicaid rolls shrinking, we’ll see more people in low-premium, not well-insured plans. Americans’ exposure to higher costs for guideline-recommended care might grow, especially as more of them are independent contractors in the gig economy and not working for big corporations.”

“We worry that if and when they get a diagnosis of breast cancer, which is common among younger women, they are going to be faced with costs associated with their care that are going to have to be paid out-of-pocket – and it’s not going to be for the drug, it’s the other types of care. Doctors should know that the younger patient population that they are serving might be facing burdens associated with their care.”

Dr. Conti added, “Among women who are underinsured, there is a clear burden associated with cancer treatment. Reform efforts have largely focused on reducing out-of-pocket costs for seniors and have not focused much on guideline-consistent care for those under 65 who are working. Their burden can be quite onerous and cause financial harm for them and their families, resulting in worse health,” she continued, “Policy attention should go to unburdening people who have a serious diagnosis and who really have to be treated. There’s very good evidence that imposing additional out-of-pocket costs for guideline-consistent care causes people to make really hard decisions about paying rent versus paying for meds, about splitting pills and not doing all the things their physician is recommending, and about staying in jobs they don’t love but are locked into [because of health coverage].”

Dr. Conti concluded, “The good news is that, in breast cancer, the drugs work and are cheap. But the bad news is that there are many people who are underinsured and therefore, their care still has a high out-of-pocket burden. ACA radically changed working age people’s ability to qualify for insurance and be insured, but that didn’t mean that they are really well-covered when they become sick. They are still in peril over high out-of-pocket costs because of the proliferation of plans that are very skimpy. Women think they are insured until they get a diagnosis.”

Noting study limitations, Dr. Conti said that OOP costs cited are an underestimate, because many patients will also be treated for other comorbidities and complications related to treatment.

The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the American Cancer Society.

Over the past 30 years, more than 80 new systemic therapies for cancer have been approved, and many patients diagnosed with localized disease have benefited with improved progression-free and overall survival. The same can be said for some – but by no means all – patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis, a new study indicates.

“Our results show that the survival of patients with de novo metastatic cancer improved slowly over 30 years but that these gains were typically modest and unevenly distributed among cancers,” comment the authors, led by Marianne Luyendijk, MSc, from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The retrospective study compared survival data of patients with de novo metastatic disease diagnosed from 1989 through 1993 with those of patients diagnosed from 2014 to 2018.

The results show that 5-year survival increased by 15% or more among patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors; neuroendocrine tumors; melanoma; and cancers of the prostate, breast, thyroid, and testes.

For patients with other cancers, however, the gains in survival were more modest. For example, over the study period, 5-year survival of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer increased by only 6%, a disappointing finding, given the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapy during the most recent period, the authors note.

In contrast, there was a 16% improvement in long-term survival of patients with metastatic melanoma, likely owing to the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

The data also showed differences over time in the proportion of patients diagnosed with de novo metastatic disease; some cancers, such as NSCLC and small cell lung cancer, were more frequently diagnosed at late stages in the more recent era, possibly owing to increased screening and the use of technology such as FDG-PET imaging.

On the other end of the spectrum, cancers of the prostate, rectum, uterine cervix, breast, gallbladder, and bile ducts were more likely to be caught at an earlier stage during later years of the study period.

The authors say that among the possible explanations for a less than robust reduction over time in metastatic disease is that new drugs do not always translate into improved survival. They cite a 2017 study showing that among 53 new cancer drugs approved by U.S., European, or Australian drug regulators, fewer than half improved overall survival by at least 3 months, and an additional 26% offered survival advantages that were either shorter than 3 months or of unknown benefit.

“This may also explain why the 1- and 5-year survival rates of some cancers have changed little in the last 30 years,” they write. “Nevertheless, even minor benefits in survival or other outcomes (for example, quality of life) may represent progress in treating patients with metastatic cancer.”

The investigators recommend that to improve understanding of the effect of new therapies on survival of metastatic disease, cancer registries include data on therapies used beyond the first line, as well as comorbidities and quality-of-life measures.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Ms. Luyendijk has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several co-authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

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

Over the past 30 years, more than 80 new systemic therapies for cancer have been approved, and many patients diagnosed with localized disease have benefited with improved progression-free and overall survival. The same can be said for some – but by no means all – patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis, a new study indicates.

“Our results show that the survival of patients with de novo metastatic cancer improved slowly over 30 years but that these gains were typically modest and unevenly distributed among cancers,” comment the authors, led by Marianne Luyendijk, MSc, from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The retrospective study compared survival data of patients with de novo metastatic disease diagnosed from 1989 through 1993 with those of patients diagnosed from 2014 to 2018.

The results show that 5-year survival increased by 15% or more among patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors; neuroendocrine tumors; melanoma; and cancers of the prostate, breast, thyroid, and testes.

For patients with other cancers, however, the gains in survival were more modest. For example, over the study period, 5-year survival of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer increased by only 6%, a disappointing finding, given the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapy during the most recent period, the authors note.

In contrast, there was a 16% improvement in long-term survival of patients with metastatic melanoma, likely owing to the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

The data also showed differences over time in the proportion of patients diagnosed with de novo metastatic disease; some cancers, such as NSCLC and small cell lung cancer, were more frequently diagnosed at late stages in the more recent era, possibly owing to increased screening and the use of technology such as FDG-PET imaging.

On the other end of the spectrum, cancers of the prostate, rectum, uterine cervix, breast, gallbladder, and bile ducts were more likely to be caught at an earlier stage during later years of the study period.

The authors say that among the possible explanations for a less than robust reduction over time in metastatic disease is that new drugs do not always translate into improved survival. They cite a 2017 study showing that among 53 new cancer drugs approved by U.S., European, or Australian drug regulators, fewer than half improved overall survival by at least 3 months, and an additional 26% offered survival advantages that were either shorter than 3 months or of unknown benefit.

“This may also explain why the 1- and 5-year survival rates of some cancers have changed little in the last 30 years,” they write. “Nevertheless, even minor benefits in survival or other outcomes (for example, quality of life) may represent progress in treating patients with metastatic cancer.”

The investigators recommend that to improve understanding of the effect of new therapies on survival of metastatic disease, cancer registries include data on therapies used beyond the first line, as well as comorbidities and quality-of-life measures.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Ms. Luyendijk has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several co-authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

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

Over the past 30 years, more than 80 new systemic therapies for cancer have been approved, and many patients diagnosed with localized disease have benefited with improved progression-free and overall survival. The same can be said for some – but by no means all – patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis, a new study indicates.

“Our results show that the survival of patients with de novo metastatic cancer improved slowly over 30 years but that these gains were typically modest and unevenly distributed among cancers,” comment the authors, led by Marianne Luyendijk, MSc, from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The retrospective study compared survival data of patients with de novo metastatic disease diagnosed from 1989 through 1993 with those of patients diagnosed from 2014 to 2018.

The results show that 5-year survival increased by 15% or more among patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors; neuroendocrine tumors; melanoma; and cancers of the prostate, breast, thyroid, and testes.

For patients with other cancers, however, the gains in survival were more modest. For example, over the study period, 5-year survival of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer increased by only 6%, a disappointing finding, given the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapy during the most recent period, the authors note.

In contrast, there was a 16% improvement in long-term survival of patients with metastatic melanoma, likely owing to the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

The data also showed differences over time in the proportion of patients diagnosed with de novo metastatic disease; some cancers, such as NSCLC and small cell lung cancer, were more frequently diagnosed at late stages in the more recent era, possibly owing to increased screening and the use of technology such as FDG-PET imaging.

On the other end of the spectrum, cancers of the prostate, rectum, uterine cervix, breast, gallbladder, and bile ducts were more likely to be caught at an earlier stage during later years of the study period.

The authors say that among the possible explanations for a less than robust reduction over time in metastatic disease is that new drugs do not always translate into improved survival. They cite a 2017 study showing that among 53 new cancer drugs approved by U.S., European, or Australian drug regulators, fewer than half improved overall survival by at least 3 months, and an additional 26% offered survival advantages that were either shorter than 3 months or of unknown benefit.

“This may also explain why the 1- and 5-year survival rates of some cancers have changed little in the last 30 years,” they write. “Nevertheless, even minor benefits in survival or other outcomes (for example, quality of life) may represent progress in treating patients with metastatic cancer.”

The investigators recommend that to improve understanding of the effect of new therapies on survival of metastatic disease, cancer registries include data on therapies used beyond the first line, as well as comorbidities and quality-of-life measures.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Ms. Luyendijk has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several co-authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

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

Some patients with HER2-positive breast cancer can reduce the intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy while maintaining the full benefits in terms of prognosis, new data suggest. Lowering the intensity of chemotherapy also reduces the adverse events that are associated with it.

An open-label study of about 400 participants indicated that 12 weeks of treatment with paclitaxel (Abraxane) and trastuzumab (Herceptin), followed by 9 months of trastuzumab monotherapy, was associated with very good long-term outcomes for patients with certain HER2-positive breast cancers. Few distant recurrences were observed, and tolerability was good.

The study was conducted by a team that included researchers from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, one of the main oncology institutes in Italy.

“HER2-positive breast cancers harbor a particularly poor prognosis, compared with HER2-negative tumors, if left untreated. However, the blockade of HER2 with trastuzumab, when added to adjuvant multiagent chemotherapy, has been shown to improve outcomes for this population,” wrote the researchers, led by Sara M. Tolaney, MD, chief of breast oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to report the long-term outcomes of patients with small, node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancers prospectively treated with a de-escalated adjuvant regimen.”

The study was published in the March issue of The Lancet Oncology.
 

Avoiding side effects

HER2-positive breast cancers, which are characterized by amplification of the HER2 gene and overexpression of the HER2 protein, account for 15% of new cases of localized breast cancer. They are more aggressive and resistant to some anticancer treatments but show sensitivity to stronger chemotherapy.

“We presented the 10-year analysis, which shows that survival for breast cancer among the 406 patients recruited in the study was 98.8% after 10 years, with only 6 recurrences,” study author Paolo Tarantino, MD, researcher at the European Institute of Oncology and clinical research fellow at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in a statement. “Our data support the use of the de-escalated adjuvant paclitaxel trastuzumab regimen as an adequate standard for small HER2-positive breast cancers, which avoids the side effects of polychemotherapy.”

The researchers also focused on patient selection and identified a significant relationship between the value of HER2DX, a new diagnostic tool capable of describing multiple characteristics of HER2-positive breast cancer, and the prognosis. If future research validates these preliminary results, the biomarker may help to further customize cancer treatments in the future, according to Dr. Tarantino.
 

‘A valuable alternative’

“This is the 10-year update of the APT study, which is not randomized and has no control arm,” Alessandra Gennari, MD, PhD, associate professor of oncology at the University of Eastern Piedmont and head of oncology at Maggiore University Hospital in Novara, Italy, said in an interview. Dr. Gennari, who was not involved in the study, was lead author of the European Society for Medical Oncology’s 2021 guidelines on metastatic breast cancer. “This study shows, nevertheless, that in a subpopulation of HER2-positive patients with low to moderate risk of recurrence, the de-escalation of chemotherapy together with trastuzumab is a valuable alternative to more complex regimens with chemotherapy agents and is very well tolerated.”

Dr. Gennari’s comment echoes those of an editorial that accompanied the Lancet Oncology study. “This work represents a milestone in the history of breast cancer: We have definitively shown that for early HER2-positive tumors, you can do less by getting more,” coauthor Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, full professor of medical oncology at University of Milan and head of early drug development at the European Institute of Oncology, told this news organization. “It completes a pathway started by my group at the European Institute of Oncology in 2009, when we showed that HER2-positive tumors have a very good prognosis if diagnosed at a very early stage, and therefore can be treated with less aggressive and less toxic chemotherapies.” Candiolo Cancer Institute oncologists Elena Geuna, MD, and Filippo Montemurro, MD, coauthored the editorial with Dr. Curigliano.

Research on de-escalation increased after that study, and data showed that a lighter chemotherapy regimen is safe and effective and allows patients to live longer and with fewer side effects. “This finding immediately changed clinical practice, and the newly published work now adds an important piece: De-escalation maintains its benefit over the long term, beyond 10 years,” said Dr. Curigliano. “It also shows that in the future, we could identify the patients that will benefit from doing more, but also those that will benefit from doing even less, thanks to the new marker HER2DX.”

The study was funded by Genentech. Dr. Tolaney has received consulting or advisory board fees from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, BMS, Eisai, Sanofi, and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Tarantino has received consulting or advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Lilly, and has received payment or honoraria for educational events from AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Curigliano and Dr. Gennari reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Some patients with HER2-positive breast cancer can reduce the intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy while maintaining the full benefits in terms of prognosis, new data suggest. Lowering the intensity of chemotherapy also reduces the adverse events that are associated with it.

An open-label study of about 400 participants indicated that 12 weeks of treatment with paclitaxel (Abraxane) and trastuzumab (Herceptin), followed by 9 months of trastuzumab monotherapy, was associated with very good long-term outcomes for patients with certain HER2-positive breast cancers. Few distant recurrences were observed, and tolerability was good.

The study was conducted by a team that included researchers from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, one of the main oncology institutes in Italy.

“HER2-positive breast cancers harbor a particularly poor prognosis, compared with HER2-negative tumors, if left untreated. However, the blockade of HER2 with trastuzumab, when added to adjuvant multiagent chemotherapy, has been shown to improve outcomes for this population,” wrote the researchers, led by Sara M. Tolaney, MD, chief of breast oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to report the long-term outcomes of patients with small, node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancers prospectively treated with a de-escalated adjuvant regimen.”

The study was published in the March issue of The Lancet Oncology.
 

Avoiding side effects

HER2-positive breast cancers, which are characterized by amplification of the HER2 gene and overexpression of the HER2 protein, account for 15% of new cases of localized breast cancer. They are more aggressive and resistant to some anticancer treatments but show sensitivity to stronger chemotherapy.

“We presented the 10-year analysis, which shows that survival for breast cancer among the 406 patients recruited in the study was 98.8% after 10 years, with only 6 recurrences,” study author Paolo Tarantino, MD, researcher at the European Institute of Oncology and clinical research fellow at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in a statement. “Our data support the use of the de-escalated adjuvant paclitaxel trastuzumab regimen as an adequate standard for small HER2-positive breast cancers, which avoids the side effects of polychemotherapy.”

The researchers also focused on patient selection and identified a significant relationship between the value of HER2DX, a new diagnostic tool capable of describing multiple characteristics of HER2-positive breast cancer, and the prognosis. If future research validates these preliminary results, the biomarker may help to further customize cancer treatments in the future, according to Dr. Tarantino.
 

‘A valuable alternative’

“This is the 10-year update of the APT study, which is not randomized and has no control arm,” Alessandra Gennari, MD, PhD, associate professor of oncology at the University of Eastern Piedmont and head of oncology at Maggiore University Hospital in Novara, Italy, said in an interview. Dr. Gennari, who was not involved in the study, was lead author of the European Society for Medical Oncology’s 2021 guidelines on metastatic breast cancer. “This study shows, nevertheless, that in a subpopulation of HER2-positive patients with low to moderate risk of recurrence, the de-escalation of chemotherapy together with trastuzumab is a valuable alternative to more complex regimens with chemotherapy agents and is very well tolerated.”

Dr. Gennari’s comment echoes those of an editorial that accompanied the Lancet Oncology study. “This work represents a milestone in the history of breast cancer: We have definitively shown that for early HER2-positive tumors, you can do less by getting more,” coauthor Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, full professor of medical oncology at University of Milan and head of early drug development at the European Institute of Oncology, told this news organization. “It completes a pathway started by my group at the European Institute of Oncology in 2009, when we showed that HER2-positive tumors have a very good prognosis if diagnosed at a very early stage, and therefore can be treated with less aggressive and less toxic chemotherapies.” Candiolo Cancer Institute oncologists Elena Geuna, MD, and Filippo Montemurro, MD, coauthored the editorial with Dr. Curigliano.

Research on de-escalation increased after that study, and data showed that a lighter chemotherapy regimen is safe and effective and allows patients to live longer and with fewer side effects. “This finding immediately changed clinical practice, and the newly published work now adds an important piece: De-escalation maintains its benefit over the long term, beyond 10 years,” said Dr. Curigliano. “It also shows that in the future, we could identify the patients that will benefit from doing more, but also those that will benefit from doing even less, thanks to the new marker HER2DX.”

The study was funded by Genentech. Dr. Tolaney has received consulting or advisory board fees from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, BMS, Eisai, Sanofi, and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Tarantino has received consulting or advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Lilly, and has received payment or honoraria for educational events from AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Curigliano and Dr. Gennari reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Some patients with HER2-positive breast cancer can reduce the intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy while maintaining the full benefits in terms of prognosis, new data suggest. Lowering the intensity of chemotherapy also reduces the adverse events that are associated with it.

An open-label study of about 400 participants indicated that 12 weeks of treatment with paclitaxel (Abraxane) and trastuzumab (Herceptin), followed by 9 months of trastuzumab monotherapy, was associated with very good long-term outcomes for patients with certain HER2-positive breast cancers. Few distant recurrences were observed, and tolerability was good.

The study was conducted by a team that included researchers from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, one of the main oncology institutes in Italy.

“HER2-positive breast cancers harbor a particularly poor prognosis, compared with HER2-negative tumors, if left untreated. However, the blockade of HER2 with trastuzumab, when added to adjuvant multiagent chemotherapy, has been shown to improve outcomes for this population,” wrote the researchers, led by Sara M. Tolaney, MD, chief of breast oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to report the long-term outcomes of patients with small, node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancers prospectively treated with a de-escalated adjuvant regimen.”

The study was published in the March issue of The Lancet Oncology.
 

Avoiding side effects

HER2-positive breast cancers, which are characterized by amplification of the HER2 gene and overexpression of the HER2 protein, account for 15% of new cases of localized breast cancer. They are more aggressive and resistant to some anticancer treatments but show sensitivity to stronger chemotherapy.

“We presented the 10-year analysis, which shows that survival for breast cancer among the 406 patients recruited in the study was 98.8% after 10 years, with only 6 recurrences,” study author Paolo Tarantino, MD, researcher at the European Institute of Oncology and clinical research fellow at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in a statement. “Our data support the use of the de-escalated adjuvant paclitaxel trastuzumab regimen as an adequate standard for small HER2-positive breast cancers, which avoids the side effects of polychemotherapy.”

The researchers also focused on patient selection and identified a significant relationship between the value of HER2DX, a new diagnostic tool capable of describing multiple characteristics of HER2-positive breast cancer, and the prognosis. If future research validates these preliminary results, the biomarker may help to further customize cancer treatments in the future, according to Dr. Tarantino.
 

‘A valuable alternative’

“This is the 10-year update of the APT study, which is not randomized and has no control arm,” Alessandra Gennari, MD, PhD, associate professor of oncology at the University of Eastern Piedmont and head of oncology at Maggiore University Hospital in Novara, Italy, said in an interview. Dr. Gennari, who was not involved in the study, was lead author of the European Society for Medical Oncology’s 2021 guidelines on metastatic breast cancer. “This study shows, nevertheless, that in a subpopulation of HER2-positive patients with low to moderate risk of recurrence, the de-escalation of chemotherapy together with trastuzumab is a valuable alternative to more complex regimens with chemotherapy agents and is very well tolerated.”

Dr. Gennari’s comment echoes those of an editorial that accompanied the Lancet Oncology study. “This work represents a milestone in the history of breast cancer: We have definitively shown that for early HER2-positive tumors, you can do less by getting more,” coauthor Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, full professor of medical oncology at University of Milan and head of early drug development at the European Institute of Oncology, told this news organization. “It completes a pathway started by my group at the European Institute of Oncology in 2009, when we showed that HER2-positive tumors have a very good prognosis if diagnosed at a very early stage, and therefore can be treated with less aggressive and less toxic chemotherapies.” Candiolo Cancer Institute oncologists Elena Geuna, MD, and Filippo Montemurro, MD, coauthored the editorial with Dr. Curigliano.

Research on de-escalation increased after that study, and data showed that a lighter chemotherapy regimen is safe and effective and allows patients to live longer and with fewer side effects. “This finding immediately changed clinical practice, and the newly published work now adds an important piece: De-escalation maintains its benefit over the long term, beyond 10 years,” said Dr. Curigliano. “It also shows that in the future, we could identify the patients that will benefit from doing more, but also those that will benefit from doing even less, thanks to the new marker HER2DX.”

The study was funded by Genentech. Dr. Tolaney has received consulting or advisory board fees from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, BMS, Eisai, Sanofi, and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Tarantino has received consulting or advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Lilly, and has received payment or honoraria for educational events from AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Curigliano and Dr. Gennari reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Despite federal legislation doing away with cost-sharing for initial breast cancer screening, out-of-pocket costs for needed follow-up tests remain significant financial barriers for many women.

An analysis of claims data found that women with higher cost-sharing undergo fewer subsequent breast diagnostic tests after an abnormal screening mammogram, compared with peers with lower cost-sharing.

“The chief clinical implication is that women with abnormal mammograms – that is, potentially at risk for cancer – are deciding not to follow-up on diagnostic imaging because of high out-of-pocket costs,” Danny Hughes, PhD, professor, College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University in Phoenix, told this news organization.

One course of action for radiologists is to “strongly communicate the importance of adhering to recommended follow-on testing,” Dr. Hughes said.

Another is to “work to pass national and state legislation, such as recently passed [legislation] in Connecticut, that removes out-of-pocket costs for follow-on diagnostic breast imaging and biopsy in the same way that these patient costs are prohibited for screening mammography,” he suggested.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.


 

‘Worrisome’ findings

The Affordable Care Act removed out-of-pocket costs for preventive health care, such as screening mammograms in women aged 40 and over.

However, lingering cost barriers remain for some individuals who have a positive initial screening mammogram and need follow-up tests. For instance, research shows that women in high-deductible plans, which often have higher out-of-pocket costs than other plans, may experience delays in follow-on care, including diagnostic breast imaging.

Dr. Hughes and colleagues examined the association between the degree of patient cost-sharing across different health plans – those dominated by copays, coinsurance, or deductibles as well as those classified as balanced across the three categories – and the use of diagnostic breast cancer imaging after a screening mammogram.

The data came from Optum’s database of administrative health claims for members of large commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans. The team used a machine learning algorithm to rank patient insurance plans by type of cost-sharing.

The sample included 230,845 mostly White (71%) women 40 years and older with no prior history of breast cancer who underwent screening mammography. These women were covered by 22,828 distinct insurance plans associated with roughly 6 million enrollees and nearly 45 million distinct medical claims.

Plans dominated by coinsurance had the lowest average out-of-pocket costs ($945), followed by plans balanced across the three cost-sharing categories ($1,017), plans dominated by copays ($1,020), and plans dominated by deductibles ($1,186).

Compared with women with coinsurance plans, those with copay- and deductible-dominated plans underwent significantly fewer subsequent breast-imaging procedures – 24 and 16 fewer procedures per 1,000 women, respectively.

Use of follow-on breast MRI was nearly 24% lower among women in plans with the highest cost-sharing versus those in plans with the lowest cost-sharing.

The team found no statistically significant difference in breast biopsy use between plan types.

Considering the risks posed by an unconfirmed positive mammogram result, these findings are “startling” and question the efficacy of legislation that eliminated cost-sharing from many preventive services, including screening mammograms, Dr. Hughes and colleagues write.

“Additional policy changes, such as removing cost-sharing for subsequent tests after abnormal screening results or bundling all breast cancer diagnostic testing into a single reimbursement, may provide avenues to mitigate these financial barriers to care,” the authors add.

The authors of an accompanying editorial found the study’s main finding – that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost – is “worrisome.” 

“From a population health perspective, failure to complete the screening process limits the program’s effectiveness and likely exacerbates health disparities,” write Ilana Richman, MD, with Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and A. Mark Fendrick, MD, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent,” Dr. Richman and Dr. Fendrick add. And “the removal of financial barriers for the entire breast cancer screening process has potential to improve total screening uptake and follow-up rates.”

Support for the study was provided by the Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute. Dr. Hughes has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Richman has reported receiving salary support from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop health care quality measures outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick has reported serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, CareFirst, BlueCross BlueShield, Centivo, Community Oncology Association, Covered California, EmblemHealth, Exact Sciences, GRAIL, Harvard University, HealthCorum, Hygieia, Johnson & Johnson, MedZed, Merck, Mercer, Montana Health Cooperative, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Proton Intelligence, RA Capital, Teladoc Health, U.S. Department of Defense, Virginia Center for Health Innovation, Washington Health Benefit Exchange, Wildflower Health, and Yale-New Haven Health System; and serving as a consultant for and holding equity in Health at Scale Technologies, Pair Team, Sempre Health, Silver Fern Health, and Wellth.

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

Despite federal legislation doing away with cost-sharing for initial breast cancer screening, out-of-pocket costs for needed follow-up tests remain significant financial barriers for many women.

An analysis of claims data found that women with higher cost-sharing undergo fewer subsequent breast diagnostic tests after an abnormal screening mammogram, compared with peers with lower cost-sharing.

“The chief clinical implication is that women with abnormal mammograms – that is, potentially at risk for cancer – are deciding not to follow-up on diagnostic imaging because of high out-of-pocket costs,” Danny Hughes, PhD, professor, College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University in Phoenix, told this news organization.

One course of action for radiologists is to “strongly communicate the importance of adhering to recommended follow-on testing,” Dr. Hughes said.

Another is to “work to pass national and state legislation, such as recently passed [legislation] in Connecticut, that removes out-of-pocket costs for follow-on diagnostic breast imaging and biopsy in the same way that these patient costs are prohibited for screening mammography,” he suggested.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.


 

‘Worrisome’ findings

The Affordable Care Act removed out-of-pocket costs for preventive health care, such as screening mammograms in women aged 40 and over.

However, lingering cost barriers remain for some individuals who have a positive initial screening mammogram and need follow-up tests. For instance, research shows that women in high-deductible plans, which often have higher out-of-pocket costs than other plans, may experience delays in follow-on care, including diagnostic breast imaging.

Dr. Hughes and colleagues examined the association between the degree of patient cost-sharing across different health plans – those dominated by copays, coinsurance, or deductibles as well as those classified as balanced across the three categories – and the use of diagnostic breast cancer imaging after a screening mammogram.

The data came from Optum’s database of administrative health claims for members of large commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans. The team used a machine learning algorithm to rank patient insurance plans by type of cost-sharing.

The sample included 230,845 mostly White (71%) women 40 years and older with no prior history of breast cancer who underwent screening mammography. These women were covered by 22,828 distinct insurance plans associated with roughly 6 million enrollees and nearly 45 million distinct medical claims.

Plans dominated by coinsurance had the lowest average out-of-pocket costs ($945), followed by plans balanced across the three cost-sharing categories ($1,017), plans dominated by copays ($1,020), and plans dominated by deductibles ($1,186).

Compared with women with coinsurance plans, those with copay- and deductible-dominated plans underwent significantly fewer subsequent breast-imaging procedures – 24 and 16 fewer procedures per 1,000 women, respectively.

Use of follow-on breast MRI was nearly 24% lower among women in plans with the highest cost-sharing versus those in plans with the lowest cost-sharing.

The team found no statistically significant difference in breast biopsy use between plan types.

Considering the risks posed by an unconfirmed positive mammogram result, these findings are “startling” and question the efficacy of legislation that eliminated cost-sharing from many preventive services, including screening mammograms, Dr. Hughes and colleagues write.

“Additional policy changes, such as removing cost-sharing for subsequent tests after abnormal screening results or bundling all breast cancer diagnostic testing into a single reimbursement, may provide avenues to mitigate these financial barriers to care,” the authors add.

The authors of an accompanying editorial found the study’s main finding – that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost – is “worrisome.” 

“From a population health perspective, failure to complete the screening process limits the program’s effectiveness and likely exacerbates health disparities,” write Ilana Richman, MD, with Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and A. Mark Fendrick, MD, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent,” Dr. Richman and Dr. Fendrick add. And “the removal of financial barriers for the entire breast cancer screening process has potential to improve total screening uptake and follow-up rates.”

Support for the study was provided by the Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute. Dr. Hughes has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Richman has reported receiving salary support from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop health care quality measures outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick has reported serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, CareFirst, BlueCross BlueShield, Centivo, Community Oncology Association, Covered California, EmblemHealth, Exact Sciences, GRAIL, Harvard University, HealthCorum, Hygieia, Johnson & Johnson, MedZed, Merck, Mercer, Montana Health Cooperative, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Proton Intelligence, RA Capital, Teladoc Health, U.S. Department of Defense, Virginia Center for Health Innovation, Washington Health Benefit Exchange, Wildflower Health, and Yale-New Haven Health System; and serving as a consultant for and holding equity in Health at Scale Technologies, Pair Team, Sempre Health, Silver Fern Health, and Wellth.

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

Despite federal legislation doing away with cost-sharing for initial breast cancer screening, out-of-pocket costs for needed follow-up tests remain significant financial barriers for many women.

An analysis of claims data found that women with higher cost-sharing undergo fewer subsequent breast diagnostic tests after an abnormal screening mammogram, compared with peers with lower cost-sharing.

“The chief clinical implication is that women with abnormal mammograms – that is, potentially at risk for cancer – are deciding not to follow-up on diagnostic imaging because of high out-of-pocket costs,” Danny Hughes, PhD, professor, College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University in Phoenix, told this news organization.

One course of action for radiologists is to “strongly communicate the importance of adhering to recommended follow-on testing,” Dr. Hughes said.

Another is to “work to pass national and state legislation, such as recently passed [legislation] in Connecticut, that removes out-of-pocket costs for follow-on diagnostic breast imaging and biopsy in the same way that these patient costs are prohibited for screening mammography,” he suggested.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.


 

‘Worrisome’ findings

The Affordable Care Act removed out-of-pocket costs for preventive health care, such as screening mammograms in women aged 40 and over.

However, lingering cost barriers remain for some individuals who have a positive initial screening mammogram and need follow-up tests. For instance, research shows that women in high-deductible plans, which often have higher out-of-pocket costs than other plans, may experience delays in follow-on care, including diagnostic breast imaging.

Dr. Hughes and colleagues examined the association between the degree of patient cost-sharing across different health plans – those dominated by copays, coinsurance, or deductibles as well as those classified as balanced across the three categories – and the use of diagnostic breast cancer imaging after a screening mammogram.

The data came from Optum’s database of administrative health claims for members of large commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans. The team used a machine learning algorithm to rank patient insurance plans by type of cost-sharing.

The sample included 230,845 mostly White (71%) women 40 years and older with no prior history of breast cancer who underwent screening mammography. These women were covered by 22,828 distinct insurance plans associated with roughly 6 million enrollees and nearly 45 million distinct medical claims.

Plans dominated by coinsurance had the lowest average out-of-pocket costs ($945), followed by plans balanced across the three cost-sharing categories ($1,017), plans dominated by copays ($1,020), and plans dominated by deductibles ($1,186).

Compared with women with coinsurance plans, those with copay- and deductible-dominated plans underwent significantly fewer subsequent breast-imaging procedures – 24 and 16 fewer procedures per 1,000 women, respectively.

Use of follow-on breast MRI was nearly 24% lower among women in plans with the highest cost-sharing versus those in plans with the lowest cost-sharing.

The team found no statistically significant difference in breast biopsy use between plan types.

Considering the risks posed by an unconfirmed positive mammogram result, these findings are “startling” and question the efficacy of legislation that eliminated cost-sharing from many preventive services, including screening mammograms, Dr. Hughes and colleagues write.

“Additional policy changes, such as removing cost-sharing for subsequent tests after abnormal screening results or bundling all breast cancer diagnostic testing into a single reimbursement, may provide avenues to mitigate these financial barriers to care,” the authors add.

The authors of an accompanying editorial found the study’s main finding – that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost – is “worrisome.” 

“From a population health perspective, failure to complete the screening process limits the program’s effectiveness and likely exacerbates health disparities,” write Ilana Richman, MD, with Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and A. Mark Fendrick, MD, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent,” Dr. Richman and Dr. Fendrick add. And “the removal of financial barriers for the entire breast cancer screening process has potential to improve total screening uptake and follow-up rates.”

Support for the study was provided by the Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute. Dr. Hughes has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Richman has reported receiving salary support from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop health care quality measures outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick has reported serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, CareFirst, BlueCross BlueShield, Centivo, Community Oncology Association, Covered California, EmblemHealth, Exact Sciences, GRAIL, Harvard University, HealthCorum, Hygieia, Johnson & Johnson, MedZed, Merck, Mercer, Montana Health Cooperative, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Proton Intelligence, RA Capital, Teladoc Health, U.S. Department of Defense, Virginia Center for Health Innovation, Washington Health Benefit Exchange, Wildflower Health, and Yale-New Haven Health System; and serving as a consultant for and holding equity in Health at Scale Technologies, Pair Team, Sempre Health, Silver Fern Health, and Wellth.

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

BOSTON – Women with breast cancer who have several tumors in one breast do not necessarily need to have a mastectomy, as new data show a low risk of recurrence at 5 years when they are treated with breast-conserving therapy and radiation.

“[The study] proves the oncologic safety of breast conservation in women with two or three sites of disease, making this a very reasonable option for (previously reluctant) surgeons to present to patients,” first author Kari Rosenkranz, MD, an associate professor at Dartmouth Health in Norwich, Vt., said in an interview.

The findings were presented here at the International Conference on Surgical Cancer Care (SSO 2023), and were published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Commenting on the study, Hiram S. Cody III, MD, an attending surgeon and professor of surgery at Weill Cornell Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, in New York, said the findings provide valuable new evidence on the issue.

“This is an important study confirming that breast conservation is feasible and safe for women with multiple ipsilateral breast cancers, with excellent results comparable to those for women with unifocal (single site) disease,” he said in an interview.

Although there have been as many as seven previous randomized trials that have shown identical outcomes in survival and local control of disease with breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy, all those studies excluded patients with more than one site of disease.

At present, many surgeons and guidelines continue to recommend mastectomy for women with multiple-site tumors, based on older data that showed higher recurrence rates.

That is why the new study is so important, Dr. Cody explained. “Here, we see in a prospective trial that breast-conserving therapy is feasible for those with more than one site of disease as well, with high survival and very low rates of local recurrence,” he emphasized.

Dr. Cody noted that “the ideal candidate would be a woman with relatively small tumor size and a breast large enough that the multiple excisions could be performed with a good cosmetic result.”

“We have followed this approach for some time and hope that with the publication of these results more surgeons will recommend this approach for suitable patients,” he said.

The new results were also highlighted in a press release from Mayo Clinic highlighting the Journal of Clinical Oncology publication. Lead author of the article, surgical oncologist Judy Boughey, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., commented: “I am excited about these findings because it will empower patients and the multidisciplinary care teams caring for patients to be thinking about this option for women who may want to preserve their breast.”

This study showed the rate of cancer local recurrence was 3.1%, she noted. This is an excellent outcome and is similar to the local recurrence rate for patients with a single tumor in a breast who had breast-conserving therapy, Dr. Boughey said.

Historically, women with multiple tumors in one breast have been advised to have a mastectomy. Now, patients can be offered a less invasive option with faster recovery, resulting in better patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcomes, she added.


 

Study details

This study, known as the ACOSOG (Alliance) Z11102 trial, was a phase 2 trial conducted in 204 patients enrolled between 2012 and 2016 who had two or three sites of biopsy-proven breast cancer (each site less rhan 5 cm in size, with cN0 or cN1 disease).

These patients were a median age of 61 years, and 83.5% were ER-positive/HER2-negative, 11.5% were HER2-positive, 5.0% were ER-negative/HER2-negative, and 77.5% were node-negative.

All patients were treated with breast conservation surgery, including lumpectomy resected to negative margins, followed by whole breast radiation with a cavity boost to all lumpectomy beds.

With a median follow-up of 66.4 months, six patients developed local recurrence, with five of the recurrences occurring in the ipsilateral breast and one in the chest wall.

For the primary endpoint, the six recurrences represented an estimated cumulative incidence of local recurrence of 3.1% (95% CI, 1.3-6.4), well below the cutoff of 8% that was determined to be the acceptable 5-year local recurrence rate based on historic recurrence rates for unifocal disease, Dr. Rosenkranz explained.

There were no cases of synchronous local and distant recurrences, six contralateral breast cancers, and three new primary nonbreast cancers. Eight patients died, including one related to breast cancer.

There were no significant associations between risk of local recurrence and factors including patient age, number of sites of preoperative biopsy-proven breast cancer, HER2 status, and pathologic T and N category.

In terms of secondary endpoints, 14 patients (7.1%) converted to mastectomy because of positive margins, while 67.6% achieved margin-negative excision in a single operation.

Regarding cosmesis, 70.6% of patients reported good or excellent cosmetic outcomes at 2 years.

In terms of adherence, the whole breast radiation therapy protocol was feasible in most patients.

Of note, among patients without a breast preoperative MRI, the 5-year rate of local recurrence was significantly higher, at 22.6% (n = 14) at 5 years, compared with 1.7% among the 180 patients who did have a preoperative MRI (P = .002). However, Dr. Rosenkranz said these differences should be interpreted with caution.

“We may look at these data and think we should consider preoperative breast MRI in patients who do have known multiple ipsilateral breast cancer, although I think this cohort was certainly much too small to draw definitive conclusions, and this was not a planned secondary endpoint of the trial,” she said during her presentation.
 

Most prefer breast conservation, when possible

Overall, the findings are important considering the array of known benefits of breast conservation over mastectomy, Dr. Rosenkranz concluded.

“The reason this is so important is that we know that patients who undergo breast conservation report improved quality of life, self-esteem, and body image, and therefore it’s incumbent on us as surgeons to expand the indications for breast conservation where we can,” she told the audience.

Speaking with this news organization, she added that the decision-making around breast conservation versus mastectomy can be complicated, and some women do opt for mastectomy because of a variety of factors; therefore, “tailoring therapy to the individual goals and priorities in addition to the disease characteristics is critical.”

That said, she added that “the majority of patients who are eligible for breast conservation do prefer this option.”

Dr. Rosenkranz and Dr. Cody have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – Women with breast cancer who have several tumors in one breast do not necessarily need to have a mastectomy, as new data show a low risk of recurrence at 5 years when they are treated with breast-conserving therapy and radiation.

“[The study] proves the oncologic safety of breast conservation in women with two or three sites of disease, making this a very reasonable option for (previously reluctant) surgeons to present to patients,” first author Kari Rosenkranz, MD, an associate professor at Dartmouth Health in Norwich, Vt., said in an interview.

The findings were presented here at the International Conference on Surgical Cancer Care (SSO 2023), and were published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Commenting on the study, Hiram S. Cody III, MD, an attending surgeon and professor of surgery at Weill Cornell Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, in New York, said the findings provide valuable new evidence on the issue.

“This is an important study confirming that breast conservation is feasible and safe for women with multiple ipsilateral breast cancers, with excellent results comparable to those for women with unifocal (single site) disease,” he said in an interview.

Although there have been as many as seven previous randomized trials that have shown identical outcomes in survival and local control of disease with breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy, all those studies excluded patients with more than one site of disease.

At present, many surgeons and guidelines continue to recommend mastectomy for women with multiple-site tumors, based on older data that showed higher recurrence rates.

That is why the new study is so important, Dr. Cody explained. “Here, we see in a prospective trial that breast-conserving therapy is feasible for those with more than one site of disease as well, with high survival and very low rates of local recurrence,” he emphasized.

Dr. Cody noted that “the ideal candidate would be a woman with relatively small tumor size and a breast large enough that the multiple excisions could be performed with a good cosmetic result.”

“We have followed this approach for some time and hope that with the publication of these results more surgeons will recommend this approach for suitable patients,” he said.

The new results were also highlighted in a press release from Mayo Clinic highlighting the Journal of Clinical Oncology publication. Lead author of the article, surgical oncologist Judy Boughey, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., commented: “I am excited about these findings because it will empower patients and the multidisciplinary care teams caring for patients to be thinking about this option for women who may want to preserve their breast.”

This study showed the rate of cancer local recurrence was 3.1%, she noted. This is an excellent outcome and is similar to the local recurrence rate for patients with a single tumor in a breast who had breast-conserving therapy, Dr. Boughey said.

Historically, women with multiple tumors in one breast have been advised to have a mastectomy. Now, patients can be offered a less invasive option with faster recovery, resulting in better patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcomes, she added.


 

Study details

This study, known as the ACOSOG (Alliance) Z11102 trial, was a phase 2 trial conducted in 204 patients enrolled between 2012 and 2016 who had two or three sites of biopsy-proven breast cancer (each site less rhan 5 cm in size, with cN0 or cN1 disease).

These patients were a median age of 61 years, and 83.5% were ER-positive/HER2-negative, 11.5% were HER2-positive, 5.0% were ER-negative/HER2-negative, and 77.5% were node-negative.

All patients were treated with breast conservation surgery, including lumpectomy resected to negative margins, followed by whole breast radiation with a cavity boost to all lumpectomy beds.

With a median follow-up of 66.4 months, six patients developed local recurrence, with five of the recurrences occurring in the ipsilateral breast and one in the chest wall.

For the primary endpoint, the six recurrences represented an estimated cumulative incidence of local recurrence of 3.1% (95% CI, 1.3-6.4), well below the cutoff of 8% that was determined to be the acceptable 5-year local recurrence rate based on historic recurrence rates for unifocal disease, Dr. Rosenkranz explained.

There were no cases of synchronous local and distant recurrences, six contralateral breast cancers, and three new primary nonbreast cancers. Eight patients died, including one related to breast cancer.

There were no significant associations between risk of local recurrence and factors including patient age, number of sites of preoperative biopsy-proven breast cancer, HER2 status, and pathologic T and N category.

In terms of secondary endpoints, 14 patients (7.1%) converted to mastectomy because of positive margins, while 67.6% achieved margin-negative excision in a single operation.

Regarding cosmesis, 70.6% of patients reported good or excellent cosmetic outcomes at 2 years.

In terms of adherence, the whole breast radiation therapy protocol was feasible in most patients.

Of note, among patients without a breast preoperative MRI, the 5-year rate of local recurrence was significantly higher, at 22.6% (n = 14) at 5 years, compared with 1.7% among the 180 patients who did have a preoperative MRI (P = .002). However, Dr. Rosenkranz said these differences should be interpreted with caution.

“We may look at these data and think we should consider preoperative breast MRI in patients who do have known multiple ipsilateral breast cancer, although I think this cohort was certainly much too small to draw definitive conclusions, and this was not a planned secondary endpoint of the trial,” she said during her presentation.
 

Most prefer breast conservation, when possible

Overall, the findings are important considering the array of known benefits of breast conservation over mastectomy, Dr. Rosenkranz concluded.

“The reason this is so important is that we know that patients who undergo breast conservation report improved quality of life, self-esteem, and body image, and therefore it’s incumbent on us as surgeons to expand the indications for breast conservation where we can,” she told the audience.

Speaking with this news organization, she added that the decision-making around breast conservation versus mastectomy can be complicated, and some women do opt for mastectomy because of a variety of factors; therefore, “tailoring therapy to the individual goals and priorities in addition to the disease characteristics is critical.”

That said, she added that “the majority of patients who are eligible for breast conservation do prefer this option.”

Dr. Rosenkranz and Dr. Cody have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – Women with breast cancer who have several tumors in one breast do not necessarily need to have a mastectomy, as new data show a low risk of recurrence at 5 years when they are treated with breast-conserving therapy and radiation.

“[The study] proves the oncologic safety of breast conservation in women with two or three sites of disease, making this a very reasonable option for (previously reluctant) surgeons to present to patients,” first author Kari Rosenkranz, MD, an associate professor at Dartmouth Health in Norwich, Vt., said in an interview.

The findings were presented here at the International Conference on Surgical Cancer Care (SSO 2023), and were published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Commenting on the study, Hiram S. Cody III, MD, an attending surgeon and professor of surgery at Weill Cornell Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, in New York, said the findings provide valuable new evidence on the issue.

“This is an important study confirming that breast conservation is feasible and safe for women with multiple ipsilateral breast cancers, with excellent results comparable to those for women with unifocal (single site) disease,” he said in an interview.

Although there have been as many as seven previous randomized trials that have shown identical outcomes in survival and local control of disease with breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy, all those studies excluded patients with more than one site of disease.

At present, many surgeons and guidelines continue to recommend mastectomy for women with multiple-site tumors, based on older data that showed higher recurrence rates.

That is why the new study is so important, Dr. Cody explained. “Here, we see in a prospective trial that breast-conserving therapy is feasible for those with more than one site of disease as well, with high survival and very low rates of local recurrence,” he emphasized.

Dr. Cody noted that “the ideal candidate would be a woman with relatively small tumor size and a breast large enough that the multiple excisions could be performed with a good cosmetic result.”

“We have followed this approach for some time and hope that with the publication of these results more surgeons will recommend this approach for suitable patients,” he said.

The new results were also highlighted in a press release from Mayo Clinic highlighting the Journal of Clinical Oncology publication. Lead author of the article, surgical oncologist Judy Boughey, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., commented: “I am excited about these findings because it will empower patients and the multidisciplinary care teams caring for patients to be thinking about this option for women who may want to preserve their breast.”

This study showed the rate of cancer local recurrence was 3.1%, she noted. This is an excellent outcome and is similar to the local recurrence rate for patients with a single tumor in a breast who had breast-conserving therapy, Dr. Boughey said.

Historically, women with multiple tumors in one breast have been advised to have a mastectomy. Now, patients can be offered a less invasive option with faster recovery, resulting in better patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcomes, she added.


 

Study details

This study, known as the ACOSOG (Alliance) Z11102 trial, was a phase 2 trial conducted in 204 patients enrolled between 2012 and 2016 who had two or three sites of biopsy-proven breast cancer (each site less rhan 5 cm in size, with cN0 or cN1 disease).

These patients were a median age of 61 years, and 83.5% were ER-positive/HER2-negative, 11.5% were HER2-positive, 5.0% were ER-negative/HER2-negative, and 77.5% were node-negative.

All patients were treated with breast conservation surgery, including lumpectomy resected to negative margins, followed by whole breast radiation with a cavity boost to all lumpectomy beds.

With a median follow-up of 66.4 months, six patients developed local recurrence, with five of the recurrences occurring in the ipsilateral breast and one in the chest wall.

For the primary endpoint, the six recurrences represented an estimated cumulative incidence of local recurrence of 3.1% (95% CI, 1.3-6.4), well below the cutoff of 8% that was determined to be the acceptable 5-year local recurrence rate based on historic recurrence rates for unifocal disease, Dr. Rosenkranz explained.

There were no cases of synchronous local and distant recurrences, six contralateral breast cancers, and three new primary nonbreast cancers. Eight patients died, including one related to breast cancer.

There were no significant associations between risk of local recurrence and factors including patient age, number of sites of preoperative biopsy-proven breast cancer, HER2 status, and pathologic T and N category.

In terms of secondary endpoints, 14 patients (7.1%) converted to mastectomy because of positive margins, while 67.6% achieved margin-negative excision in a single operation.

Regarding cosmesis, 70.6% of patients reported good or excellent cosmetic outcomes at 2 years.

In terms of adherence, the whole breast radiation therapy protocol was feasible in most patients.

Of note, among patients without a breast preoperative MRI, the 5-year rate of local recurrence was significantly higher, at 22.6% (n = 14) at 5 years, compared with 1.7% among the 180 patients who did have a preoperative MRI (P = .002). However, Dr. Rosenkranz said these differences should be interpreted with caution.

“We may look at these data and think we should consider preoperative breast MRI in patients who do have known multiple ipsilateral breast cancer, although I think this cohort was certainly much too small to draw definitive conclusions, and this was not a planned secondary endpoint of the trial,” she said during her presentation.
 

Most prefer breast conservation, when possible

Overall, the findings are important considering the array of known benefits of breast conservation over mastectomy, Dr. Rosenkranz concluded.

“The reason this is so important is that we know that patients who undergo breast conservation report improved quality of life, self-esteem, and body image, and therefore it’s incumbent on us as surgeons to expand the indications for breast conservation where we can,” she told the audience.

Speaking with this news organization, she added that the decision-making around breast conservation versus mastectomy can be complicated, and some women do opt for mastectomy because of a variety of factors; therefore, “tailoring therapy to the individual goals and priorities in addition to the disease characteristics is critical.”

That said, she added that “the majority of patients who are eligible for breast conservation do prefer this option.”

Dr. Rosenkranz and Dr. Cody have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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