Lung Cancer

An ancient virus that infected our ancestors tens of millions of years ago may be helping to fuel cancer today, according to a fascinating new study in Science Advances. Targeting these viral remnants still lingering in our DNA could lead to more effective cancer treatment with fewer side effects, the researchers said.

The study “gives a better understanding of how gene regulation can be impacted by these ancient retroviral sequences,” said Dixie Mager, PhD, scientist emeritus at the Terry Fox Laboratory at the British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (Mager was not involved in the study.)

Long thought to be “junk” DNA with no biologic function, “endogenous retroviruses,” which have mutated over time and lost their ability to create the virus, are now known to regulate genes — allowing some genes to turn on and off. Research in recent years suggests they may play a role in diseases like cancer.

But scientists weren’t exactly sure what that role was, said senior study author Edward Chuong, PhD, a genome biologist at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Most studies have looked at whether endogenous retroviruses code for proteins that influence cancer. But these ancient viral strands usually don’t code for proteins at all.

Dr. Chuong took a different approach. Inspired by scientists who’ve studied how viral remnants regulate positive processes (immunity, brain development, or placenta development), he and his team explored whether some might regulate genes that, once activated, help cancer thrive.

Borrowing from epigenomic analysis data (data on molecules that alter gene expression) for 21 cancers mapped by the Cancer Genome Atlas, the researchers identified 19 virus-derived DNA sequences that bind to regulatory proteins more in cancer cells than in healthy cells. All of these could potentially act as gene regulators that promote cancer.

The researchers homed in on one sequence, called LTR10, because it showed especially high activity in several cancers, including lung and colorectal cancer. This DNA segment comes from a virus that entered our ancestors’ genome 30 million years ago, and it’s activated in a third of colorectal cancers.

Using the gene editing technology clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), Dr. Chuong’s team silenced LTR10 in colorectal cancer cells, altering the gene sequence so it couldn’t bind to regulatory proteins. Doing so dampened the activity of nearby cancer-promoting genes.

“They still behaved like cancer cells,” Dr. Chuong said. But “it made the cancer cells more susceptible to radiation. That would imply that the presence of that viral ‘switch’ actually helped those cancer cells survive radiation therapy.”

Previously, two studies had found that viral regulators play a role in promoting two types of cancer: Leukemia and prostate cancer. The new study shows these two cases weren’t flukes. All 21 cancers they looked at had at least one of those 19 viral elements, presumably working as cancer enhancers.

The study also identified what activates LTR10 to make it promote cancer. The culprit is a regulator protein called mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase, which is overactivated in about 40% of all human cancers.

Some cancer drugs — MAP kinase inhibitors — already target MAP kinase, and they’re often the first ones prescribed when a patient is diagnosed with cancer, Dr. Chuong said. As with many cancer treatments, doctors don’t know why they work, just that they do.

“By understanding the mechanisms in the cell, we might be able to make them work better or further optimize their treatment,” he said.

“MAP kinase inhibitors are really like a sledgehammer to the cell,” Dr. Chuong said — meaning they affect many cellular processes, not just those related to cancer.

“If we’re able to say that these viral switches are what’s important, then that could potentially help us develop a more targeted therapy that uses something like CRISPR to silence these viral elements,” he said. Or it could help providers choose a MAP kinase inhibitor from among the dozens available best suited to treat an individual patient and avoid side effects.  

Still, whether the findings translate to real cancer patients remains to be seen. “It’s very, very hard to go the final step of showing in a patient that these actually make a difference in the cancer,” Dr. Mager said.

More lab research, human trials, and at least a few years will be needed before this discovery could help treat cancer. “Directly targeting these elements as a therapy would be at least 5 years out,” Dr. Chuong said, “partly because that application would rely on CRISPR epigenome editing technology that is still being developed for clinical use.”
 

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

An ancient virus that infected our ancestors tens of millions of years ago may be helping to fuel cancer today, according to a fascinating new study in Science Advances. Targeting these viral remnants still lingering in our DNA could lead to more effective cancer treatment with fewer side effects, the researchers said.

The study “gives a better understanding of how gene regulation can be impacted by these ancient retroviral sequences,” said Dixie Mager, PhD, scientist emeritus at the Terry Fox Laboratory at the British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (Mager was not involved in the study.)

Long thought to be “junk” DNA with no biologic function, “endogenous retroviruses,” which have mutated over time and lost their ability to create the virus, are now known to regulate genes — allowing some genes to turn on and off. Research in recent years suggests they may play a role in diseases like cancer.

But scientists weren’t exactly sure what that role was, said senior study author Edward Chuong, PhD, a genome biologist at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Most studies have looked at whether endogenous retroviruses code for proteins that influence cancer. But these ancient viral strands usually don’t code for proteins at all.

Dr. Chuong took a different approach. Inspired by scientists who’ve studied how viral remnants regulate positive processes (immunity, brain development, or placenta development), he and his team explored whether some might regulate genes that, once activated, help cancer thrive.

Borrowing from epigenomic analysis data (data on molecules that alter gene expression) for 21 cancers mapped by the Cancer Genome Atlas, the researchers identified 19 virus-derived DNA sequences that bind to regulatory proteins more in cancer cells than in healthy cells. All of these could potentially act as gene regulators that promote cancer.

The researchers homed in on one sequence, called LTR10, because it showed especially high activity in several cancers, including lung and colorectal cancer. This DNA segment comes from a virus that entered our ancestors’ genome 30 million years ago, and it’s activated in a third of colorectal cancers.

Using the gene editing technology clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), Dr. Chuong’s team silenced LTR10 in colorectal cancer cells, altering the gene sequence so it couldn’t bind to regulatory proteins. Doing so dampened the activity of nearby cancer-promoting genes.

“They still behaved like cancer cells,” Dr. Chuong said. But “it made the cancer cells more susceptible to radiation. That would imply that the presence of that viral ‘switch’ actually helped those cancer cells survive radiation therapy.”

Previously, two studies had found that viral regulators play a role in promoting two types of cancer: Leukemia and prostate cancer. The new study shows these two cases weren’t flukes. All 21 cancers they looked at had at least one of those 19 viral elements, presumably working as cancer enhancers.

The study also identified what activates LTR10 to make it promote cancer. The culprit is a regulator protein called mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase, which is overactivated in about 40% of all human cancers.

Some cancer drugs — MAP kinase inhibitors — already target MAP kinase, and they’re often the first ones prescribed when a patient is diagnosed with cancer, Dr. Chuong said. As with many cancer treatments, doctors don’t know why they work, just that they do.

“By understanding the mechanisms in the cell, we might be able to make them work better or further optimize their treatment,” he said.

“MAP kinase inhibitors are really like a sledgehammer to the cell,” Dr. Chuong said — meaning they affect many cellular processes, not just those related to cancer.

“If we’re able to say that these viral switches are what’s important, then that could potentially help us develop a more targeted therapy that uses something like CRISPR to silence these viral elements,” he said. Or it could help providers choose a MAP kinase inhibitor from among the dozens available best suited to treat an individual patient and avoid side effects.  

Still, whether the findings translate to real cancer patients remains to be seen. “It’s very, very hard to go the final step of showing in a patient that these actually make a difference in the cancer,” Dr. Mager said.

More lab research, human trials, and at least a few years will be needed before this discovery could help treat cancer. “Directly targeting these elements as a therapy would be at least 5 years out,” Dr. Chuong said, “partly because that application would rely on CRISPR epigenome editing technology that is still being developed for clinical use.”
 

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

An ancient virus that infected our ancestors tens of millions of years ago may be helping to fuel cancer today, according to a fascinating new study in Science Advances. Targeting these viral remnants still lingering in our DNA could lead to more effective cancer treatment with fewer side effects, the researchers said.

The study “gives a better understanding of how gene regulation can be impacted by these ancient retroviral sequences,” said Dixie Mager, PhD, scientist emeritus at the Terry Fox Laboratory at the British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (Mager was not involved in the study.)

Long thought to be “junk” DNA with no biologic function, “endogenous retroviruses,” which have mutated over time and lost their ability to create the virus, are now known to regulate genes — allowing some genes to turn on and off. Research in recent years suggests they may play a role in diseases like cancer.

But scientists weren’t exactly sure what that role was, said senior study author Edward Chuong, PhD, a genome biologist at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Most studies have looked at whether endogenous retroviruses code for proteins that influence cancer. But these ancient viral strands usually don’t code for proteins at all.

Dr. Chuong took a different approach. Inspired by scientists who’ve studied how viral remnants regulate positive processes (immunity, brain development, or placenta development), he and his team explored whether some might regulate genes that, once activated, help cancer thrive.

Borrowing from epigenomic analysis data (data on molecules that alter gene expression) for 21 cancers mapped by the Cancer Genome Atlas, the researchers identified 19 virus-derived DNA sequences that bind to regulatory proteins more in cancer cells than in healthy cells. All of these could potentially act as gene regulators that promote cancer.

The researchers homed in on one sequence, called LTR10, because it showed especially high activity in several cancers, including lung and colorectal cancer. This DNA segment comes from a virus that entered our ancestors’ genome 30 million years ago, and it’s activated in a third of colorectal cancers.

Using the gene editing technology clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), Dr. Chuong’s team silenced LTR10 in colorectal cancer cells, altering the gene sequence so it couldn’t bind to regulatory proteins. Doing so dampened the activity of nearby cancer-promoting genes.

“They still behaved like cancer cells,” Dr. Chuong said. But “it made the cancer cells more susceptible to radiation. That would imply that the presence of that viral ‘switch’ actually helped those cancer cells survive radiation therapy.”

Previously, two studies had found that viral regulators play a role in promoting two types of cancer: Leukemia and prostate cancer. The new study shows these two cases weren’t flukes. All 21 cancers they looked at had at least one of those 19 viral elements, presumably working as cancer enhancers.

The study also identified what activates LTR10 to make it promote cancer. The culprit is a regulator protein called mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase, which is overactivated in about 40% of all human cancers.

Some cancer drugs — MAP kinase inhibitors — already target MAP kinase, and they’re often the first ones prescribed when a patient is diagnosed with cancer, Dr. Chuong said. As with many cancer treatments, doctors don’t know why they work, just that they do.

“By understanding the mechanisms in the cell, we might be able to make them work better or further optimize their treatment,” he said.

“MAP kinase inhibitors are really like a sledgehammer to the cell,” Dr. Chuong said — meaning they affect many cellular processes, not just those related to cancer.

“If we’re able to say that these viral switches are what’s important, then that could potentially help us develop a more targeted therapy that uses something like CRISPR to silence these viral elements,” he said. Or it could help providers choose a MAP kinase inhibitor from among the dozens available best suited to treat an individual patient and avoid side effects.  

Still, whether the findings translate to real cancer patients remains to be seen. “It’s very, very hard to go the final step of showing in a patient that these actually make a difference in the cancer,” Dr. Mager said.

More lab research, human trials, and at least a few years will be needed before this discovery could help treat cancer. “Directly targeting these elements as a therapy would be at least 5 years out,” Dr. Chuong said, “partly because that application would rely on CRISPR epigenome editing technology that is still being developed for clinical use.”
 

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

CHEST

Without a doubt, immunotherapy has transformed the treatment landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and enhanced survival rates across the different stages of disease. High recurrence rates following complete surgical resection prompted the study of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in earlier, operable stages of disease. This shift toward early application of ICI reflects the larger trend toward merging precision oncology with lung cancer staging. The resulting complexity in treatment and decision making creates systemic and logistical challenges that will require health care systems to adapt and improve.

Adjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC

CHEST

Prior to recent approvals for adjuvant immunotherapy, it was standard to give chemotherapy following resection of stage IB-IIIA disease, which offered a statistically nonsignificant survival gain. Recurrence in these patients is believed to be related to postsurgical micrometastasis. The utilization of alternative mechanisms to prevent recurrence is increasingly more common.

Atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, is currently approved as first-line adjuvant treatment following chemotherapy in post-NSCLC resection patients with PD-L1 scores ≥1%. This category one recommendation by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) is based on results from the IMpower010 trial, which randomized patients to Atezolizumab vs best supportive care. All were early-stage NSCLC, stage IB-IIIA, who underwent resection followed by platinum-based chemotherapy. Statistically significant benefits were found in disease-free survival (DFS) with a trend toward overall survival.¹

The PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091 trial evaluated another PD-L1 inhibitor, Pembrolizumab, as adjuvant therapy. Its design largely mirrored the IMPower010 study, but it differed in that the ICI was administered with or without chemotherapy following resection in patients with stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. Improvements in DFS were found in the overall population, leading to FDA approval for adjuvant therapy in 2023.²

These approvals require changes to the management of operable NSCLC. Until recently, it was not routine to send surgical specimens for additional testing because adjuvant treatment meant chemotherapy only. However, it is now essential that all surgically resected malignant tissue be sent for genomic sequencing and PD-L1 testing. Selecting the next form of therapy, whether it is an ICI or targeted drug therapy, depends on it.

From a surgical perspective, quality surgery with accurate nodal staging is crucial. The surgical findings can determine and identify those who are candidates for adjuvant immunotherapy. For these same reasons, it is helpful to advise surgeons preoperatively that targeted adjuvant therapy is being considered after resection.
 

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC

ICIs have also been used as neoadjuvant treatment for operable NSCLC. In 2021, the Checkmate-816 trial evaluated Nivolumab with platinum doublet chemotherapy prior to resection of stage IB-IIIa NSCLC. When compared with chemotherapy alone, there were significant improvements in EFS, MPR, and time to death or distant metastasis (TTDM) out to 3 years. At a median follow-up time of 41.4 months, only 28% in the nivolumab group had recurrence postsurgery compared with 42% in the chemotherapy-alone group.³ As a result, certain patients who are likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy may additionally receive neoadjuvant immunotherapy with chemotherapy before surgical resection. In 2023, the KEYNOTE-671 study demonstrated that neoadjuvant Pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in patients with resectable stage II-IIIb (N2 stage) NSCLC improved EFS. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months, the EFS was 62.4% in the Pembrolizumab group vs 40.6% in the placebo group (P < .001).⁴

Such changes in treatment options mean patients should be discussed first and simultaneous referrals to oncology and surgery should occur in early-stage NSCLC. Up-front genomic phenotyping and PD-L1 testing may assist in decision making. High PD-L1 levels correlate better with response.

When an ICI-chemotherapy combination is given up front for newly diagnosed NSCLC, there is the potential for large reductions in tumor size and lymph node burden. Although the NCCN does not recommend ICIs to induce resectability, a patient originally deemed inoperable could theoretically become a surgical candidate with neoadjuvant ICI treatment. There is also the potential for toxicity, which could increase the risk of surgery when it does occur. Such scenarios will require frequent tumor board discussions so plans can be adjusted in real time to optimize outcomes as clinical circumstances change.
 

Perioperative immunotherapy for NSCLC

It is clear that both neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy can improve outcomes for patients with resectable NSCLC. The combination of neoadjuvant with adjuvant immunotherapy/chemotherapy is currently being studied. Two recent phase III clinical trials, NEOTORCH and AEGAEN, have found statistical improvements in EFS and MPR with this approach.^5,6 These studies have not found their way into the NCCN guidelines yet but are sure to be considered in future iterations. Once adopted, the tumor board at each institution will have more options to choose from but many more decisions to make.


References

1. Felip E, Altorki N, Zhou C, et al. Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower010): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398(10308):1344-1357. [Published correction appears in Lancet. 2021 Nov 6;398(10312):1686.]

2. O’Brien M, Paz-Ares L, Marreaud S, et al. Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy for completely resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091): an interim analysis of a randomised, triple-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(10):1274-1286.

3. Forde PM, Spicer J, Lu S, et al. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy in resectable lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(21):1973-1985.

4. Wakelee H, Liberman M, Kato T, et al. Perioperative pembrolizumab for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(6):491-503.

5. Lu S, Zhang W, Wu L, et al. Perioperative toripalimab plus chemotherapy for patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer: the neotorch randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2024;331(3):201-211.

6. Heymach JV, Harpole D, Mitsudomi T, et al. Perioperative durvalumab for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(18):1672-1684.
 

CHEST

Without a doubt, immunotherapy has transformed the treatment landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and enhanced survival rates across the different stages of disease. High recurrence rates following complete surgical resection prompted the study of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in earlier, operable stages of disease. This shift toward early application of ICI reflects the larger trend toward merging precision oncology with lung cancer staging. The resulting complexity in treatment and decision making creates systemic and logistical challenges that will require health care systems to adapt and improve.

Adjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC

CHEST

Prior to recent approvals for adjuvant immunotherapy, it was standard to give chemotherapy following resection of stage IB-IIIA disease, which offered a statistically nonsignificant survival gain. Recurrence in these patients is believed to be related to postsurgical micrometastasis. The utilization of alternative mechanisms to prevent recurrence is increasingly more common.

Atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, is currently approved as first-line adjuvant treatment following chemotherapy in post-NSCLC resection patients with PD-L1 scores ≥1%. This category one recommendation by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) is based on results from the IMpower010 trial, which randomized patients to Atezolizumab vs best supportive care. All were early-stage NSCLC, stage IB-IIIA, who underwent resection followed by platinum-based chemotherapy. Statistically significant benefits were found in disease-free survival (DFS) with a trend toward overall survival.¹

The PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091 trial evaluated another PD-L1 inhibitor, Pembrolizumab, as adjuvant therapy. Its design largely mirrored the IMPower010 study, but it differed in that the ICI was administered with or without chemotherapy following resection in patients with stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. Improvements in DFS were found in the overall population, leading to FDA approval for adjuvant therapy in 2023.²

These approvals require changes to the management of operable NSCLC. Until recently, it was not routine to send surgical specimens for additional testing because adjuvant treatment meant chemotherapy only. However, it is now essential that all surgically resected malignant tissue be sent for genomic sequencing and PD-L1 testing. Selecting the next form of therapy, whether it is an ICI or targeted drug therapy, depends on it.

From a surgical perspective, quality surgery with accurate nodal staging is crucial. The surgical findings can determine and identify those who are candidates for adjuvant immunotherapy. For these same reasons, it is helpful to advise surgeons preoperatively that targeted adjuvant therapy is being considered after resection.
 

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC

ICIs have also been used as neoadjuvant treatment for operable NSCLC. In 2021, the Checkmate-816 trial evaluated Nivolumab with platinum doublet chemotherapy prior to resection of stage IB-IIIa NSCLC. When compared with chemotherapy alone, there were significant improvements in EFS, MPR, and time to death or distant metastasis (TTDM) out to 3 years. At a median follow-up time of 41.4 months, only 28% in the nivolumab group had recurrence postsurgery compared with 42% in the chemotherapy-alone group.³ As a result, certain patients who are likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy may additionally receive neoadjuvant immunotherapy with chemotherapy before surgical resection. In 2023, the KEYNOTE-671 study demonstrated that neoadjuvant Pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in patients with resectable stage II-IIIb (N2 stage) NSCLC improved EFS. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months, the EFS was 62.4% in the Pembrolizumab group vs 40.6% in the placebo group (P < .001).⁴

Such changes in treatment options mean patients should be discussed first and simultaneous referrals to oncology and surgery should occur in early-stage NSCLC. Up-front genomic phenotyping and PD-L1 testing may assist in decision making. High PD-L1 levels correlate better with response.

When an ICI-chemotherapy combination is given up front for newly diagnosed NSCLC, there is the potential for large reductions in tumor size and lymph node burden. Although the NCCN does not recommend ICIs to induce resectability, a patient originally deemed inoperable could theoretically become a surgical candidate with neoadjuvant ICI treatment. There is also the potential for toxicity, which could increase the risk of surgery when it does occur. Such scenarios will require frequent tumor board discussions so plans can be adjusted in real time to optimize outcomes as clinical circumstances change.
 

Perioperative immunotherapy for NSCLC

It is clear that both neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy can improve outcomes for patients with resectable NSCLC. The combination of neoadjuvant with adjuvant immunotherapy/chemotherapy is currently being studied. Two recent phase III clinical trials, NEOTORCH and AEGAEN, have found statistical improvements in EFS and MPR with this approach.^5,6 These studies have not found their way into the NCCN guidelines yet but are sure to be considered in future iterations. Once adopted, the tumor board at each institution will have more options to choose from but many more decisions to make.


References

1. Felip E, Altorki N, Zhou C, et al. Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower010): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398(10308):1344-1357. [Published correction appears in Lancet. 2021 Nov 6;398(10312):1686.]

2. O’Brien M, Paz-Ares L, Marreaud S, et al. Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy for completely resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091): an interim analysis of a randomised, triple-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(10):1274-1286.

3. Forde PM, Spicer J, Lu S, et al. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy in resectable lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(21):1973-1985.

4. Wakelee H, Liberman M, Kato T, et al. Perioperative pembrolizumab for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(6):491-503.

5. Lu S, Zhang W, Wu L, et al. Perioperative toripalimab plus chemotherapy for patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer: the neotorch randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2024;331(3):201-211.

6. Heymach JV, Harpole D, Mitsudomi T, et al. Perioperative durvalumab for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(18):1672-1684.
 

CHEST

Without a doubt, immunotherapy has transformed the treatment landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and enhanced survival rates across the different stages of disease. High recurrence rates following complete surgical resection prompted the study of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in earlier, operable stages of disease. This shift toward early application of ICI reflects the larger trend toward merging precision oncology with lung cancer staging. The resulting complexity in treatment and decision making creates systemic and logistical challenges that will require health care systems to adapt and improve.

Adjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC

CHEST

Prior to recent approvals for adjuvant immunotherapy, it was standard to give chemotherapy following resection of stage IB-IIIA disease, which offered a statistically nonsignificant survival gain. Recurrence in these patients is believed to be related to postsurgical micrometastasis. The utilization of alternative mechanisms to prevent recurrence is increasingly more common.

Atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, is currently approved as first-line adjuvant treatment following chemotherapy in post-NSCLC resection patients with PD-L1 scores ≥1%. This category one recommendation by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) is based on results from the IMpower010 trial, which randomized patients to Atezolizumab vs best supportive care. All were early-stage NSCLC, stage IB-IIIA, who underwent resection followed by platinum-based chemotherapy. Statistically significant benefits were found in disease-free survival (DFS) with a trend toward overall survival.¹

The PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091 trial evaluated another PD-L1 inhibitor, Pembrolizumab, as adjuvant therapy. Its design largely mirrored the IMPower010 study, but it differed in that the ICI was administered with or without chemotherapy following resection in patients with stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. Improvements in DFS were found in the overall population, leading to FDA approval for adjuvant therapy in 2023.²

These approvals require changes to the management of operable NSCLC. Until recently, it was not routine to send surgical specimens for additional testing because adjuvant treatment meant chemotherapy only. However, it is now essential that all surgically resected malignant tissue be sent for genomic sequencing and PD-L1 testing. Selecting the next form of therapy, whether it is an ICI or targeted drug therapy, depends on it.

From a surgical perspective, quality surgery with accurate nodal staging is crucial. The surgical findings can determine and identify those who are candidates for adjuvant immunotherapy. For these same reasons, it is helpful to advise surgeons preoperatively that targeted adjuvant therapy is being considered after resection.
 

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC

ICIs have also been used as neoadjuvant treatment for operable NSCLC. In 2021, the Checkmate-816 trial evaluated Nivolumab with platinum doublet chemotherapy prior to resection of stage IB-IIIa NSCLC. When compared with chemotherapy alone, there were significant improvements in EFS, MPR, and time to death or distant metastasis (TTDM) out to 3 years. At a median follow-up time of 41.4 months, only 28% in the nivolumab group had recurrence postsurgery compared with 42% in the chemotherapy-alone group.³ As a result, certain patients who are likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy may additionally receive neoadjuvant immunotherapy with chemotherapy before surgical resection. In 2023, the KEYNOTE-671 study demonstrated that neoadjuvant Pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in patients with resectable stage II-IIIb (N2 stage) NSCLC improved EFS. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months, the EFS was 62.4% in the Pembrolizumab group vs 40.6% in the placebo group (P < .001).⁴

Such changes in treatment options mean patients should be discussed first and simultaneous referrals to oncology and surgery should occur in early-stage NSCLC. Up-front genomic phenotyping and PD-L1 testing may assist in decision making. High PD-L1 levels correlate better with response.

When an ICI-chemotherapy combination is given up front for newly diagnosed NSCLC, there is the potential for large reductions in tumor size and lymph node burden. Although the NCCN does not recommend ICIs to induce resectability, a patient originally deemed inoperable could theoretically become a surgical candidate with neoadjuvant ICI treatment. There is also the potential for toxicity, which could increase the risk of surgery when it does occur. Such scenarios will require frequent tumor board discussions so plans can be adjusted in real time to optimize outcomes as clinical circumstances change.
 

Perioperative immunotherapy for NSCLC

It is clear that both neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy can improve outcomes for patients with resectable NSCLC. The combination of neoadjuvant with adjuvant immunotherapy/chemotherapy is currently being studied. Two recent phase III clinical trials, NEOTORCH and AEGAEN, have found statistical improvements in EFS and MPR with this approach.^5,6 These studies have not found their way into the NCCN guidelines yet but are sure to be considered in future iterations. Once adopted, the tumor board at each institution will have more options to choose from but many more decisions to make.


References

1. Felip E, Altorki N, Zhou C, et al. Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower010): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398(10308):1344-1357. [Published correction appears in Lancet. 2021 Nov 6;398(10312):1686.]

2. O’Brien M, Paz-Ares L, Marreaud S, et al. Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy for completely resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091): an interim analysis of a randomised, triple-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(10):1274-1286.

3. Forde PM, Spicer J, Lu S, et al. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy in resectable lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(21):1973-1985.

4. Wakelee H, Liberman M, Kato T, et al. Perioperative pembrolizumab for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(6):491-503.

5. Lu S, Zhang W, Wu L, et al. Perioperative toripalimab plus chemotherapy for patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer: the neotorch randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2024;331(3):201-211.

6. Heymach JV, Harpole D, Mitsudomi T, et al. Perioperative durvalumab for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(18):1672-1684.
 

AstraZeneca was taken to task July 25 by the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Oncology Drug Advisory Committee (ODAC) for failing to heed an agency request about the design of a durvalumab (Imfinzi) trial for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The trial in question, AEGEAN, investigated perioperative durvalumab for resectable NSCLC tumors across 802 patients. Patients without EGFR or ALK mutations were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab before surgery alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy and after surgery for a year as monotherapy or to receive chemotherapy and surgery alone. 

Patients receiving durvalumab demonstrated better event-free survival at 1 year (73.4% vs 64.5% without durvalumab) and a better pathologic complete response rate (17.2% vs 4.3% without). Currently, AstraZeneca is seeking to add the indication for durvalumab to those the agent already has. 

However, at the July 25 ODAC meeting, the committee explained that the AEGEAN trial design makes it impossible to tell whether patients benefited from durvalumab before surgery, after it, or at both points. 

Mounting evidence, including from AstraZeneca’s own studies, suggests that the benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as durvalumab, comes before surgery. That means prescribing durvalumab after surgery could be exposing patients to serious side effects and financial toxicity, with potentially no clinical benefit, “magnifying the risk of potential overtreatment,” the committee cautioned. 

When AEGEAN was being designed in 2018, FDA requested that AstraZeneca address the uncertainty surrounding when to use durvalumab by including separate neoadjuvant and adjuvant arms, or at least an arm where patients were treated with neoadjuvant durvalumab alone to compare with treatment both before and after surgery. 

The company didn’t follow through and, during the July 25 meeting, the committee wanted answers. “Why did you not comply with this?” asked ODAC committee acting chair Daniel Spratt, MD, a radiation oncologist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. 

AstraZeneca personnel explained that doing so would have required many more subjects, made the trial more expensive, and added about 2 years to AEGEAN.

One speaker noted that the company, which makes more than $4 billion a year on durvalumab, would have taken about 2 days to recoup that added cost. Others wondered whether the motive was to sell durvalumab for as long as possible across a patient’s course of treatment. 

Perhaps the biggest reason the company ignored the request is that “it wasn’t our understanding at that time that this was a barrier to approval,” an AstraZeneca regulatory affairs specialist said. 

To this end, the agency asked its advisory panel to vote on whether it should require — instead of simply request, as it did with AstraZeneca — companies to prove that patients need immunotherapy both before and after surgery in resectable NSCLC.

The 11-member panel voted unanimously that it should make this a requirement, and several members said it should do so in other cancers as well.

However, when the agency asked whether durvalumab’s resectable NSCLC approval should be delayed until AstraZeneca conducts a trial to answer the neoadjuvant vs adjuvant question, the panel members didn’t think so. 

The consensus was that because AEGEAN showed a decent benefit, patients and physicians should have it as an option, and approval shouldn’t be delayed. The panel said that the bigger question about the benefit of maintenance therapy should be left to future studies. 

FDA usually follows the advice of its advisory panels.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AstraZeneca was taken to task July 25 by the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Oncology Drug Advisory Committee (ODAC) for failing to heed an agency request about the design of a durvalumab (Imfinzi) trial for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The trial in question, AEGEAN, investigated perioperative durvalumab for resectable NSCLC tumors across 802 patients. Patients without EGFR or ALK mutations were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab before surgery alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy and after surgery for a year as monotherapy or to receive chemotherapy and surgery alone. 

Patients receiving durvalumab demonstrated better event-free survival at 1 year (73.4% vs 64.5% without durvalumab) and a better pathologic complete response rate (17.2% vs 4.3% without). Currently, AstraZeneca is seeking to add the indication for durvalumab to those the agent already has. 

However, at the July 25 ODAC meeting, the committee explained that the AEGEAN trial design makes it impossible to tell whether patients benefited from durvalumab before surgery, after it, or at both points. 

Mounting evidence, including from AstraZeneca’s own studies, suggests that the benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as durvalumab, comes before surgery. That means prescribing durvalumab after surgery could be exposing patients to serious side effects and financial toxicity, with potentially no clinical benefit, “magnifying the risk of potential overtreatment,” the committee cautioned. 

When AEGEAN was being designed in 2018, FDA requested that AstraZeneca address the uncertainty surrounding when to use durvalumab by including separate neoadjuvant and adjuvant arms, or at least an arm where patients were treated with neoadjuvant durvalumab alone to compare with treatment both before and after surgery. 

The company didn’t follow through and, during the July 25 meeting, the committee wanted answers. “Why did you not comply with this?” asked ODAC committee acting chair Daniel Spratt, MD, a radiation oncologist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. 

AstraZeneca personnel explained that doing so would have required many more subjects, made the trial more expensive, and added about 2 years to AEGEAN.

One speaker noted that the company, which makes more than $4 billion a year on durvalumab, would have taken about 2 days to recoup that added cost. Others wondered whether the motive was to sell durvalumab for as long as possible across a patient’s course of treatment. 

Perhaps the biggest reason the company ignored the request is that “it wasn’t our understanding at that time that this was a barrier to approval,” an AstraZeneca regulatory affairs specialist said. 

To this end, the agency asked its advisory panel to vote on whether it should require — instead of simply request, as it did with AstraZeneca — companies to prove that patients need immunotherapy both before and after surgery in resectable NSCLC.

The 11-member panel voted unanimously that it should make this a requirement, and several members said it should do so in other cancers as well.

However, when the agency asked whether durvalumab’s resectable NSCLC approval should be delayed until AstraZeneca conducts a trial to answer the neoadjuvant vs adjuvant question, the panel members didn’t think so. 

The consensus was that because AEGEAN showed a decent benefit, patients and physicians should have it as an option, and approval shouldn’t be delayed. The panel said that the bigger question about the benefit of maintenance therapy should be left to future studies. 

FDA usually follows the advice of its advisory panels.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AstraZeneca was taken to task July 25 by the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Oncology Drug Advisory Committee (ODAC) for failing to heed an agency request about the design of a durvalumab (Imfinzi) trial for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The trial in question, AEGEAN, investigated perioperative durvalumab for resectable NSCLC tumors across 802 patients. Patients without EGFR or ALK mutations were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab before surgery alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy and after surgery for a year as monotherapy or to receive chemotherapy and surgery alone. 

Patients receiving durvalumab demonstrated better event-free survival at 1 year (73.4% vs 64.5% without durvalumab) and a better pathologic complete response rate (17.2% vs 4.3% without). Currently, AstraZeneca is seeking to add the indication for durvalumab to those the agent already has. 

However, at the July 25 ODAC meeting, the committee explained that the AEGEAN trial design makes it impossible to tell whether patients benefited from durvalumab before surgery, after it, or at both points. 

Mounting evidence, including from AstraZeneca’s own studies, suggests that the benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as durvalumab, comes before surgery. That means prescribing durvalumab after surgery could be exposing patients to serious side effects and financial toxicity, with potentially no clinical benefit, “magnifying the risk of potential overtreatment,” the committee cautioned. 

When AEGEAN was being designed in 2018, FDA requested that AstraZeneca address the uncertainty surrounding when to use durvalumab by including separate neoadjuvant and adjuvant arms, or at least an arm where patients were treated with neoadjuvant durvalumab alone to compare with treatment both before and after surgery. 

The company didn’t follow through and, during the July 25 meeting, the committee wanted answers. “Why did you not comply with this?” asked ODAC committee acting chair Daniel Spratt, MD, a radiation oncologist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. 

AstraZeneca personnel explained that doing so would have required many more subjects, made the trial more expensive, and added about 2 years to AEGEAN.

One speaker noted that the company, which makes more than $4 billion a year on durvalumab, would have taken about 2 days to recoup that added cost. Others wondered whether the motive was to sell durvalumab for as long as possible across a patient’s course of treatment. 

Perhaps the biggest reason the company ignored the request is that “it wasn’t our understanding at that time that this was a barrier to approval,” an AstraZeneca regulatory affairs specialist said. 

To this end, the agency asked its advisory panel to vote on whether it should require — instead of simply request, as it did with AstraZeneca — companies to prove that patients need immunotherapy both before and after surgery in resectable NSCLC.

The 11-member panel voted unanimously that it should make this a requirement, and several members said it should do so in other cancers as well.

However, when the agency asked whether durvalumab’s resectable NSCLC approval should be delayed until AstraZeneca conducts a trial to answer the neoadjuvant vs adjuvant question, the panel members didn’t think so. 

The consensus was that because AEGEAN showed a decent benefit, patients and physicians should have it as an option, and approval shouldn’t be delayed. The panel said that the bigger question about the benefit of maintenance therapy should be left to future studies. 

FDA usually follows the advice of its advisory panels.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Three-quarters of oncologists participating in a recent global survey failed to identify one or more situations representing a conflict of interest, according to a new study.

The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”

Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.

Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.

What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.

Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
 

Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest

To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.

“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”

Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.

From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.

Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.

The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.

“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.

Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
 

Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect

A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.

That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.

“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”

The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.

Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.

The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.

A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
 

Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments

While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.

For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.

The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.

Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”

For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.

From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.

The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.

Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.

When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.

“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”

Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.

“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.

“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”

Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”

Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

Three-quarters of oncologists participating in a recent global survey failed to identify one or more situations representing a conflict of interest, according to a new study.

The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”

Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.

Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.

What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.

Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
 

Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest

To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.

“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”

Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.

From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.

Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.

The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.

“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.

Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
 

Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect

A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.

That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.

“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”

The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.

Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.

The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.

A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
 

Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments

While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.

For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.

The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.

Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”

For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.

From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.

The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.

Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.

When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.

“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”

Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.

“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.

“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”

Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”

Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

Three-quarters of oncologists participating in a recent global survey failed to identify one or more situations representing a conflict of interest, according to a new study.

The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”

Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.

Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.

What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.

Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
 

Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest

To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.

“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”

Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.

From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.

Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.

The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.

“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.

Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
 

Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect

A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.

That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.

“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”

The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.

Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.

The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.

A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
 

Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments

While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.

For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.

The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.

Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”

For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.

From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.

The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.

Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.

When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.

“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”

Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.

“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.

“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”

Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”

Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

Patients with treatment-refractory cancers who did not meet eligibility criteria for a pan-cancer clinical trial but received waivers allowing them to participate had similar outcomes to patients who participated without waivers, a new analysis revealed.

The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”

Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.

In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.

Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing. 

The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers. 

Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.

A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.

The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).

“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.

The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.

So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.

Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.

Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”

However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.

“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with treatment-refractory cancers who did not meet eligibility criteria for a pan-cancer clinical trial but received waivers allowing them to participate had similar outcomes to patients who participated without waivers, a new analysis revealed.

The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”

Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.

In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.

Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing. 

The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers. 

Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.

A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.

The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).

“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.

The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.

So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.

Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.

Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”

However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.

“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with treatment-refractory cancers who did not meet eligibility criteria for a pan-cancer clinical trial but received waivers allowing them to participate had similar outcomes to patients who participated without waivers, a new analysis revealed.

The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”

Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.

In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.

Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing. 

The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers. 

Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.

A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.

The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).

“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.

The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.

So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.

Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.

Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”

However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.

“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Quitting smoking at any age increases life expectancy, with the most significant increases observed in younger individuals. But people who quit over age 65 can extend life expectancy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed the detrimental effects of smoking and the positive impacts of cessation on life expectancy in individuals aged 35-75 years.
• Age-specific death rates by smoking status were calculated using the relative risks for all-cause mortality derived from the Cancer Prevention Study II data, 2018 National Health Interview Survey smoking prevalence data, and 2018 all-cause mortality rates.
• Life tables were constructed to obtain information on the life expectancies of people who never smoked, those who currently smoked, and those who previously smoked but quit at various ages.
• Estimates of years lost due to smoking and years gained by quitting smoking were calculated for people starting at age 35 and over 10-year increments.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with people who never smoked, those who smoked at ages 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 years and continued smoking throughout their lives would lose 9.1, 8.3, 7.3, 5.9, and 4.4 years, respectively.
• People who quit smoking at ages 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 years would have life expectancies that are shorter by 1.2, 2.7, 3.9, 4.2, and 3.7 years, respectively, than those of same-age individuals who never smoked.
• Individuals who quit smoking at ages 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 years would experience an additional 8.0, 5.6, 3.4, 1.7, and 0.7 years of life expectancy compared with those who continued smoking.
• People who quit at ages 65 and 75 years would have a 23.4% and 14.2% chance of gaining at least 1 additional year of life.

IN PRACTICE:

“This cessation benefit is not limited to young- and middle-aged adults who smoke; this study demonstrates its applicability to seniors as well. These findings may be valuable for clinicians seeking scientific evidence to motivate their patients who smoke to quit,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Thuy T.T. Le, PhD, from the Department of Health Management and Policy at the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor and published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s estimates were according to data from 2018 and may not reflect current trends. The estimates also did not account for variability in smoking intensity among individuals.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute of the US National Institutes of Health and the US Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products. The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.

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

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

TOPLINE:

Quitting smoking at any age increases life expectancy, with the most significant increases observed in younger individuals. But people who quit over age 65 can extend life expectancy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed the detrimental effects of smoking and the positive impacts of cessation on life expectancy in individuals aged 35-75 years.
• Age-specific death rates by smoking status were calculated using the relative risks for all-cause mortality derived from the Cancer Prevention Study II data, 2018 National Health Interview Survey smoking prevalence data, and 2018 all-cause mortality rates.
• Life tables were constructed to obtain information on the life expectancies of people who never smoked, those who currently smoked, and those who previously smoked but quit at various ages.
• Estimates of years lost due to smoking and years gained by quitting smoking were calculated for people starting at age 35 and over 10-year increments.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with people who never smoked, those who smoked at ages 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 years and continued smoking throughout their lives would lose 9.1, 8.3, 7.3, 5.9, and 4.4 years, respectively.
• People who quit smoking at ages 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 years would have life expectancies that are shorter by 1.2, 2.7, 3.9, 4.2, and 3.7 years, respectively, than those of same-age individuals who never smoked.
• Individuals who quit smoking at ages 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 years would experience an additional 8.0, 5.6, 3.4, 1.7, and 0.7 years of life expectancy compared with those who continued smoking.
• People who quit at ages 65 and 75 years would have a 23.4% and 14.2% chance of gaining at least 1 additional year of life.

IN PRACTICE:

“This cessation benefit is not limited to young- and middle-aged adults who smoke; this study demonstrates its applicability to seniors as well. These findings may be valuable for clinicians seeking scientific evidence to motivate their patients who smoke to quit,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Thuy T.T. Le, PhD, from the Department of Health Management and Policy at the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor and published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s estimates were according to data from 2018 and may not reflect current trends. The estimates also did not account for variability in smoking intensity among individuals.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute of the US National Institutes of Health and the US Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products. The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.

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

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

TOPLINE:

Quitting smoking at any age increases life expectancy, with the most significant increases observed in younger individuals. But people who quit over age 65 can extend life expectancy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed the detrimental effects of smoking and the positive impacts of cessation on life expectancy in individuals aged 35-75 years.
• Age-specific death rates by smoking status were calculated using the relative risks for all-cause mortality derived from the Cancer Prevention Study II data, 2018 National Health Interview Survey smoking prevalence data, and 2018 all-cause mortality rates.
• Life tables were constructed to obtain information on the life expectancies of people who never smoked, those who currently smoked, and those who previously smoked but quit at various ages.
• Estimates of years lost due to smoking and years gained by quitting smoking were calculated for people starting at age 35 and over 10-year increments.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with people who never smoked, those who smoked at ages 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 years and continued smoking throughout their lives would lose 9.1, 8.3, 7.3, 5.9, and 4.4 years, respectively.
• People who quit smoking at ages 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 years would have life expectancies that are shorter by 1.2, 2.7, 3.9, 4.2, and 3.7 years, respectively, than those of same-age individuals who never smoked.
• Individuals who quit smoking at ages 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 years would experience an additional 8.0, 5.6, 3.4, 1.7, and 0.7 years of life expectancy compared with those who continued smoking.
• People who quit at ages 65 and 75 years would have a 23.4% and 14.2% chance of gaining at least 1 additional year of life.

IN PRACTICE:

“This cessation benefit is not limited to young- and middle-aged adults who smoke; this study demonstrates its applicability to seniors as well. These findings may be valuable for clinicians seeking scientific evidence to motivate their patients who smoke to quit,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Thuy T.T. Le, PhD, from the Department of Health Management and Policy at the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor and published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s estimates were according to data from 2018 and may not reflect current trends. The estimates also did not account for variability in smoking intensity among individuals.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute of the US National Institutes of Health and the US Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products. The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.

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

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

Recent research on popular weight loss drugs has uncovered surprising benefits beyond their intended use, like lowering the risk of fatal heart attacks. And now there may be another unforeseen advantage: People with type 2 diabetes who took these drugs had a lower risk of having 10 out of 13 obesity-related cancers, compared to those who used insulin therapy.

That’s according to a study published July 5 in JAMA Network Open where researchers studied glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists (known as GLP-1RAs), a class of drugs used to treat diabetes and obesity. Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound, which have become well-known recently because they are linked to rapid weight loss, contain GLP-1RAs.

For the study, they looked at electronic health records of 1.7 million patients who had type 2 diabetes, no prior diagnosis of obesity-related cancers, and had been prescribed GLP-1RAs, insulins, or metformin from March 2005 to November 2018.

The scientists found that compared to patients who took insulin, people who took GLP-1RAs had a “significant risk reduction” in 10 of 13 obesity-related cancers. Those 10 cancers were esophageal, colorectal, endometrial, gallbladder, kidney, liver, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers, as well as meningioma and multiple myeloma.

Compared with patients taking insulin, patients taking GLP-1RAs showed no statistically significant reduction in stomach cancer and no reduced risk of breast and thyroid cancers, the study said.

But the study found no decrease in cancer risk with GLP-1RAs compared with metformin.

While the study results suggest that these drugs may reduce the risk of certain obesity-related cancers better than insulins, more research is needed, they said.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Recent research on popular weight loss drugs has uncovered surprising benefits beyond their intended use, like lowering the risk of fatal heart attacks. And now there may be another unforeseen advantage: People with type 2 diabetes who took these drugs had a lower risk of having 10 out of 13 obesity-related cancers, compared to those who used insulin therapy.

That’s according to a study published July 5 in JAMA Network Open where researchers studied glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists (known as GLP-1RAs), a class of drugs used to treat diabetes and obesity. Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound, which have become well-known recently because they are linked to rapid weight loss, contain GLP-1RAs.

For the study, they looked at electronic health records of 1.7 million patients who had type 2 diabetes, no prior diagnosis of obesity-related cancers, and had been prescribed GLP-1RAs, insulins, or metformin from March 2005 to November 2018.

The scientists found that compared to patients who took insulin, people who took GLP-1RAs had a “significant risk reduction” in 10 of 13 obesity-related cancers. Those 10 cancers were esophageal, colorectal, endometrial, gallbladder, kidney, liver, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers, as well as meningioma and multiple myeloma.

Compared with patients taking insulin, patients taking GLP-1RAs showed no statistically significant reduction in stomach cancer and no reduced risk of breast and thyroid cancers, the study said.

But the study found no decrease in cancer risk with GLP-1RAs compared with metformin.

While the study results suggest that these drugs may reduce the risk of certain obesity-related cancers better than insulins, more research is needed, they said.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Recent research on popular weight loss drugs has uncovered surprising benefits beyond their intended use, like lowering the risk of fatal heart attacks. And now there may be another unforeseen advantage: People with type 2 diabetes who took these drugs had a lower risk of having 10 out of 13 obesity-related cancers, compared to those who used insulin therapy.

That’s according to a study published July 5 in JAMA Network Open where researchers studied glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists (known as GLP-1RAs), a class of drugs used to treat diabetes and obesity. Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound, which have become well-known recently because they are linked to rapid weight loss, contain GLP-1RAs.

For the study, they looked at electronic health records of 1.7 million patients who had type 2 diabetes, no prior diagnosis of obesity-related cancers, and had been prescribed GLP-1RAs, insulins, or metformin from March 2005 to November 2018.

The scientists found that compared to patients who took insulin, people who took GLP-1RAs had a “significant risk reduction” in 10 of 13 obesity-related cancers. Those 10 cancers were esophageal, colorectal, endometrial, gallbladder, kidney, liver, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers, as well as meningioma and multiple myeloma.

Compared with patients taking insulin, patients taking GLP-1RAs showed no statistically significant reduction in stomach cancer and no reduced risk of breast and thyroid cancers, the study said.

But the study found no decrease in cancer risk with GLP-1RAs compared with metformin.

While the study results suggest that these drugs may reduce the risk of certain obesity-related cancers better than insulins, more research is needed, they said.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with the general population, patients with urticaria had a 49% higher risk of developing cancer in the first year following diagnosis, which decreased to 6% in subsequent years, in a cohort study using Danish healthcare databases.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from Danish healthcare registries and compared the incident cancer risk between patients with urticaria and the risk in the general population.
• They identified 87,507 patients (58% women) with a primary or secondary first-time hospital outpatient clinic, emergency room, or inpatient diagnosis of urticaria between 1980 and 2022, who were followed for a median of 10.1 years.
• Incident cancers, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, were identified using the Danish Cancer Registry and classified by the extent of spread at the time of diagnosis.
• This study computed the absolute cancer risk within the first year of an urticaria diagnosis and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), with 95% CIs standardized to Danish national cancer rates.

TAKEAWAY:

• For the first year of follow-up, the absolute risk for all cancer types was 0.7%, and it was 29.5% for subsequent years. The overall SIR for all types of cancer was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.06-1.11), which was based on 7788 observed cancer cases compared with 7161 cases expected over the entire follow-up period.
• Within the first year of follow-up, 588 patients with urticaria were diagnosed with cancer, for an SIR of 1.49 (95% CI, 1.38-1.62) for all cancer types.
• After the first year, the SIR for all cancer sites decreased and stabilized at 1.06 (95% CI, 1.04-1.09), with 7200 observed cancer cases.
• The risk was highest for hematological cancers in the first year, particularly Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR, 5.35; 95% CI, 2.56-9.85).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that urticaria may be a marker of occult cancer and that it is associated with a slightly increased long-term cancer risk,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sissel B.T. Sørensen, departments of dermatology and rheumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. It was published online on June 27, 2024, in the British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is limited by its observational design and reliance on registry data, which may be subject to misclassification or incomplete information. In addition, the study could not assess individual patient factors such as lifestyle or genetic predispositions that may influence cancer risk, and the results may not be generalizable to other populations. Finally, the exact biologic mechanisms linking urticaria and cancer remain unclear, warranting further investigation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Compared with the general population, patients with urticaria had a 49% higher risk of developing cancer in the first year following diagnosis, which decreased to 6% in subsequent years, in a cohort study using Danish healthcare databases.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from Danish healthcare registries and compared the incident cancer risk between patients with urticaria and the risk in the general population.
• They identified 87,507 patients (58% women) with a primary or secondary first-time hospital outpatient clinic, emergency room, or inpatient diagnosis of urticaria between 1980 and 2022, who were followed for a median of 10.1 years.
• Incident cancers, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, were identified using the Danish Cancer Registry and classified by the extent of spread at the time of diagnosis.
• This study computed the absolute cancer risk within the first year of an urticaria diagnosis and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), with 95% CIs standardized to Danish national cancer rates.

TAKEAWAY:

• For the first year of follow-up, the absolute risk for all cancer types was 0.7%, and it was 29.5% for subsequent years. The overall SIR for all types of cancer was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.06-1.11), which was based on 7788 observed cancer cases compared with 7161 cases expected over the entire follow-up period.
• Within the first year of follow-up, 588 patients with urticaria were diagnosed with cancer, for an SIR of 1.49 (95% CI, 1.38-1.62) for all cancer types.
• After the first year, the SIR for all cancer sites decreased and stabilized at 1.06 (95% CI, 1.04-1.09), with 7200 observed cancer cases.
• The risk was highest for hematological cancers in the first year, particularly Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR, 5.35; 95% CI, 2.56-9.85).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that urticaria may be a marker of occult cancer and that it is associated with a slightly increased long-term cancer risk,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sissel B.T. Sørensen, departments of dermatology and rheumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. It was published online on June 27, 2024, in the British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is limited by its observational design and reliance on registry data, which may be subject to misclassification or incomplete information. In addition, the study could not assess individual patient factors such as lifestyle or genetic predispositions that may influence cancer risk, and the results may not be generalizable to other populations. Finally, the exact biologic mechanisms linking urticaria and cancer remain unclear, warranting further investigation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Compared with the general population, patients with urticaria had a 49% higher risk of developing cancer in the first year following diagnosis, which decreased to 6% in subsequent years, in a cohort study using Danish healthcare databases.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from Danish healthcare registries and compared the incident cancer risk between patients with urticaria and the risk in the general population.
• They identified 87,507 patients (58% women) with a primary or secondary first-time hospital outpatient clinic, emergency room, or inpatient diagnosis of urticaria between 1980 and 2022, who were followed for a median of 10.1 years.
• Incident cancers, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, were identified using the Danish Cancer Registry and classified by the extent of spread at the time of diagnosis.
• This study computed the absolute cancer risk within the first year of an urticaria diagnosis and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), with 95% CIs standardized to Danish national cancer rates.

TAKEAWAY:

• For the first year of follow-up, the absolute risk for all cancer types was 0.7%, and it was 29.5% for subsequent years. The overall SIR for all types of cancer was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.06-1.11), which was based on 7788 observed cancer cases compared with 7161 cases expected over the entire follow-up period.
• Within the first year of follow-up, 588 patients with urticaria were diagnosed with cancer, for an SIR of 1.49 (95% CI, 1.38-1.62) for all cancer types.
• After the first year, the SIR for all cancer sites decreased and stabilized at 1.06 (95% CI, 1.04-1.09), with 7200 observed cancer cases.
• The risk was highest for hematological cancers in the first year, particularly Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR, 5.35; 95% CI, 2.56-9.85).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that urticaria may be a marker of occult cancer and that it is associated with a slightly increased long-term cancer risk,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sissel B.T. Sørensen, departments of dermatology and rheumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. It was published online on June 27, 2024, in the British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is limited by its observational design and reliance on registry data, which may be subject to misclassification or incomplete information. In addition, the study could not assess individual patient factors such as lifestyle or genetic predispositions that may influence cancer risk, and the results may not be generalizable to other populations. Finally, the exact biologic mechanisms linking urticaria and cancer remain unclear, warranting further investigation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

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