Gynecologic Cancer

More than one third of patients with cancer visited an emergency department (ED) in the 90 days before their diagnosis, according to a study of medical records from Ontario, Canada.

Researchers examined Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) data that had been gathered from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021. The study focused on patients aged 18 years or older with confirmed primary cancer diagnoses.

Factors associated with an increased likelihood of an ED visit ahead of diagnosis included having certain cancers, living in rural areas, and having less access to primary care, according to study author Keerat Grewal, MD, an emergency physician and clinician scientist at the Schwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine Institute at Sinai Health in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthors.

“The ED is a distressing environment for patients to receive a possible cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “Moreover, it is frequently ill equipped to provide ongoing continuity of care, which can lead patients down a poorly defined diagnostic pathway before receiving a confirmed diagnosis based on tissue and a subsequent treatment plan.”

The findings were published online on November 4 in CMAJ).
 

Neurologic Cancers Prominent

In an interview, Grewal said in an interview that the study reflects her desire as an emergency room physician to understand why so many patients with cancer get the initial reports about their disease from clinicians whom they often have just met for the first time.

Among patients with an ED visit before cancer diagnosis, 51.4% were admitted to hospital from the most recent visit.

Compared with patients with a family physician on whom they could rely for routine care, those who had no outpatient visits (odds ratio [OR], 2.09) or fewer than three outpatient visits (OR, 1.41) in the 6-30 months before cancer diagnosis were more likely to have an ED visit before their cancer diagnosis.

Other factors associated with increased odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis included rurality (OR, 1.15), residence in northern Ontario (northeast region: OR, 1.14 and northwest region: OR, 1.27 vs Toronto region), and living in the most marginalized areas (material resource deprivation: OR, 1.37 and housing stability: OR, 1.09 vs least marginalized area).

The researchers also found that patients with certain cancers were more likely to have sought care in the ED. They compared these cancers with breast cancer, which is often detected through screening.

“Patients with neurologic cancers had extremely high odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “This is likely because of the emergent nature of presentation, with acute neurologic symptoms such as weakness, confusion, or seizures, which require urgent assessment.” On the other hand, pancreatic, liver, or thoracic cancer can trigger nonspecific symptoms that may be ignored until they reach a crisis level that prompts an ED visit.

The limitations of the study included its inability to identify cancer-related ED visits and its narrow focus on patients in Ontario, according to the researchers. But the use of the ICES databases also allowed researchers access to a broader pool of data than are available in many other cases.

The findings in the new paper echo those of previous research, the authors noted. Research in the United Kingdom found that 24%-31% of cancer diagnoses involved the ED. In addition, a study of people enrolled in the US Medicare program, which serves patients aged 65 years or older, found that 23% were seen in the ED in the 30 days before diagnosis.
 

‘Unpacking the Data’

The current findings also are consistent with those of an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership study that was published in 2022 in The Lancet Oncology, said Erika Nicholson, MHS, vice president of cancer systems and innovation at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The latter study analyzed cancer registration and linked hospital admissions data from 14 jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

“We see similar trends in terms of people visiting EDs and being diagnosed through EDs internationally,” Nicholson said. “We’re working with partners to put in place different strategies to address the challenges” that this phenomenon presents in terms of improving screening and follow-up care.

“Cancer is not one disease, but many diseases,” she said. “They present differently. We’re focused on really unpacking the data and understanding them.”

All this research highlights the need for more services and personnel to address cancer, including people who are trained to help patients cope after getting concerning news through emergency care, she said.

“That means having a system that fully supports you and helps you navigate through that diagnostic process,” Nicholson said. Addressing the added challenges for patients who don’t have secure housing is a special need, she added.

This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Grewal reported receiving grants from CIHR and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Nicholson reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than one third of patients with cancer visited an emergency department (ED) in the 90 days before their diagnosis, according to a study of medical records from Ontario, Canada.

Researchers examined Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) data that had been gathered from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021. The study focused on patients aged 18 years or older with confirmed primary cancer diagnoses.

Factors associated with an increased likelihood of an ED visit ahead of diagnosis included having certain cancers, living in rural areas, and having less access to primary care, according to study author Keerat Grewal, MD, an emergency physician and clinician scientist at the Schwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine Institute at Sinai Health in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthors.

“The ED is a distressing environment for patients to receive a possible cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “Moreover, it is frequently ill equipped to provide ongoing continuity of care, which can lead patients down a poorly defined diagnostic pathway before receiving a confirmed diagnosis based on tissue and a subsequent treatment plan.”

The findings were published online on November 4 in CMAJ).
 

Neurologic Cancers Prominent

In an interview, Grewal said in an interview that the study reflects her desire as an emergency room physician to understand why so many patients with cancer get the initial reports about their disease from clinicians whom they often have just met for the first time.

Among patients with an ED visit before cancer diagnosis, 51.4% were admitted to hospital from the most recent visit.

Compared with patients with a family physician on whom they could rely for routine care, those who had no outpatient visits (odds ratio [OR], 2.09) or fewer than three outpatient visits (OR, 1.41) in the 6-30 months before cancer diagnosis were more likely to have an ED visit before their cancer diagnosis.

Other factors associated with increased odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis included rurality (OR, 1.15), residence in northern Ontario (northeast region: OR, 1.14 and northwest region: OR, 1.27 vs Toronto region), and living in the most marginalized areas (material resource deprivation: OR, 1.37 and housing stability: OR, 1.09 vs least marginalized area).

The researchers also found that patients with certain cancers were more likely to have sought care in the ED. They compared these cancers with breast cancer, which is often detected through screening.

“Patients with neurologic cancers had extremely high odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “This is likely because of the emergent nature of presentation, with acute neurologic symptoms such as weakness, confusion, or seizures, which require urgent assessment.” On the other hand, pancreatic, liver, or thoracic cancer can trigger nonspecific symptoms that may be ignored until they reach a crisis level that prompts an ED visit.

The limitations of the study included its inability to identify cancer-related ED visits and its narrow focus on patients in Ontario, according to the researchers. But the use of the ICES databases also allowed researchers access to a broader pool of data than are available in many other cases.

The findings in the new paper echo those of previous research, the authors noted. Research in the United Kingdom found that 24%-31% of cancer diagnoses involved the ED. In addition, a study of people enrolled in the US Medicare program, which serves patients aged 65 years or older, found that 23% were seen in the ED in the 30 days before diagnosis.
 

‘Unpacking the Data’

The current findings also are consistent with those of an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership study that was published in 2022 in The Lancet Oncology, said Erika Nicholson, MHS, vice president of cancer systems and innovation at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The latter study analyzed cancer registration and linked hospital admissions data from 14 jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

“We see similar trends in terms of people visiting EDs and being diagnosed through EDs internationally,” Nicholson said. “We’re working with partners to put in place different strategies to address the challenges” that this phenomenon presents in terms of improving screening and follow-up care.

“Cancer is not one disease, but many diseases,” she said. “They present differently. We’re focused on really unpacking the data and understanding them.”

All this research highlights the need for more services and personnel to address cancer, including people who are trained to help patients cope after getting concerning news through emergency care, she said.

“That means having a system that fully supports you and helps you navigate through that diagnostic process,” Nicholson said. Addressing the added challenges for patients who don’t have secure housing is a special need, she added.

This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Grewal reported receiving grants from CIHR and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Nicholson reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than one third of patients with cancer visited an emergency department (ED) in the 90 days before their diagnosis, according to a study of medical records from Ontario, Canada.

Researchers examined Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) data that had been gathered from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021. The study focused on patients aged 18 years or older with confirmed primary cancer diagnoses.

Factors associated with an increased likelihood of an ED visit ahead of diagnosis included having certain cancers, living in rural areas, and having less access to primary care, according to study author Keerat Grewal, MD, an emergency physician and clinician scientist at the Schwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine Institute at Sinai Health in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthors.

“The ED is a distressing environment for patients to receive a possible cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “Moreover, it is frequently ill equipped to provide ongoing continuity of care, which can lead patients down a poorly defined diagnostic pathway before receiving a confirmed diagnosis based on tissue and a subsequent treatment plan.”

The findings were published online on November 4 in CMAJ).
 

Neurologic Cancers Prominent

In an interview, Grewal said in an interview that the study reflects her desire as an emergency room physician to understand why so many patients with cancer get the initial reports about their disease from clinicians whom they often have just met for the first time.

Among patients with an ED visit before cancer diagnosis, 51.4% were admitted to hospital from the most recent visit.

Compared with patients with a family physician on whom they could rely for routine care, those who had no outpatient visits (odds ratio [OR], 2.09) or fewer than three outpatient visits (OR, 1.41) in the 6-30 months before cancer diagnosis were more likely to have an ED visit before their cancer diagnosis.

Other factors associated with increased odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis included rurality (OR, 1.15), residence in northern Ontario (northeast region: OR, 1.14 and northwest region: OR, 1.27 vs Toronto region), and living in the most marginalized areas (material resource deprivation: OR, 1.37 and housing stability: OR, 1.09 vs least marginalized area).

The researchers also found that patients with certain cancers were more likely to have sought care in the ED. They compared these cancers with breast cancer, which is often detected through screening.

“Patients with neurologic cancers had extremely high odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “This is likely because of the emergent nature of presentation, with acute neurologic symptoms such as weakness, confusion, or seizures, which require urgent assessment.” On the other hand, pancreatic, liver, or thoracic cancer can trigger nonspecific symptoms that may be ignored until they reach a crisis level that prompts an ED visit.

The limitations of the study included its inability to identify cancer-related ED visits and its narrow focus on patients in Ontario, according to the researchers. But the use of the ICES databases also allowed researchers access to a broader pool of data than are available in many other cases.

The findings in the new paper echo those of previous research, the authors noted. Research in the United Kingdom found that 24%-31% of cancer diagnoses involved the ED. In addition, a study of people enrolled in the US Medicare program, which serves patients aged 65 years or older, found that 23% were seen in the ED in the 30 days before diagnosis.
 

‘Unpacking the Data’

The current findings also are consistent with those of an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership study that was published in 2022 in The Lancet Oncology, said Erika Nicholson, MHS, vice president of cancer systems and innovation at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The latter study analyzed cancer registration and linked hospital admissions data from 14 jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

“We see similar trends in terms of people visiting EDs and being diagnosed through EDs internationally,” Nicholson said. “We’re working with partners to put in place different strategies to address the challenges” that this phenomenon presents in terms of improving screening and follow-up care.

“Cancer is not one disease, but many diseases,” she said. “They present differently. We’re focused on really unpacking the data and understanding them.”

All this research highlights the need for more services and personnel to address cancer, including people who are trained to help patients cope after getting concerning news through emergency care, she said.

“That means having a system that fully supports you and helps you navigate through that diagnostic process,” Nicholson said. Addressing the added challenges for patients who don’t have secure housing is a special need, she added.

This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Grewal reported receiving grants from CIHR and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Nicholson reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids are associated with a lower incidence of cancer. However, omega-3 fatty acids are linked to an increased risk for prostate cancer, specifically.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers looked for associations of plasma omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) with the incidence of cancer overall and 19 site-specific cancers in the large population-based prospective UK Biobank cohort.
• They included 253,138 participants aged 37-73 years who were followed for an average of 12.9 years, with 29,838 diagnosed with cancer.
• Plasma levels of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids were measured using nuclear magnetic resonance and expressed as percentages of total fatty acids.
• Participants with cancer diagnoses at baseline, those who withdrew from the study, and those with missing data on plasma PUFAs were excluded.
• The study adjusted for multiple covariates, including age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, lifestyle behaviors, and family history of diseases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids were associated with a 2% and 1% reduction in overall cancer risk per SD increase, respectively (P = .001 and P = .03).
• Omega-6 fatty acids were inversely associated with 14 site-specific cancers, whereas omega-3 fatty acids were inversely associated with five site-specific cancers.
• Prostate cancer was positively associated with omega-3 fatty acids, with a 3% increased risk per SD increase (P = .049).
• A higher omega-6/omega-3 ratio was associated with an increased risk for overall cancer, and three site-specific cancers showed positive associations with the ratio. “Each standard deviation increase, corresponding to a 13.13 increase in the omega ratio, was associated with a 2% increase in the risk of rectum cancer,” for example, the authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, our findings provide support for possible small net protective roles of omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs in the development of new cancer incidence. Our study also suggests that the usage of circulating blood biomarkers captures different aspects of dietary intake, reduces measurement errors, and thus enhances statistical power. The differential effects of omega-6% and omega-3% in age and sex subgroups warrant future investigation,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yuchen Zhang of the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. It was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s potential for selective bias persists due to the participant sample skewing heavily toward European ancestry and White ethnicity. The number of events was small for some specific cancer sites, which may have limited the statistical power. The study focused on total omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs, with only two individual fatty acids measured. Future studies are needed to examine the roles of other individual PUFAs and specific genetic variants. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids are associated with a lower incidence of cancer. However, omega-3 fatty acids are linked to an increased risk for prostate cancer, specifically.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers looked for associations of plasma omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) with the incidence of cancer overall and 19 site-specific cancers in the large population-based prospective UK Biobank cohort.
• They included 253,138 participants aged 37-73 years who were followed for an average of 12.9 years, with 29,838 diagnosed with cancer.
• Plasma levels of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids were measured using nuclear magnetic resonance and expressed as percentages of total fatty acids.
• Participants with cancer diagnoses at baseline, those who withdrew from the study, and those with missing data on plasma PUFAs were excluded.
• The study adjusted for multiple covariates, including age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, lifestyle behaviors, and family history of diseases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids were associated with a 2% and 1% reduction in overall cancer risk per SD increase, respectively (P = .001 and P = .03).
• Omega-6 fatty acids were inversely associated with 14 site-specific cancers, whereas omega-3 fatty acids were inversely associated with five site-specific cancers.
• Prostate cancer was positively associated with omega-3 fatty acids, with a 3% increased risk per SD increase (P = .049).
• A higher omega-6/omega-3 ratio was associated with an increased risk for overall cancer, and three site-specific cancers showed positive associations with the ratio. “Each standard deviation increase, corresponding to a 13.13 increase in the omega ratio, was associated with a 2% increase in the risk of rectum cancer,” for example, the authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, our findings provide support for possible small net protective roles of omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs in the development of new cancer incidence. Our study also suggests that the usage of circulating blood biomarkers captures different aspects of dietary intake, reduces measurement errors, and thus enhances statistical power. The differential effects of omega-6% and omega-3% in age and sex subgroups warrant future investigation,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yuchen Zhang of the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. It was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s potential for selective bias persists due to the participant sample skewing heavily toward European ancestry and White ethnicity. The number of events was small for some specific cancer sites, which may have limited the statistical power. The study focused on total omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs, with only two individual fatty acids measured. Future studies are needed to examine the roles of other individual PUFAs and specific genetic variants. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids are associated with a lower incidence of cancer. However, omega-3 fatty acids are linked to an increased risk for prostate cancer, specifically.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers looked for associations of plasma omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) with the incidence of cancer overall and 19 site-specific cancers in the large population-based prospective UK Biobank cohort.
• They included 253,138 participants aged 37-73 years who were followed for an average of 12.9 years, with 29,838 diagnosed with cancer.
• Plasma levels of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids were measured using nuclear magnetic resonance and expressed as percentages of total fatty acids.
• Participants with cancer diagnoses at baseline, those who withdrew from the study, and those with missing data on plasma PUFAs were excluded.
• The study adjusted for multiple covariates, including age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, lifestyle behaviors, and family history of diseases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids were associated with a 2% and 1% reduction in overall cancer risk per SD increase, respectively (P = .001 and P = .03).
• Omega-6 fatty acids were inversely associated with 14 site-specific cancers, whereas omega-3 fatty acids were inversely associated with five site-specific cancers.
• Prostate cancer was positively associated with omega-3 fatty acids, with a 3% increased risk per SD increase (P = .049).
• A higher omega-6/omega-3 ratio was associated with an increased risk for overall cancer, and three site-specific cancers showed positive associations with the ratio. “Each standard deviation increase, corresponding to a 13.13 increase in the omega ratio, was associated with a 2% increase in the risk of rectum cancer,” for example, the authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, our findings provide support for possible small net protective roles of omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs in the development of new cancer incidence. Our study also suggests that the usage of circulating blood biomarkers captures different aspects of dietary intake, reduces measurement errors, and thus enhances statistical power. The differential effects of omega-6% and omega-3% in age and sex subgroups warrant future investigation,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yuchen Zhang of the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. It was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s potential for selective bias persists due to the participant sample skewing heavily toward European ancestry and White ethnicity. The number of events was small for some specific cancer sites, which may have limited the statistical power. The study focused on total omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs, with only two individual fatty acids measured. Future studies are needed to examine the roles of other individual PUFAs and specific genetic variants. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.
 

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

Vaccination against human papilloma virus (HPV), a group of more than 200 viruses infecting at least 50% of sexually active people over their lifetimes, has proved more than 90% effective for preventing several diseases caused by high-risk HPV types. 

Gardasil 4: 2006 

It started in 2006 with the approval of Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent, types 6, 11, 16, and 18 (Gardasil 4). Merck’s vaccine began to lower rates of cervical cancer, a major global killer of women.

“It’s fair to say the vaccine has been an American and a global public health success story in reducing rates of cervical cancer,” Paula M. Cuccaro, PhD, assistant professor of health promotion and behavioral sciences at University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, said in an interview.

How does a common virus trigger such a lethal gynecologic malignancy? “It knocks out two important cancer suppressor genes in cells,” explained Christina Annunziata,MD, PhD, a medical oncologist and senior vice president of extramural discovery science for the American Cancer Society. HPV oncoproteins are encoded by the E6 and E7 genes. As in other DNA tumor viruses, the E6 and E7 proteins functionally inactivate the tumor suppressor proteins p53 and pRB, respectively.
 

US Prevalence

Despite screening and vaccination, cervical cancer is still very much around. This year, 13,820 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and approximately 4360 women will die of it, according to the American Cancer Society. Even before the advent of Gardasil 4, incidence rates had already decreased by more than half from the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, thanks largely to Pap smear screening programs for treatable premalignant lesions. “The US rate had dropped to about 20 per 100,000 women even before Gardasil 4,” said Annunziata. “After the introduction of the first vaccine, it decreased to 7 per 100,000, a decrease of about 30%, but it remains plateaued now at about the same level.”

Although the past decade has seen rates generally stabilize, there have been some changes in different age groups. In women ages 30-44, rates increased 1.7% each year from 2012 to 2019, while rates declined 11% each year for women ages 20-24— probably reflecting the impact of the first wave of prevention from Gardasil 4.

In one 2021 population-based study of US cancer registry data from 1999 to 2017, rates of both cervical squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma dropped. The largest declines occurred in females 15-20 years old, the age group most likely to be vaccinated against HPV but not typically screened, suggesting a vaccine-related effect.
 

Gardasil 9: 2014

With the 2014 approval of the vaccine’s second iteration, Gardasil 9, which replaced Gardasil 4 and targeted 9 HPV strains, immunization has taken broader aim. The strains covered by Gardasil 9 protect against oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers — as well as penile, anal, vulvar, and vaginal malignancies and premalignancies, and genital warts in both sexes ages 9-45. 

It may be years, however, before the impact of the newer polyvalent formulation is felt. “While the first vaccine has been successful against the prevalent strains of HPV linked to cervical cancer, it’s a little early to call it for the newer vaccine since oropharyngeal cancers tend to develop later in older men,” Cuccaro said. “But the types of HPV linked to mouth and throat cancers and covered by the newer vaccines are much less prevalent in those who are vaccinated. The strains not covered in the vaccine you see are equally present in the vaccinated and non-vaccinated.”

Angela L. Myers, MD, MPH, division director of infectious diseases and medical director of the Center for Wellbeing at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, added, “Unlike for cervical cancer, there are no screening programs for oropharyngeal lesions, so you have to wait to see rates until actual cancer develops.”

A 2023 review reported that HPV vaccination reduced levels of oropharyngeal HPV positivity in men, strengthening the case for pangender immunization. 

And in a recent phase 3 doubled-blind trial, GARDASIL 9 reduced the incidence of anogenital persistent infection caused by nine types of HPV compared with a placebo. 
 

Increasing Uptake

The current public health aim is to have 80% of young people in the targeted age group vaccinated with two doses. Today, uptake among those 9-26 years old stands at about 78% of girls and 75% of boys for the first dose, said Annunziata. “But it’s only about 61% for the two doses in the current series, and we want to improve that.” 

Some parents may still harbor fears that immunizing teens and tweens — both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society recommend immunization at age 9 — will open the door to precocious sexual activity. 

“But overall, uptake in tweens and young teens has increased because the messaging has changed,” said Myers, with the rationale now focusing on cancer prevention not sexual-infection prophylaxis. “This is similar to the hepatitis B vaccine, which used to be given to young adults and is now given to newborns to prevent cancer.” 

Cuccaro added that a proactive presentation by healthcare professionals has a significant effect on vaccine uptake and increases the odds of vaccination ninefold. “Providers should take a presumptive approach and avoid just offering the vaccine as an option. It should be included with regular childhood vaccinations,” she said. “And the advantage of starting early at age 9 is that you can spread the doses out across other regular childhood vaccinations, whereas if you start at age 11, you need to add the HPV vaccine to three other vaccines that are given at that time.” 

After age 15, three doses are necessary. “Providers should stress to parents that it’s most effective when given before young people become sexually active and exposed to HPV,” Cuccaro said. And Myers stressed that despite the vaccine’s effectiveness, routine screening for cervical premalignancies is still important. 

Despite increasing coverage, vaccination rates have some distance to go before the public health target of at least 80% uptake of the series in the targeted age group, Cuccaro cautioned.

On the global stage, barriers to immunization remain, but the World Health Organization has endorsed a campaign to eradicate cervical cancer through HPV vaccination. It has predicted that the 21st century may be the last to experience HPV-associated cancers, currently responsible for more than 300,000 annual deaths worldwide.
 

A Brief History of HPV Vaccines

• 1951. Cervical cancer patient Henrietta Lacks’ rapidly dividing cervical cells are collected by George Otto Gey at Johns Hopkins Hospital. They create the first immortal cell line (HeLa) used to study cancers and vaccines worldwide.
• 1976. Harald zur Hausen suggests that genital wart-associated HPV, not herpes simplex, is the probable cause of cervical cancer.
• 1983. HPV is confirmed as a cause of cancer.
• 1991. The first HPV vaccine is developed.
• 2002. Proof of principle and protective efficacy for the monovalent HPV 16 are shown.
• 2006. Merck’s Gardasil 4 (HPV 4) is FDA approved in girls ages 9-26 for protection against strains 6, 11, 16, and 18 — the cause of more than 70% of cervical cancer cases.
• 2009. Approval of Gardasil 4 is expanded to boys ages 9-26 for the prevention of genital warts.
• 2009. The FDA approves GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix (HPV 16 and 18) for girls and young women. The vaccine was withdrawn from the US market in 2016 following the success of Gardasil 9 but is used abroad for HPV cancer prevention.
• 2014. The 9-valent recombinant vaccine Gardasil 9 is FDA approved for protection against several low-risk, wart-causing HPV strains as well as the high-risk cancer strains targeted by HPV 4.
• 2018. The FDA expands approval to include females and males 27-45 years old.
• 2020. The FDA extends approval of Gardasil 9 to include prevention not only of cervical cancer but also, vaginal, vulvar, anal, oropharyngeal, and other head and neck cancers.

Annunziata, Cuccaro, and Myers had no competing interests to declare.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Vaccination against human papilloma virus (HPV), a group of more than 200 viruses infecting at least 50% of sexually active people over their lifetimes, has proved more than 90% effective for preventing several diseases caused by high-risk HPV types. 

Gardasil 4: 2006 

It started in 2006 with the approval of Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent, types 6, 11, 16, and 18 (Gardasil 4). Merck’s vaccine began to lower rates of cervical cancer, a major global killer of women.

“It’s fair to say the vaccine has been an American and a global public health success story in reducing rates of cervical cancer,” Paula M. Cuccaro, PhD, assistant professor of health promotion and behavioral sciences at University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, said in an interview.

How does a common virus trigger such a lethal gynecologic malignancy? “It knocks out two important cancer suppressor genes in cells,” explained Christina Annunziata,MD, PhD, a medical oncologist and senior vice president of extramural discovery science for the American Cancer Society. HPV oncoproteins are encoded by the E6 and E7 genes. As in other DNA tumor viruses, the E6 and E7 proteins functionally inactivate the tumor suppressor proteins p53 and pRB, respectively.
 

US Prevalence

Despite screening and vaccination, cervical cancer is still very much around. This year, 13,820 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and approximately 4360 women will die of it, according to the American Cancer Society. Even before the advent of Gardasil 4, incidence rates had already decreased by more than half from the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, thanks largely to Pap smear screening programs for treatable premalignant lesions. “The US rate had dropped to about 20 per 100,000 women even before Gardasil 4,” said Annunziata. “After the introduction of the first vaccine, it decreased to 7 per 100,000, a decrease of about 30%, but it remains plateaued now at about the same level.”

Although the past decade has seen rates generally stabilize, there have been some changes in different age groups. In women ages 30-44, rates increased 1.7% each year from 2012 to 2019, while rates declined 11% each year for women ages 20-24— probably reflecting the impact of the first wave of prevention from Gardasil 4.

In one 2021 population-based study of US cancer registry data from 1999 to 2017, rates of both cervical squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma dropped. The largest declines occurred in females 15-20 years old, the age group most likely to be vaccinated against HPV but not typically screened, suggesting a vaccine-related effect.
 

Gardasil 9: 2014

With the 2014 approval of the vaccine’s second iteration, Gardasil 9, which replaced Gardasil 4 and targeted 9 HPV strains, immunization has taken broader aim. The strains covered by Gardasil 9 protect against oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers — as well as penile, anal, vulvar, and vaginal malignancies and premalignancies, and genital warts in both sexes ages 9-45. 

It may be years, however, before the impact of the newer polyvalent formulation is felt. “While the first vaccine has been successful against the prevalent strains of HPV linked to cervical cancer, it’s a little early to call it for the newer vaccine since oropharyngeal cancers tend to develop later in older men,” Cuccaro said. “But the types of HPV linked to mouth and throat cancers and covered by the newer vaccines are much less prevalent in those who are vaccinated. The strains not covered in the vaccine you see are equally present in the vaccinated and non-vaccinated.”

Angela L. Myers, MD, MPH, division director of infectious diseases and medical director of the Center for Wellbeing at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, added, “Unlike for cervical cancer, there are no screening programs for oropharyngeal lesions, so you have to wait to see rates until actual cancer develops.”

A 2023 review reported that HPV vaccination reduced levels of oropharyngeal HPV positivity in men, strengthening the case for pangender immunization. 

And in a recent phase 3 doubled-blind trial, GARDASIL 9 reduced the incidence of anogenital persistent infection caused by nine types of HPV compared with a placebo. 
 

Increasing Uptake

The current public health aim is to have 80% of young people in the targeted age group vaccinated with two doses. Today, uptake among those 9-26 years old stands at about 78% of girls and 75% of boys for the first dose, said Annunziata. “But it’s only about 61% for the two doses in the current series, and we want to improve that.” 

Some parents may still harbor fears that immunizing teens and tweens — both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society recommend immunization at age 9 — will open the door to precocious sexual activity. 

“But overall, uptake in tweens and young teens has increased because the messaging has changed,” said Myers, with the rationale now focusing on cancer prevention not sexual-infection prophylaxis. “This is similar to the hepatitis B vaccine, which used to be given to young adults and is now given to newborns to prevent cancer.” 

Cuccaro added that a proactive presentation by healthcare professionals has a significant effect on vaccine uptake and increases the odds of vaccination ninefold. “Providers should take a presumptive approach and avoid just offering the vaccine as an option. It should be included with regular childhood vaccinations,” she said. “And the advantage of starting early at age 9 is that you can spread the doses out across other regular childhood vaccinations, whereas if you start at age 11, you need to add the HPV vaccine to three other vaccines that are given at that time.” 

After age 15, three doses are necessary. “Providers should stress to parents that it’s most effective when given before young people become sexually active and exposed to HPV,” Cuccaro said. And Myers stressed that despite the vaccine’s effectiveness, routine screening for cervical premalignancies is still important. 

Despite increasing coverage, vaccination rates have some distance to go before the public health target of at least 80% uptake of the series in the targeted age group, Cuccaro cautioned.

On the global stage, barriers to immunization remain, but the World Health Organization has endorsed a campaign to eradicate cervical cancer through HPV vaccination. It has predicted that the 21st century may be the last to experience HPV-associated cancers, currently responsible for more than 300,000 annual deaths worldwide.
 

A Brief History of HPV Vaccines

• 1951. Cervical cancer patient Henrietta Lacks’ rapidly dividing cervical cells are collected by George Otto Gey at Johns Hopkins Hospital. They create the first immortal cell line (HeLa) used to study cancers and vaccines worldwide.
• 1976. Harald zur Hausen suggests that genital wart-associated HPV, not herpes simplex, is the probable cause of cervical cancer.
• 1983. HPV is confirmed as a cause of cancer.
• 1991. The first HPV vaccine is developed.
• 2002. Proof of principle and protective efficacy for the monovalent HPV 16 are shown.
• 2006. Merck’s Gardasil 4 (HPV 4) is FDA approved in girls ages 9-26 for protection against strains 6, 11, 16, and 18 — the cause of more than 70% of cervical cancer cases.
• 2009. Approval of Gardasil 4 is expanded to boys ages 9-26 for the prevention of genital warts.
• 2009. The FDA approves GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix (HPV 16 and 18) for girls and young women. The vaccine was withdrawn from the US market in 2016 following the success of Gardasil 9 but is used abroad for HPV cancer prevention.
• 2014. The 9-valent recombinant vaccine Gardasil 9 is FDA approved for protection against several low-risk, wart-causing HPV strains as well as the high-risk cancer strains targeted by HPV 4.
• 2018. The FDA expands approval to include females and males 27-45 years old.
• 2020. The FDA extends approval of Gardasil 9 to include prevention not only of cervical cancer but also, vaginal, vulvar, anal, oropharyngeal, and other head and neck cancers.

Annunziata, Cuccaro, and Myers had no competing interests to declare.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Vaccination against human papilloma virus (HPV), a group of more than 200 viruses infecting at least 50% of sexually active people over their lifetimes, has proved more than 90% effective for preventing several diseases caused by high-risk HPV types. 

Gardasil 4: 2006 

It started in 2006 with the approval of Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent, types 6, 11, 16, and 18 (Gardasil 4). Merck’s vaccine began to lower rates of cervical cancer, a major global killer of women.

“It’s fair to say the vaccine has been an American and a global public health success story in reducing rates of cervical cancer,” Paula M. Cuccaro, PhD, assistant professor of health promotion and behavioral sciences at University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, said in an interview.

How does a common virus trigger such a lethal gynecologic malignancy? “It knocks out two important cancer suppressor genes in cells,” explained Christina Annunziata,MD, PhD, a medical oncologist and senior vice president of extramural discovery science for the American Cancer Society. HPV oncoproteins are encoded by the E6 and E7 genes. As in other DNA tumor viruses, the E6 and E7 proteins functionally inactivate the tumor suppressor proteins p53 and pRB, respectively.
 

US Prevalence

Despite screening and vaccination, cervical cancer is still very much around. This year, 13,820 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and approximately 4360 women will die of it, according to the American Cancer Society. Even before the advent of Gardasil 4, incidence rates had already decreased by more than half from the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, thanks largely to Pap smear screening programs for treatable premalignant lesions. “The US rate had dropped to about 20 per 100,000 women even before Gardasil 4,” said Annunziata. “After the introduction of the first vaccine, it decreased to 7 per 100,000, a decrease of about 30%, but it remains plateaued now at about the same level.”

Although the past decade has seen rates generally stabilize, there have been some changes in different age groups. In women ages 30-44, rates increased 1.7% each year from 2012 to 2019, while rates declined 11% each year for women ages 20-24— probably reflecting the impact of the first wave of prevention from Gardasil 4.

In one 2021 population-based study of US cancer registry data from 1999 to 2017, rates of both cervical squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma dropped. The largest declines occurred in females 15-20 years old, the age group most likely to be vaccinated against HPV but not typically screened, suggesting a vaccine-related effect.
 

Gardasil 9: 2014

With the 2014 approval of the vaccine’s second iteration, Gardasil 9, which replaced Gardasil 4 and targeted 9 HPV strains, immunization has taken broader aim. The strains covered by Gardasil 9 protect against oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers — as well as penile, anal, vulvar, and vaginal malignancies and premalignancies, and genital warts in both sexes ages 9-45. 

It may be years, however, before the impact of the newer polyvalent formulation is felt. “While the first vaccine has been successful against the prevalent strains of HPV linked to cervical cancer, it’s a little early to call it for the newer vaccine since oropharyngeal cancers tend to develop later in older men,” Cuccaro said. “But the types of HPV linked to mouth and throat cancers and covered by the newer vaccines are much less prevalent in those who are vaccinated. The strains not covered in the vaccine you see are equally present in the vaccinated and non-vaccinated.”

Angela L. Myers, MD, MPH, division director of infectious diseases and medical director of the Center for Wellbeing at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, added, “Unlike for cervical cancer, there are no screening programs for oropharyngeal lesions, so you have to wait to see rates until actual cancer develops.”

A 2023 review reported that HPV vaccination reduced levels of oropharyngeal HPV positivity in men, strengthening the case for pangender immunization. 

And in a recent phase 3 doubled-blind trial, GARDASIL 9 reduced the incidence of anogenital persistent infection caused by nine types of HPV compared with a placebo. 
 

Increasing Uptake

The current public health aim is to have 80% of young people in the targeted age group vaccinated with two doses. Today, uptake among those 9-26 years old stands at about 78% of girls and 75% of boys for the first dose, said Annunziata. “But it’s only about 61% for the two doses in the current series, and we want to improve that.” 

Some parents may still harbor fears that immunizing teens and tweens — both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society recommend immunization at age 9 — will open the door to precocious sexual activity. 

“But overall, uptake in tweens and young teens has increased because the messaging has changed,” said Myers, with the rationale now focusing on cancer prevention not sexual-infection prophylaxis. “This is similar to the hepatitis B vaccine, which used to be given to young adults and is now given to newborns to prevent cancer.” 

Cuccaro added that a proactive presentation by healthcare professionals has a significant effect on vaccine uptake and increases the odds of vaccination ninefold. “Providers should take a presumptive approach and avoid just offering the vaccine as an option. It should be included with regular childhood vaccinations,” she said. “And the advantage of starting early at age 9 is that you can spread the doses out across other regular childhood vaccinations, whereas if you start at age 11, you need to add the HPV vaccine to three other vaccines that are given at that time.” 

After age 15, three doses are necessary. “Providers should stress to parents that it’s most effective when given before young people become sexually active and exposed to HPV,” Cuccaro said. And Myers stressed that despite the vaccine’s effectiveness, routine screening for cervical premalignancies is still important. 

Despite increasing coverage, vaccination rates have some distance to go before the public health target of at least 80% uptake of the series in the targeted age group, Cuccaro cautioned.

On the global stage, barriers to immunization remain, but the World Health Organization has endorsed a campaign to eradicate cervical cancer through HPV vaccination. It has predicted that the 21st century may be the last to experience HPV-associated cancers, currently responsible for more than 300,000 annual deaths worldwide.
 

A Brief History of HPV Vaccines

• 1951. Cervical cancer patient Henrietta Lacks’ rapidly dividing cervical cells are collected by George Otto Gey at Johns Hopkins Hospital. They create the first immortal cell line (HeLa) used to study cancers and vaccines worldwide.
• 1976. Harald zur Hausen suggests that genital wart-associated HPV, not herpes simplex, is the probable cause of cervical cancer.
• 1983. HPV is confirmed as a cause of cancer.
• 1991. The first HPV vaccine is developed.
• 2002. Proof of principle and protective efficacy for the monovalent HPV 16 are shown.
• 2006. Merck’s Gardasil 4 (HPV 4) is FDA approved in girls ages 9-26 for protection against strains 6, 11, 16, and 18 — the cause of more than 70% of cervical cancer cases.
• 2009. Approval of Gardasil 4 is expanded to boys ages 9-26 for the prevention of genital warts.
• 2009. The FDA approves GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix (HPV 16 and 18) for girls and young women. The vaccine was withdrawn from the US market in 2016 following the success of Gardasil 9 but is used abroad for HPV cancer prevention.
• 2014. The 9-valent recombinant vaccine Gardasil 9 is FDA approved for protection against several low-risk, wart-causing HPV strains as well as the high-risk cancer strains targeted by HPV 4.
• 2018. The FDA expands approval to include females and males 27-45 years old.
• 2020. The FDA extends approval of Gardasil 9 to include prevention not only of cervical cancer but also, vaginal, vulvar, anal, oropharyngeal, and other head and neck cancers.

Annunziata, Cuccaro, and Myers had no competing interests to declare.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Better prediagnosis dietary quality is linked to improved survival in Black women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC). No significant survival association was found among the full study sample, which included women with multiple types of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study among 483 self-identified Black women aged 20-79 years newly diagnosed with histologically confirmed EOC between December 2010 and December 2015.
• The study aimed to examine associations between dietary patterns and survival among Black women diagnosed with EOC using data from the African American Cancer Epidemiology Study.
• Dietary patterns were assessed using the Healthy Eating Index–2020 (HEI-2020) and Alternative Healthy Eating Index–2010 (AHEI-2010), based on dietary intake in the year prior to diagnosis collected via the validated Block 2005 Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ). Participant characteristics were summarized across quartiles of HEI-2020 and AHEI-2010 scores.
• The researchers obtained and summarized clinical characteristics, including tumor characteristics, first-line treatment regimen, debulking status, residual disease, and cancer antigen 125 levels, from medical records.
• The main outcome measure was overall survival, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs estimated from multivariable Cox models for the association between adherence to dietary recommendations and overall mortality. Follow-up was conducted until October 2022, with data analyzed from March 2023 to June 2024.

TAKEAWAY:

• No significant association was found between dietary patterns and overall mortality among women with EOC.
• Among women with HGSOC, the most lethal histotype of EOC, better adherence to the HEI-2020 was associated with decreased mortality in later quartiles vs the first quartile (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.92).
• Similar results were observed with the AHEI-2010 among women with HGSOC for the second (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.89) and fourth (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45-0.98) quartiles vs the first quartile.
• Women with moderate and high prediagnosis dietary quality had significantly lower mortality rates from HGSOC than those with the lowest prediagnosis dietary quality.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that prediagnosis dietary patterns (ie, the combination of foods and nutrients) are more important than individual components for ovarian cancer survival as shown by comparing results of dietary patterns with individual components,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Tsion A. Armidie, MPH, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. It was published online on October 18 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s limitations included the potential for residual confounding, despite accounting for a wide array of covariates. The median time between diagnosis and FFQ completion was 5.8 months, which may have introduced measurement errors in dietary recall. Additionally, the study did not collect postdiagnostic dietary information, which could have provided further insights into the association between diet and survival.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. One coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from the US Department of Defense during the conduct of the study and Bristol-Myers Squibb and Karyopharm outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Ashcraft and Gerel outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Epidemiologic Research & Methods outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Better prediagnosis dietary quality is linked to improved survival in Black women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC). No significant survival association was found among the full study sample, which included women with multiple types of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study among 483 self-identified Black women aged 20-79 years newly diagnosed with histologically confirmed EOC between December 2010 and December 2015.
• The study aimed to examine associations between dietary patterns and survival among Black women diagnosed with EOC using data from the African American Cancer Epidemiology Study.
• Dietary patterns were assessed using the Healthy Eating Index–2020 (HEI-2020) and Alternative Healthy Eating Index–2010 (AHEI-2010), based on dietary intake in the year prior to diagnosis collected via the validated Block 2005 Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ). Participant characteristics were summarized across quartiles of HEI-2020 and AHEI-2010 scores.
• The researchers obtained and summarized clinical characteristics, including tumor characteristics, first-line treatment regimen, debulking status, residual disease, and cancer antigen 125 levels, from medical records.
• The main outcome measure was overall survival, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs estimated from multivariable Cox models for the association between adherence to dietary recommendations and overall mortality. Follow-up was conducted until October 2022, with data analyzed from March 2023 to June 2024.

TAKEAWAY:

• No significant association was found between dietary patterns and overall mortality among women with EOC.
• Among women with HGSOC, the most lethal histotype of EOC, better adherence to the HEI-2020 was associated with decreased mortality in later quartiles vs the first quartile (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.92).
• Similar results were observed with the AHEI-2010 among women with HGSOC for the second (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.89) and fourth (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45-0.98) quartiles vs the first quartile.
• Women with moderate and high prediagnosis dietary quality had significantly lower mortality rates from HGSOC than those with the lowest prediagnosis dietary quality.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that prediagnosis dietary patterns (ie, the combination of foods and nutrients) are more important than individual components for ovarian cancer survival as shown by comparing results of dietary patterns with individual components,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Tsion A. Armidie, MPH, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. It was published online on October 18 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s limitations included the potential for residual confounding, despite accounting for a wide array of covariates. The median time between diagnosis and FFQ completion was 5.8 months, which may have introduced measurement errors in dietary recall. Additionally, the study did not collect postdiagnostic dietary information, which could have provided further insights into the association between diet and survival.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. One coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from the US Department of Defense during the conduct of the study and Bristol-Myers Squibb and Karyopharm outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Ashcraft and Gerel outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Epidemiologic Research & Methods outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Better prediagnosis dietary quality is linked to improved survival in Black women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC). No significant survival association was found among the full study sample, which included women with multiple types of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study among 483 self-identified Black women aged 20-79 years newly diagnosed with histologically confirmed EOC between December 2010 and December 2015.
• The study aimed to examine associations between dietary patterns and survival among Black women diagnosed with EOC using data from the African American Cancer Epidemiology Study.
• Dietary patterns were assessed using the Healthy Eating Index–2020 (HEI-2020) and Alternative Healthy Eating Index–2010 (AHEI-2010), based on dietary intake in the year prior to diagnosis collected via the validated Block 2005 Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ). Participant characteristics were summarized across quartiles of HEI-2020 and AHEI-2010 scores.
• The researchers obtained and summarized clinical characteristics, including tumor characteristics, first-line treatment regimen, debulking status, residual disease, and cancer antigen 125 levels, from medical records.
• The main outcome measure was overall survival, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs estimated from multivariable Cox models for the association between adherence to dietary recommendations and overall mortality. Follow-up was conducted until October 2022, with data analyzed from March 2023 to June 2024.

TAKEAWAY:

• No significant association was found between dietary patterns and overall mortality among women with EOC.
• Among women with HGSOC, the most lethal histotype of EOC, better adherence to the HEI-2020 was associated with decreased mortality in later quartiles vs the first quartile (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.92).
• Similar results were observed with the AHEI-2010 among women with HGSOC for the second (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.89) and fourth (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45-0.98) quartiles vs the first quartile.
• Women with moderate and high prediagnosis dietary quality had significantly lower mortality rates from HGSOC than those with the lowest prediagnosis dietary quality.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that prediagnosis dietary patterns (ie, the combination of foods and nutrients) are more important than individual components for ovarian cancer survival as shown by comparing results of dietary patterns with individual components,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Tsion A. Armidie, MPH, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. It was published online on October 18 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s limitations included the potential for residual confounding, despite accounting for a wide array of covariates. The median time between diagnosis and FFQ completion was 5.8 months, which may have introduced measurement errors in dietary recall. Additionally, the study did not collect postdiagnostic dietary information, which could have provided further insights into the association between diet and survival.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. One coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from the US Department of Defense during the conduct of the study and Bristol-Myers Squibb and Karyopharm outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Ashcraft and Gerel outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Epidemiologic Research & Methods outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

SAN FRANCISCO — While the physical toll of cancer is well documented, the financial toll can also be severe and lasting.

Overall, patients with cancer tend to face higher rates of debt collection, medical collections, and bankruptcies, as well as lower credit scores, according to two new studies presented at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress 2024.

“These are the first studies to provide numerical evidence of financial toxicity among cancer survivors,” Benjamin C. James, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts, who worked on both studies, said in a statement. “Previous data on this topic largely relies on subjective survey reviews.”

In one study, researchers used the Massachusetts Cancer Registry to identify 99,175 patients diagnosed with cancer between 2010 and 2019 and matched them with 188,875 control individuals without cancer. Researchers then assessed financial toxicity using Experian credit bureau data for participants.

Overall, patients with cancer faced a range of financial challenges that often lasted years following their diagnosis.

Patients were nearly five times more likely to experience bankruptcy and had average credit scores nearly 80 points lower than control individuals without cancer. The drop in credit scores was more pronounced for survivors of bladder, liver, lung, and colorectal cancer (CRC) and persisted for up to 9.5 years.

For certain cancer types, in particular, “we are looking years after a diagnosis, and we see that the credit score goes down and it never comes back up,” James said.

The other study, which used a sample of 7227 patients with CRC from Massachusetts, identified several factors that correlated with lower credit scores.

Compared with patients who only had surgery, peers who underwent radiation only experienced a 62-point drop in their credit score after their diagnosis, while those who had chemotherapy alone had just over a 14-point drop in their credit score. Among patients who had combination treatments, those who underwent both surgery and radiation experienced a nearly 16-point drop in their credit score and those who had surgery and chemoradiation actually experienced a 2.59 bump, compared with those who had surgery alone.

Financial toxicity was worse for patients younger than 62 years, those identifying as Black or Hispanic individuals, unmarried individuals, those with an annual income below $52,000, and those living in deprived areas.

The studies add to findings from the 2015 North American Thyroid Cancer Survivorship Study, which reported that 50% of thyroid cancer survivors encountered financial toxicity because of their diagnosis.

James said the persistent financial strain of cancer care, even in a state like Massachusetts, which mandates universal healthcare, underscores the need for “broader policy changes and reforms, including reconsidering debt collection practices.”

“Financial security should be a priority in cancer care,” he added.

The studies had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant conflict of interest.

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

SAN FRANCISCO — While the physical toll of cancer is well documented, the financial toll can also be severe and lasting.

Overall, patients with cancer tend to face higher rates of debt collection, medical collections, and bankruptcies, as well as lower credit scores, according to two new studies presented at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress 2024.

“These are the first studies to provide numerical evidence of financial toxicity among cancer survivors,” Benjamin C. James, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts, who worked on both studies, said in a statement. “Previous data on this topic largely relies on subjective survey reviews.”

In one study, researchers used the Massachusetts Cancer Registry to identify 99,175 patients diagnosed with cancer between 2010 and 2019 and matched them with 188,875 control individuals without cancer. Researchers then assessed financial toxicity using Experian credit bureau data for participants.

Overall, patients with cancer faced a range of financial challenges that often lasted years following their diagnosis.

Patients were nearly five times more likely to experience bankruptcy and had average credit scores nearly 80 points lower than control individuals without cancer. The drop in credit scores was more pronounced for survivors of bladder, liver, lung, and colorectal cancer (CRC) and persisted for up to 9.5 years.

For certain cancer types, in particular, “we are looking years after a diagnosis, and we see that the credit score goes down and it never comes back up,” James said.

The other study, which used a sample of 7227 patients with CRC from Massachusetts, identified several factors that correlated with lower credit scores.

Compared with patients who only had surgery, peers who underwent radiation only experienced a 62-point drop in their credit score after their diagnosis, while those who had chemotherapy alone had just over a 14-point drop in their credit score. Among patients who had combination treatments, those who underwent both surgery and radiation experienced a nearly 16-point drop in their credit score and those who had surgery and chemoradiation actually experienced a 2.59 bump, compared with those who had surgery alone.

Financial toxicity was worse for patients younger than 62 years, those identifying as Black or Hispanic individuals, unmarried individuals, those with an annual income below $52,000, and those living in deprived areas.

The studies add to findings from the 2015 North American Thyroid Cancer Survivorship Study, which reported that 50% of thyroid cancer survivors encountered financial toxicity because of their diagnosis.

James said the persistent financial strain of cancer care, even in a state like Massachusetts, which mandates universal healthcare, underscores the need for “broader policy changes and reforms, including reconsidering debt collection practices.”

“Financial security should be a priority in cancer care,” he added.

The studies had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant conflict of interest.

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

SAN FRANCISCO — While the physical toll of cancer is well documented, the financial toll can also be severe and lasting.

Overall, patients with cancer tend to face higher rates of debt collection, medical collections, and bankruptcies, as well as lower credit scores, according to two new studies presented at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress 2024.

“These are the first studies to provide numerical evidence of financial toxicity among cancer survivors,” Benjamin C. James, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts, who worked on both studies, said in a statement. “Previous data on this topic largely relies on subjective survey reviews.”

In one study, researchers used the Massachusetts Cancer Registry to identify 99,175 patients diagnosed with cancer between 2010 and 2019 and matched them with 188,875 control individuals without cancer. Researchers then assessed financial toxicity using Experian credit bureau data for participants.

Overall, patients with cancer faced a range of financial challenges that often lasted years following their diagnosis.

Patients were nearly five times more likely to experience bankruptcy and had average credit scores nearly 80 points lower than control individuals without cancer. The drop in credit scores was more pronounced for survivors of bladder, liver, lung, and colorectal cancer (CRC) and persisted for up to 9.5 years.

For certain cancer types, in particular, “we are looking years after a diagnosis, and we see that the credit score goes down and it never comes back up,” James said.

The other study, which used a sample of 7227 patients with CRC from Massachusetts, identified several factors that correlated with lower credit scores.

Compared with patients who only had surgery, peers who underwent radiation only experienced a 62-point drop in their credit score after their diagnosis, while those who had chemotherapy alone had just over a 14-point drop in their credit score. Among patients who had combination treatments, those who underwent both surgery and radiation experienced a nearly 16-point drop in their credit score and those who had surgery and chemoradiation actually experienced a 2.59 bump, compared with those who had surgery alone.

Financial toxicity was worse for patients younger than 62 years, those identifying as Black or Hispanic individuals, unmarried individuals, those with an annual income below $52,000, and those living in deprived areas.

The studies add to findings from the 2015 North American Thyroid Cancer Survivorship Study, which reported that 50% of thyroid cancer survivors encountered financial toxicity because of their diagnosis.

James said the persistent financial strain of cancer care, even in a state like Massachusetts, which mandates universal healthcare, underscores the need for “broader policy changes and reforms, including reconsidering debt collection practices.”

“Financial security should be a priority in cancer care,” he added.

The studies had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant conflict of interest.

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

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

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

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

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

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

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

Cancer is becoming more common in younger generations. Data show that people under 50 are experiencing higher rates of cancer than any generation before them. As a genetic counselor, I hoped these upward trends in early-onset malignancies would slow with a better understanding of risk factors and prevention strategies. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. Recent findings from the American Cancer Society reveal that the incidence of at least 17 of 34 cancer types is rising among GenX and Millennials. 

These statistics are alarming. I appreciate how easy it is for patients to get lost in the headlines about cancer, which may shape how they approach their healthcare. Each year, millions of Americans miss critical cancer screenings, with many citing fear of a positive test result as a leading reason. Others believe, despite the statistics, that cancer is not something they need to worry about until they are older. And then, of course, getting screened is not as easy as it should be. 

In my work, I meet with people from both younger and older generations who have either faced cancer themselves or witnessed a loved one experience the disease. One of the most common sentiments I hear from these patients is the desire to catch cancer earlier. My answer is always this: The first and most important step everyone can take is understanding their risk. 

For some, knowing they are at increased risk for cancer means starting screenings earlier — sometimes as early as age 25 — or getting screened with a more sensitive test. 

This proactive approach is the right one. Early detection can dramatically increase survival rates, sometimes by up to eightfold, depending on the type of cancer. It also significantly reduces the burden of total and cancer-specific healthcare costs. While screening may carry some potential risks, clinicians can minimize these risks by adhering to evidence-based guidelines, such as those from the American Cancer Society, and ensuring there is appropriate discussion of treatment options when a diagnosis is made.
 

Normalizing Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening 

A detailed cancer risk assessment and education about signs and symptoms should be part of every preventive care visit, regardless of someone’s age. Further, that cancer risk assessment should lead to clear recommendations and support for taking the next steps. 

This is where care advocacy and patient navigation come in. Care advocacy can improve outcomes at every stage of the cancer journey, from increasing screening rates to improving quality of life for survivors. I’ve seen first-hand how care advocates help patients overcome hurdles like long wait times for appointments they need, making both screening and diagnostic care easier to access. 

Now, with the finalization of a new rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, providers can bill for oncology navigation services that occur under their supervision. This formal recognition of care navigation affirms the value of these services not just clinically but financially as well. It will be through methods like care navigation, targeted outreach, and engaging educational resources — built into and covered by health plans — that patients will feel more in control over their health and have tools to help minimize the effects of cancer on the rest of their lives. 

These services benefit healthcare providers as well. Care navigation supports clinical care teams, from primary care providers to oncologists, by ensuring patients are seen before their cancer progresses to a more advanced stage. And even if patients follow screening recommendations for the rest of their lives and never get a positive result, they’ve still gained something invaluable: peace of mind, knowing they’ve taken an active role in their health. 
 

Fighting Fear With Routine

Treating cancer as a normal part of young people’s healthcare means helping them envision the disease as a condition that can be treated, much like a diagnosis of diabetes or high cholesterol. This mindset shift means quickly following up on a concerning symptom or screening result and reducing the time to start treatment if needed. And with treatment options and success rates for some cancers being better than ever, survivorship support must be built into every treatment plan from the start. Before treatment begins, healthcare providers should make time to talk about sometimes-overlooked key topics, such as reproductive options for people whose fertility may be affected by their cancer treatment, about plans for returning to work during or after treatment, and finding the right mental health support. 

Where we can’t prevent cancer, both primary care providers and oncologists can work together to help patients receive the right diagnosis and treatment as quickly as possible. Knowing insurance coverage has a direct effect on how early cancer is caught, for example, younger people need support in understanding and accessing benefits and resources that may be available through their existing healthcare channels, like some employer-sponsored health plans. Even if getting treated for cancer is inevitable for some, taking immediate action to get screened when it’s appropriate is the best thing we can do to lessen the impact of these rising cancer incidences across the country. At the end of the day, being afraid of cancer doesn’t decrease the chances of getting sick or dying from it. Proactive screening and early detection do. 
 

Brockman, Genetic Counselor, Color Health, Buffalo, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer is becoming more common in younger generations. Data show that people under 50 are experiencing higher rates of cancer than any generation before them. As a genetic counselor, I hoped these upward trends in early-onset malignancies would slow with a better understanding of risk factors and prevention strategies. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. Recent findings from the American Cancer Society reveal that the incidence of at least 17 of 34 cancer types is rising among GenX and Millennials. 

These statistics are alarming. I appreciate how easy it is for patients to get lost in the headlines about cancer, which may shape how they approach their healthcare. Each year, millions of Americans miss critical cancer screenings, with many citing fear of a positive test result as a leading reason. Others believe, despite the statistics, that cancer is not something they need to worry about until they are older. And then, of course, getting screened is not as easy as it should be. 

In my work, I meet with people from both younger and older generations who have either faced cancer themselves or witnessed a loved one experience the disease. One of the most common sentiments I hear from these patients is the desire to catch cancer earlier. My answer is always this: The first and most important step everyone can take is understanding their risk. 

For some, knowing they are at increased risk for cancer means starting screenings earlier — sometimes as early as age 25 — or getting screened with a more sensitive test. 

This proactive approach is the right one. Early detection can dramatically increase survival rates, sometimes by up to eightfold, depending on the type of cancer. It also significantly reduces the burden of total and cancer-specific healthcare costs. While screening may carry some potential risks, clinicians can minimize these risks by adhering to evidence-based guidelines, such as those from the American Cancer Society, and ensuring there is appropriate discussion of treatment options when a diagnosis is made.
 

Normalizing Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening 

A detailed cancer risk assessment and education about signs and symptoms should be part of every preventive care visit, regardless of someone’s age. Further, that cancer risk assessment should lead to clear recommendations and support for taking the next steps. 

This is where care advocacy and patient navigation come in. Care advocacy can improve outcomes at every stage of the cancer journey, from increasing screening rates to improving quality of life for survivors. I’ve seen first-hand how care advocates help patients overcome hurdles like long wait times for appointments they need, making both screening and diagnostic care easier to access. 

Now, with the finalization of a new rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, providers can bill for oncology navigation services that occur under their supervision. This formal recognition of care navigation affirms the value of these services not just clinically but financially as well. It will be through methods like care navigation, targeted outreach, and engaging educational resources — built into and covered by health plans — that patients will feel more in control over their health and have tools to help minimize the effects of cancer on the rest of their lives. 

These services benefit healthcare providers as well. Care navigation supports clinical care teams, from primary care providers to oncologists, by ensuring patients are seen before their cancer progresses to a more advanced stage. And even if patients follow screening recommendations for the rest of their lives and never get a positive result, they’ve still gained something invaluable: peace of mind, knowing they’ve taken an active role in their health. 
 

Fighting Fear With Routine

Treating cancer as a normal part of young people’s healthcare means helping them envision the disease as a condition that can be treated, much like a diagnosis of diabetes or high cholesterol. This mindset shift means quickly following up on a concerning symptom or screening result and reducing the time to start treatment if needed. And with treatment options and success rates for some cancers being better than ever, survivorship support must be built into every treatment plan from the start. Before treatment begins, healthcare providers should make time to talk about sometimes-overlooked key topics, such as reproductive options for people whose fertility may be affected by their cancer treatment, about plans for returning to work during or after treatment, and finding the right mental health support. 

Where we can’t prevent cancer, both primary care providers and oncologists can work together to help patients receive the right diagnosis and treatment as quickly as possible. Knowing insurance coverage has a direct effect on how early cancer is caught, for example, younger people need support in understanding and accessing benefits and resources that may be available through their existing healthcare channels, like some employer-sponsored health plans. Even if getting treated for cancer is inevitable for some, taking immediate action to get screened when it’s appropriate is the best thing we can do to lessen the impact of these rising cancer incidences across the country. At the end of the day, being afraid of cancer doesn’t decrease the chances of getting sick or dying from it. Proactive screening and early detection do. 
 

Brockman, Genetic Counselor, Color Health, Buffalo, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer is becoming more common in younger generations. Data show that people under 50 are experiencing higher rates of cancer than any generation before them. As a genetic counselor, I hoped these upward trends in early-onset malignancies would slow with a better understanding of risk factors and prevention strategies. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. Recent findings from the American Cancer Society reveal that the incidence of at least 17 of 34 cancer types is rising among GenX and Millennials. 

These statistics are alarming. I appreciate how easy it is for patients to get lost in the headlines about cancer, which may shape how they approach their healthcare. Each year, millions of Americans miss critical cancer screenings, with many citing fear of a positive test result as a leading reason. Others believe, despite the statistics, that cancer is not something they need to worry about until they are older. And then, of course, getting screened is not as easy as it should be. 

In my work, I meet with people from both younger and older generations who have either faced cancer themselves or witnessed a loved one experience the disease. One of the most common sentiments I hear from these patients is the desire to catch cancer earlier. My answer is always this: The first and most important step everyone can take is understanding their risk. 

For some, knowing they are at increased risk for cancer means starting screenings earlier — sometimes as early as age 25 — or getting screened with a more sensitive test. 

This proactive approach is the right one. Early detection can dramatically increase survival rates, sometimes by up to eightfold, depending on the type of cancer. It also significantly reduces the burden of total and cancer-specific healthcare costs. While screening may carry some potential risks, clinicians can minimize these risks by adhering to evidence-based guidelines, such as those from the American Cancer Society, and ensuring there is appropriate discussion of treatment options when a diagnosis is made.
 

Normalizing Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening 

A detailed cancer risk assessment and education about signs and symptoms should be part of every preventive care visit, regardless of someone’s age. Further, that cancer risk assessment should lead to clear recommendations and support for taking the next steps. 

This is where care advocacy and patient navigation come in. Care advocacy can improve outcomes at every stage of the cancer journey, from increasing screening rates to improving quality of life for survivors. I’ve seen first-hand how care advocates help patients overcome hurdles like long wait times for appointments they need, making both screening and diagnostic care easier to access. 

Now, with the finalization of a new rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, providers can bill for oncology navigation services that occur under their supervision. This formal recognition of care navigation affirms the value of these services not just clinically but financially as well. It will be through methods like care navigation, targeted outreach, and engaging educational resources — built into and covered by health plans — that patients will feel more in control over their health and have tools to help minimize the effects of cancer on the rest of their lives. 

These services benefit healthcare providers as well. Care navigation supports clinical care teams, from primary care providers to oncologists, by ensuring patients are seen before their cancer progresses to a more advanced stage. And even if patients follow screening recommendations for the rest of their lives and never get a positive result, they’ve still gained something invaluable: peace of mind, knowing they’ve taken an active role in their health. 
 

Fighting Fear With Routine

Treating cancer as a normal part of young people’s healthcare means helping them envision the disease as a condition that can be treated, much like a diagnosis of diabetes or high cholesterol. This mindset shift means quickly following up on a concerning symptom or screening result and reducing the time to start treatment if needed. And with treatment options and success rates for some cancers being better than ever, survivorship support must be built into every treatment plan from the start. Before treatment begins, healthcare providers should make time to talk about sometimes-overlooked key topics, such as reproductive options for people whose fertility may be affected by their cancer treatment, about plans for returning to work during or after treatment, and finding the right mental health support. 

Where we can’t prevent cancer, both primary care providers and oncologists can work together to help patients receive the right diagnosis and treatment as quickly as possible. Knowing insurance coverage has a direct effect on how early cancer is caught, for example, younger people need support in understanding and accessing benefits and resources that may be available through their existing healthcare channels, like some employer-sponsored health plans. Even if getting treated for cancer is inevitable for some, taking immediate action to get screened when it’s appropriate is the best thing we can do to lessen the impact of these rising cancer incidences across the country. At the end of the day, being afraid of cancer doesn’t decrease the chances of getting sick or dying from it. Proactive screening and early detection do. 
 

Brockman, Genetic Counselor, Color Health, Buffalo, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In Canada, switching to a one-dose, gender-neutral vaccination program for human papillomavirus (HPV) could use vaccine doses more efficiently and prevent a similar number of cervical cancer cases, compared with a two-dose program, according to a new modeling analysis.

If vaccine protection remains high during the ages of peak sexual activity, all one-dose vaccination options are projected to be “substantially more efficient” than two-dose programs, even in the most pessimistic scenarios, the study authors wrote.

In addition, the scenarios projected the elimination of cervical cancer in Canada between 2032 and 2040. HPV can also lead to oral, throat, and penile cancers, and most are preventable through vaccination.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted HPV vaccination in Canada, particularly among vulnerable population subgroups,” said study author Chantal Sauvageau, MD, a consultant in infectious diseases at the National Institute of Public Health of Quebec and associate professor of social and preventive medicine at the University of Laval, Quebec City, Canada.

Switching to one-dose vaccination would offer potential economic savings and programmatic flexibility, she added. The change also could enable investments aimed at increasing vaccination rates in regions where coverage is suboptimal, as well as in subgroups with a high HPV burden. Such initiatives could mitigate the pandemic’s impact on health programs and reduce inequalities.

The study was published online in CMAJ.
 

Vaccination Program Changes

Globally, countries have been investigating whether to shift from a two-dose to a one-dose HPV vaccine strategy since the World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization issued a single-dose recommendation in 2022.

In July, Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) updated its guidelines to recommend the single-dose approach for ages 9-20 years. The change aligns Canada with 35 other countries, including Australia and the United Kingdom. Canada›s vaccine advisory group still recommends two doses for ages 21-26 years and three doses for patients who are immunocompromised or have HIV.

To help inform new NACI policies, Sauvageau and colleagues modeled several one-dose and two-dose strategies using HPV-ADVISE, an individual-based transmission-dynamic model of HPV infections and diseases. They looked at vaccination programs in Quebec, which has a high HPV vaccine coverage rate of around 85%, and Ontario, which has lower coverage of around 65%.

For one-dose programs, the researchers analyzed noninferior (98% efficacy) and pessimistic (90% efficacy) scenarios and different average vaccine duration periods, including lifelong, 30-year, and 25-year coverage. They compared the scenarios with a two-dose program with 98% efficacy and lifelong duration, estimating the relative reduction in HPV-16 infection and cervical cancer incidence and the number of doses needed to prevent one cervical cancer case.

Overall, the model projected that gender-neutral HPV vaccine programs with either two doses or a noninferior one dose would nearly eliminate HPV-16 infection by 2040-2045 in Quebec and reduce infection by more than 90% in Ontario. Under a one-dose strategy with 90% vaccine efficacy, rebounds in HPV-16 infection would start more than 25-30 years after a switch to a lower-dose strategy, thus providing time for officials to detect any signs of waning efficacy and change policies, if needed, the authors wrote.

In addition, the model projected that a noninferior one-dose, gender-neutral HPV vaccination program would avert a similar number of cervical cancer cases, compared with a two-dose program. The reduction would be about 60% in Quebec and 55% in Ontario, compared with no vaccination. Under the most pessimistic scenario with 25-year vaccine duration, a one-dose program would be slightly less effective in averting cancer: about 3% lower than a two-dose program over 100 years.

All one-dose scenarios were projected to lead to the elimination of cervical cancer in 8-16 years — at fewer than four cervical cancer cases per 100,000 female-years.

One-dose programs would also lead to more efficient use of vaccine doses, with about 800-1000 doses needed to prevent one cervical cancer case in a one-dose program and more than 10,000 incremental doses needed to prevent one additional cervical cancer case in a two-dose program.
 

What Next?

In Canada, the HPV vaccine is authorized for patients aged 9-45 years. Current immunization coverage among adolescents and young adults varies across provinces and falls below the national target of 90%. In its July 2024 update, NACI estimated that 76% of 14-year-olds of both genders received at least one vaccine dose and that 67% received two doses in 2023. Vaccine uptake was slightly higher among girls than boys.

To boost the coverage rate, shifting to a one-dose schedule could appeal to young people, as well as maintain vaccination efficacy.

“When you look at the studies that have been published worldwide, the effectiveness of one dose of the HPV vaccine is actually quite high,” said Caroline Quach-Thanh, MD, professor of microbiology, infectious diseases, immunology, and pediatrics at the University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Quach-Thanh, who wasn’t involved with this study, previously served as NACI chair and now serves as chair of the Quebec Immunization Committee.

“In terms of prevention of HPV infections that may lead to cancer, whether you give one dose or two doses basically gives you the same amount of protection,” she said.

However, not all physicians agree about the switch in vaccination approaches. In early October, the Federation of Medical Women of Canada released a report with 12 recommendations to increase HPV vaccination rates, including a call for healthcare providers to continue with multidose immunization schedules for now.

“Vaccination is the most powerful action we can take in preventing HPV-related cancers. Canada is falling behind, but we can get back on track if we act quickly,” said Vivien Brown, MD, chair of the group’s HPV Immunization Task Force, chair and cofounder of HPV Prevention Week in Canada, and a past president of the federation.

After the NACI update in July, the task force evaluated the risks and benefits of a single-dose vaccine regimen, she said. They concluded that a multidose schedule should continue at this time because of its proven effectiveness.

“Until more research on the efficacy of a single-dose schedule becomes available, healthcare providers and public health agencies should continue to offer patients a multidose schedule,” said Brown. “This is the only way to ensure individuals are protected against HPV infection and cancer over the long term.”

The study was supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Canadian Immunization Research Network. Sauvageau, Quach-Thanh, and Brown declared no relevant financial disclosures.

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

In Canada, switching to a one-dose, gender-neutral vaccination program for human papillomavirus (HPV) could use vaccine doses more efficiently and prevent a similar number of cervical cancer cases, compared with a two-dose program, according to a new modeling analysis.

If vaccine protection remains high during the ages of peak sexual activity, all one-dose vaccination options are projected to be “substantially more efficient” than two-dose programs, even in the most pessimistic scenarios, the study authors wrote.

In addition, the scenarios projected the elimination of cervical cancer in Canada between 2032 and 2040. HPV can also lead to oral, throat, and penile cancers, and most are preventable through vaccination.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted HPV vaccination in Canada, particularly among vulnerable population subgroups,” said study author Chantal Sauvageau, MD, a consultant in infectious diseases at the National Institute of Public Health of Quebec and associate professor of social and preventive medicine at the University of Laval, Quebec City, Canada.

Switching to one-dose vaccination would offer potential economic savings and programmatic flexibility, she added. The change also could enable investments aimed at increasing vaccination rates in regions where coverage is suboptimal, as well as in subgroups with a high HPV burden. Such initiatives could mitigate the pandemic’s impact on health programs and reduce inequalities.

The study was published online in CMAJ.
 

Vaccination Program Changes

Globally, countries have been investigating whether to shift from a two-dose to a one-dose HPV vaccine strategy since the World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization issued a single-dose recommendation in 2022.

In July, Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) updated its guidelines to recommend the single-dose approach for ages 9-20 years. The change aligns Canada with 35 other countries, including Australia and the United Kingdom. Canada›s vaccine advisory group still recommends two doses for ages 21-26 years and three doses for patients who are immunocompromised or have HIV.

To help inform new NACI policies, Sauvageau and colleagues modeled several one-dose and two-dose strategies using HPV-ADVISE, an individual-based transmission-dynamic model of HPV infections and diseases. They looked at vaccination programs in Quebec, which has a high HPV vaccine coverage rate of around 85%, and Ontario, which has lower coverage of around 65%.

For one-dose programs, the researchers analyzed noninferior (98% efficacy) and pessimistic (90% efficacy) scenarios and different average vaccine duration periods, including lifelong, 30-year, and 25-year coverage. They compared the scenarios with a two-dose program with 98% efficacy and lifelong duration, estimating the relative reduction in HPV-16 infection and cervical cancer incidence and the number of doses needed to prevent one cervical cancer case.

Overall, the model projected that gender-neutral HPV vaccine programs with either two doses or a noninferior one dose would nearly eliminate HPV-16 infection by 2040-2045 in Quebec and reduce infection by more than 90% in Ontario. Under a one-dose strategy with 90% vaccine efficacy, rebounds in HPV-16 infection would start more than 25-30 years after a switch to a lower-dose strategy, thus providing time for officials to detect any signs of waning efficacy and change policies, if needed, the authors wrote.

In addition, the model projected that a noninferior one-dose, gender-neutral HPV vaccination program would avert a similar number of cervical cancer cases, compared with a two-dose program. The reduction would be about 60% in Quebec and 55% in Ontario, compared with no vaccination. Under the most pessimistic scenario with 25-year vaccine duration, a one-dose program would be slightly less effective in averting cancer: about 3% lower than a two-dose program over 100 years.

All one-dose scenarios were projected to lead to the elimination of cervical cancer in 8-16 years — at fewer than four cervical cancer cases per 100,000 female-years.

One-dose programs would also lead to more efficient use of vaccine doses, with about 800-1000 doses needed to prevent one cervical cancer case in a one-dose program and more than 10,000 incremental doses needed to prevent one additional cervical cancer case in a two-dose program.
 

What Next?

In Canada, the HPV vaccine is authorized for patients aged 9-45 years. Current immunization coverage among adolescents and young adults varies across provinces and falls below the national target of 90%. In its July 2024 update, NACI estimated that 76% of 14-year-olds of both genders received at least one vaccine dose and that 67% received two doses in 2023. Vaccine uptake was slightly higher among girls than boys.

To boost the coverage rate, shifting to a one-dose schedule could appeal to young people, as well as maintain vaccination efficacy.

“When you look at the studies that have been published worldwide, the effectiveness of one dose of the HPV vaccine is actually quite high,” said Caroline Quach-Thanh, MD, professor of microbiology, infectious diseases, immunology, and pediatrics at the University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Quach-Thanh, who wasn’t involved with this study, previously served as NACI chair and now serves as chair of the Quebec Immunization Committee.

“In terms of prevention of HPV infections that may lead to cancer, whether you give one dose or two doses basically gives you the same amount of protection,” she said.

However, not all physicians agree about the switch in vaccination approaches. In early October, the Federation of Medical Women of Canada released a report with 12 recommendations to increase HPV vaccination rates, including a call for healthcare providers to continue with multidose immunization schedules for now.

“Vaccination is the most powerful action we can take in preventing HPV-related cancers. Canada is falling behind, but we can get back on track if we act quickly,” said Vivien Brown, MD, chair of the group’s HPV Immunization Task Force, chair and cofounder of HPV Prevention Week in Canada, and a past president of the federation.

After the NACI update in July, the task force evaluated the risks and benefits of a single-dose vaccine regimen, she said. They concluded that a multidose schedule should continue at this time because of its proven effectiveness.

“Until more research on the efficacy of a single-dose schedule becomes available, healthcare providers and public health agencies should continue to offer patients a multidose schedule,” said Brown. “This is the only way to ensure individuals are protected against HPV infection and cancer over the long term.”

The study was supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Canadian Immunization Research Network. Sauvageau, Quach-Thanh, and Brown declared no relevant financial disclosures.

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

In Canada, switching to a one-dose, gender-neutral vaccination program for human papillomavirus (HPV) could use vaccine doses more efficiently and prevent a similar number of cervical cancer cases, compared with a two-dose program, according to a new modeling analysis.

If vaccine protection remains high during the ages of peak sexual activity, all one-dose vaccination options are projected to be “substantially more efficient” than two-dose programs, even in the most pessimistic scenarios, the study authors wrote.

In addition, the scenarios projected the elimination of cervical cancer in Canada between 2032 and 2040. HPV can also lead to oral, throat, and penile cancers, and most are preventable through vaccination.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted HPV vaccination in Canada, particularly among vulnerable population subgroups,” said study author Chantal Sauvageau, MD, a consultant in infectious diseases at the National Institute of Public Health of Quebec and associate professor of social and preventive medicine at the University of Laval, Quebec City, Canada.

Switching to one-dose vaccination would offer potential economic savings and programmatic flexibility, she added. The change also could enable investments aimed at increasing vaccination rates in regions where coverage is suboptimal, as well as in subgroups with a high HPV burden. Such initiatives could mitigate the pandemic’s impact on health programs and reduce inequalities.

The study was published online in CMAJ.
 

Vaccination Program Changes

Globally, countries have been investigating whether to shift from a two-dose to a one-dose HPV vaccine strategy since the World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization issued a single-dose recommendation in 2022.

In July, Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) updated its guidelines to recommend the single-dose approach for ages 9-20 years. The change aligns Canada with 35 other countries, including Australia and the United Kingdom. Canada›s vaccine advisory group still recommends two doses for ages 21-26 years and three doses for patients who are immunocompromised or have HIV.

To help inform new NACI policies, Sauvageau and colleagues modeled several one-dose and two-dose strategies using HPV-ADVISE, an individual-based transmission-dynamic model of HPV infections and diseases. They looked at vaccination programs in Quebec, which has a high HPV vaccine coverage rate of around 85%, and Ontario, which has lower coverage of around 65%.

For one-dose programs, the researchers analyzed noninferior (98% efficacy) and pessimistic (90% efficacy) scenarios and different average vaccine duration periods, including lifelong, 30-year, and 25-year coverage. They compared the scenarios with a two-dose program with 98% efficacy and lifelong duration, estimating the relative reduction in HPV-16 infection and cervical cancer incidence and the number of doses needed to prevent one cervical cancer case.

Overall, the model projected that gender-neutral HPV vaccine programs with either two doses or a noninferior one dose would nearly eliminate HPV-16 infection by 2040-2045 in Quebec and reduce infection by more than 90% in Ontario. Under a one-dose strategy with 90% vaccine efficacy, rebounds in HPV-16 infection would start more than 25-30 years after a switch to a lower-dose strategy, thus providing time for officials to detect any signs of waning efficacy and change policies, if needed, the authors wrote.

In addition, the model projected that a noninferior one-dose, gender-neutral HPV vaccination program would avert a similar number of cervical cancer cases, compared with a two-dose program. The reduction would be about 60% in Quebec and 55% in Ontario, compared with no vaccination. Under the most pessimistic scenario with 25-year vaccine duration, a one-dose program would be slightly less effective in averting cancer: about 3% lower than a two-dose program over 100 years.

All one-dose scenarios were projected to lead to the elimination of cervical cancer in 8-16 years — at fewer than four cervical cancer cases per 100,000 female-years.

One-dose programs would also lead to more efficient use of vaccine doses, with about 800-1000 doses needed to prevent one cervical cancer case in a one-dose program and more than 10,000 incremental doses needed to prevent one additional cervical cancer case in a two-dose program.
 

What Next?

In Canada, the HPV vaccine is authorized for patients aged 9-45 years. Current immunization coverage among adolescents and young adults varies across provinces and falls below the national target of 90%. In its July 2024 update, NACI estimated that 76% of 14-year-olds of both genders received at least one vaccine dose and that 67% received two doses in 2023. Vaccine uptake was slightly higher among girls than boys.

To boost the coverage rate, shifting to a one-dose schedule could appeal to young people, as well as maintain vaccination efficacy.

“When you look at the studies that have been published worldwide, the effectiveness of one dose of the HPV vaccine is actually quite high,” said Caroline Quach-Thanh, MD, professor of microbiology, infectious diseases, immunology, and pediatrics at the University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Quach-Thanh, who wasn’t involved with this study, previously served as NACI chair and now serves as chair of the Quebec Immunization Committee.

“In terms of prevention of HPV infections that may lead to cancer, whether you give one dose or two doses basically gives you the same amount of protection,” she said.

However, not all physicians agree about the switch in vaccination approaches. In early October, the Federation of Medical Women of Canada released a report with 12 recommendations to increase HPV vaccination rates, including a call for healthcare providers to continue with multidose immunization schedules for now.

“Vaccination is the most powerful action we can take in preventing HPV-related cancers. Canada is falling behind, but we can get back on track if we act quickly,” said Vivien Brown, MD, chair of the group’s HPV Immunization Task Force, chair and cofounder of HPV Prevention Week in Canada, and a past president of the federation.

After the NACI update in July, the task force evaluated the risks and benefits of a single-dose vaccine regimen, she said. They concluded that a multidose schedule should continue at this time because of its proven effectiveness.

“Until more research on the efficacy of a single-dose schedule becomes available, healthcare providers and public health agencies should continue to offer patients a multidose schedule,” said Brown. “This is the only way to ensure individuals are protected against HPV infection and cancer over the long term.”

The study was supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Canadian Immunization Research Network. Sauvageau, Quach-Thanh, and Brown declared no relevant financial disclosures.

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