Cancer

Background

To close the food insecurity gap by providing food assistance and increasing opportunities for screening in Veterans receiving cancer treatment at a VA outpatient cancer clinic. Food Insecurity is associated with chronic disease such as cancer given insufficient access to nutritious foods leading to nutritional deficiencies and worsening health outcomes. The rates of food insecurity among Veterans revealed 28% of female veterans and 16% overall in male Veterans were faced with limited or uncertain access to adequate food.

Methods

A pivotal distress screening occurs at time of education consult or cycle 1 day 1 of antineoplastic therapy. A positive screening for any practical concern generates a discussion about food insecurity. A positive distress screen triggers an oncology social work referral to complete a systematic screening assessing circumstances and offering resources for needs (ACORN).

Results

Root cause analysis uncovered 24% of Veterans with cancer screened positive for food insecurity in the 9E oncology outpatient clinic. Post-implementation of robust screenings and conversation initiatives identified 36 unique Veterans who received 251 meals from July to December 2024.

Sustainability/Scalability

Prospective screening of Veterans at the time of a cancer diagnosis and ongoing screening during cancer treatment is the first step toward uncovering food insecurity and addressing this social determinate of health. A standard operating procedure following VA guidance and distress management guidelines should be updated as required. Oversight of the cancer leadership team annually evaluates the distress process, and the findings are reported to the cancer committee.

Conclusions

Uncovering food insecurity in Veterans at time of diagnosis and during cancer treatment is critical to optimize treatment outcomes. A systematic and robust screening standard operating procedure is key to implement. Veterans are a unique population with a spectrum of socioeconomic needs. Case management conferences or weekly huddles to discuss the Veteran’s needs will ensure food insecurity is addressed. Collection and analysis of screening data will highlight a program’s food insecurity need and supports community partnerships to available food resources and the opportunity to create a cancer outpatient clinic food hub for Veterans receiving cancer treatment.

Background

To close the food insecurity gap by providing food assistance and increasing opportunities for screening in Veterans receiving cancer treatment at a VA outpatient cancer clinic. Food Insecurity is associated with chronic disease such as cancer given insufficient access to nutritious foods leading to nutritional deficiencies and worsening health outcomes. The rates of food insecurity among Veterans revealed 28% of female veterans and 16% overall in male Veterans were faced with limited or uncertain access to adequate food.

Methods

A pivotal distress screening occurs at time of education consult or cycle 1 day 1 of antineoplastic therapy. A positive screening for any practical concern generates a discussion about food insecurity. A positive distress screen triggers an oncology social work referral to complete a systematic screening assessing circumstances and offering resources for needs (ACORN).

Results

Root cause analysis uncovered 24% of Veterans with cancer screened positive for food insecurity in the 9E oncology outpatient clinic. Post-implementation of robust screenings and conversation initiatives identified 36 unique Veterans who received 251 meals from July to December 2024.

Sustainability/Scalability

Prospective screening of Veterans at the time of a cancer diagnosis and ongoing screening during cancer treatment is the first step toward uncovering food insecurity and addressing this social determinate of health. A standard operating procedure following VA guidance and distress management guidelines should be updated as required. Oversight of the cancer leadership team annually evaluates the distress process, and the findings are reported to the cancer committee.

Conclusions

Uncovering food insecurity in Veterans at time of diagnosis and during cancer treatment is critical to optimize treatment outcomes. A systematic and robust screening standard operating procedure is key to implement. Veterans are a unique population with a spectrum of socioeconomic needs. Case management conferences or weekly huddles to discuss the Veteran’s needs will ensure food insecurity is addressed. Collection and analysis of screening data will highlight a program’s food insecurity need and supports community partnerships to available food resources and the opportunity to create a cancer outpatient clinic food hub for Veterans receiving cancer treatment.

Background

To close the food insecurity gap by providing food assistance and increasing opportunities for screening in Veterans receiving cancer treatment at a VA outpatient cancer clinic. Food Insecurity is associated with chronic disease such as cancer given insufficient access to nutritious foods leading to nutritional deficiencies and worsening health outcomes. The rates of food insecurity among Veterans revealed 28% of female veterans and 16% overall in male Veterans were faced with limited or uncertain access to adequate food.

Methods

A pivotal distress screening occurs at time of education consult or cycle 1 day 1 of antineoplastic therapy. A positive screening for any practical concern generates a discussion about food insecurity. A positive distress screen triggers an oncology social work referral to complete a systematic screening assessing circumstances and offering resources for needs (ACORN).

Results

Root cause analysis uncovered 24% of Veterans with cancer screened positive for food insecurity in the 9E oncology outpatient clinic. Post-implementation of robust screenings and conversation initiatives identified 36 unique Veterans who received 251 meals from July to December 2024.

Sustainability/Scalability

Prospective screening of Veterans at the time of a cancer diagnosis and ongoing screening during cancer treatment is the first step toward uncovering food insecurity and addressing this social determinate of health. A standard operating procedure following VA guidance and distress management guidelines should be updated as required. Oversight of the cancer leadership team annually evaluates the distress process, and the findings are reported to the cancer committee.

Conclusions

Uncovering food insecurity in Veterans at time of diagnosis and during cancer treatment is critical to optimize treatment outcomes. A systematic and robust screening standard operating procedure is key to implement. Veterans are a unique population with a spectrum of socioeconomic needs. Case management conferences or weekly huddles to discuss the Veteran’s needs will ensure food insecurity is addressed. Collection and analysis of screening data will highlight a program’s food insecurity need and supports community partnerships to available food resources and the opportunity to create a cancer outpatient clinic food hub for Veterans receiving cancer treatment.

Purpose

The Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry (VACCR) is a data management system for cancer surveillance and epidemiologic-based efforts, seeking to reduce the overall cancer burden. In 2024, the local VACCR successfully implemented a Structured Query Language (SQL) code, created to identify documents in the electronic medical record (EMR) with associated ICD-10 codes matching reportable cancer cases in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) list. In 2025, code application expansion began at four additional VISN9 sites.

Outcomes Studied

Accuracy and usefulness of SQL code application in a significantly larger population and a diagnosis-specific population.

Methods

Local Cancer Program leadership collaborated with VISN9 leadership to expand the SQL code to the four sites’ EMR, identifying the Veteran’s name, social security number, location by city/state/county, and visit-associated data including location, ICD-10 code, and visit year. Data validation focused on ICD- 10-specific data and quality replication.

Results

After SQL code application to Mt Home TN VACCR data, 750 unique, randomized charts from 2015-2025 were selected for accuracy review. Data validation found that 90.5% (679) had a reportable cancer; 14.9% (112) were not entered into VACCR. 9.5% (71) were not reportable. The SQL code was applied to Lexington data to identify colorectal cancer (CRC) (ICD-10 codes C17-C21.9). 746 charts from 2015-2025 were identified. 88.9% (663) had a reportable CRC; 14.9% (111) of those were not entered into VACCR, and 11% (83) were not reportable. Most cases not entered into VACCR at both sites were cases in which the majority of care was provided through Care in the Community (CITC). Historically, identification of CITC-provided oncologic care has been manual and notoriously difficult.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated the feasibility and accuracy of the SQL code in the identification of Veterans with diagnoses matching the SEER list in a large population and at a diagnosis-specific level. VISN-wide use of the report will increase efficiency and timeliness of data entry into VACCR, especially related to care provided through CITC. An improved understanding of oncologic care in the VISN would provide critical data to VISN executive leadership, enabling them to advocate for resources, targeted interventions, and access to care.

Purpose

The Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry (VACCR) is a data management system for cancer surveillance and epidemiologic-based efforts, seeking to reduce the overall cancer burden. In 2024, the local VACCR successfully implemented a Structured Query Language (SQL) code, created to identify documents in the electronic medical record (EMR) with associated ICD-10 codes matching reportable cancer cases in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) list. In 2025, code application expansion began at four additional VISN9 sites.

Outcomes Studied

Accuracy and usefulness of SQL code application in a significantly larger population and a diagnosis-specific population.

Methods

Local Cancer Program leadership collaborated with VISN9 leadership to expand the SQL code to the four sites’ EMR, identifying the Veteran’s name, social security number, location by city/state/county, and visit-associated data including location, ICD-10 code, and visit year. Data validation focused on ICD- 10-specific data and quality replication.

Results

After SQL code application to Mt Home TN VACCR data, 750 unique, randomized charts from 2015-2025 were selected for accuracy review. Data validation found that 90.5% (679) had a reportable cancer; 14.9% (112) were not entered into VACCR. 9.5% (71) were not reportable. The SQL code was applied to Lexington data to identify colorectal cancer (CRC) (ICD-10 codes C17-C21.9). 746 charts from 2015-2025 were identified. 88.9% (663) had a reportable CRC; 14.9% (111) of those were not entered into VACCR, and 11% (83) were not reportable. Most cases not entered into VACCR at both sites were cases in which the majority of care was provided through Care in the Community (CITC). Historically, identification of CITC-provided oncologic care has been manual and notoriously difficult.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated the feasibility and accuracy of the SQL code in the identification of Veterans with diagnoses matching the SEER list in a large population and at a diagnosis-specific level. VISN-wide use of the report will increase efficiency and timeliness of data entry into VACCR, especially related to care provided through CITC. An improved understanding of oncologic care in the VISN would provide critical data to VISN executive leadership, enabling them to advocate for resources, targeted interventions, and access to care.

Purpose

The Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry (VACCR) is a data management system for cancer surveillance and epidemiologic-based efforts, seeking to reduce the overall cancer burden. In 2024, the local VACCR successfully implemented a Structured Query Language (SQL) code, created to identify documents in the electronic medical record (EMR) with associated ICD-10 codes matching reportable cancer cases in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) list. In 2025, code application expansion began at four additional VISN9 sites.

Outcomes Studied

Accuracy and usefulness of SQL code application in a significantly larger population and a diagnosis-specific population.

Methods

Local Cancer Program leadership collaborated with VISN9 leadership to expand the SQL code to the four sites’ EMR, identifying the Veteran’s name, social security number, location by city/state/county, and visit-associated data including location, ICD-10 code, and visit year. Data validation focused on ICD- 10-specific data and quality replication.

Results

After SQL code application to Mt Home TN VACCR data, 750 unique, randomized charts from 2015-2025 were selected for accuracy review. Data validation found that 90.5% (679) had a reportable cancer; 14.9% (112) were not entered into VACCR. 9.5% (71) were not reportable. The SQL code was applied to Lexington data to identify colorectal cancer (CRC) (ICD-10 codes C17-C21.9). 746 charts from 2015-2025 were identified. 88.9% (663) had a reportable CRC; 14.9% (111) of those were not entered into VACCR, and 11% (83) were not reportable. Most cases not entered into VACCR at both sites were cases in which the majority of care was provided through Care in the Community (CITC). Historically, identification of CITC-provided oncologic care has been manual and notoriously difficult.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated the feasibility and accuracy of the SQL code in the identification of Veterans with diagnoses matching the SEER list in a large population and at a diagnosis-specific level. VISN-wide use of the report will increase efficiency and timeliness of data entry into VACCR, especially related to care provided through CITC. An improved understanding of oncologic care in the VISN would provide critical data to VISN executive leadership, enabling them to advocate for resources, targeted interventions, and access to care.

Background

In December of 2023, a workgroup at VA Connecticut Healthcare System (“VACHS”) initiated a quality improvement project to use the weekly GI Tumor Board meeting to identify patients who would benefit from PHASER testing. The PHASER panel includes two genes that are involved in the metabolism of two commonly used chemotherapy drugs in this patient population. Our goal was to identify patients with potentially impaired metabolism of 5FU and/or irinotecan prior to initiating treatment so that the doses of the appropriate drugs could be adjusted, leading to less toxicity for patients while on treatment and fewer lingering side-effects from treatment.

Results

Here we report outcomes based on 12 months of data. We reviewed the charts of all patients who received 5-FU or irinotecan during the period 1/1/24-12/31/24 based on pharmacy records. We separately identified all VACHS patients with newly diagnosed GI cancers in 2024 using data generated by the Tumor Registrar. 39 patients met criteria for PHASER testing. Of those, 37/39 (95%) patients got the testing. The 2 additional patients who were identified during our data analysis will be offered PHASER testing. Of the 37 patients who were tested, 7 patients (19%) had a genetic variant that could potentially impact chemotherapy dosing. 3 of these 7 patients were treated with chemotherapy and did require dose-adjustment. Of note, 100% of patients diagnosed with a new GI malignancy at VA Connecticut in 2024 whose treatment plan included possible chemotherapy with 5FU or Irinotecan got PHASER testing. In one year, this best practice is now our standard procedure.

Conclusions

Despite access to pharmacogenomic testing at VA, there can be variations between VA sites in terms of uptake of this new testing. VA Connecticut’s PHASER testing initiative for patients with GI malignancies is a model that can be replicated throughout VA. This initiative is part of a broader focus at VACHS on “pre-habilitation” and pre-treatment testing that is designed to reduce toxicity of treatment and improve quality of life for cancer survivors.

Background

In December of 2023, a workgroup at VA Connecticut Healthcare System (“VACHS”) initiated a quality improvement project to use the weekly GI Tumor Board meeting to identify patients who would benefit from PHASER testing. The PHASER panel includes two genes that are involved in the metabolism of two commonly used chemotherapy drugs in this patient population. Our goal was to identify patients with potentially impaired metabolism of 5FU and/or irinotecan prior to initiating treatment so that the doses of the appropriate drugs could be adjusted, leading to less toxicity for patients while on treatment and fewer lingering side-effects from treatment.

Results

Here we report outcomes based on 12 months of data. We reviewed the charts of all patients who received 5-FU or irinotecan during the period 1/1/24-12/31/24 based on pharmacy records. We separately identified all VACHS patients with newly diagnosed GI cancers in 2024 using data generated by the Tumor Registrar. 39 patients met criteria for PHASER testing. Of those, 37/39 (95%) patients got the testing. The 2 additional patients who were identified during our data analysis will be offered PHASER testing. Of the 37 patients who were tested, 7 patients (19%) had a genetic variant that could potentially impact chemotherapy dosing. 3 of these 7 patients were treated with chemotherapy and did require dose-adjustment. Of note, 100% of patients diagnosed with a new GI malignancy at VA Connecticut in 2024 whose treatment plan included possible chemotherapy with 5FU or Irinotecan got PHASER testing. In one year, this best practice is now our standard procedure.

Conclusions

Despite access to pharmacogenomic testing at VA, there can be variations between VA sites in terms of uptake of this new testing. VA Connecticut’s PHASER testing initiative for patients with GI malignancies is a model that can be replicated throughout VA. This initiative is part of a broader focus at VACHS on “pre-habilitation” and pre-treatment testing that is designed to reduce toxicity of treatment and improve quality of life for cancer survivors.

Background

In December of 2023, a workgroup at VA Connecticut Healthcare System (“VACHS”) initiated a quality improvement project to use the weekly GI Tumor Board meeting to identify patients who would benefit from PHASER testing. The PHASER panel includes two genes that are involved in the metabolism of two commonly used chemotherapy drugs in this patient population. Our goal was to identify patients with potentially impaired metabolism of 5FU and/or irinotecan prior to initiating treatment so that the doses of the appropriate drugs could be adjusted, leading to less toxicity for patients while on treatment and fewer lingering side-effects from treatment.

Results

Here we report outcomes based on 12 months of data. We reviewed the charts of all patients who received 5-FU or irinotecan during the period 1/1/24-12/31/24 based on pharmacy records. We separately identified all VACHS patients with newly diagnosed GI cancers in 2024 using data generated by the Tumor Registrar. 39 patients met criteria for PHASER testing. Of those, 37/39 (95%) patients got the testing. The 2 additional patients who were identified during our data analysis will be offered PHASER testing. Of the 37 patients who were tested, 7 patients (19%) had a genetic variant that could potentially impact chemotherapy dosing. 3 of these 7 patients were treated with chemotherapy and did require dose-adjustment. Of note, 100% of patients diagnosed with a new GI malignancy at VA Connecticut in 2024 whose treatment plan included possible chemotherapy with 5FU or Irinotecan got PHASER testing. In one year, this best practice is now our standard procedure.

Conclusions

Despite access to pharmacogenomic testing at VA, there can be variations between VA sites in terms of uptake of this new testing. VA Connecticut’s PHASER testing initiative for patients with GI malignancies is a model that can be replicated throughout VA. This initiative is part of a broader focus at VACHS on “pre-habilitation” and pre-treatment testing that is designed to reduce toxicity of treatment and improve quality of life for cancer survivors.

Background

Early palliative care (PC) has been shown to improve cancer patients’ quality of life, symptom control, disease knowledge, psychological and spiritual health, end-of-life care, and survival, as well as reduce hospital admissions and emergency visits. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the World Health Organization recommend that every patient with advanced cancer should be treated by a multidisciplinary palliative care team early in the course of the disease and in conjunction with anticancer treatment. Despite the documented benefits and the recommendations, early PC is still not often offered in clinical practice.

Results

Through a retrospective data review from July, August, and September 2023, a low percentage of early PC referrals were identified among Veterans with pancreatic, head and neck, and stage IV lung cancer in the Infusion Clinic. Only 48.5% had an early PC referral, which is a referral made within 8 weeks from the time of diagnosis and 3 or more months before death. A survey conducted among oncology providers suggests that the lack of provider knowledge about the scope of PC, the lack of set criteria/protocol to initiate a referral, and provider discomfort in referring patients were thought to hinder early referrals or cause late or/lack of referrals.

Discussion

This quality improvement project aimed to increase the early PC referral rate among advanced cancer patients in the infusion clinic to improve patient outcomes. An early PC referral toolkit was implemented consisting of (a) provider education about the scope of PC, (b) a script to help providers introduce PC as part of the comprehensive care team, (c) a PC brochure for reference, and (d) an Evidence-Based Five-item Screening Checklist to identify patients needing PC.

Conclusions

Nine months of data monitoring and analysis post-implementation revealed a 100% (n=12) early PC referral rate, and 80% (n=12) of providers reported feeling comfortable referring their patients. The project fostered a culture of comprehensive cancer care while empowering providers to make early referrals that improve patients’ multidimensional outcomes. The toolkit remains available to oncology providers and is shared upon request with other VA centers, as it is replicable in most VA settings that offer PC.

Background

Early palliative care (PC) has been shown to improve cancer patients’ quality of life, symptom control, disease knowledge, psychological and spiritual health, end-of-life care, and survival, as well as reduce hospital admissions and emergency visits. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the World Health Organization recommend that every patient with advanced cancer should be treated by a multidisciplinary palliative care team early in the course of the disease and in conjunction with anticancer treatment. Despite the documented benefits and the recommendations, early PC is still not often offered in clinical practice.

Results

Through a retrospective data review from July, August, and September 2023, a low percentage of early PC referrals were identified among Veterans with pancreatic, head and neck, and stage IV lung cancer in the Infusion Clinic. Only 48.5% had an early PC referral, which is a referral made within 8 weeks from the time of diagnosis and 3 or more months before death. A survey conducted among oncology providers suggests that the lack of provider knowledge about the scope of PC, the lack of set criteria/protocol to initiate a referral, and provider discomfort in referring patients were thought to hinder early referrals or cause late or/lack of referrals.

Discussion

This quality improvement project aimed to increase the early PC referral rate among advanced cancer patients in the infusion clinic to improve patient outcomes. An early PC referral toolkit was implemented consisting of (a) provider education about the scope of PC, (b) a script to help providers introduce PC as part of the comprehensive care team, (c) a PC brochure for reference, and (d) an Evidence-Based Five-item Screening Checklist to identify patients needing PC.

Conclusions

Nine months of data monitoring and analysis post-implementation revealed a 100% (n=12) early PC referral rate, and 80% (n=12) of providers reported feeling comfortable referring their patients. The project fostered a culture of comprehensive cancer care while empowering providers to make early referrals that improve patients’ multidimensional outcomes. The toolkit remains available to oncology providers and is shared upon request with other VA centers, as it is replicable in most VA settings that offer PC.

Background

Early palliative care (PC) has been shown to improve cancer patients’ quality of life, symptom control, disease knowledge, psychological and spiritual health, end-of-life care, and survival, as well as reduce hospital admissions and emergency visits. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the World Health Organization recommend that every patient with advanced cancer should be treated by a multidisciplinary palliative care team early in the course of the disease and in conjunction with anticancer treatment. Despite the documented benefits and the recommendations, early PC is still not often offered in clinical practice.

Results

Through a retrospective data review from July, August, and September 2023, a low percentage of early PC referrals were identified among Veterans with pancreatic, head and neck, and stage IV lung cancer in the Infusion Clinic. Only 48.5% had an early PC referral, which is a referral made within 8 weeks from the time of diagnosis and 3 or more months before death. A survey conducted among oncology providers suggests that the lack of provider knowledge about the scope of PC, the lack of set criteria/protocol to initiate a referral, and provider discomfort in referring patients were thought to hinder early referrals or cause late or/lack of referrals.

Discussion

This quality improvement project aimed to increase the early PC referral rate among advanced cancer patients in the infusion clinic to improve patient outcomes. An early PC referral toolkit was implemented consisting of (a) provider education about the scope of PC, (b) a script to help providers introduce PC as part of the comprehensive care team, (c) a PC brochure for reference, and (d) an Evidence-Based Five-item Screening Checklist to identify patients needing PC.

Conclusions

Nine months of data monitoring and analysis post-implementation revealed a 100% (n=12) early PC referral rate, and 80% (n=12) of providers reported feeling comfortable referring their patients. The project fostered a culture of comprehensive cancer care while empowering providers to make early referrals that improve patients’ multidimensional outcomes. The toolkit remains available to oncology providers and is shared upon request with other VA centers, as it is replicable in most VA settings that offer PC.

Background

The American College of Surgeons’ Commission on Cancer (CoC) Accreditation requires establishment of a comprehensive cancer program, multi-disciplinary tumor boards, active cancer registry, quality improvement activities and cancer research.

Methods

In 2022, the Tibor Rubin VA Medical Center (TRVAMC) set out to obtain accreditation through enhancing workforce practices. Changes in workforce practices included (1) leadership engagement; (2) acquisition of staff; (3) enhancing staff efficiency and (4) inter-departmental collaboration, leading to CoC accreditation in August 2024. executive leadership team (ELT) buy-in was essential. ELT engagement included communicating the benefits of accreditation, alignment with organizational mission and values, protected time for Cancer Committee members, Chief of Staff presence in Cancer Committee, commitment to recruiting new staff, and membership in the Medical Executive Council to voice cancer program needs. New staff included a cancer program manager, cancer case conference RN care coordinator, certified oncology data specialist and survivorship nurse practitioner. Staff development included structured and focused training. Enhancing staff efficiency included developing standards of work with clear delineation of duties (delegation of specific CoC standards), decentralizing decision making, a shared governance council, and weekly Cancer Program meetings. These changes allowed staff members to be active, autonomous decision-making participants, and increased efficiency. Inter-departmental collaboration involved Hematology/Oncology, Surgery, Radiation Oncology, Pharmacy, Nutrition, Pathology, Palliative Care, Rehabilitation, Chaplaincy and Cancer Research, with key individuals serving as Cancer Committee members. Each department set performance goals and metrics. Each employee’s contribution was rated in annual performance reviews.

Results

TRVAMC thus elevated cancer care delivery standards through structured workforce practices within the framework of CoC standards required for accreditation. Additionally, the accreditation process achieved desirable and measurable outcomes, e.g. 100% growth in oncology dietitian referrals, 75% increase in early palliative care referrals (TRVAMC ranked in the top 5 in the US), and more than 200 patients enrolled in cancer clinical trials (TRVAMC was the highest enrolling VA in the US to NCI trials in 2024).

Conclusions

Our model demonstrates how strategic improvements in healthcare workforce practices at a VA can directly contribute to sustained improvements in quality and delivery of cancer care services.

Background

The American College of Surgeons’ Commission on Cancer (CoC) Accreditation requires establishment of a comprehensive cancer program, multi-disciplinary tumor boards, active cancer registry, quality improvement activities and cancer research.

Methods

In 2022, the Tibor Rubin VA Medical Center (TRVAMC) set out to obtain accreditation through enhancing workforce practices. Changes in workforce practices included (1) leadership engagement; (2) acquisition of staff; (3) enhancing staff efficiency and (4) inter-departmental collaboration, leading to CoC accreditation in August 2024. executive leadership team (ELT) buy-in was essential. ELT engagement included communicating the benefits of accreditation, alignment with organizational mission and values, protected time for Cancer Committee members, Chief of Staff presence in Cancer Committee, commitment to recruiting new staff, and membership in the Medical Executive Council to voice cancer program needs. New staff included a cancer program manager, cancer case conference RN care coordinator, certified oncology data specialist and survivorship nurse practitioner. Staff development included structured and focused training. Enhancing staff efficiency included developing standards of work with clear delineation of duties (delegation of specific CoC standards), decentralizing decision making, a shared governance council, and weekly Cancer Program meetings. These changes allowed staff members to be active, autonomous decision-making participants, and increased efficiency. Inter-departmental collaboration involved Hematology/Oncology, Surgery, Radiation Oncology, Pharmacy, Nutrition, Pathology, Palliative Care, Rehabilitation, Chaplaincy and Cancer Research, with key individuals serving as Cancer Committee members. Each department set performance goals and metrics. Each employee’s contribution was rated in annual performance reviews.

Results

TRVAMC thus elevated cancer care delivery standards through structured workforce practices within the framework of CoC standards required for accreditation. Additionally, the accreditation process achieved desirable and measurable outcomes, e.g. 100% growth in oncology dietitian referrals, 75% increase in early palliative care referrals (TRVAMC ranked in the top 5 in the US), and more than 200 patients enrolled in cancer clinical trials (TRVAMC was the highest enrolling VA in the US to NCI trials in 2024).

Conclusions

Our model demonstrates how strategic improvements in healthcare workforce practices at a VA can directly contribute to sustained improvements in quality and delivery of cancer care services.

Background

The American College of Surgeons’ Commission on Cancer (CoC) Accreditation requires establishment of a comprehensive cancer program, multi-disciplinary tumor boards, active cancer registry, quality improvement activities and cancer research.

Methods

In 2022, the Tibor Rubin VA Medical Center (TRVAMC) set out to obtain accreditation through enhancing workforce practices. Changes in workforce practices included (1) leadership engagement; (2) acquisition of staff; (3) enhancing staff efficiency and (4) inter-departmental collaboration, leading to CoC accreditation in August 2024. executive leadership team (ELT) buy-in was essential. ELT engagement included communicating the benefits of accreditation, alignment with organizational mission and values, protected time for Cancer Committee members, Chief of Staff presence in Cancer Committee, commitment to recruiting new staff, and membership in the Medical Executive Council to voice cancer program needs. New staff included a cancer program manager, cancer case conference RN care coordinator, certified oncology data specialist and survivorship nurse practitioner. Staff development included structured and focused training. Enhancing staff efficiency included developing standards of work with clear delineation of duties (delegation of specific CoC standards), decentralizing decision making, a shared governance council, and weekly Cancer Program meetings. These changes allowed staff members to be active, autonomous decision-making participants, and increased efficiency. Inter-departmental collaboration involved Hematology/Oncology, Surgery, Radiation Oncology, Pharmacy, Nutrition, Pathology, Palliative Care, Rehabilitation, Chaplaincy and Cancer Research, with key individuals serving as Cancer Committee members. Each department set performance goals and metrics. Each employee’s contribution was rated in annual performance reviews.

Results

TRVAMC thus elevated cancer care delivery standards through structured workforce practices within the framework of CoC standards required for accreditation. Additionally, the accreditation process achieved desirable and measurable outcomes, e.g. 100% growth in oncology dietitian referrals, 75% increase in early palliative care referrals (TRVAMC ranked in the top 5 in the US), and more than 200 patients enrolled in cancer clinical trials (TRVAMC was the highest enrolling VA in the US to NCI trials in 2024).

Conclusions

Our model demonstrates how strategic improvements in healthcare workforce practices at a VA can directly contribute to sustained improvements in quality and delivery of cancer care services.

Background

The William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (Madison VA) prioritized the goal of ensuring patients with cancer are receiving guideline-based precision oncology care, including comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and germline genomics consultation based on evidence-based medicine and the VA Clinical Pathways. A local Precision Oncology Program was created to assist in review of CGP results including documentation in the electronic medical record (EMR) and recommendations for treatment or additional testing as appropriate. The program, which began in February 2024, focused on patients with prostate cancer initially. This was expanded to all genitourinary cancers in April 2024, non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) in August 2024, and all cancers in Dec 2024.

Results

Since the implementation of the Madison VA Precision Oncology Program, CGP was reviewed for 73 unique Veterans leading to 281 recommendations including: 25 FDA approved therapies, 2 off-label standard of care treatment options, 11 patients with potential clinical trial eligibility at the Madison VA. Forty-eight patients had no actionable mutations and 44 were recommended for additional germline genetics counseling. For patients with metastatic prostate cancer, after 1 year of program implementation, an increase was seen in the percentage of patients receiving guideline-based CGP, the percentage of actionable alterations identified, and the percentage of patients identified as potentially eligible for a clinical trial open at the Madison VA based on CGP. The percentage of patients with an interfacility consult to the Clinical Cancer Genetics Service was also increased. For patients with metastatic NSCLC, after 6 months of program implementation, an increase was seen in the percentage of patients appropriately receiving CGP, the percentage of actionable alterations identified, and the percentage of patients on targeted therapy. In all cases where an actionable alteration was not being targeted, the treatment option was not yet appropriate for the stage of disease.

Conclusions

The implementation of preemptive review of all CGP results at the Madison VA through the Precision Oncology Program has increased uptake and awareness of CGP results and potential treatment options, improving the access of targeted treatments and clinical trial opportunities for Veterans with cancer.

Background

The William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (Madison VA) prioritized the goal of ensuring patients with cancer are receiving guideline-based precision oncology care, including comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and germline genomics consultation based on evidence-based medicine and the VA Clinical Pathways. A local Precision Oncology Program was created to assist in review of CGP results including documentation in the electronic medical record (EMR) and recommendations for treatment or additional testing as appropriate. The program, which began in February 2024, focused on patients with prostate cancer initially. This was expanded to all genitourinary cancers in April 2024, non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) in August 2024, and all cancers in Dec 2024.

Results

Since the implementation of the Madison VA Precision Oncology Program, CGP was reviewed for 73 unique Veterans leading to 281 recommendations including: 25 FDA approved therapies, 2 off-label standard of care treatment options, 11 patients with potential clinical trial eligibility at the Madison VA. Forty-eight patients had no actionable mutations and 44 were recommended for additional germline genetics counseling. For patients with metastatic prostate cancer, after 1 year of program implementation, an increase was seen in the percentage of patients receiving guideline-based CGP, the percentage of actionable alterations identified, and the percentage of patients identified as potentially eligible for a clinical trial open at the Madison VA based on CGP. The percentage of patients with an interfacility consult to the Clinical Cancer Genetics Service was also increased. For patients with metastatic NSCLC, after 6 months of program implementation, an increase was seen in the percentage of patients appropriately receiving CGP, the percentage of actionable alterations identified, and the percentage of patients on targeted therapy. In all cases where an actionable alteration was not being targeted, the treatment option was not yet appropriate for the stage of disease.

Conclusions

The implementation of preemptive review of all CGP results at the Madison VA through the Precision Oncology Program has increased uptake and awareness of CGP results and potential treatment options, improving the access of targeted treatments and clinical trial opportunities for Veterans with cancer.

Background

The William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (Madison VA) prioritized the goal of ensuring patients with cancer are receiving guideline-based precision oncology care, including comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and germline genomics consultation based on evidence-based medicine and the VA Clinical Pathways. A local Precision Oncology Program was created to assist in review of CGP results including documentation in the electronic medical record (EMR) and recommendations for treatment or additional testing as appropriate. The program, which began in February 2024, focused on patients with prostate cancer initially. This was expanded to all genitourinary cancers in April 2024, non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) in August 2024, and all cancers in Dec 2024.

Results

Since the implementation of the Madison VA Precision Oncology Program, CGP was reviewed for 73 unique Veterans leading to 281 recommendations including: 25 FDA approved therapies, 2 off-label standard of care treatment options, 11 patients with potential clinical trial eligibility at the Madison VA. Forty-eight patients had no actionable mutations and 44 were recommended for additional germline genetics counseling. For patients with metastatic prostate cancer, after 1 year of program implementation, an increase was seen in the percentage of patients receiving guideline-based CGP, the percentage of actionable alterations identified, and the percentage of patients identified as potentially eligible for a clinical trial open at the Madison VA based on CGP. The percentage of patients with an interfacility consult to the Clinical Cancer Genetics Service was also increased. For patients with metastatic NSCLC, after 6 months of program implementation, an increase was seen in the percentage of patients appropriately receiving CGP, the percentage of actionable alterations identified, and the percentage of patients on targeted therapy. In all cases where an actionable alteration was not being targeted, the treatment option was not yet appropriate for the stage of disease.

Conclusions

The implementation of preemptive review of all CGP results at the Madison VA through the Precision Oncology Program has increased uptake and awareness of CGP results and potential treatment options, improving the access of targeted treatments and clinical trial opportunities for Veterans with cancer.

Background

There are an estimated 18 million cancer survivors in the US with unique needs including specific surveillance imaging, testing for recurrence, monitoring for and managing late effects of cancer treatments, and for second malignancies. Survivorship care is an unmet need in most VAHC. Purpose: Assess implementation outcomes of a Survivorship Clinic.

Methods

A Survivorship Clinic was initiated comprising of a Survivorship APRN and Nurse Navigator. A referral process and workflow were created. Medical and Radiation Oncology providers were educated regarding availability of survivorship services. We describe the results of the Survivorship Clinic 2021-2025 including demographics, diagnoses and referral patterns.

Results

1,332 visits were completed for 424 patients. 2021 (Oct-Dec): 21, 2022: 219, 2023: 424, 2024: 508, 2025 (Jan-Mar): 160. 364 men and 60 women. Cancer diagnoses seen: lung: 108, lymphoma: 62, colorectal: 52, breast: 45, head and neck: 40, melanoma: 28, NET: 23, testicular: 13, bladder: 13, esophageal: 10, renal: 7, sarcomas: 7, anal: 6, HCC: 6, hepatobiliary: 6, gastric/GIST: 5, leukemia: 5, pancreatic: 5, prostate: 5, Merkel cell: 3, SCC: 3, thymus: 3, uterine: 2, 1 each appendix, anaplastic astrocytoma, periosteal carcinoma, poorly differentiated basaloid chest wall carcinoma, and small intestine. For symptom management the following referrals were placed: Rehab (all departments) : 71, Psychology/Whole Health/THRIVE: 52, Gastroenterology: 43, Nutrition: 24, Dermatology: 20, Urology, ED: 16, Pulmonology: 15, Plastic Surgery: 15, ENT: 12, LIVESTRONG YMCA: 10, Genetics: 9, General Surgery: 4, Neurology: 4, Breast Clinic: 3, Dental: 3, Neurosurgery: 2, Ophthalmology: 2, Pain Management: 2, Radiation Oncology: 2, Wound Care: 2, Pharmacy: 1, and Rheumatology: 1. Survivorship care plans were created and provided to all patients.

Conclusions

Since 2021, the Cancer Survivorship Clinic, operated by an APRN, has successfully served 424 cancer survivors encompassing a wide range of cancers. The disproportionately low number of prostate cancer survivors referred may be reflective of their care being managed by Urology, and presents an opportunity for future growth.

Implications for VA

Having a Survivorship Clinic provides cancer survivors specialized services and meets their unique needs; at the same allowing for improved capacity for new active cancer referrals for the Oncology Clinics.

Background

There are an estimated 18 million cancer survivors in the US with unique needs including specific surveillance imaging, testing for recurrence, monitoring for and managing late effects of cancer treatments, and for second malignancies. Survivorship care is an unmet need in most VAHC. Purpose: Assess implementation outcomes of a Survivorship Clinic.

Methods

A Survivorship Clinic was initiated comprising of a Survivorship APRN and Nurse Navigator. A referral process and workflow were created. Medical and Radiation Oncology providers were educated regarding availability of survivorship services. We describe the results of the Survivorship Clinic 2021-2025 including demographics, diagnoses and referral patterns.

Results

1,332 visits were completed for 424 patients. 2021 (Oct-Dec): 21, 2022: 219, 2023: 424, 2024: 508, 2025 (Jan-Mar): 160. 364 men and 60 women. Cancer diagnoses seen: lung: 108, lymphoma: 62, colorectal: 52, breast: 45, head and neck: 40, melanoma: 28, NET: 23, testicular: 13, bladder: 13, esophageal: 10, renal: 7, sarcomas: 7, anal: 6, HCC: 6, hepatobiliary: 6, gastric/GIST: 5, leukemia: 5, pancreatic: 5, prostate: 5, Merkel cell: 3, SCC: 3, thymus: 3, uterine: 2, 1 each appendix, anaplastic astrocytoma, periosteal carcinoma, poorly differentiated basaloid chest wall carcinoma, and small intestine. For symptom management the following referrals were placed: Rehab (all departments) : 71, Psychology/Whole Health/THRIVE: 52, Gastroenterology: 43, Nutrition: 24, Dermatology: 20, Urology, ED: 16, Pulmonology: 15, Plastic Surgery: 15, ENT: 12, LIVESTRONG YMCA: 10, Genetics: 9, General Surgery: 4, Neurology: 4, Breast Clinic: 3, Dental: 3, Neurosurgery: 2, Ophthalmology: 2, Pain Management: 2, Radiation Oncology: 2, Wound Care: 2, Pharmacy: 1, and Rheumatology: 1. Survivorship care plans were created and provided to all patients.

Conclusions

Since 2021, the Cancer Survivorship Clinic, operated by an APRN, has successfully served 424 cancer survivors encompassing a wide range of cancers. The disproportionately low number of prostate cancer survivors referred may be reflective of their care being managed by Urology, and presents an opportunity for future growth.

Implications for VA

Having a Survivorship Clinic provides cancer survivors specialized services and meets their unique needs; at the same allowing for improved capacity for new active cancer referrals for the Oncology Clinics.

Background

There are an estimated 18 million cancer survivors in the US with unique needs including specific surveillance imaging, testing for recurrence, monitoring for and managing late effects of cancer treatments, and for second malignancies. Survivorship care is an unmet need in most VAHC. Purpose: Assess implementation outcomes of a Survivorship Clinic.

Methods

A Survivorship Clinic was initiated comprising of a Survivorship APRN and Nurse Navigator. A referral process and workflow were created. Medical and Radiation Oncology providers were educated regarding availability of survivorship services. We describe the results of the Survivorship Clinic 2021-2025 including demographics, diagnoses and referral patterns.

Results

1,332 visits were completed for 424 patients. 2021 (Oct-Dec): 21, 2022: 219, 2023: 424, 2024: 508, 2025 (Jan-Mar): 160. 364 men and 60 women. Cancer diagnoses seen: lung: 108, lymphoma: 62, colorectal: 52, breast: 45, head and neck: 40, melanoma: 28, NET: 23, testicular: 13, bladder: 13, esophageal: 10, renal: 7, sarcomas: 7, anal: 6, HCC: 6, hepatobiliary: 6, gastric/GIST: 5, leukemia: 5, pancreatic: 5, prostate: 5, Merkel cell: 3, SCC: 3, thymus: 3, uterine: 2, 1 each appendix, anaplastic astrocytoma, periosteal carcinoma, poorly differentiated basaloid chest wall carcinoma, and small intestine. For symptom management the following referrals were placed: Rehab (all departments) : 71, Psychology/Whole Health/THRIVE: 52, Gastroenterology: 43, Nutrition: 24, Dermatology: 20, Urology, ED: 16, Pulmonology: 15, Plastic Surgery: 15, ENT: 12, LIVESTRONG YMCA: 10, Genetics: 9, General Surgery: 4, Neurology: 4, Breast Clinic: 3, Dental: 3, Neurosurgery: 2, Ophthalmology: 2, Pain Management: 2, Radiation Oncology: 2, Wound Care: 2, Pharmacy: 1, and Rheumatology: 1. Survivorship care plans were created and provided to all patients.

Conclusions

Since 2021, the Cancer Survivorship Clinic, operated by an APRN, has successfully served 424 cancer survivors encompassing a wide range of cancers. The disproportionately low number of prostate cancer survivors referred may be reflective of their care being managed by Urology, and presents an opportunity for future growth.

Implications for VA

Having a Survivorship Clinic provides cancer survivors specialized services and meets their unique needs; at the same allowing for improved capacity for new active cancer referrals for the Oncology Clinics.

A bipartisan bill establishing research directives aimed at revealing cancer risks among military aviators and aircrews recently became law.

Spearheaded by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), as well as Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX-11) and Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19), all of whom are veterans, the Aviator Cancer Examination Study (ACES) Act was signed into law on August 14. The ACES Act will address cancer rates among Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps aircrew members by directing the Secretary of the US Department of Veterans Affairs to study cancer incidence and mortality rates among these populations.

Military aviators and aircrews face a 15% to 24% higher rate of cancer compared with the general US population, including a 75% higher rate of melanoma, 31% higher rate of thyroid cancer, 20% higher rate of prostate cancer, and 11% higher rate of female breast cancer, with potential links to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and testicular cancer. These individuals are also diagnosed earlier in life, at the median age of 55 years compared with 67 years. However, further investigation is still needed to understand why. 

“By better understanding the correlation between aviator service and cancer, we can better assist our military and provide more adequate care for our veterans,” Kelly said.

Some reasons for the higher rates of cancer in aviators seem clear, such as the association between dioxin exposure and cancer. In a study of cancer incidence and mortality in Air Force veterans of the Vietnam War, incidence of melanoma and prostate cancer was increased among White veterans who sprayed herbicides during Operation Ranch Hand. The risk of cancer at any site, prostate cancer, and melanoma was increased in the highest dioxin exposure category among veterans who spent ≤ 2 years in Southeast Asia.

However, some links between these veterans and increased cancer rates are less clear. In a review of 28 studies (including 18 studies in military settings), slight evidence was found for associations between jet fuel exposure and various outcomes including cancer. Cosmic ionizing radiation (CIR) exposure is another possible cause. Several epidemiological studies have documented elevated incidence and mortality for several cancers in flight crews, but a link between them and CIR exposure has not been established.

Certain occupations have been associated with increased risk of testicular germ cell tumors, including aircraft maintenance, military pilots, fighter pilots, and aircrews. Those associations led to hypotheses that job-related chemical exposures (eg, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, solvents, paints, hydrocarbons in degreasing/lubricating agents, lubricating oils) may increase risk. A study of young active-duty Air Force servicemen found that pilots and men with aircraft maintenance jobs had elevated tenosynovial giant cell tumor risk, but indicates that further research is needed to “elucidate specific occupational exposures underlying these associations.”

“As a former Navy pilot, there are certain risks that we know and accept come with our service, but we know far less about the health risks that are affecting many aviators and aircrews years later,” Kelly said in a statement. “Veteran aviators and aircrews deserve answers about the correlation between their job and cancer risks so we can reduce those risks for future pilots. Getting this across the finish line has been a bipartisan effort from the start, and I’m proud to see this bill become law so we can deliver real answers and accountability for those who served.”   

“The ACES Act is now the law of the land,” Cotton added. “We owe it to past, present, and future aviators in the armed forces to study the prevalence of cancer among this group of veterans.”

The ACES Act complements Kelly’s bipartisan Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act, which requires Veterans Health Administration facilities to share cancer data with state cancer registries, thereby guaranteeing their inclusion in the national registries. Key provisions of the Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act were included in the first government funding package of fiscal year 2024. 

A bipartisan bill establishing research directives aimed at revealing cancer risks among military aviators and aircrews recently became law.

Spearheaded by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), as well as Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX-11) and Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19), all of whom are veterans, the Aviator Cancer Examination Study (ACES) Act was signed into law on August 14. The ACES Act will address cancer rates among Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps aircrew members by directing the Secretary of the US Department of Veterans Affairs to study cancer incidence and mortality rates among these populations.

Military aviators and aircrews face a 15% to 24% higher rate of cancer compared with the general US population, including a 75% higher rate of melanoma, 31% higher rate of thyroid cancer, 20% higher rate of prostate cancer, and 11% higher rate of female breast cancer, with potential links to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and testicular cancer. These individuals are also diagnosed earlier in life, at the median age of 55 years compared with 67 years. However, further investigation is still needed to understand why. 

“By better understanding the correlation between aviator service and cancer, we can better assist our military and provide more adequate care for our veterans,” Kelly said.

Some reasons for the higher rates of cancer in aviators seem clear, such as the association between dioxin exposure and cancer. In a study of cancer incidence and mortality in Air Force veterans of the Vietnam War, incidence of melanoma and prostate cancer was increased among White veterans who sprayed herbicides during Operation Ranch Hand. The risk of cancer at any site, prostate cancer, and melanoma was increased in the highest dioxin exposure category among veterans who spent ≤ 2 years in Southeast Asia.

However, some links between these veterans and increased cancer rates are less clear. In a review of 28 studies (including 18 studies in military settings), slight evidence was found for associations between jet fuel exposure and various outcomes including cancer. Cosmic ionizing radiation (CIR) exposure is another possible cause. Several epidemiological studies have documented elevated incidence and mortality for several cancers in flight crews, but a link between them and CIR exposure has not been established.

Certain occupations have been associated with increased risk of testicular germ cell tumors, including aircraft maintenance, military pilots, fighter pilots, and aircrews. Those associations led to hypotheses that job-related chemical exposures (eg, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, solvents, paints, hydrocarbons in degreasing/lubricating agents, lubricating oils) may increase risk. A study of young active-duty Air Force servicemen found that pilots and men with aircraft maintenance jobs had elevated tenosynovial giant cell tumor risk, but indicates that further research is needed to “elucidate specific occupational exposures underlying these associations.”

“As a former Navy pilot, there are certain risks that we know and accept come with our service, but we know far less about the health risks that are affecting many aviators and aircrews years later,” Kelly said in a statement. “Veteran aviators and aircrews deserve answers about the correlation between their job and cancer risks so we can reduce those risks for future pilots. Getting this across the finish line has been a bipartisan effort from the start, and I’m proud to see this bill become law so we can deliver real answers and accountability for those who served.”   

“The ACES Act is now the law of the land,” Cotton added. “We owe it to past, present, and future aviators in the armed forces to study the prevalence of cancer among this group of veterans.”

The ACES Act complements Kelly’s bipartisan Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act, which requires Veterans Health Administration facilities to share cancer data with state cancer registries, thereby guaranteeing their inclusion in the national registries. Key provisions of the Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act were included in the first government funding package of fiscal year 2024. 

A bipartisan bill establishing research directives aimed at revealing cancer risks among military aviators and aircrews recently became law.

Spearheaded by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), as well as Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX-11) and Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19), all of whom are veterans, the Aviator Cancer Examination Study (ACES) Act was signed into law on August 14. The ACES Act will address cancer rates among Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps aircrew members by directing the Secretary of the US Department of Veterans Affairs to study cancer incidence and mortality rates among these populations.

Military aviators and aircrews face a 15% to 24% higher rate of cancer compared with the general US population, including a 75% higher rate of melanoma, 31% higher rate of thyroid cancer, 20% higher rate of prostate cancer, and 11% higher rate of female breast cancer, with potential links to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and testicular cancer. These individuals are also diagnosed earlier in life, at the median age of 55 years compared with 67 years. However, further investigation is still needed to understand why. 

“By better understanding the correlation between aviator service and cancer, we can better assist our military and provide more adequate care for our veterans,” Kelly said.

Some reasons for the higher rates of cancer in aviators seem clear, such as the association between dioxin exposure and cancer. In a study of cancer incidence and mortality in Air Force veterans of the Vietnam War, incidence of melanoma and prostate cancer was increased among White veterans who sprayed herbicides during Operation Ranch Hand. The risk of cancer at any site, prostate cancer, and melanoma was increased in the highest dioxin exposure category among veterans who spent ≤ 2 years in Southeast Asia.

However, some links between these veterans and increased cancer rates are less clear. In a review of 28 studies (including 18 studies in military settings), slight evidence was found for associations between jet fuel exposure and various outcomes including cancer. Cosmic ionizing radiation (CIR) exposure is another possible cause. Several epidemiological studies have documented elevated incidence and mortality for several cancers in flight crews, but a link between them and CIR exposure has not been established.

Certain occupations have been associated with increased risk of testicular germ cell tumors, including aircraft maintenance, military pilots, fighter pilots, and aircrews. Those associations led to hypotheses that job-related chemical exposures (eg, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, solvents, paints, hydrocarbons in degreasing/lubricating agents, lubricating oils) may increase risk. A study of young active-duty Air Force servicemen found that pilots and men with aircraft maintenance jobs had elevated tenosynovial giant cell tumor risk, but indicates that further research is needed to “elucidate specific occupational exposures underlying these associations.”

“As a former Navy pilot, there are certain risks that we know and accept come with our service, but we know far less about the health risks that are affecting many aviators and aircrews years later,” Kelly said in a statement. “Veteran aviators and aircrews deserve answers about the correlation between their job and cancer risks so we can reduce those risks for future pilots. Getting this across the finish line has been a bipartisan effort from the start, and I’m proud to see this bill become law so we can deliver real answers and accountability for those who served.”   

“The ACES Act is now the law of the land,” Cotton added. “We owe it to past, present, and future aviators in the armed forces to study the prevalence of cancer among this group of veterans.”

The ACES Act complements Kelly’s bipartisan Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act, which requires Veterans Health Administration facilities to share cancer data with state cancer registries, thereby guaranteeing their inclusion in the national registries. Key provisions of the Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act were included in the first government funding package of fiscal year 2024. 

New data suggest that glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, used to treat diabetes and obesity, may also help guard against obesity-related cancers.

In a large observational study, new GLP-1 agonist users with obesity and diabetes had a significantly lower risk for 14 obesity-related cancers than similar individuals who received dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which are weight-neutral.

This study provides a “reassuring safety signal” showing that GLP-1 drugs are linked to a modest drop in obesity-related cancer risk, and not a higher risk for these cancers, said lead investigator Lucas Mavromatis, medical student at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, during a press conference at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.

However, there were some nuances to the findings. The protective effect of GLP-1 agonists was only significant for colon and rectal cancers and for women, Mavromatis reported. And although GLP-1 users had an 8% lower risk of dying from any cause, the survival benefit was also only significant for women.

Still, the overall “message to patients is GLP-1 receptor treatments remain a strong option for patients with diabetes and obesity and may have an additional, small favorable benefit in cancer,” Mavromatis explained at the press briefing.

'Intriguing Hypothesis'

Obesity is linked to an increased risk of developing more than a dozen cancer types, including esophageal, colon, rectal, stomach, liver, gallbladder, pancreatic, kidney, postmenopausal breast, ovarian, endometrial and thyroid, as well as multiple myeloma and meningiomas.

About 12% of Americans have been prescribed a GLP-1 medication to treat diabetes and/or obesity. However, little is known about how these drugs affect cancer risk.

To investigate, Mavromatis and colleagues used the Optum healthcare database to identify 170,030 adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes from 43 health systems in the United States.

Between 2013 and 2023, half started a GLP-1 agonist and half started a DPP-4 inhibitor, with propensity score matching used to balance characteristics of the two cohorts.

Participants were a mean age of 56.8 years, with an average body mass index of 38.5; more than 70% were White individuals and more than 14% were Black individuals.

During a mean follow-up of 3.9 years, 2501 new obesity-related cancers were identified in the GLP-1 group and 2671 in the DPP-4 group — representing a 7% overall reduced risk for any obesity-related cancer in the GLP-1 group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93).

When analyzing each of the 14 obesity-related cancers separately, the protective link between GLP-1 use and cancer was primarily driven by colon and rectal cancers. GLP-1 users had a 16% lower risk for colon cancer (HR, 0.84) and a 28% lower risk for rectal cancer (HR, 0.72).

“No other cancers had statistically significant associations with GLP-1 use,” Mavromatis told briefing attendees. But “importantly, no cancers had statistically significant adverse associations with GLP-1 use,” he added.

Experts have expressed some concern about a possible link between GLP-1 use and pancreatic cancer given that pancreatitis is a known side effect of GLP-1 use. However, “this is not borne out by epidemiological data,” Mavromatis said.

“Additionally, we were not able to specifically assess medullary thyroid cancer, which is on the warning label for several GLP-1 medications, but we did see a reassuring lack of association between GLP-1 use and thyroid cancer as a whole,” he added.

During follow-up, there were 2783 deaths in the GLP-1 group and 2961 deaths in the DPP-4 group — translating to an 8% lower risk for death due to any cause among GLP-1 users (HR, 0.92; P = .001).

Mavromatis and colleagues observed sex differences as well. Women taking a GLP-1 had an 8% lower risk for obesity-related cancers (HR, 0.92; P = .01) and a 20% lower risk for death from any cause (HR, 0.80; P < .001) compared with women taking a DPP-4 inhibitor.

Among men, researchers found no statistically significant difference between GLP-1 and DPP-4 use for obesity-related cancer risk (HR, 0.95; P = .29) or all-cause mortality (HR, 1.04; P = .34).

Overall, Mavromatis said, it’s important to note that the absolute risk reduction seen in the study is “small and the number of patients that would need to be given one of these medications to prevent an obesity-related cancer, based on our data, would be very large.”

Mavromatis also noted that the length of follow-up was short, and the study assessed primarily older and weaker GLP-1 agonists compared with newer agents on the market. Therefore, longer-term studies with newer GLP-1s are needed to confirm the effects seen as well as safety.

In a statement, ASCO President Robin Zon, MD, said this trial raises the “intriguing hypothesis” that the increasingly popular GLP-1 medications might offer some benefit in reducing the risk of developing cancer.

Zon said she sees many patients with obesity, and given the clear link between cancer and obesity, defining the clinical role of GLP-1 medications in cancer prevention is “important.”

This study “leads us in the direction” of a potential protective effect of GLP-1s on cancer, but “there are a lot of questions that are generated by this particular study, especially as we move forward and we think about prevention of cancers,” Zon told the briefing.

This study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Mavromatis reported no relevant disclosures. Zon reported stock or ownership interests in Oncolytics Biotech, TG Therapeutics, Select Sector SPDR Health Care, AstraZeneca, CRISPR, McKesson, and Berkshire Hathaway.

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

New data suggest that glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, used to treat diabetes and obesity, may also help guard against obesity-related cancers.

In a large observational study, new GLP-1 agonist users with obesity and diabetes had a significantly lower risk for 14 obesity-related cancers than similar individuals who received dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which are weight-neutral.

This study provides a “reassuring safety signal” showing that GLP-1 drugs are linked to a modest drop in obesity-related cancer risk, and not a higher risk for these cancers, said lead investigator Lucas Mavromatis, medical student at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, during a press conference at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.

However, there were some nuances to the findings. The protective effect of GLP-1 agonists was only significant for colon and rectal cancers and for women, Mavromatis reported. And although GLP-1 users had an 8% lower risk of dying from any cause, the survival benefit was also only significant for women.

Still, the overall “message to patients is GLP-1 receptor treatments remain a strong option for patients with diabetes and obesity and may have an additional, small favorable benefit in cancer,” Mavromatis explained at the press briefing.

'Intriguing Hypothesis'

Obesity is linked to an increased risk of developing more than a dozen cancer types, including esophageal, colon, rectal, stomach, liver, gallbladder, pancreatic, kidney, postmenopausal breast, ovarian, endometrial and thyroid, as well as multiple myeloma and meningiomas.

About 12% of Americans have been prescribed a GLP-1 medication to treat diabetes and/or obesity. However, little is known about how these drugs affect cancer risk.

To investigate, Mavromatis and colleagues used the Optum healthcare database to identify 170,030 adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes from 43 health systems in the United States.

Between 2013 and 2023, half started a GLP-1 agonist and half started a DPP-4 inhibitor, with propensity score matching used to balance characteristics of the two cohorts.

Participants were a mean age of 56.8 years, with an average body mass index of 38.5; more than 70% were White individuals and more than 14% were Black individuals.

During a mean follow-up of 3.9 years, 2501 new obesity-related cancers were identified in the GLP-1 group and 2671 in the DPP-4 group — representing a 7% overall reduced risk for any obesity-related cancer in the GLP-1 group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93).

When analyzing each of the 14 obesity-related cancers separately, the protective link between GLP-1 use and cancer was primarily driven by colon and rectal cancers. GLP-1 users had a 16% lower risk for colon cancer (HR, 0.84) and a 28% lower risk for rectal cancer (HR, 0.72).

“No other cancers had statistically significant associations with GLP-1 use,” Mavromatis told briefing attendees. But “importantly, no cancers had statistically significant adverse associations with GLP-1 use,” he added.

Experts have expressed some concern about a possible link between GLP-1 use and pancreatic cancer given that pancreatitis is a known side effect of GLP-1 use. However, “this is not borne out by epidemiological data,” Mavromatis said.

“Additionally, we were not able to specifically assess medullary thyroid cancer, which is on the warning label for several GLP-1 medications, but we did see a reassuring lack of association between GLP-1 use and thyroid cancer as a whole,” he added.

During follow-up, there were 2783 deaths in the GLP-1 group and 2961 deaths in the DPP-4 group — translating to an 8% lower risk for death due to any cause among GLP-1 users (HR, 0.92; P = .001).

Mavromatis and colleagues observed sex differences as well. Women taking a GLP-1 had an 8% lower risk for obesity-related cancers (HR, 0.92; P = .01) and a 20% lower risk for death from any cause (HR, 0.80; P < .001) compared with women taking a DPP-4 inhibitor.

Among men, researchers found no statistically significant difference between GLP-1 and DPP-4 use for obesity-related cancer risk (HR, 0.95; P = .29) or all-cause mortality (HR, 1.04; P = .34).

Overall, Mavromatis said, it’s important to note that the absolute risk reduction seen in the study is “small and the number of patients that would need to be given one of these medications to prevent an obesity-related cancer, based on our data, would be very large.”

Mavromatis also noted that the length of follow-up was short, and the study assessed primarily older and weaker GLP-1 agonists compared with newer agents on the market. Therefore, longer-term studies with newer GLP-1s are needed to confirm the effects seen as well as safety.

In a statement, ASCO President Robin Zon, MD, said this trial raises the “intriguing hypothesis” that the increasingly popular GLP-1 medications might offer some benefit in reducing the risk of developing cancer.

Zon said she sees many patients with obesity, and given the clear link between cancer and obesity, defining the clinical role of GLP-1 medications in cancer prevention is “important.”

This study “leads us in the direction” of a potential protective effect of GLP-1s on cancer, but “there are a lot of questions that are generated by this particular study, especially as we move forward and we think about prevention of cancers,” Zon told the briefing.

This study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Mavromatis reported no relevant disclosures. Zon reported stock or ownership interests in Oncolytics Biotech, TG Therapeutics, Select Sector SPDR Health Care, AstraZeneca, CRISPR, McKesson, and Berkshire Hathaway.

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

New data suggest that glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, used to treat diabetes and obesity, may also help guard against obesity-related cancers.

In a large observational study, new GLP-1 agonist users with obesity and diabetes had a significantly lower risk for 14 obesity-related cancers than similar individuals who received dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which are weight-neutral.

This study provides a “reassuring safety signal” showing that GLP-1 drugs are linked to a modest drop in obesity-related cancer risk, and not a higher risk for these cancers, said lead investigator Lucas Mavromatis, medical student at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, during a press conference at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.

However, there were some nuances to the findings. The protective effect of GLP-1 agonists was only significant for colon and rectal cancers and for women, Mavromatis reported. And although GLP-1 users had an 8% lower risk of dying from any cause, the survival benefit was also only significant for women.

Still, the overall “message to patients is GLP-1 receptor treatments remain a strong option for patients with diabetes and obesity and may have an additional, small favorable benefit in cancer,” Mavromatis explained at the press briefing.

'Intriguing Hypothesis'

Obesity is linked to an increased risk of developing more than a dozen cancer types, including esophageal, colon, rectal, stomach, liver, gallbladder, pancreatic, kidney, postmenopausal breast, ovarian, endometrial and thyroid, as well as multiple myeloma and meningiomas.

About 12% of Americans have been prescribed a GLP-1 medication to treat diabetes and/or obesity. However, little is known about how these drugs affect cancer risk.

To investigate, Mavromatis and colleagues used the Optum healthcare database to identify 170,030 adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes from 43 health systems in the United States.

Between 2013 and 2023, half started a GLP-1 agonist and half started a DPP-4 inhibitor, with propensity score matching used to balance characteristics of the two cohorts.

Participants were a mean age of 56.8 years, with an average body mass index of 38.5; more than 70% were White individuals and more than 14% were Black individuals.

During a mean follow-up of 3.9 years, 2501 new obesity-related cancers were identified in the GLP-1 group and 2671 in the DPP-4 group — representing a 7% overall reduced risk for any obesity-related cancer in the GLP-1 group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93).

When analyzing each of the 14 obesity-related cancers separately, the protective link between GLP-1 use and cancer was primarily driven by colon and rectal cancers. GLP-1 users had a 16% lower risk for colon cancer (HR, 0.84) and a 28% lower risk for rectal cancer (HR, 0.72).

“No other cancers had statistically significant associations with GLP-1 use,” Mavromatis told briefing attendees. But “importantly, no cancers had statistically significant adverse associations with GLP-1 use,” he added.

Experts have expressed some concern about a possible link between GLP-1 use and pancreatic cancer given that pancreatitis is a known side effect of GLP-1 use. However, “this is not borne out by epidemiological data,” Mavromatis said.

“Additionally, we were not able to specifically assess medullary thyroid cancer, which is on the warning label for several GLP-1 medications, but we did see a reassuring lack of association between GLP-1 use and thyroid cancer as a whole,” he added.

During follow-up, there were 2783 deaths in the GLP-1 group and 2961 deaths in the DPP-4 group — translating to an 8% lower risk for death due to any cause among GLP-1 users (HR, 0.92; P = .001).

Mavromatis and colleagues observed sex differences as well. Women taking a GLP-1 had an 8% lower risk for obesity-related cancers (HR, 0.92; P = .01) and a 20% lower risk for death from any cause (HR, 0.80; P < .001) compared with women taking a DPP-4 inhibitor.

Among men, researchers found no statistically significant difference between GLP-1 and DPP-4 use for obesity-related cancer risk (HR, 0.95; P = .29) or all-cause mortality (HR, 1.04; P = .34).

Overall, Mavromatis said, it’s important to note that the absolute risk reduction seen in the study is “small and the number of patients that would need to be given one of these medications to prevent an obesity-related cancer, based on our data, would be very large.”

Mavromatis also noted that the length of follow-up was short, and the study assessed primarily older and weaker GLP-1 agonists compared with newer agents on the market. Therefore, longer-term studies with newer GLP-1s are needed to confirm the effects seen as well as safety.

In a statement, ASCO President Robin Zon, MD, said this trial raises the “intriguing hypothesis” that the increasingly popular GLP-1 medications might offer some benefit in reducing the risk of developing cancer.

Zon said she sees many patients with obesity, and given the clear link between cancer and obesity, defining the clinical role of GLP-1 medications in cancer prevention is “important.”

This study “leads us in the direction” of a potential protective effect of GLP-1s on cancer, but “there are a lot of questions that are generated by this particular study, especially as we move forward and we think about prevention of cancers,” Zon told the briefing.

This study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Mavromatis reported no relevant disclosures. Zon reported stock or ownership interests in Oncolytics Biotech, TG Therapeutics, Select Sector SPDR Health Care, AstraZeneca, CRISPR, McKesson, and Berkshire Hathaway.

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