User login
No link between cell phones and brain tumors in large U.K. study
“These results support the accumulating evidence that mobile phone use under usual conditions does not increase brain tumor risk,” study author Kirstin Pirie, MSc, from the cancer epidemiology unit at Oxford (England) Population Health, said in a statement.
However, an important limitation of the study is that it involved only women who were middle-aged and older; these people generally use cell phones less than younger women or men, the authors noted. In this study’s cohort, mobile phone use was low, with only 18% of users talking on the phone for 30 minutes or more each week.
The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
This study is a “welcome addition to the body of knowledge looking at the risk from mobile phones, and specifically in relation to certain types of tumor genesis. It is a well-designed, prospective study that identifies no causal link,” commented Malcolm Sperrin from Oxford University Hospitals, who was not involved in the research.
“There is always a need for further research work, especially as phones, wireless, etc., become ubiquitous, but this study should allay many existing concerns,” he commented on the UK Science Media Centre.
Concerns about a cancer risk, particularly brain tumors, have been circulating for decades, and to date, there have been some 30 epidemiologic studies on this issue.
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic.” That conclusion was based largely on the results of the large INTERPHONE international case-control study and a series of Swedish studies led by Hardell Lennart, MD.
In the latest article, the U.K. researchers suggest that a “likely explanation for the previous positive results is that for a very slow growing tumor, there may be detection bias if cellular telephone users seek medical advice because of awareness of typical symptoms of acoustic neuroma, such as unilateral hearing problems, earlier than nonusers.
“The totality of human evidence, from observational studies, time trends, and bioassays, suggests little or no increase in the risk of cellular telephone users developing a brain tumor,” the U.K. researchers concluded.
Commenting on the U.K. study, Joachim Schüz, PhD, branch head of the section of environment and radiation at the IARC, noted that “mobile technologies are improving all the time, so that the more recent generations emit substantially lower output power.
“Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence for heavy users, advising mobile phone users to reduce unnecessary exposures remains a good precautionary approach,” Dr. Schuz said in a statement.
Details of U.K. study
The U.K. study was conducted by researchers from Oxford Population Health and IARC, who used data from the ongoing UK Million Women Study. This study began in 1996 and has recruited 1.3 million women born from 1935 to 1950 (which amounts to 1 in every 4 women) through the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. These women complete regular postal questionnaires about sociodemographic, medical, and lifestyle factors.
Questions about cell phone use were completed by about 776,000 women in 2001 (when they were 50-65 years old). About half of these women also answered these questions about mobile phone use 10 years later, in 2011 (when they were aged 60-75).
The answers indicated that by 2011, the majority of women (75%) aged between 60 and 64 years used a mobile phone, while just under half of those aged between 75 and 79 years used one.
These women were then followed for an average of 14 years through linkage to their NHS records.
The researchers looked for any mention of brain tumors, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and pituitary gland tumors, as well as eye tumors.
During the 14 year follow-up period, 3,268 (0.42%) of the participants developed a brain tumor, but there was no significant difference in that risk between individuals who had never used a mobile phone and those who were mobile phone users. These included tumors in the temporal and parietal lobes, which are the most exposed areas of the brain.
There was also no difference in the risk of developing tumors between women who reported using a mobile phone daily, those who used them for at least 20 minutes a week, and those who had used a mobile phone for over 10 years.
In addition, among the individuals who did develop a tumor, the incidence of right- and left-sided tumors was similar among mobile phone users, even though mobile phone use tends to involve the right side considerably more than the left side, the researchers noted.
The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“These results support the accumulating evidence that mobile phone use under usual conditions does not increase brain tumor risk,” study author Kirstin Pirie, MSc, from the cancer epidemiology unit at Oxford (England) Population Health, said in a statement.
However, an important limitation of the study is that it involved only women who were middle-aged and older; these people generally use cell phones less than younger women or men, the authors noted. In this study’s cohort, mobile phone use was low, with only 18% of users talking on the phone for 30 minutes or more each week.
The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
This study is a “welcome addition to the body of knowledge looking at the risk from mobile phones, and specifically in relation to certain types of tumor genesis. It is a well-designed, prospective study that identifies no causal link,” commented Malcolm Sperrin from Oxford University Hospitals, who was not involved in the research.
“There is always a need for further research work, especially as phones, wireless, etc., become ubiquitous, but this study should allay many existing concerns,” he commented on the UK Science Media Centre.
Concerns about a cancer risk, particularly brain tumors, have been circulating for decades, and to date, there have been some 30 epidemiologic studies on this issue.
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic.” That conclusion was based largely on the results of the large INTERPHONE international case-control study and a series of Swedish studies led by Hardell Lennart, MD.
In the latest article, the U.K. researchers suggest that a “likely explanation for the previous positive results is that for a very slow growing tumor, there may be detection bias if cellular telephone users seek medical advice because of awareness of typical symptoms of acoustic neuroma, such as unilateral hearing problems, earlier than nonusers.
“The totality of human evidence, from observational studies, time trends, and bioassays, suggests little or no increase in the risk of cellular telephone users developing a brain tumor,” the U.K. researchers concluded.
Commenting on the U.K. study, Joachim Schüz, PhD, branch head of the section of environment and radiation at the IARC, noted that “mobile technologies are improving all the time, so that the more recent generations emit substantially lower output power.
“Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence for heavy users, advising mobile phone users to reduce unnecessary exposures remains a good precautionary approach,” Dr. Schuz said in a statement.
Details of U.K. study
The U.K. study was conducted by researchers from Oxford Population Health and IARC, who used data from the ongoing UK Million Women Study. This study began in 1996 and has recruited 1.3 million women born from 1935 to 1950 (which amounts to 1 in every 4 women) through the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. These women complete regular postal questionnaires about sociodemographic, medical, and lifestyle factors.
Questions about cell phone use were completed by about 776,000 women in 2001 (when they were 50-65 years old). About half of these women also answered these questions about mobile phone use 10 years later, in 2011 (when they were aged 60-75).
The answers indicated that by 2011, the majority of women (75%) aged between 60 and 64 years used a mobile phone, while just under half of those aged between 75 and 79 years used one.
These women were then followed for an average of 14 years through linkage to their NHS records.
The researchers looked for any mention of brain tumors, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and pituitary gland tumors, as well as eye tumors.
During the 14 year follow-up period, 3,268 (0.42%) of the participants developed a brain tumor, but there was no significant difference in that risk between individuals who had never used a mobile phone and those who were mobile phone users. These included tumors in the temporal and parietal lobes, which are the most exposed areas of the brain.
There was also no difference in the risk of developing tumors between women who reported using a mobile phone daily, those who used them for at least 20 minutes a week, and those who had used a mobile phone for over 10 years.
In addition, among the individuals who did develop a tumor, the incidence of right- and left-sided tumors was similar among mobile phone users, even though mobile phone use tends to involve the right side considerably more than the left side, the researchers noted.
The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“These results support the accumulating evidence that mobile phone use under usual conditions does not increase brain tumor risk,” study author Kirstin Pirie, MSc, from the cancer epidemiology unit at Oxford (England) Population Health, said in a statement.
However, an important limitation of the study is that it involved only women who were middle-aged and older; these people generally use cell phones less than younger women or men, the authors noted. In this study’s cohort, mobile phone use was low, with only 18% of users talking on the phone for 30 minutes or more each week.
The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
This study is a “welcome addition to the body of knowledge looking at the risk from mobile phones, and specifically in relation to certain types of tumor genesis. It is a well-designed, prospective study that identifies no causal link,” commented Malcolm Sperrin from Oxford University Hospitals, who was not involved in the research.
“There is always a need for further research work, especially as phones, wireless, etc., become ubiquitous, but this study should allay many existing concerns,” he commented on the UK Science Media Centre.
Concerns about a cancer risk, particularly brain tumors, have been circulating for decades, and to date, there have been some 30 epidemiologic studies on this issue.
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic.” That conclusion was based largely on the results of the large INTERPHONE international case-control study and a series of Swedish studies led by Hardell Lennart, MD.
In the latest article, the U.K. researchers suggest that a “likely explanation for the previous positive results is that for a very slow growing tumor, there may be detection bias if cellular telephone users seek medical advice because of awareness of typical symptoms of acoustic neuroma, such as unilateral hearing problems, earlier than nonusers.
“The totality of human evidence, from observational studies, time trends, and bioassays, suggests little or no increase in the risk of cellular telephone users developing a brain tumor,” the U.K. researchers concluded.
Commenting on the U.K. study, Joachim Schüz, PhD, branch head of the section of environment and radiation at the IARC, noted that “mobile technologies are improving all the time, so that the more recent generations emit substantially lower output power.
“Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence for heavy users, advising mobile phone users to reduce unnecessary exposures remains a good precautionary approach,” Dr. Schuz said in a statement.
Details of U.K. study
The U.K. study was conducted by researchers from Oxford Population Health and IARC, who used data from the ongoing UK Million Women Study. This study began in 1996 and has recruited 1.3 million women born from 1935 to 1950 (which amounts to 1 in every 4 women) through the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. These women complete regular postal questionnaires about sociodemographic, medical, and lifestyle factors.
Questions about cell phone use were completed by about 776,000 women in 2001 (when they were 50-65 years old). About half of these women also answered these questions about mobile phone use 10 years later, in 2011 (when they were aged 60-75).
The answers indicated that by 2011, the majority of women (75%) aged between 60 and 64 years used a mobile phone, while just under half of those aged between 75 and 79 years used one.
These women were then followed for an average of 14 years through linkage to their NHS records.
The researchers looked for any mention of brain tumors, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and pituitary gland tumors, as well as eye tumors.
During the 14 year follow-up period, 3,268 (0.42%) of the participants developed a brain tumor, but there was no significant difference in that risk between individuals who had never used a mobile phone and those who were mobile phone users. These included tumors in the temporal and parietal lobes, which are the most exposed areas of the brain.
There was also no difference in the risk of developing tumors between women who reported using a mobile phone daily, those who used them for at least 20 minutes a week, and those who had used a mobile phone for over 10 years.
In addition, among the individuals who did develop a tumor, the incidence of right- and left-sided tumors was similar among mobile phone users, even though mobile phone use tends to involve the right side considerably more than the left side, the researchers noted.
The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE
Ways to lessen toxic effects of chemo in older adults
Age-related changes that potentiate adverse drug reactions include alterations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. As such, older patients often require adjustments in medications to optimize safety and use. Medication adjustment is especially important for older patients on complex medication regimens for multiple conditions, such as those undergoing cancer treatment. Three recent high-quality randomized trials evaluated the use of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer.1-3
Interdisciplinary GA can identify aging-related conditions associated with poor outcomes in older patients with cancer (e.g., toxic effects of chemotherapy) and provide recommendations aimed at improving health outcomes. The results of these trials suggest that interdisciplinary GA can improve care outcomes and oncologists’ communication for older adults with cancer, and should be considered an emerging standard of care.
Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects
A cluster randomized trial1 at City of Hope National Medical Center conducted between August 2015 and February 2019 enrolled 613 participants and randomly assigned them to receive a GA-guided intervention or usual standard of care in a 2-to-1 ratio. Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged ≥65 years; had a diagnosis of solid malignant neoplasm of any stage; were starting a new chemotherapy regimen; and were fluent in English, Spanish, or Chinese.
The intervention included a GA at baseline followed by assessments focused on six common areas: sleep problems, problems with eating and feeding, incontinence, confusion, evidence of falls, and skin breakdown. An interdisciplinary team (oncologist, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, social worker, and nutritionist) performed the assessment and developed a plan of care. Interventions were multifactorial and could include referral to specialists; recommendations for medication changes; symptom management; nutritional intervention with diet recommendations and supplementation; and interventions targeting social, spiritual, and functional well-being. Follow-up by a nurse practitioner continued until completion of chemotherapy or 6 months after starting chemotherapy, whichever was earlier.
The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects using National Cancer Institute criteria, and secondary outcomes were advance directive completion, emergency room visits and unplanned hospitalizations, and survival up to 12 months. Results showed a 10% absolute reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxic effects (P = .02), with a number needed to treat of 10. Advance directive completion also increased by 15%, but no differences were observed for other outcomes. This study offers high-quality evidence that a GA-based intervention can reduce toxic effects of chemotherapy regimens for older adults with cancer.
Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices
A recent study by Supriya G. Mohile, MD, and colleagues2 is the first nationwide multicenter clinical trial to demonstrate the effects of GA and GA-guided management. This study was conducted in 40 oncology practices from the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (362 patients treated by 68 oncologists in the intervention group and 371 patients treated by 91 oncologists in the usual-care group). Eligibility criteria were age ≥70 years; impairment in at least one GA domain other than polypharmacy; incurable advanced solid tumor or lymphoma with a plan to start new cancer treatment with a high risk for toxic effects within 4 weeks; and English language fluency. Both study groups underwent a baseline GA that assessed patients’ physical performance, functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutrition, social support, polypharmacy, and psychological status. For the intervention group, a summary and management recommendations were provided to the treating oncologists.
The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher toxic effects within 3 months of starting a new regimen; secondary outcomes included treatment intensity and survival and GA outcomes within 3 months. A smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group experienced toxicity (51% vs. 71%), with an absolute risk reduction of 20%. Patients in the intervention group also had fewer falls and a greater reduction in medications used; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes. This study offers very strong and generalizable evidence that incorporating GA in the care of older adults with cancer at risk for toxicity can reduce toxicity as well as improve other outcomes, such as falls and polypharmacy.
Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication
A secondary analysis3 of data from Dr. Mohile and colleagues2 evaluated the effect of GA-guided recommendations on oncologist-patient communication regarding comorbidities. Patients (n = 541) included in this analysis were 76.6 years of age on average and had 3.2 (standard deviation, 1.9) comorbid conditions. All patients underwent GA, but only oncologists in the intervention arm received GA-based recommendations. Clinical encounters between oncologist and patient immediately following the GA were audio recorded and analyzed to examine communication between oncologists and participants as it relates to chronic comorbid conditions.
In the intervention arm, more discussions regarding comorbidities took place, and more participants’ concerns about comorbidities were acknowledged. More importantly, participants in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely to have their concerns about comorbidities addressed through referral or education, compared with the usual-care group (P = .004). Moreover, 41% of oncologists in the intervention arm modified dosage or cancer treatment schedule because of concern about tolerability or comorbidities. This study demonstrates beneficial effects of GA in increasing communication and perhaps consideration of comorbidities of older adults when planning cancer treatment.
Dr. Hung is professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
References
1. Li D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158.
2. Mohile SG et al. Lancet. 2021;398:1894-1904.
3. Kleckner AS et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18:e9-19.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Age-related changes that potentiate adverse drug reactions include alterations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. As such, older patients often require adjustments in medications to optimize safety and use. Medication adjustment is especially important for older patients on complex medication regimens for multiple conditions, such as those undergoing cancer treatment. Three recent high-quality randomized trials evaluated the use of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer.1-3
Interdisciplinary GA can identify aging-related conditions associated with poor outcomes in older patients with cancer (e.g., toxic effects of chemotherapy) and provide recommendations aimed at improving health outcomes. The results of these trials suggest that interdisciplinary GA can improve care outcomes and oncologists’ communication for older adults with cancer, and should be considered an emerging standard of care.
Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects
A cluster randomized trial1 at City of Hope National Medical Center conducted between August 2015 and February 2019 enrolled 613 participants and randomly assigned them to receive a GA-guided intervention or usual standard of care in a 2-to-1 ratio. Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged ≥65 years; had a diagnosis of solid malignant neoplasm of any stage; were starting a new chemotherapy regimen; and were fluent in English, Spanish, or Chinese.
The intervention included a GA at baseline followed by assessments focused on six common areas: sleep problems, problems with eating and feeding, incontinence, confusion, evidence of falls, and skin breakdown. An interdisciplinary team (oncologist, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, social worker, and nutritionist) performed the assessment and developed a plan of care. Interventions were multifactorial and could include referral to specialists; recommendations for medication changes; symptom management; nutritional intervention with diet recommendations and supplementation; and interventions targeting social, spiritual, and functional well-being. Follow-up by a nurse practitioner continued until completion of chemotherapy or 6 months after starting chemotherapy, whichever was earlier.
The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects using National Cancer Institute criteria, and secondary outcomes were advance directive completion, emergency room visits and unplanned hospitalizations, and survival up to 12 months. Results showed a 10% absolute reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxic effects (P = .02), with a number needed to treat of 10. Advance directive completion also increased by 15%, but no differences were observed for other outcomes. This study offers high-quality evidence that a GA-based intervention can reduce toxic effects of chemotherapy regimens for older adults with cancer.
Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices
A recent study by Supriya G. Mohile, MD, and colleagues2 is the first nationwide multicenter clinical trial to demonstrate the effects of GA and GA-guided management. This study was conducted in 40 oncology practices from the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (362 patients treated by 68 oncologists in the intervention group and 371 patients treated by 91 oncologists in the usual-care group). Eligibility criteria were age ≥70 years; impairment in at least one GA domain other than polypharmacy; incurable advanced solid tumor or lymphoma with a plan to start new cancer treatment with a high risk for toxic effects within 4 weeks; and English language fluency. Both study groups underwent a baseline GA that assessed patients’ physical performance, functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutrition, social support, polypharmacy, and psychological status. For the intervention group, a summary and management recommendations were provided to the treating oncologists.
The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher toxic effects within 3 months of starting a new regimen; secondary outcomes included treatment intensity and survival and GA outcomes within 3 months. A smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group experienced toxicity (51% vs. 71%), with an absolute risk reduction of 20%. Patients in the intervention group also had fewer falls and a greater reduction in medications used; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes. This study offers very strong and generalizable evidence that incorporating GA in the care of older adults with cancer at risk for toxicity can reduce toxicity as well as improve other outcomes, such as falls and polypharmacy.
Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication
A secondary analysis3 of data from Dr. Mohile and colleagues2 evaluated the effect of GA-guided recommendations on oncologist-patient communication regarding comorbidities. Patients (n = 541) included in this analysis were 76.6 years of age on average and had 3.2 (standard deviation, 1.9) comorbid conditions. All patients underwent GA, but only oncologists in the intervention arm received GA-based recommendations. Clinical encounters between oncologist and patient immediately following the GA were audio recorded and analyzed to examine communication between oncologists and participants as it relates to chronic comorbid conditions.
In the intervention arm, more discussions regarding comorbidities took place, and more participants’ concerns about comorbidities were acknowledged. More importantly, participants in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely to have their concerns about comorbidities addressed through referral or education, compared with the usual-care group (P = .004). Moreover, 41% of oncologists in the intervention arm modified dosage or cancer treatment schedule because of concern about tolerability or comorbidities. This study demonstrates beneficial effects of GA in increasing communication and perhaps consideration of comorbidities of older adults when planning cancer treatment.
Dr. Hung is professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
References
1. Li D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158.
2. Mohile SG et al. Lancet. 2021;398:1894-1904.
3. Kleckner AS et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18:e9-19.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Age-related changes that potentiate adverse drug reactions include alterations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. As such, older patients often require adjustments in medications to optimize safety and use. Medication adjustment is especially important for older patients on complex medication regimens for multiple conditions, such as those undergoing cancer treatment. Three recent high-quality randomized trials evaluated the use of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer.1-3
Interdisciplinary GA can identify aging-related conditions associated with poor outcomes in older patients with cancer (e.g., toxic effects of chemotherapy) and provide recommendations aimed at improving health outcomes. The results of these trials suggest that interdisciplinary GA can improve care outcomes and oncologists’ communication for older adults with cancer, and should be considered an emerging standard of care.
Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects
A cluster randomized trial1 at City of Hope National Medical Center conducted between August 2015 and February 2019 enrolled 613 participants and randomly assigned them to receive a GA-guided intervention or usual standard of care in a 2-to-1 ratio. Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged ≥65 years; had a diagnosis of solid malignant neoplasm of any stage; were starting a new chemotherapy regimen; and were fluent in English, Spanish, or Chinese.
The intervention included a GA at baseline followed by assessments focused on six common areas: sleep problems, problems with eating and feeding, incontinence, confusion, evidence of falls, and skin breakdown. An interdisciplinary team (oncologist, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, social worker, and nutritionist) performed the assessment and developed a plan of care. Interventions were multifactorial and could include referral to specialists; recommendations for medication changes; symptom management; nutritional intervention with diet recommendations and supplementation; and interventions targeting social, spiritual, and functional well-being. Follow-up by a nurse practitioner continued until completion of chemotherapy or 6 months after starting chemotherapy, whichever was earlier.
The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects using National Cancer Institute criteria, and secondary outcomes were advance directive completion, emergency room visits and unplanned hospitalizations, and survival up to 12 months. Results showed a 10% absolute reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxic effects (P = .02), with a number needed to treat of 10. Advance directive completion also increased by 15%, but no differences were observed for other outcomes. This study offers high-quality evidence that a GA-based intervention can reduce toxic effects of chemotherapy regimens for older adults with cancer.
Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices
A recent study by Supriya G. Mohile, MD, and colleagues2 is the first nationwide multicenter clinical trial to demonstrate the effects of GA and GA-guided management. This study was conducted in 40 oncology practices from the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (362 patients treated by 68 oncologists in the intervention group and 371 patients treated by 91 oncologists in the usual-care group). Eligibility criteria were age ≥70 years; impairment in at least one GA domain other than polypharmacy; incurable advanced solid tumor or lymphoma with a plan to start new cancer treatment with a high risk for toxic effects within 4 weeks; and English language fluency. Both study groups underwent a baseline GA that assessed patients’ physical performance, functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutrition, social support, polypharmacy, and psychological status. For the intervention group, a summary and management recommendations were provided to the treating oncologists.
The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher toxic effects within 3 months of starting a new regimen; secondary outcomes included treatment intensity and survival and GA outcomes within 3 months. A smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group experienced toxicity (51% vs. 71%), with an absolute risk reduction of 20%. Patients in the intervention group also had fewer falls and a greater reduction in medications used; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes. This study offers very strong and generalizable evidence that incorporating GA in the care of older adults with cancer at risk for toxicity can reduce toxicity as well as improve other outcomes, such as falls and polypharmacy.
Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication
A secondary analysis3 of data from Dr. Mohile and colleagues2 evaluated the effect of GA-guided recommendations on oncologist-patient communication regarding comorbidities. Patients (n = 541) included in this analysis were 76.6 years of age on average and had 3.2 (standard deviation, 1.9) comorbid conditions. All patients underwent GA, but only oncologists in the intervention arm received GA-based recommendations. Clinical encounters between oncologist and patient immediately following the GA were audio recorded and analyzed to examine communication between oncologists and participants as it relates to chronic comorbid conditions.
In the intervention arm, more discussions regarding comorbidities took place, and more participants’ concerns about comorbidities were acknowledged. More importantly, participants in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely to have their concerns about comorbidities addressed through referral or education, compared with the usual-care group (P = .004). Moreover, 41% of oncologists in the intervention arm modified dosage or cancer treatment schedule because of concern about tolerability or comorbidities. This study demonstrates beneficial effects of GA in increasing communication and perhaps consideration of comorbidities of older adults when planning cancer treatment.
Dr. Hung is professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
References
1. Li D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158.
2. Mohile SG et al. Lancet. 2021;398:1894-1904.
3. Kleckner AS et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18:e9-19.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Filling opioid prescriptions akin to a Sisyphean task
Pain management is a huge part of how we in palliative care help patients – and most of the time, I think we do it well, but in the regulatory environment of the opioid epidemic,
A patient – let’s call her Joan – calls me in distress. She is a 62-year-old woman with widespread metastatic breast cancer. Her pain is mainly due to bone metastases, but she also has discomfort due to the cancer’s invasion of the thin membranes that line her lungs and abdomen.
She was started on a combination opioid and acetaminophen tablet about 2 months ago by her oncologist, but is now requiring it around the clock, nearing the ceiling dose for this particular medication.
Given that her pain is escalating, Joan and I discuss starting a long-acting opioid to better manage the peak and trough effect of short-acting opioids, which can make a patient feel that the pain is relieved only for a few hours at a time, with sharp spikes throughout the day that mandate the next dose of short-acting opioid. This tethers the patient to the clock, having to take as many as six or eight doses of medication per day, and can be very disruptive to daily life.
I send an e-prescription for the same opioid Joan’s currently taking, but in a long-acting format that will slow-release over 8-10 hours, relieving her of the need to take a medication every 3-4 hours. I have learned over the years that nearly every long-acting opioid automatically generates a prior authorization request from the patient’s insurance company and so I immediately email our prior authorization team to submit to Joan’s insurance right away to avoid this extra delay.
Our prior authorization team is exceptionally responsive and submits these requests with urgency every time – they understand that cancer pain is a serious problem and we can’t wait 5 business days for answers. They are typically able to obtain an approved prior authorization for nearly every long-acting opioid I write within 24-48 hours.
But here’s where things go sideways.
First, the insurance company denies the prior authorization request, demanding that I revise the prescription from the long-acting version of the opioid she is currently taking to a cheaper, older opioid that she’s never tried before. In other words, they won’t cover the drug I requested without Joan first trying a completely different drug and failing it. This only makes sense for the insurance company’s bottom line – it makes no clinical sense at all. Why would I try a novel compound that Joan’s never had and one to which I have no idea how she’ll respond when I could keep her on the same compound knowing that she tolerates it just fine?
Past experience tells me insurance companies rarely budge on this, and appealing the decision would just introduce even more delay of care, so I begrudgingly change the prescription and send it again to the pharmacy. I message Joan to let her know that her insurance won’t cover my drug of choice and that we have to try this older one first.
A few hours later, Joan sends me a message: “My pharmacy says it’s going to take A WEEK to get the long-acting medicine!”
In the meantime, Joan has been using her short-acting opioid faster than anticipated because of her escalating pain – so she’s now running low on that as well.
I write for more of her short-acting opioid and e-script it to her pharmacy.
Within a few hours, we get another automatic response from her insurance that we’re going to need a prior authorization for additional short-acting opioid because she’s exceeded “quantity limitations,” which as far as I can tell is a completely arbitrary number not based on clinical evidence.
The prior auth team jumps on it and submits to override the quantity limit – successfully – and sends the override code to her pharmacy to reprocess the prescription.
But now the pharmacist tells Joan that they won’t fill the Rx anyway because it’s “too early.” They tell her that “state laws” prevent them from filling the scrip.
Is this true? I have no idea. I’m not an expert on California pharmacy law. All I know is that my patient is in pain and something needs to happen quickly.
I write for a second short-acting opioid – again a completely different compound. Ironically, this Rx goes through instantly without need for prior authorization. But now Joan has to switch to another new drug for no good medical reason.
If you’re still with me this far into the weeds, I’m grateful. In all it took a combined 4 hours of work (between myself and the prior auth team) to get two opioid Rx’s filled – and these were completely different medications than the ones I originally wrote for. I also had to move her prescriptions to the hospital’s pharmacy (another inconvenience for Joan and her family) so that she could get the medications in a timely manner. All this work to ensure that a single patient had adequate and timely pain relief and to prevent her from having to make an unnecessary visit to the emergency department for pain crisis.
This is just a regular day in outpatient palliative care in the era of the opioid epidemic.
The epidemic has caused tremendous pain and suffering for millions of people over the past 2 decades – namely those lost to opioid overdoses and their loved ones. And for the most part, tightening access to opioids for routine aches and pains among a relatively healthy population is not wrong, in my opinion, as long as those restrictions are based in good faith on robust evidence.
But the hidden cost of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2016 opioid prescribing guidelines for nonmalignant pain, as well as the flurry of restrictive state laws they generated, is felt every day by patients with serious illness even though the guidelines were never meant to affect them. Patients with active cancer, receiving palliative care services, or at the end of life, were supposed to be exempted from these guidelines since good evidence supports the use of opioids in these populations.
Instead of preserving access to desperately needed pain medicine for those suffering with serious illness, states and insurers have aggressively sought to gatekeep opioids from everyone, resulting in stigma, delays, and needless suffering.
Several recent studies have revealed the effects of this gatekeeping on patients with cancer.
A qualitative study with 26 advanced cancer patients described the demoralization and stigma many patients felt when taking opioids, which they directly tied to media messaging around the opioid epidemic. Even when they reluctantly agreed to take opioids to treat cancer-related pain, there were systemic impediments to achieving adequate pain relief – similar to my experience with Joan – that were directly caused by insurance and pharmacy constraints.
Those of us who care for oncology patients also appear to be undertreating cancer-related pain. Another recent study that found the amount of opioid medications prescribed to an advanced cancer patient near the end of life dropped by 38% between 2007 and 2017. The authors suggest that a direct consequence of this decline in appropriate opioid prescribing is an observed 50% rise in emergency department visits over the same time period by cancer patients for pain-related reasons.
This makes sense – if patients aren’t routinely prescribed the opioids they need to manage their cancer-related pain; or, if the stigma against using opioids is so harsh that it causes patients to shun opioids; or, if there are so many system barriers in place to prevent patients from obtaining opioids in a timely manner – then patients’ pain will crescendo, leaving them with little alternative but to head to the emergency department.
This undertreatment is corroborated by another study that examined data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Part D prescriber database between 2013 and 2017, finding that both oncologists and nononcologists prescribed about 21% fewer opioids to Medicare beneficiaries during that time, compared with the period prior to 2013.
Interestingly, the researchers also found that opioid prescribing by palliative care providers increased by 15% over the same period. On a positive note, this suggests the presence of a growing outpatient palliative care workforce. But it may also reflect growing unease among oncologists with the perceived liability for prescribing opioids and a desire to ask other specialists to take on this liability. At the same time, it may reflect the very real and ever-increasing administrative burden associated with prescribing opioids and the fact that busy oncologists may not have time to spend on this aspect of cancer care. Thus, as palliative care clinicians become more visible and numerous in the outpatient arena, oncologists may increasingly ask palliative care clinicians like myself to take this on.
The problem with this is that merely handing off the administrative burden to another clinician doesn’t address the underlying problem. Anecdotal evidence suggests (and my own experiences corroborate) this administrative burden can cause real harm. A survey of 1,000 physicians conducted by the American Medical Association in 2021 found that 93% of respondents reported a delay in patient care due to prior authorization burden and 34% of respondents reported that their patients had suffered a “serious adverse event” due to prior authorization requirements.
The CDC recently announced it will take steps to revise the 2016 opioid prescribing guidelines for chronic pain after hearing from members of the medical community as well as patients living with chronic pain about the harsh, unintended consequences of the guidelines. I can only hope that insurance companies will follow suit, revising their opioid prior authorization requirements to finally come into alignment with the rational, safe use of opioids in patients with advanced cancer. It’s too bad that any improvement in the future will be too late for the millions of patients who have suffered irreversible iatrogenic harms due to delays in achieving adequate pain relief.
Sarah F. D’Ambruoso, NP, is a palliative care nurse practitioner in Santa Monica, Calif.
Pain management is a huge part of how we in palliative care help patients – and most of the time, I think we do it well, but in the regulatory environment of the opioid epidemic,
A patient – let’s call her Joan – calls me in distress. She is a 62-year-old woman with widespread metastatic breast cancer. Her pain is mainly due to bone metastases, but she also has discomfort due to the cancer’s invasion of the thin membranes that line her lungs and abdomen.
She was started on a combination opioid and acetaminophen tablet about 2 months ago by her oncologist, but is now requiring it around the clock, nearing the ceiling dose for this particular medication.
Given that her pain is escalating, Joan and I discuss starting a long-acting opioid to better manage the peak and trough effect of short-acting opioids, which can make a patient feel that the pain is relieved only for a few hours at a time, with sharp spikes throughout the day that mandate the next dose of short-acting opioid. This tethers the patient to the clock, having to take as many as six or eight doses of medication per day, and can be very disruptive to daily life.
I send an e-prescription for the same opioid Joan’s currently taking, but in a long-acting format that will slow-release over 8-10 hours, relieving her of the need to take a medication every 3-4 hours. I have learned over the years that nearly every long-acting opioid automatically generates a prior authorization request from the patient’s insurance company and so I immediately email our prior authorization team to submit to Joan’s insurance right away to avoid this extra delay.
Our prior authorization team is exceptionally responsive and submits these requests with urgency every time – they understand that cancer pain is a serious problem and we can’t wait 5 business days for answers. They are typically able to obtain an approved prior authorization for nearly every long-acting opioid I write within 24-48 hours.
But here’s where things go sideways.
First, the insurance company denies the prior authorization request, demanding that I revise the prescription from the long-acting version of the opioid she is currently taking to a cheaper, older opioid that she’s never tried before. In other words, they won’t cover the drug I requested without Joan first trying a completely different drug and failing it. This only makes sense for the insurance company’s bottom line – it makes no clinical sense at all. Why would I try a novel compound that Joan’s never had and one to which I have no idea how she’ll respond when I could keep her on the same compound knowing that she tolerates it just fine?
Past experience tells me insurance companies rarely budge on this, and appealing the decision would just introduce even more delay of care, so I begrudgingly change the prescription and send it again to the pharmacy. I message Joan to let her know that her insurance won’t cover my drug of choice and that we have to try this older one first.
A few hours later, Joan sends me a message: “My pharmacy says it’s going to take A WEEK to get the long-acting medicine!”
In the meantime, Joan has been using her short-acting opioid faster than anticipated because of her escalating pain – so she’s now running low on that as well.
I write for more of her short-acting opioid and e-script it to her pharmacy.
Within a few hours, we get another automatic response from her insurance that we’re going to need a prior authorization for additional short-acting opioid because she’s exceeded “quantity limitations,” which as far as I can tell is a completely arbitrary number not based on clinical evidence.
The prior auth team jumps on it and submits to override the quantity limit – successfully – and sends the override code to her pharmacy to reprocess the prescription.
But now the pharmacist tells Joan that they won’t fill the Rx anyway because it’s “too early.” They tell her that “state laws” prevent them from filling the scrip.
Is this true? I have no idea. I’m not an expert on California pharmacy law. All I know is that my patient is in pain and something needs to happen quickly.
I write for a second short-acting opioid – again a completely different compound. Ironically, this Rx goes through instantly without need for prior authorization. But now Joan has to switch to another new drug for no good medical reason.
If you’re still with me this far into the weeds, I’m grateful. In all it took a combined 4 hours of work (between myself and the prior auth team) to get two opioid Rx’s filled – and these were completely different medications than the ones I originally wrote for. I also had to move her prescriptions to the hospital’s pharmacy (another inconvenience for Joan and her family) so that she could get the medications in a timely manner. All this work to ensure that a single patient had adequate and timely pain relief and to prevent her from having to make an unnecessary visit to the emergency department for pain crisis.
This is just a regular day in outpatient palliative care in the era of the opioid epidemic.
The epidemic has caused tremendous pain and suffering for millions of people over the past 2 decades – namely those lost to opioid overdoses and their loved ones. And for the most part, tightening access to opioids for routine aches and pains among a relatively healthy population is not wrong, in my opinion, as long as those restrictions are based in good faith on robust evidence.
But the hidden cost of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2016 opioid prescribing guidelines for nonmalignant pain, as well as the flurry of restrictive state laws they generated, is felt every day by patients with serious illness even though the guidelines were never meant to affect them. Patients with active cancer, receiving palliative care services, or at the end of life, were supposed to be exempted from these guidelines since good evidence supports the use of opioids in these populations.
Instead of preserving access to desperately needed pain medicine for those suffering with serious illness, states and insurers have aggressively sought to gatekeep opioids from everyone, resulting in stigma, delays, and needless suffering.
Several recent studies have revealed the effects of this gatekeeping on patients with cancer.
A qualitative study with 26 advanced cancer patients described the demoralization and stigma many patients felt when taking opioids, which they directly tied to media messaging around the opioid epidemic. Even when they reluctantly agreed to take opioids to treat cancer-related pain, there were systemic impediments to achieving adequate pain relief – similar to my experience with Joan – that were directly caused by insurance and pharmacy constraints.
Those of us who care for oncology patients also appear to be undertreating cancer-related pain. Another recent study that found the amount of opioid medications prescribed to an advanced cancer patient near the end of life dropped by 38% between 2007 and 2017. The authors suggest that a direct consequence of this decline in appropriate opioid prescribing is an observed 50% rise in emergency department visits over the same time period by cancer patients for pain-related reasons.
This makes sense – if patients aren’t routinely prescribed the opioids they need to manage their cancer-related pain; or, if the stigma against using opioids is so harsh that it causes patients to shun opioids; or, if there are so many system barriers in place to prevent patients from obtaining opioids in a timely manner – then patients’ pain will crescendo, leaving them with little alternative but to head to the emergency department.
This undertreatment is corroborated by another study that examined data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Part D prescriber database between 2013 and 2017, finding that both oncologists and nononcologists prescribed about 21% fewer opioids to Medicare beneficiaries during that time, compared with the period prior to 2013.
Interestingly, the researchers also found that opioid prescribing by palliative care providers increased by 15% over the same period. On a positive note, this suggests the presence of a growing outpatient palliative care workforce. But it may also reflect growing unease among oncologists with the perceived liability for prescribing opioids and a desire to ask other specialists to take on this liability. At the same time, it may reflect the very real and ever-increasing administrative burden associated with prescribing opioids and the fact that busy oncologists may not have time to spend on this aspect of cancer care. Thus, as palliative care clinicians become more visible and numerous in the outpatient arena, oncologists may increasingly ask palliative care clinicians like myself to take this on.
The problem with this is that merely handing off the administrative burden to another clinician doesn’t address the underlying problem. Anecdotal evidence suggests (and my own experiences corroborate) this administrative burden can cause real harm. A survey of 1,000 physicians conducted by the American Medical Association in 2021 found that 93% of respondents reported a delay in patient care due to prior authorization burden and 34% of respondents reported that their patients had suffered a “serious adverse event” due to prior authorization requirements.
The CDC recently announced it will take steps to revise the 2016 opioid prescribing guidelines for chronic pain after hearing from members of the medical community as well as patients living with chronic pain about the harsh, unintended consequences of the guidelines. I can only hope that insurance companies will follow suit, revising their opioid prior authorization requirements to finally come into alignment with the rational, safe use of opioids in patients with advanced cancer. It’s too bad that any improvement in the future will be too late for the millions of patients who have suffered irreversible iatrogenic harms due to delays in achieving adequate pain relief.
Sarah F. D’Ambruoso, NP, is a palliative care nurse practitioner in Santa Monica, Calif.
Pain management is a huge part of how we in palliative care help patients – and most of the time, I think we do it well, but in the regulatory environment of the opioid epidemic,
A patient – let’s call her Joan – calls me in distress. She is a 62-year-old woman with widespread metastatic breast cancer. Her pain is mainly due to bone metastases, but she also has discomfort due to the cancer’s invasion of the thin membranes that line her lungs and abdomen.
She was started on a combination opioid and acetaminophen tablet about 2 months ago by her oncologist, but is now requiring it around the clock, nearing the ceiling dose for this particular medication.
Given that her pain is escalating, Joan and I discuss starting a long-acting opioid to better manage the peak and trough effect of short-acting opioids, which can make a patient feel that the pain is relieved only for a few hours at a time, with sharp spikes throughout the day that mandate the next dose of short-acting opioid. This tethers the patient to the clock, having to take as many as six or eight doses of medication per day, and can be very disruptive to daily life.
I send an e-prescription for the same opioid Joan’s currently taking, but in a long-acting format that will slow-release over 8-10 hours, relieving her of the need to take a medication every 3-4 hours. I have learned over the years that nearly every long-acting opioid automatically generates a prior authorization request from the patient’s insurance company and so I immediately email our prior authorization team to submit to Joan’s insurance right away to avoid this extra delay.
Our prior authorization team is exceptionally responsive and submits these requests with urgency every time – they understand that cancer pain is a serious problem and we can’t wait 5 business days for answers. They are typically able to obtain an approved prior authorization for nearly every long-acting opioid I write within 24-48 hours.
But here’s where things go sideways.
First, the insurance company denies the prior authorization request, demanding that I revise the prescription from the long-acting version of the opioid she is currently taking to a cheaper, older opioid that she’s never tried before. In other words, they won’t cover the drug I requested without Joan first trying a completely different drug and failing it. This only makes sense for the insurance company’s bottom line – it makes no clinical sense at all. Why would I try a novel compound that Joan’s never had and one to which I have no idea how she’ll respond when I could keep her on the same compound knowing that she tolerates it just fine?
Past experience tells me insurance companies rarely budge on this, and appealing the decision would just introduce even more delay of care, so I begrudgingly change the prescription and send it again to the pharmacy. I message Joan to let her know that her insurance won’t cover my drug of choice and that we have to try this older one first.
A few hours later, Joan sends me a message: “My pharmacy says it’s going to take A WEEK to get the long-acting medicine!”
In the meantime, Joan has been using her short-acting opioid faster than anticipated because of her escalating pain – so she’s now running low on that as well.
I write for more of her short-acting opioid and e-script it to her pharmacy.
Within a few hours, we get another automatic response from her insurance that we’re going to need a prior authorization for additional short-acting opioid because she’s exceeded “quantity limitations,” which as far as I can tell is a completely arbitrary number not based on clinical evidence.
The prior auth team jumps on it and submits to override the quantity limit – successfully – and sends the override code to her pharmacy to reprocess the prescription.
But now the pharmacist tells Joan that they won’t fill the Rx anyway because it’s “too early.” They tell her that “state laws” prevent them from filling the scrip.
Is this true? I have no idea. I’m not an expert on California pharmacy law. All I know is that my patient is in pain and something needs to happen quickly.
I write for a second short-acting opioid – again a completely different compound. Ironically, this Rx goes through instantly without need for prior authorization. But now Joan has to switch to another new drug for no good medical reason.
If you’re still with me this far into the weeds, I’m grateful. In all it took a combined 4 hours of work (between myself and the prior auth team) to get two opioid Rx’s filled – and these were completely different medications than the ones I originally wrote for. I also had to move her prescriptions to the hospital’s pharmacy (another inconvenience for Joan and her family) so that she could get the medications in a timely manner. All this work to ensure that a single patient had adequate and timely pain relief and to prevent her from having to make an unnecessary visit to the emergency department for pain crisis.
This is just a regular day in outpatient palliative care in the era of the opioid epidemic.
The epidemic has caused tremendous pain and suffering for millions of people over the past 2 decades – namely those lost to opioid overdoses and their loved ones. And for the most part, tightening access to opioids for routine aches and pains among a relatively healthy population is not wrong, in my opinion, as long as those restrictions are based in good faith on robust evidence.
But the hidden cost of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2016 opioid prescribing guidelines for nonmalignant pain, as well as the flurry of restrictive state laws they generated, is felt every day by patients with serious illness even though the guidelines were never meant to affect them. Patients with active cancer, receiving palliative care services, or at the end of life, were supposed to be exempted from these guidelines since good evidence supports the use of opioids in these populations.
Instead of preserving access to desperately needed pain medicine for those suffering with serious illness, states and insurers have aggressively sought to gatekeep opioids from everyone, resulting in stigma, delays, and needless suffering.
Several recent studies have revealed the effects of this gatekeeping on patients with cancer.
A qualitative study with 26 advanced cancer patients described the demoralization and stigma many patients felt when taking opioids, which they directly tied to media messaging around the opioid epidemic. Even when they reluctantly agreed to take opioids to treat cancer-related pain, there were systemic impediments to achieving adequate pain relief – similar to my experience with Joan – that were directly caused by insurance and pharmacy constraints.
Those of us who care for oncology patients also appear to be undertreating cancer-related pain. Another recent study that found the amount of opioid medications prescribed to an advanced cancer patient near the end of life dropped by 38% between 2007 and 2017. The authors suggest that a direct consequence of this decline in appropriate opioid prescribing is an observed 50% rise in emergency department visits over the same time period by cancer patients for pain-related reasons.
This makes sense – if patients aren’t routinely prescribed the opioids they need to manage their cancer-related pain; or, if the stigma against using opioids is so harsh that it causes patients to shun opioids; or, if there are so many system barriers in place to prevent patients from obtaining opioids in a timely manner – then patients’ pain will crescendo, leaving them with little alternative but to head to the emergency department.
This undertreatment is corroborated by another study that examined data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Part D prescriber database between 2013 and 2017, finding that both oncologists and nononcologists prescribed about 21% fewer opioids to Medicare beneficiaries during that time, compared with the period prior to 2013.
Interestingly, the researchers also found that opioid prescribing by palliative care providers increased by 15% over the same period. On a positive note, this suggests the presence of a growing outpatient palliative care workforce. But it may also reflect growing unease among oncologists with the perceived liability for prescribing opioids and a desire to ask other specialists to take on this liability. At the same time, it may reflect the very real and ever-increasing administrative burden associated with prescribing opioids and the fact that busy oncologists may not have time to spend on this aspect of cancer care. Thus, as palliative care clinicians become more visible and numerous in the outpatient arena, oncologists may increasingly ask palliative care clinicians like myself to take this on.
The problem with this is that merely handing off the administrative burden to another clinician doesn’t address the underlying problem. Anecdotal evidence suggests (and my own experiences corroborate) this administrative burden can cause real harm. A survey of 1,000 physicians conducted by the American Medical Association in 2021 found that 93% of respondents reported a delay in patient care due to prior authorization burden and 34% of respondents reported that their patients had suffered a “serious adverse event” due to prior authorization requirements.
The CDC recently announced it will take steps to revise the 2016 opioid prescribing guidelines for chronic pain after hearing from members of the medical community as well as patients living with chronic pain about the harsh, unintended consequences of the guidelines. I can only hope that insurance companies will follow suit, revising their opioid prior authorization requirements to finally come into alignment with the rational, safe use of opioids in patients with advanced cancer. It’s too bad that any improvement in the future will be too late for the millions of patients who have suffered irreversible iatrogenic harms due to delays in achieving adequate pain relief.
Sarah F. D’Ambruoso, NP, is a palliative care nurse practitioner in Santa Monica, Calif.
Brain tumors exact higher mortality toll in men than women
And, researchers say, it’s not exactly clear why.
Differences in treatment may mediate some of the association, but biologic sex itself appears to be a stronger risk factor for death, according to the study published online Feb. 8 in Cancer.
The excess in male deaths is “concerning, and we need more clinical data and more biological tumor data within each histologic type of brain tumor to understand why these young adult men who would be otherwise healthy are dying of these brain tumors,” study author Lindsay Williams, PhD, MPH, with the division of epidemiology and clinical research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told this news organization.
Central nervous system tumors rank among the top five cancers diagnosed in young adults aged 20-39 years.
Dr. Williams and her colleagues previously showed that men are more likely to develop brain tumors. Their latest study shows that men die more frequently from brain tumors as well.
Using the National Cancer Database, they identified 47,560 young adults aged 20-39 (47% male) diagnosed with a CNS tumor between 2004 and 2016.
After adjusting for relevant factors, males had a 47% increased risk of dying after a brain tumor diagnosis compared with females (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.53).
Males had significantly worse overall survival than females for all CNS tumors combined and for nine of 16 histologic types – namely, diffuse astrocytoma (HR, 1.30), anaplastic astrocytoma (HR, 1.25), glioblastoma (HR, 1.14), oligodendroglioma (HR, 1.37), oligoastrocytic tumors (HR, 1.22), ependymal tumors (HR, 1.29), other malignant gliomas (HR, 1.43), neuronal and mixed neuronal-glial tumors (HR, 1.52), and meningioma (HR, 2.01; all P < .05).
The researchers identified no histologies where females had worse survival.
Five-year survival differed between females and males by at least 5% for all histologies combined (83.2% female and 71.2% male) as well as for diffuse astrocytoma (75.1% vs. 68.5%), anaplastic astrocytoma (63.5% vs. 57.5%), oligoastrocytic tumors (80.2% vs. 74.7%), other malignant gliomas (74.1% vs. 64.9%), and germ cell tumors (92.4% vs. 86.5%).
The researchers estimated that had survival in men been equal to that of women over the study period, 20% of total deaths and 34% of male deaths could have been avoided.
They say future population-based studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine whether tumor biology or responses to therapy are driving forces of the observed male excess in death from brain tumors.
“We cannot discount the role of sex differences in diagnosis, treatment, or behavioral risk factors that may underlie the better survival for women after a brain tumor diagnosis,” they write.
“Hopefully, our research will increase awareness of sex differences in brain tumor outcomes in young adults and encourage other researchers with similar datasets to look at this same question and see if they observe a similar trend,” Dr. Williams said in an interview.
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Williams has no relevant disclosures. One author, Christopher L. Moertel, MD, is chief medical officer for OX2 Therapeutics, has stock in OX2 Therapeutics, and reports patents relevant to his relationship with OX2 Therapeutics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
And, researchers say, it’s not exactly clear why.
Differences in treatment may mediate some of the association, but biologic sex itself appears to be a stronger risk factor for death, according to the study published online Feb. 8 in Cancer.
The excess in male deaths is “concerning, and we need more clinical data and more biological tumor data within each histologic type of brain tumor to understand why these young adult men who would be otherwise healthy are dying of these brain tumors,” study author Lindsay Williams, PhD, MPH, with the division of epidemiology and clinical research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told this news organization.
Central nervous system tumors rank among the top five cancers diagnosed in young adults aged 20-39 years.
Dr. Williams and her colleagues previously showed that men are more likely to develop brain tumors. Their latest study shows that men die more frequently from brain tumors as well.
Using the National Cancer Database, they identified 47,560 young adults aged 20-39 (47% male) diagnosed with a CNS tumor between 2004 and 2016.
After adjusting for relevant factors, males had a 47% increased risk of dying after a brain tumor diagnosis compared with females (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.53).
Males had significantly worse overall survival than females for all CNS tumors combined and for nine of 16 histologic types – namely, diffuse astrocytoma (HR, 1.30), anaplastic astrocytoma (HR, 1.25), glioblastoma (HR, 1.14), oligodendroglioma (HR, 1.37), oligoastrocytic tumors (HR, 1.22), ependymal tumors (HR, 1.29), other malignant gliomas (HR, 1.43), neuronal and mixed neuronal-glial tumors (HR, 1.52), and meningioma (HR, 2.01; all P < .05).
The researchers identified no histologies where females had worse survival.
Five-year survival differed between females and males by at least 5% for all histologies combined (83.2% female and 71.2% male) as well as for diffuse astrocytoma (75.1% vs. 68.5%), anaplastic astrocytoma (63.5% vs. 57.5%), oligoastrocytic tumors (80.2% vs. 74.7%), other malignant gliomas (74.1% vs. 64.9%), and germ cell tumors (92.4% vs. 86.5%).
The researchers estimated that had survival in men been equal to that of women over the study period, 20% of total deaths and 34% of male deaths could have been avoided.
They say future population-based studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine whether tumor biology or responses to therapy are driving forces of the observed male excess in death from brain tumors.
“We cannot discount the role of sex differences in diagnosis, treatment, or behavioral risk factors that may underlie the better survival for women after a brain tumor diagnosis,” they write.
“Hopefully, our research will increase awareness of sex differences in brain tumor outcomes in young adults and encourage other researchers with similar datasets to look at this same question and see if they observe a similar trend,” Dr. Williams said in an interview.
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Williams has no relevant disclosures. One author, Christopher L. Moertel, MD, is chief medical officer for OX2 Therapeutics, has stock in OX2 Therapeutics, and reports patents relevant to his relationship with OX2 Therapeutics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
And, researchers say, it’s not exactly clear why.
Differences in treatment may mediate some of the association, but biologic sex itself appears to be a stronger risk factor for death, according to the study published online Feb. 8 in Cancer.
The excess in male deaths is “concerning, and we need more clinical data and more biological tumor data within each histologic type of brain tumor to understand why these young adult men who would be otherwise healthy are dying of these brain tumors,” study author Lindsay Williams, PhD, MPH, with the division of epidemiology and clinical research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told this news organization.
Central nervous system tumors rank among the top five cancers diagnosed in young adults aged 20-39 years.
Dr. Williams and her colleagues previously showed that men are more likely to develop brain tumors. Their latest study shows that men die more frequently from brain tumors as well.
Using the National Cancer Database, they identified 47,560 young adults aged 20-39 (47% male) diagnosed with a CNS tumor between 2004 and 2016.
After adjusting for relevant factors, males had a 47% increased risk of dying after a brain tumor diagnosis compared with females (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.53).
Males had significantly worse overall survival than females for all CNS tumors combined and for nine of 16 histologic types – namely, diffuse astrocytoma (HR, 1.30), anaplastic astrocytoma (HR, 1.25), glioblastoma (HR, 1.14), oligodendroglioma (HR, 1.37), oligoastrocytic tumors (HR, 1.22), ependymal tumors (HR, 1.29), other malignant gliomas (HR, 1.43), neuronal and mixed neuronal-glial tumors (HR, 1.52), and meningioma (HR, 2.01; all P < .05).
The researchers identified no histologies where females had worse survival.
Five-year survival differed between females and males by at least 5% for all histologies combined (83.2% female and 71.2% male) as well as for diffuse astrocytoma (75.1% vs. 68.5%), anaplastic astrocytoma (63.5% vs. 57.5%), oligoastrocytic tumors (80.2% vs. 74.7%), other malignant gliomas (74.1% vs. 64.9%), and germ cell tumors (92.4% vs. 86.5%).
The researchers estimated that had survival in men been equal to that of women over the study period, 20% of total deaths and 34% of male deaths could have been avoided.
They say future population-based studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine whether tumor biology or responses to therapy are driving forces of the observed male excess in death from brain tumors.
“We cannot discount the role of sex differences in diagnosis, treatment, or behavioral risk factors that may underlie the better survival for women after a brain tumor diagnosis,” they write.
“Hopefully, our research will increase awareness of sex differences in brain tumor outcomes in young adults and encourage other researchers with similar datasets to look at this same question and see if they observe a similar trend,” Dr. Williams said in an interview.
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Williams has no relevant disclosures. One author, Christopher L. Moertel, MD, is chief medical officer for OX2 Therapeutics, has stock in OX2 Therapeutics, and reports patents relevant to his relationship with OX2 Therapeutics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CANCER
No link between mother’s pill use and CNS tumors in offspring
The study was based on population-based registry data and included 1.1 million children age 19 or younger born in Denmark between 1996 and 2014.
The study, by Marie Hargreave, PhD, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, and colleagues, was published online Jan. 4 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Exposure to sex hormones in utero is a recognized cause of cancer in affected offspring, note the authors. Also, the incidence of CNS tumors, among the most common and lethal childhood cancer types, appears to be increasing. Hence, they sought to investigate if there may be a relationship between the two.
During a mean follow-up of 12.9 years, the team found that 725 children were diagnosed with a CNS tumor (47.2% female). Mean age at diagnosis was 7 years. The team noted that 11.5%, 65.7%, and 22.8% of diagnosed children were born to mothers with recent, previous, or no use of hormonal contraception, respectively.
The adjusted incidence rate of CNS tumors was 5.0 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with recent hormonal contraception use (hazard ratio, 0.95), 4.5 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with previous use (HR, 0.86), and 5.3 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with no use.
While recent use of implants (HR, 0.9) and intrauterine devices (HR, 1.5) showed no statistically significant associations for the subgroups of nonoral progestin-only hormonal contraception assessed, the team found that progestin-only injections were significantly associated with an increased risk compared with no use (HR, 6.7). Also, in all post hoc sensitivity analyses, recent use of the main group of nonoral progestin-only products was significantly associated with CNS tumors.
The authors observe that an association between maternal use of injectable contraceptives and increased risk of chromosomal anomalies and major malformations in children has previously been reported. Those results for injections, however, were based on a small number of cases, the result of the likelihood test was null, and adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made. Even if the results for this subgroup are confirmed, the authors point out, because CNS tumors in children are uncommon, the high relative risk estimates would translate to low absolute risk increases.
Although the large number of person-years and cancers increases the statistical precision, and the population-based nationwide design increases the generalizability of the results, the authors caution that uncommonness of CNS tumors in children and the small number of cases in the studied cohort limit subgroup analyses and the statistical precision of certain estimates.
In an accompanying editorial, Logan G. Spector, PhD, and Christopher L. Moertel, MD, from the University of Minnesota Medical School, and H. Irene Su, MD, from the University of California, San Diego, echo the authors’ conclusions, and state: “Thus, women should be reassured about the use of hormonal contraception, including progestin-only injections, and the lack of any increased risk of CNS tumors in their offspring.”
The study was supported by the Danish Cancer Research Foundation, the Arvid Nilssons Foundation, the Gangsted Foundation, the Harboe Foundation, and the Johannes Clemmesens Foundation. Co-author Lina S. Mørch, PhD, reported receiving personal fees from Novo Nordisk as an employee from 2017 to 2019 and grants from Novo Nordisk for a collaborative research project outside the submitted work. Editorialist Christopher Moertel, MD, reported receiving personal fees from OX2 Therapeutics, a spin-off of the University of Minnesota that is involved in the development of brain tumor therapeutics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The study was based on population-based registry data and included 1.1 million children age 19 or younger born in Denmark between 1996 and 2014.
The study, by Marie Hargreave, PhD, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, and colleagues, was published online Jan. 4 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Exposure to sex hormones in utero is a recognized cause of cancer in affected offspring, note the authors. Also, the incidence of CNS tumors, among the most common and lethal childhood cancer types, appears to be increasing. Hence, they sought to investigate if there may be a relationship between the two.
During a mean follow-up of 12.9 years, the team found that 725 children were diagnosed with a CNS tumor (47.2% female). Mean age at diagnosis was 7 years. The team noted that 11.5%, 65.7%, and 22.8% of diagnosed children were born to mothers with recent, previous, or no use of hormonal contraception, respectively.
The adjusted incidence rate of CNS tumors was 5.0 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with recent hormonal contraception use (hazard ratio, 0.95), 4.5 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with previous use (HR, 0.86), and 5.3 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with no use.
While recent use of implants (HR, 0.9) and intrauterine devices (HR, 1.5) showed no statistically significant associations for the subgroups of nonoral progestin-only hormonal contraception assessed, the team found that progestin-only injections were significantly associated with an increased risk compared with no use (HR, 6.7). Also, in all post hoc sensitivity analyses, recent use of the main group of nonoral progestin-only products was significantly associated with CNS tumors.
The authors observe that an association between maternal use of injectable contraceptives and increased risk of chromosomal anomalies and major malformations in children has previously been reported. Those results for injections, however, were based on a small number of cases, the result of the likelihood test was null, and adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made. Even if the results for this subgroup are confirmed, the authors point out, because CNS tumors in children are uncommon, the high relative risk estimates would translate to low absolute risk increases.
Although the large number of person-years and cancers increases the statistical precision, and the population-based nationwide design increases the generalizability of the results, the authors caution that uncommonness of CNS tumors in children and the small number of cases in the studied cohort limit subgroup analyses and the statistical precision of certain estimates.
In an accompanying editorial, Logan G. Spector, PhD, and Christopher L. Moertel, MD, from the University of Minnesota Medical School, and H. Irene Su, MD, from the University of California, San Diego, echo the authors’ conclusions, and state: “Thus, women should be reassured about the use of hormonal contraception, including progestin-only injections, and the lack of any increased risk of CNS tumors in their offspring.”
The study was supported by the Danish Cancer Research Foundation, the Arvid Nilssons Foundation, the Gangsted Foundation, the Harboe Foundation, and the Johannes Clemmesens Foundation. Co-author Lina S. Mørch, PhD, reported receiving personal fees from Novo Nordisk as an employee from 2017 to 2019 and grants from Novo Nordisk for a collaborative research project outside the submitted work. Editorialist Christopher Moertel, MD, reported receiving personal fees from OX2 Therapeutics, a spin-off of the University of Minnesota that is involved in the development of brain tumor therapeutics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The study was based on population-based registry data and included 1.1 million children age 19 or younger born in Denmark between 1996 and 2014.
The study, by Marie Hargreave, PhD, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, and colleagues, was published online Jan. 4 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Exposure to sex hormones in utero is a recognized cause of cancer in affected offspring, note the authors. Also, the incidence of CNS tumors, among the most common and lethal childhood cancer types, appears to be increasing. Hence, they sought to investigate if there may be a relationship between the two.
During a mean follow-up of 12.9 years, the team found that 725 children were diagnosed with a CNS tumor (47.2% female). Mean age at diagnosis was 7 years. The team noted that 11.5%, 65.7%, and 22.8% of diagnosed children were born to mothers with recent, previous, or no use of hormonal contraception, respectively.
The adjusted incidence rate of CNS tumors was 5.0 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with recent hormonal contraception use (hazard ratio, 0.95), 4.5 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with previous use (HR, 0.86), and 5.3 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with no use.
While recent use of implants (HR, 0.9) and intrauterine devices (HR, 1.5) showed no statistically significant associations for the subgroups of nonoral progestin-only hormonal contraception assessed, the team found that progestin-only injections were significantly associated with an increased risk compared with no use (HR, 6.7). Also, in all post hoc sensitivity analyses, recent use of the main group of nonoral progestin-only products was significantly associated with CNS tumors.
The authors observe that an association between maternal use of injectable contraceptives and increased risk of chromosomal anomalies and major malformations in children has previously been reported. Those results for injections, however, were based on a small number of cases, the result of the likelihood test was null, and adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made. Even if the results for this subgroup are confirmed, the authors point out, because CNS tumors in children are uncommon, the high relative risk estimates would translate to low absolute risk increases.
Although the large number of person-years and cancers increases the statistical precision, and the population-based nationwide design increases the generalizability of the results, the authors caution that uncommonness of CNS tumors in children and the small number of cases in the studied cohort limit subgroup analyses and the statistical precision of certain estimates.
In an accompanying editorial, Logan G. Spector, PhD, and Christopher L. Moertel, MD, from the University of Minnesota Medical School, and H. Irene Su, MD, from the University of California, San Diego, echo the authors’ conclusions, and state: “Thus, women should be reassured about the use of hormonal contraception, including progestin-only injections, and the lack of any increased risk of CNS tumors in their offspring.”
The study was supported by the Danish Cancer Research Foundation, the Arvid Nilssons Foundation, the Gangsted Foundation, the Harboe Foundation, and the Johannes Clemmesens Foundation. Co-author Lina S. Mørch, PhD, reported receiving personal fees from Novo Nordisk as an employee from 2017 to 2019 and grants from Novo Nordisk for a collaborative research project outside the submitted work. Editorialist Christopher Moertel, MD, reported receiving personal fees from OX2 Therapeutics, a spin-off of the University of Minnesota that is involved in the development of brain tumor therapeutics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
What causes cancer? There’s a lot we don’t know
People with cancer are often desperate to know what caused their disease. Was it something they did? Something they could have prevented?
In a recent analysis, experts estimated that about 40% of cancers can be explained by known, often modifiable risk factors. Smoking and obesity represent the primary drivers, though a host of other factors – germline mutations, alcohol, infections, or environmental pollutants like asbestos – contribute to cancer risk as well.
But what about the remaining 60% of cancers?
The study suggests that, And a small but significant number may simply be caused by chance.
Here’s what experts suspect those missing causes might be, and why they can be so difficult to confirm.
Possibility 1: Known risk factors contribute more than we realize
For certain factors, a straight line can be drawn to cancer.
Take smoking, for instance. Decades of research have helped scientists clearly delineate tobacco’s carcinogenic effects. Researchers have pinpointed a unique set of mutations in the tumors of smokers that can be seen when cells grown in a dish are exposed to the carcinogens present in tobacco.
In addition, experts have been able to collect robust data from epidemiologic studies on smoking prevalence as well as associated cancer risks and deaths, in large part because an individual’s lifetime tobacco exposure is fairly easy to measure.
“The evidence for smoking is incredibly consistent,” Paul Brennan, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, said in an interview.
For other known risk factors, such as obesity and air pollution, many more questions than answers remain.
Because of the limitations in how such factors are measured, we are likely downplaying their effects, said Richard Martin, PhD, a professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Bristol (England).
Take obesity. Excess body weight is associated with an increased risk of at least 13 cancers. Although risk estimates vary by study and cancer type, according to a global snapshot from 2012, being overweight or obese accounted for about 4% of all cancers worldwide – 1% in low-income countries and as high as 8% in high-income countries.
However, Dr. Brennan believes “we have underestimated the effect of obesity [on cancer].”
A key reason, he said, is most studies use body mass index to determine whether someone is overweight or obese, but BMI is a poor measure of body fat. BMI does not differentiate between fat and muscle, which means two people with the same height and weight can have the same BMI, even if one is an athlete who eats lean meats and vegetables while the other lives a sedentary life and consumes large quantities of processed foods and alcohol.
On top of that, studies often only calculate a person’s BMI once, and a single measurement can’t tell you how a person’s weight has fluctuated in recent years or across different stages of their life. However, recent analyses suggest that obesity status over time may be more relevant to cancer risk than one-off measures.
In addition, many studies now suggest that alterations to our gut microbes and high blood insulin level – often seen in people who are overweight or obese – may increase the risk of cancer and speed the growth of tumors.
When these additional factors are considered, the impact of excess body fat may ultimately play a much more significant role in cancer risk. In fact, according to Dr. Brennan, “if we estimate [the effects of obesity] properly, it might at some point become the main cause of cancer.”
Possibility 2: Environmental or lifestyle factors remain under the radar
Researchers have linked many substances we consume or are exposed to in our daily lives – air pollution, toxins from industrial waste, and highly processed foods – to cancer. But the extent or contribution of potential carcinogens in our surroundings, particularly those found almost everywhere at low levels, is still largely unknown.
One simple reason is the effects of many of these substances remain difficult to assess. For instance, it is much harder to study the impact of pollutants found in food or water, in which a given population will share similar exposure levels versus tobacco, where it is possible to compare a person who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day with a person who does not smoke.
“If you’ve got exposures that are ubiquitous, it can be difficult to discern their [individual] roles,” Dr. Martin said. “There are many causes that we [likely] don’t really know because everyone has been exposed.”
On the flip side, some carcinogenic substances that people encounter for limited periods might be missed if studies are not performed at the time of exposure.
“What’s in the body at age 40 may not reflect what you were exposed at age 5-10 on the playground or soccer field,” said Graham Colditz, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and public health expert at Washington University, St. Louis. “The technology keeps changing so we can get better measures of what you’ve got exposure to today, but how that relates to 5, 10, 15 years ago is probably very variable.”
In addition, researchers have found that many carcinogens do not cause specific mutations in a cell’s DNA; rather, studies suggest that most carcinogens lead to cancer-promoting changes in cells, such as inflammation.
“We need to think of how potential carcinogens are causing cancer,” Dr. Brennan said. Instead of provoking mutations, potential carcinogens may use a “whole other kind of pathway.” When, for instance, inflammation becomes chronic, it may spur a cascade of events that ultimately leads to cancer.
Finally, not much is known about what causes cancers in low- and middle-income countries. Most of the research to date has been in high-income countries, such the United States, Australia, and parts of Europe.
“There’s a real lack of robust epidemiological studies in other parts of the world, Latin America, Africa, parts of Asia,” Marc Gunter, PhD, a molecular epidemiologist at the IARC, told this news organization.
Possibility 3: Some cancers occur by chance
When it comes to cancer risk, an element of chance may be at play. Cancer can occur in individuals who have very little exposure to known carcinogens or have no family history of cancer.
“We all know there are people who get cancer who eat very healthy diets, are never overweight, and never smoke,” Dr. Gunter said. “Then there are people on the other end of the extreme who don’t get cancer.”
But what fraction of cancers are attributable to chance?
A controversial 2017 study published in Science suggested that, based on the rate of cell turnover in healthy tissues in the lung, pancreas, and other parts of the body, only about one-third of cancers could be linked to environmental or genetic factors. The rest, the authors claimed, occurred because of random mutations that accumulated in a person’s DNA – in other words, bad luck.
That study brought on a flood of criticism from scientists who pointed to serious flaws in the work that led the researchers to significantly overestimate the share of chance-related cancers.
The actual proportion of cancers that occur by chance is much lower, according to Dr. Brennan. “If you look at international comparisons [of cancer rates] and take a conservative estimate, you see that maybe 10% or 15% of cancers are really chance.”
Whether some cancers are caused by bad luck or undiscovered risk factors remains an open question.
But the bottom line is many unknown causes of cancer are likely environmental or lifestyle related, which means that, in theory, they can be altered, even prevented.
“There is always going to be some element of chance, but you can modify your chance, depending on your lifestyle and maybe other factors, which we don’t fully understand yet,” Dr. Gunter said.
The good news is that, when it comes to prevention, there are many ways to modify our behaviors – such as consuming fewer processed meats, going for a daily walk, or getting vaccinated against cancer-causing viruses – to improve our chances of living cancer free. And as scientists better understand more about what causes cancer, possibilities for prevention will only grow.
“There is a constant, slow growth [in knowledge] that is lowering the overall risk of cancer,” Dr. Brennan said. “We’re never going to eliminate cancer, but we will be able to control it as a disease.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People with cancer are often desperate to know what caused their disease. Was it something they did? Something they could have prevented?
In a recent analysis, experts estimated that about 40% of cancers can be explained by known, often modifiable risk factors. Smoking and obesity represent the primary drivers, though a host of other factors – germline mutations, alcohol, infections, or environmental pollutants like asbestos – contribute to cancer risk as well.
But what about the remaining 60% of cancers?
The study suggests that, And a small but significant number may simply be caused by chance.
Here’s what experts suspect those missing causes might be, and why they can be so difficult to confirm.
Possibility 1: Known risk factors contribute more than we realize
For certain factors, a straight line can be drawn to cancer.
Take smoking, for instance. Decades of research have helped scientists clearly delineate tobacco’s carcinogenic effects. Researchers have pinpointed a unique set of mutations in the tumors of smokers that can be seen when cells grown in a dish are exposed to the carcinogens present in tobacco.
In addition, experts have been able to collect robust data from epidemiologic studies on smoking prevalence as well as associated cancer risks and deaths, in large part because an individual’s lifetime tobacco exposure is fairly easy to measure.
“The evidence for smoking is incredibly consistent,” Paul Brennan, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, said in an interview.
For other known risk factors, such as obesity and air pollution, many more questions than answers remain.
Because of the limitations in how such factors are measured, we are likely downplaying their effects, said Richard Martin, PhD, a professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Bristol (England).
Take obesity. Excess body weight is associated with an increased risk of at least 13 cancers. Although risk estimates vary by study and cancer type, according to a global snapshot from 2012, being overweight or obese accounted for about 4% of all cancers worldwide – 1% in low-income countries and as high as 8% in high-income countries.
However, Dr. Brennan believes “we have underestimated the effect of obesity [on cancer].”
A key reason, he said, is most studies use body mass index to determine whether someone is overweight or obese, but BMI is a poor measure of body fat. BMI does not differentiate between fat and muscle, which means two people with the same height and weight can have the same BMI, even if one is an athlete who eats lean meats and vegetables while the other lives a sedentary life and consumes large quantities of processed foods and alcohol.
On top of that, studies often only calculate a person’s BMI once, and a single measurement can’t tell you how a person’s weight has fluctuated in recent years or across different stages of their life. However, recent analyses suggest that obesity status over time may be more relevant to cancer risk than one-off measures.
In addition, many studies now suggest that alterations to our gut microbes and high blood insulin level – often seen in people who are overweight or obese – may increase the risk of cancer and speed the growth of tumors.
When these additional factors are considered, the impact of excess body fat may ultimately play a much more significant role in cancer risk. In fact, according to Dr. Brennan, “if we estimate [the effects of obesity] properly, it might at some point become the main cause of cancer.”
Possibility 2: Environmental or lifestyle factors remain under the radar
Researchers have linked many substances we consume or are exposed to in our daily lives – air pollution, toxins from industrial waste, and highly processed foods – to cancer. But the extent or contribution of potential carcinogens in our surroundings, particularly those found almost everywhere at low levels, is still largely unknown.
One simple reason is the effects of many of these substances remain difficult to assess. For instance, it is much harder to study the impact of pollutants found in food or water, in which a given population will share similar exposure levels versus tobacco, where it is possible to compare a person who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day with a person who does not smoke.
“If you’ve got exposures that are ubiquitous, it can be difficult to discern their [individual] roles,” Dr. Martin said. “There are many causes that we [likely] don’t really know because everyone has been exposed.”
On the flip side, some carcinogenic substances that people encounter for limited periods might be missed if studies are not performed at the time of exposure.
“What’s in the body at age 40 may not reflect what you were exposed at age 5-10 on the playground or soccer field,” said Graham Colditz, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and public health expert at Washington University, St. Louis. “The technology keeps changing so we can get better measures of what you’ve got exposure to today, but how that relates to 5, 10, 15 years ago is probably very variable.”
In addition, researchers have found that many carcinogens do not cause specific mutations in a cell’s DNA; rather, studies suggest that most carcinogens lead to cancer-promoting changes in cells, such as inflammation.
“We need to think of how potential carcinogens are causing cancer,” Dr. Brennan said. Instead of provoking mutations, potential carcinogens may use a “whole other kind of pathway.” When, for instance, inflammation becomes chronic, it may spur a cascade of events that ultimately leads to cancer.
Finally, not much is known about what causes cancers in low- and middle-income countries. Most of the research to date has been in high-income countries, such the United States, Australia, and parts of Europe.
“There’s a real lack of robust epidemiological studies in other parts of the world, Latin America, Africa, parts of Asia,” Marc Gunter, PhD, a molecular epidemiologist at the IARC, told this news organization.
Possibility 3: Some cancers occur by chance
When it comes to cancer risk, an element of chance may be at play. Cancer can occur in individuals who have very little exposure to known carcinogens or have no family history of cancer.
“We all know there are people who get cancer who eat very healthy diets, are never overweight, and never smoke,” Dr. Gunter said. “Then there are people on the other end of the extreme who don’t get cancer.”
But what fraction of cancers are attributable to chance?
A controversial 2017 study published in Science suggested that, based on the rate of cell turnover in healthy tissues in the lung, pancreas, and other parts of the body, only about one-third of cancers could be linked to environmental or genetic factors. The rest, the authors claimed, occurred because of random mutations that accumulated in a person’s DNA – in other words, bad luck.
That study brought on a flood of criticism from scientists who pointed to serious flaws in the work that led the researchers to significantly overestimate the share of chance-related cancers.
The actual proportion of cancers that occur by chance is much lower, according to Dr. Brennan. “If you look at international comparisons [of cancer rates] and take a conservative estimate, you see that maybe 10% or 15% of cancers are really chance.”
Whether some cancers are caused by bad luck or undiscovered risk factors remains an open question.
But the bottom line is many unknown causes of cancer are likely environmental or lifestyle related, which means that, in theory, they can be altered, even prevented.
“There is always going to be some element of chance, but you can modify your chance, depending on your lifestyle and maybe other factors, which we don’t fully understand yet,” Dr. Gunter said.
The good news is that, when it comes to prevention, there are many ways to modify our behaviors – such as consuming fewer processed meats, going for a daily walk, or getting vaccinated against cancer-causing viruses – to improve our chances of living cancer free. And as scientists better understand more about what causes cancer, possibilities for prevention will only grow.
“There is a constant, slow growth [in knowledge] that is lowering the overall risk of cancer,” Dr. Brennan said. “We’re never going to eliminate cancer, but we will be able to control it as a disease.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People with cancer are often desperate to know what caused their disease. Was it something they did? Something they could have prevented?
In a recent analysis, experts estimated that about 40% of cancers can be explained by known, often modifiable risk factors. Smoking and obesity represent the primary drivers, though a host of other factors – germline mutations, alcohol, infections, or environmental pollutants like asbestos – contribute to cancer risk as well.
But what about the remaining 60% of cancers?
The study suggests that, And a small but significant number may simply be caused by chance.
Here’s what experts suspect those missing causes might be, and why they can be so difficult to confirm.
Possibility 1: Known risk factors contribute more than we realize
For certain factors, a straight line can be drawn to cancer.
Take smoking, for instance. Decades of research have helped scientists clearly delineate tobacco’s carcinogenic effects. Researchers have pinpointed a unique set of mutations in the tumors of smokers that can be seen when cells grown in a dish are exposed to the carcinogens present in tobacco.
In addition, experts have been able to collect robust data from epidemiologic studies on smoking prevalence as well as associated cancer risks and deaths, in large part because an individual’s lifetime tobacco exposure is fairly easy to measure.
“The evidence for smoking is incredibly consistent,” Paul Brennan, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, said in an interview.
For other known risk factors, such as obesity and air pollution, many more questions than answers remain.
Because of the limitations in how such factors are measured, we are likely downplaying their effects, said Richard Martin, PhD, a professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Bristol (England).
Take obesity. Excess body weight is associated with an increased risk of at least 13 cancers. Although risk estimates vary by study and cancer type, according to a global snapshot from 2012, being overweight or obese accounted for about 4% of all cancers worldwide – 1% in low-income countries and as high as 8% in high-income countries.
However, Dr. Brennan believes “we have underestimated the effect of obesity [on cancer].”
A key reason, he said, is most studies use body mass index to determine whether someone is overweight or obese, but BMI is a poor measure of body fat. BMI does not differentiate between fat and muscle, which means two people with the same height and weight can have the same BMI, even if one is an athlete who eats lean meats and vegetables while the other lives a sedentary life and consumes large quantities of processed foods and alcohol.
On top of that, studies often only calculate a person’s BMI once, and a single measurement can’t tell you how a person’s weight has fluctuated in recent years or across different stages of their life. However, recent analyses suggest that obesity status over time may be more relevant to cancer risk than one-off measures.
In addition, many studies now suggest that alterations to our gut microbes and high blood insulin level – often seen in people who are overweight or obese – may increase the risk of cancer and speed the growth of tumors.
When these additional factors are considered, the impact of excess body fat may ultimately play a much more significant role in cancer risk. In fact, according to Dr. Brennan, “if we estimate [the effects of obesity] properly, it might at some point become the main cause of cancer.”
Possibility 2: Environmental or lifestyle factors remain under the radar
Researchers have linked many substances we consume or are exposed to in our daily lives – air pollution, toxins from industrial waste, and highly processed foods – to cancer. But the extent or contribution of potential carcinogens in our surroundings, particularly those found almost everywhere at low levels, is still largely unknown.
One simple reason is the effects of many of these substances remain difficult to assess. For instance, it is much harder to study the impact of pollutants found in food or water, in which a given population will share similar exposure levels versus tobacco, where it is possible to compare a person who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day with a person who does not smoke.
“If you’ve got exposures that are ubiquitous, it can be difficult to discern their [individual] roles,” Dr. Martin said. “There are many causes that we [likely] don’t really know because everyone has been exposed.”
On the flip side, some carcinogenic substances that people encounter for limited periods might be missed if studies are not performed at the time of exposure.
“What’s in the body at age 40 may not reflect what you were exposed at age 5-10 on the playground or soccer field,” said Graham Colditz, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and public health expert at Washington University, St. Louis. “The technology keeps changing so we can get better measures of what you’ve got exposure to today, but how that relates to 5, 10, 15 years ago is probably very variable.”
In addition, researchers have found that many carcinogens do not cause specific mutations in a cell’s DNA; rather, studies suggest that most carcinogens lead to cancer-promoting changes in cells, such as inflammation.
“We need to think of how potential carcinogens are causing cancer,” Dr. Brennan said. Instead of provoking mutations, potential carcinogens may use a “whole other kind of pathway.” When, for instance, inflammation becomes chronic, it may spur a cascade of events that ultimately leads to cancer.
Finally, not much is known about what causes cancers in low- and middle-income countries. Most of the research to date has been in high-income countries, such the United States, Australia, and parts of Europe.
“There’s a real lack of robust epidemiological studies in other parts of the world, Latin America, Africa, parts of Asia,” Marc Gunter, PhD, a molecular epidemiologist at the IARC, told this news organization.
Possibility 3: Some cancers occur by chance
When it comes to cancer risk, an element of chance may be at play. Cancer can occur in individuals who have very little exposure to known carcinogens or have no family history of cancer.
“We all know there are people who get cancer who eat very healthy diets, are never overweight, and never smoke,” Dr. Gunter said. “Then there are people on the other end of the extreme who don’t get cancer.”
But what fraction of cancers are attributable to chance?
A controversial 2017 study published in Science suggested that, based on the rate of cell turnover in healthy tissues in the lung, pancreas, and other parts of the body, only about one-third of cancers could be linked to environmental or genetic factors. The rest, the authors claimed, occurred because of random mutations that accumulated in a person’s DNA – in other words, bad luck.
That study brought on a flood of criticism from scientists who pointed to serious flaws in the work that led the researchers to significantly overestimate the share of chance-related cancers.
The actual proportion of cancers that occur by chance is much lower, according to Dr. Brennan. “If you look at international comparisons [of cancer rates] and take a conservative estimate, you see that maybe 10% or 15% of cancers are really chance.”
Whether some cancers are caused by bad luck or undiscovered risk factors remains an open question.
But the bottom line is many unknown causes of cancer are likely environmental or lifestyle related, which means that, in theory, they can be altered, even prevented.
“There is always going to be some element of chance, but you can modify your chance, depending on your lifestyle and maybe other factors, which we don’t fully understand yet,” Dr. Gunter said.
The good news is that, when it comes to prevention, there are many ways to modify our behaviors – such as consuming fewer processed meats, going for a daily walk, or getting vaccinated against cancer-causing viruses – to improve our chances of living cancer free. And as scientists better understand more about what causes cancer, possibilities for prevention will only grow.
“There is a constant, slow growth [in knowledge] that is lowering the overall risk of cancer,” Dr. Brennan said. “We’re never going to eliminate cancer, but we will be able to control it as a disease.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Remarkable’ results for targeted therapy of rare CNS tumors
The results from three small studies of targeted therapy for rare brain tumors were “remarkable,” according to Jaishri Blakeley, MD, a neurology professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who discussed the studies after they were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting.
Although most patients don’t have targetable mutations, molecular testing “is well worth the effort,” for those that do. “I think it’s fair to say that precision medicine” – well established in other tumor types – “is finally here in full force for neuro-oncology,” Dr. Blakeley said.
A promising start
Fifteen of 16 patients (94%) in one study had newly diagnosed and untreated papillary craniopharyngiomas (PCPs) that harbored BRAF V600E mutations, a common finding in PCPs, which have no effective medical treatment.
Tumors shrunk 68%-99% in 14 patients (93%) after treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib plus the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib, which was included to stave off resistance to vemurafenib. The 24-month progression free survival was 93%.
The combination resulted in significant response in all patients who received at least one cycle of therapy, with a median 91% volume reduction. “Our study indicates that BRAF/MEK inhibitors could be a powerful tool in the treatment of previously untreated PCP, with the potential to avoid the morbidity associated with radiation and surgery,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Priscilla K. Brastianos, MD, associate professor of medicine at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.
Thirty-three people in the second study had a mix of high and low grade gliomas or other CNS tumors positive for TRK gene fusions, a known oncogenic driver; the majority were children. They were treated with the TRK inhibitor larotrectinib after progressing on other systemic therapies.
The objective response rate was 30%, and the disease control rate was 73% at 24 weeks, with a median time to best response of 1.9 months. Tumors shrank in 82% of evaluable patients. Median progression-free survival was 18.3 months, and overall survival was not reached.
“These results support testing for TRK gene fusions for all patients with CNS tumors, especially if there is no known driver and especially in infants,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Sebastien Perreault, MD, a clinical assistant neurosciences professor at the University of Montreal.
The third study tested ALK inhibitors such as crizotinib in seven patients with adult-onset neuroblastoma, a rare and almost invariably fatal tumor known to be enriched for ALK mutations; the subjects were positive for them.
Their disease remained stable anywhere from 3.4 to 37.4 months. Median time to progression was 15.5 months, and median overall survival was 46.5 months.
ALK inhibitors “can be a well-tolerated options for treatment, improving time to progression. Development of resistance to one agent does not preclude use of other agents in the same drug class. ALK inhibitors should be considered when treating patients with this diagnosis,” said lead investigator and presenter Jessica Stiefel, MD, a pediatric hematology oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
A ‘strong’ recommendation
The data “are great news” across the board. Targeted therapy applied to the right CNS tumor can have “dramatic” benefit for tumor control, Dr. Blakeley said.
But organizing molecular testing is not straightforward and requires strategies to balance “the use of precious resources, such as time money, and tissue,” with the potential benefit. Interpretation of testing results isn’t straightforward either, and is best handled by a molecular tumor board. Clinical pharmacists are also key to accessing expensive medications off label for CNS tumors.
Adverse events are also a consideration. Most of the subjects in the PCP study had grade 3/4 toxicity. Three patients in the ALK inhibitor study had to stop because of adverse events. Almost 40% on larotrectinib had grade 3 or 4 toxicity; nobody came off treatment, but a third had to skip doses.
Once an actionable mutation is identified, Dr. Blakeley’s “strong recommendation” is to enroll patients in a clinical trial that targets it, to take advantage the structure already in place to secure treatment, managed patients, and assess outcomes.
The National Cancer Institute’s MATCH trial is one of several options.
The BRAF/MEK inhibitor study was funded by Genentech and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brastianos had ties to numerous companies, including Pfizer, Lilly, and Merck. The TRK inhibitor study was funded by Bayer/Lilly. Dr. Perreault is a speaker and researcher for the company and has other ties. Dr. Blakeley is an adviser and/or researcher for a number of companies, including AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, and Exelixis. Dr. Stiefel didn’t have any disclosures, and didn’t report outside funding.
The results from three small studies of targeted therapy for rare brain tumors were “remarkable,” according to Jaishri Blakeley, MD, a neurology professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who discussed the studies after they were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting.
Although most patients don’t have targetable mutations, molecular testing “is well worth the effort,” for those that do. “I think it’s fair to say that precision medicine” – well established in other tumor types – “is finally here in full force for neuro-oncology,” Dr. Blakeley said.
A promising start
Fifteen of 16 patients (94%) in one study had newly diagnosed and untreated papillary craniopharyngiomas (PCPs) that harbored BRAF V600E mutations, a common finding in PCPs, which have no effective medical treatment.
Tumors shrunk 68%-99% in 14 patients (93%) after treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib plus the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib, which was included to stave off resistance to vemurafenib. The 24-month progression free survival was 93%.
The combination resulted in significant response in all patients who received at least one cycle of therapy, with a median 91% volume reduction. “Our study indicates that BRAF/MEK inhibitors could be a powerful tool in the treatment of previously untreated PCP, with the potential to avoid the morbidity associated with radiation and surgery,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Priscilla K. Brastianos, MD, associate professor of medicine at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.
Thirty-three people in the second study had a mix of high and low grade gliomas or other CNS tumors positive for TRK gene fusions, a known oncogenic driver; the majority were children. They were treated with the TRK inhibitor larotrectinib after progressing on other systemic therapies.
The objective response rate was 30%, and the disease control rate was 73% at 24 weeks, with a median time to best response of 1.9 months. Tumors shrank in 82% of evaluable patients. Median progression-free survival was 18.3 months, and overall survival was not reached.
“These results support testing for TRK gene fusions for all patients with CNS tumors, especially if there is no known driver and especially in infants,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Sebastien Perreault, MD, a clinical assistant neurosciences professor at the University of Montreal.
The third study tested ALK inhibitors such as crizotinib in seven patients with adult-onset neuroblastoma, a rare and almost invariably fatal tumor known to be enriched for ALK mutations; the subjects were positive for them.
Their disease remained stable anywhere from 3.4 to 37.4 months. Median time to progression was 15.5 months, and median overall survival was 46.5 months.
ALK inhibitors “can be a well-tolerated options for treatment, improving time to progression. Development of resistance to one agent does not preclude use of other agents in the same drug class. ALK inhibitors should be considered when treating patients with this diagnosis,” said lead investigator and presenter Jessica Stiefel, MD, a pediatric hematology oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
A ‘strong’ recommendation
The data “are great news” across the board. Targeted therapy applied to the right CNS tumor can have “dramatic” benefit for tumor control, Dr. Blakeley said.
But organizing molecular testing is not straightforward and requires strategies to balance “the use of precious resources, such as time money, and tissue,” with the potential benefit. Interpretation of testing results isn’t straightforward either, and is best handled by a molecular tumor board. Clinical pharmacists are also key to accessing expensive medications off label for CNS tumors.
Adverse events are also a consideration. Most of the subjects in the PCP study had grade 3/4 toxicity. Three patients in the ALK inhibitor study had to stop because of adverse events. Almost 40% on larotrectinib had grade 3 or 4 toxicity; nobody came off treatment, but a third had to skip doses.
Once an actionable mutation is identified, Dr. Blakeley’s “strong recommendation” is to enroll patients in a clinical trial that targets it, to take advantage the structure already in place to secure treatment, managed patients, and assess outcomes.
The National Cancer Institute’s MATCH trial is one of several options.
The BRAF/MEK inhibitor study was funded by Genentech and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brastianos had ties to numerous companies, including Pfizer, Lilly, and Merck. The TRK inhibitor study was funded by Bayer/Lilly. Dr. Perreault is a speaker and researcher for the company and has other ties. Dr. Blakeley is an adviser and/or researcher for a number of companies, including AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, and Exelixis. Dr. Stiefel didn’t have any disclosures, and didn’t report outside funding.
The results from three small studies of targeted therapy for rare brain tumors were “remarkable,” according to Jaishri Blakeley, MD, a neurology professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who discussed the studies after they were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting.
Although most patients don’t have targetable mutations, molecular testing “is well worth the effort,” for those that do. “I think it’s fair to say that precision medicine” – well established in other tumor types – “is finally here in full force for neuro-oncology,” Dr. Blakeley said.
A promising start
Fifteen of 16 patients (94%) in one study had newly diagnosed and untreated papillary craniopharyngiomas (PCPs) that harbored BRAF V600E mutations, a common finding in PCPs, which have no effective medical treatment.
Tumors shrunk 68%-99% in 14 patients (93%) after treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib plus the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib, which was included to stave off resistance to vemurafenib. The 24-month progression free survival was 93%.
The combination resulted in significant response in all patients who received at least one cycle of therapy, with a median 91% volume reduction. “Our study indicates that BRAF/MEK inhibitors could be a powerful tool in the treatment of previously untreated PCP, with the potential to avoid the morbidity associated with radiation and surgery,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Priscilla K. Brastianos, MD, associate professor of medicine at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.
Thirty-three people in the second study had a mix of high and low grade gliomas or other CNS tumors positive for TRK gene fusions, a known oncogenic driver; the majority were children. They were treated with the TRK inhibitor larotrectinib after progressing on other systemic therapies.
The objective response rate was 30%, and the disease control rate was 73% at 24 weeks, with a median time to best response of 1.9 months. Tumors shrank in 82% of evaluable patients. Median progression-free survival was 18.3 months, and overall survival was not reached.
“These results support testing for TRK gene fusions for all patients with CNS tumors, especially if there is no known driver and especially in infants,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Sebastien Perreault, MD, a clinical assistant neurosciences professor at the University of Montreal.
The third study tested ALK inhibitors such as crizotinib in seven patients with adult-onset neuroblastoma, a rare and almost invariably fatal tumor known to be enriched for ALK mutations; the subjects were positive for them.
Their disease remained stable anywhere from 3.4 to 37.4 months. Median time to progression was 15.5 months, and median overall survival was 46.5 months.
ALK inhibitors “can be a well-tolerated options for treatment, improving time to progression. Development of resistance to one agent does not preclude use of other agents in the same drug class. ALK inhibitors should be considered when treating patients with this diagnosis,” said lead investigator and presenter Jessica Stiefel, MD, a pediatric hematology oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
A ‘strong’ recommendation
The data “are great news” across the board. Targeted therapy applied to the right CNS tumor can have “dramatic” benefit for tumor control, Dr. Blakeley said.
But organizing molecular testing is not straightforward and requires strategies to balance “the use of precious resources, such as time money, and tissue,” with the potential benefit. Interpretation of testing results isn’t straightforward either, and is best handled by a molecular tumor board. Clinical pharmacists are also key to accessing expensive medications off label for CNS tumors.
Adverse events are also a consideration. Most of the subjects in the PCP study had grade 3/4 toxicity. Three patients in the ALK inhibitor study had to stop because of adverse events. Almost 40% on larotrectinib had grade 3 or 4 toxicity; nobody came off treatment, but a third had to skip doses.
Once an actionable mutation is identified, Dr. Blakeley’s “strong recommendation” is to enroll patients in a clinical trial that targets it, to take advantage the structure already in place to secure treatment, managed patients, and assess outcomes.
The National Cancer Institute’s MATCH trial is one of several options.
The BRAF/MEK inhibitor study was funded by Genentech and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brastianos had ties to numerous companies, including Pfizer, Lilly, and Merck. The TRK inhibitor study was funded by Bayer/Lilly. Dr. Perreault is a speaker and researcher for the company and has other ties. Dr. Blakeley is an adviser and/or researcher for a number of companies, including AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, and Exelixis. Dr. Stiefel didn’t have any disclosures, and didn’t report outside funding.
FROM ASCO 2021
CAR-T in children branching out to solid tumors
Although the only pediatric indication for chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration is B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory to at least two frontline induction attempts or is in second or later relapse, clinical trials of CAR-T therapy for pediatric solid tumors are also currently in progress, said Gregory Yanik, MD, from the CS Mott Children’s Hospital at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.
In his presentation, Dr. Yanik discussed progress in solid tumor studies as well as some issues involving the current use of CAR-T therapy for ALL.
Solid tumor studies
Malignancies such as sarcomas, brain tumors, and neuroblastomas pose unique challenges, “In contrast to hematologic malignancies, the protein we’re targeting may not be present on the cell surface of all the tumor cells. There are lower-expression profiles, and this is a problem. In fact, many people have postulated that with CAR-T for pediatric solid tumors we’ll have to do repeated cycles, almost like we do with chemotherapy,” he said at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.
There are currently 14 studies of CAR-T for central nervous system tumors in children, targeting either epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in glioblastoma multiforme and high-grade gliomas, HER2 in a variety of CNS tumors, the GD2 antigen on pontine gliomas, and the checkpoint molecular B7H3 in medulloblastomas and pontine gliomas.
“In sarcomas in kids there are currently 12 trials in progress. Most of the targeting epitopes are targeting either HER2 or GD2. Repetitive CAR-T infusions are being used in several of these trials in sarcomas.
For neuroblastomas there are currently 13 studies in progress, nearly all of which target GD2. Some of the trials include combining CAR-T with immune checkpoint inhibitors or C7R, an engineered cytokine driver designed to prevent T-cell exhaustion.
In addition, several trials of tumor pulsed dendritic cell vaccines are underway for treatment of children with Wilms tumor, Dr. Yanik noted.
Unresolved procedural questions
It’s still early days in CAR-T therapy, and there are several still unanswered questions regarding optimal therapy for and management of patients undergoing CAR-T procedures, Dr. Yanik said.
For example, the optimal time to collect T cells during apheresis is still unclear, he said. Collecting prior to reinduction therapy raises the risk of transducing leukemic cells, while collecting after reinduction may result in inadequate quantity or quality of cells. Regardless of when cells are collected, apheresis should be performed only when the absolute lymphocyte count is above 500/mcL or the CD3 count is above 150/mcL at the time of apheresis.
In the case tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), his center typically collects 1x109 CD3 cells regardless of age or weight.
The number of CAR T-cells infused also appears to matter, as responses are improved at CAR-T doses above 1.5x106/kg, while risk for higher-grade cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurs at higher infusion doses.
Blinatumomab or inotuzumab?
Along with CAR-T, two other agents, the bispecific T-cell engager blinatumomab (Blincyto) and the antibody conjugate inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa) are also approved for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL.
Like CAR-T therapy, the primary toxicities associated with blinatumomab are CRS and neurologic adverse events, whereas at inotuzumab is largely associated with hematologic and hepatic toxicities.
The logistics of therapy differ widely, with a 28-day infusion required for blinatumomab, compared with weekly dosing of inotuzumab, and the multiple visits for apheresis and infusion required for CAR-T.
Blinatumomab is approved for both children and adults with relapsed/refractory ALL, but inotuzumab is approved only for adults, and CAR-T with tisagenlecleucel is approved only for children in this indication.
CD-19 expression
There is evidence to suggest that CD19 expression prior to CAR-T has an effect on outcomes, Dr. Yanik said.
“Does blinatumomab pre–CAR-T impact outcome? The answer is probably yes,” he said.
He referred to a study by investigators at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia showing that, “if you’re giving blinatumomab prior to CAR-T therapy, you’re potentially reducing the cell-surface expression of CD19 on your leukemic blasts, and now while you’re bringing these patients in for CAR-T therapy, you’re getting a much higher population of dim CD19 expressers, and this is associated with a higher relapse rate and lower remission rate.”
Predicting relapse
Dr. Yanik referred to a study, currently unpublished, which will show that next-generation sequencing (NGS) is more sensitive than flow cytometry for detection of minimal residual disease (MRD), and that MRD analysis of marrow was more sensitive than analysis of peripheral blood.
“Poor outcomes were seen post CAR-T for patients who were in morphologic remission on day 28 or day 100, but had positive MRD. This especially held true if it was next-gen sequencing MRD-positive at day 100, for which relapse rates were over 95%,” he said.
The absence of B-cells is a surrogate marker for the persistence of CAR-T, and conversely, the recovery of CD19-positive B cells may be a predictor for relapse, especially if the B-cell recovery occurs within the first 6 months following CAR-T infusion.
Transplant after CAR-T?
Bone marrow transplant after CAR-T is recommend for patients with high risk of relapse, including those with B-cell recovery within the first 6 months after CAR-T, patients with MRD positivity at days 28 or 100, and patients with mixed lineage leukemia.
“Should we transplant good-risk patients, meaning, if you have NGS-MRD negative patients, is there a role for transplant? You have to look at the risk versus benefit there. These patients may have a cure rate that’s in the 80%-plus range, could we potentially optimize that even more if we consolidate them with an allo[geneic] transplant,” Dr. Yank said.
Move CAR-T up front?
A Children’s Oncology Group study is currently examining whether giving CAR-T therapy to patients with MRD of 0.01% or greater following first consolidation could result in lower tumor burden, fewer relapse, and less CRS with CAR-T.
Dr. Yanik reported that he had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Although the only pediatric indication for chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration is B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory to at least two frontline induction attempts or is in second or later relapse, clinical trials of CAR-T therapy for pediatric solid tumors are also currently in progress, said Gregory Yanik, MD, from the CS Mott Children’s Hospital at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.
In his presentation, Dr. Yanik discussed progress in solid tumor studies as well as some issues involving the current use of CAR-T therapy for ALL.
Solid tumor studies
Malignancies such as sarcomas, brain tumors, and neuroblastomas pose unique challenges, “In contrast to hematologic malignancies, the protein we’re targeting may not be present on the cell surface of all the tumor cells. There are lower-expression profiles, and this is a problem. In fact, many people have postulated that with CAR-T for pediatric solid tumors we’ll have to do repeated cycles, almost like we do with chemotherapy,” he said at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.
There are currently 14 studies of CAR-T for central nervous system tumors in children, targeting either epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in glioblastoma multiforme and high-grade gliomas, HER2 in a variety of CNS tumors, the GD2 antigen on pontine gliomas, and the checkpoint molecular B7H3 in medulloblastomas and pontine gliomas.
“In sarcomas in kids there are currently 12 trials in progress. Most of the targeting epitopes are targeting either HER2 or GD2. Repetitive CAR-T infusions are being used in several of these trials in sarcomas.
For neuroblastomas there are currently 13 studies in progress, nearly all of which target GD2. Some of the trials include combining CAR-T with immune checkpoint inhibitors or C7R, an engineered cytokine driver designed to prevent T-cell exhaustion.
In addition, several trials of tumor pulsed dendritic cell vaccines are underway for treatment of children with Wilms tumor, Dr. Yanik noted.
Unresolved procedural questions
It’s still early days in CAR-T therapy, and there are several still unanswered questions regarding optimal therapy for and management of patients undergoing CAR-T procedures, Dr. Yanik said.
For example, the optimal time to collect T cells during apheresis is still unclear, he said. Collecting prior to reinduction therapy raises the risk of transducing leukemic cells, while collecting after reinduction may result in inadequate quantity or quality of cells. Regardless of when cells are collected, apheresis should be performed only when the absolute lymphocyte count is above 500/mcL or the CD3 count is above 150/mcL at the time of apheresis.
In the case tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), his center typically collects 1x109 CD3 cells regardless of age or weight.
The number of CAR T-cells infused also appears to matter, as responses are improved at CAR-T doses above 1.5x106/kg, while risk for higher-grade cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurs at higher infusion doses.
Blinatumomab or inotuzumab?
Along with CAR-T, two other agents, the bispecific T-cell engager blinatumomab (Blincyto) and the antibody conjugate inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa) are also approved for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL.
Like CAR-T therapy, the primary toxicities associated with blinatumomab are CRS and neurologic adverse events, whereas at inotuzumab is largely associated with hematologic and hepatic toxicities.
The logistics of therapy differ widely, with a 28-day infusion required for blinatumomab, compared with weekly dosing of inotuzumab, and the multiple visits for apheresis and infusion required for CAR-T.
Blinatumomab is approved for both children and adults with relapsed/refractory ALL, but inotuzumab is approved only for adults, and CAR-T with tisagenlecleucel is approved only for children in this indication.
CD-19 expression
There is evidence to suggest that CD19 expression prior to CAR-T has an effect on outcomes, Dr. Yanik said.
“Does blinatumomab pre–CAR-T impact outcome? The answer is probably yes,” he said.
He referred to a study by investigators at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia showing that, “if you’re giving blinatumomab prior to CAR-T therapy, you’re potentially reducing the cell-surface expression of CD19 on your leukemic blasts, and now while you’re bringing these patients in for CAR-T therapy, you’re getting a much higher population of dim CD19 expressers, and this is associated with a higher relapse rate and lower remission rate.”
Predicting relapse
Dr. Yanik referred to a study, currently unpublished, which will show that next-generation sequencing (NGS) is more sensitive than flow cytometry for detection of minimal residual disease (MRD), and that MRD analysis of marrow was more sensitive than analysis of peripheral blood.
“Poor outcomes were seen post CAR-T for patients who were in morphologic remission on day 28 or day 100, but had positive MRD. This especially held true if it was next-gen sequencing MRD-positive at day 100, for which relapse rates were over 95%,” he said.
The absence of B-cells is a surrogate marker for the persistence of CAR-T, and conversely, the recovery of CD19-positive B cells may be a predictor for relapse, especially if the B-cell recovery occurs within the first 6 months following CAR-T infusion.
Transplant after CAR-T?
Bone marrow transplant after CAR-T is recommend for patients with high risk of relapse, including those with B-cell recovery within the first 6 months after CAR-T, patients with MRD positivity at days 28 or 100, and patients with mixed lineage leukemia.
“Should we transplant good-risk patients, meaning, if you have NGS-MRD negative patients, is there a role for transplant? You have to look at the risk versus benefit there. These patients may have a cure rate that’s in the 80%-plus range, could we potentially optimize that even more if we consolidate them with an allo[geneic] transplant,” Dr. Yank said.
Move CAR-T up front?
A Children’s Oncology Group study is currently examining whether giving CAR-T therapy to patients with MRD of 0.01% or greater following first consolidation could result in lower tumor burden, fewer relapse, and less CRS with CAR-T.
Dr. Yanik reported that he had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Although the only pediatric indication for chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration is B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory to at least two frontline induction attempts or is in second or later relapse, clinical trials of CAR-T therapy for pediatric solid tumors are also currently in progress, said Gregory Yanik, MD, from the CS Mott Children’s Hospital at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.
In his presentation, Dr. Yanik discussed progress in solid tumor studies as well as some issues involving the current use of CAR-T therapy for ALL.
Solid tumor studies
Malignancies such as sarcomas, brain tumors, and neuroblastomas pose unique challenges, “In contrast to hematologic malignancies, the protein we’re targeting may not be present on the cell surface of all the tumor cells. There are lower-expression profiles, and this is a problem. In fact, many people have postulated that with CAR-T for pediatric solid tumors we’ll have to do repeated cycles, almost like we do with chemotherapy,” he said at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.
There are currently 14 studies of CAR-T for central nervous system tumors in children, targeting either epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in glioblastoma multiforme and high-grade gliomas, HER2 in a variety of CNS tumors, the GD2 antigen on pontine gliomas, and the checkpoint molecular B7H3 in medulloblastomas and pontine gliomas.
“In sarcomas in kids there are currently 12 trials in progress. Most of the targeting epitopes are targeting either HER2 or GD2. Repetitive CAR-T infusions are being used in several of these trials in sarcomas.
For neuroblastomas there are currently 13 studies in progress, nearly all of which target GD2. Some of the trials include combining CAR-T with immune checkpoint inhibitors or C7R, an engineered cytokine driver designed to prevent T-cell exhaustion.
In addition, several trials of tumor pulsed dendritic cell vaccines are underway for treatment of children with Wilms tumor, Dr. Yanik noted.
Unresolved procedural questions
It’s still early days in CAR-T therapy, and there are several still unanswered questions regarding optimal therapy for and management of patients undergoing CAR-T procedures, Dr. Yanik said.
For example, the optimal time to collect T cells during apheresis is still unclear, he said. Collecting prior to reinduction therapy raises the risk of transducing leukemic cells, while collecting after reinduction may result in inadequate quantity or quality of cells. Regardless of when cells are collected, apheresis should be performed only when the absolute lymphocyte count is above 500/mcL or the CD3 count is above 150/mcL at the time of apheresis.
In the case tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), his center typically collects 1x109 CD3 cells regardless of age or weight.
The number of CAR T-cells infused also appears to matter, as responses are improved at CAR-T doses above 1.5x106/kg, while risk for higher-grade cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurs at higher infusion doses.
Blinatumomab or inotuzumab?
Along with CAR-T, two other agents, the bispecific T-cell engager blinatumomab (Blincyto) and the antibody conjugate inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa) are also approved for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL.
Like CAR-T therapy, the primary toxicities associated with blinatumomab are CRS and neurologic adverse events, whereas at inotuzumab is largely associated with hematologic and hepatic toxicities.
The logistics of therapy differ widely, with a 28-day infusion required for blinatumomab, compared with weekly dosing of inotuzumab, and the multiple visits for apheresis and infusion required for CAR-T.
Blinatumomab is approved for both children and adults with relapsed/refractory ALL, but inotuzumab is approved only for adults, and CAR-T with tisagenlecleucel is approved only for children in this indication.
CD-19 expression
There is evidence to suggest that CD19 expression prior to CAR-T has an effect on outcomes, Dr. Yanik said.
“Does blinatumomab pre–CAR-T impact outcome? The answer is probably yes,” he said.
He referred to a study by investigators at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia showing that, “if you’re giving blinatumomab prior to CAR-T therapy, you’re potentially reducing the cell-surface expression of CD19 on your leukemic blasts, and now while you’re bringing these patients in for CAR-T therapy, you’re getting a much higher population of dim CD19 expressers, and this is associated with a higher relapse rate and lower remission rate.”
Predicting relapse
Dr. Yanik referred to a study, currently unpublished, which will show that next-generation sequencing (NGS) is more sensitive than flow cytometry for detection of minimal residual disease (MRD), and that MRD analysis of marrow was more sensitive than analysis of peripheral blood.
“Poor outcomes were seen post CAR-T for patients who were in morphologic remission on day 28 or day 100, but had positive MRD. This especially held true if it was next-gen sequencing MRD-positive at day 100, for which relapse rates were over 95%,” he said.
The absence of B-cells is a surrogate marker for the persistence of CAR-T, and conversely, the recovery of CD19-positive B cells may be a predictor for relapse, especially if the B-cell recovery occurs within the first 6 months following CAR-T infusion.
Transplant after CAR-T?
Bone marrow transplant after CAR-T is recommend for patients with high risk of relapse, including those with B-cell recovery within the first 6 months after CAR-T, patients with MRD positivity at days 28 or 100, and patients with mixed lineage leukemia.
“Should we transplant good-risk patients, meaning, if you have NGS-MRD negative patients, is there a role for transplant? You have to look at the risk versus benefit there. These patients may have a cure rate that’s in the 80%-plus range, could we potentially optimize that even more if we consolidate them with an allo[geneic] transplant,” Dr. Yank said.
Move CAR-T up front?
A Children’s Oncology Group study is currently examining whether giving CAR-T therapy to patients with MRD of 0.01% or greater following first consolidation could result in lower tumor burden, fewer relapse, and less CRS with CAR-T.
Dr. Yanik reported that he had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM TCT 2021
Neurologic disorders ubiquitous and rising in the U.S.
, according to new findings derived from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease study.
The authors of the analysis, led by Valery Feigin, MD, PhD, of New Zealand’s National Institute for Stroke and Applied Neurosciences, and published in the February 2021 issue of JAMA Neurology, looked at prevalence, incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years for 14 neurological disorders across 50 states between 1990 and 2017. The diseases included in the analysis were stroke, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, headaches, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries, brain and other nervous system cancers, meningitis, encephalitis, and tetanus.
Tracking the burden of neurologic diseases
Dr. Feigin and colleagues estimated that a full 60% of the U.S. population lives with one or more of these disorders, a figure much greater than previous estimates for neurological disease burden nationwide. Tension-type headache and migraine were the most prevalent in the analysis by Dr. Feigin and colleagues. During the study period, they found, prevalence, incidence, and disability burden of nearly all the included disorders increased, with the exception of brain and spinal cord injuries, meningitis, and encephalitis.
The researchers attributed most of the rise in noncommunicable neurological diseases to population aging. An age-standardized analysis found trends for stroke and Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias to be declining or flat. Age-standardized stroke incidence dropped by 16% from 1990 to 2017, while stroke mortality declined by nearly a third, and stroke disability by a quarter. Age-standardized incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias dropped by 12%, and their prevalence by 13%, during the study period, though dementia mortality and disability were seen increasing.
The authors surmised that the age-standardized declines in stroke and dementias could reflect that “primary prevention of these disorders are beginning to show an influence.” With dementia, which is linked to cognitive reserve and education, “improving educational levels of cohort reaching the age groups at greatest risk of disease may also be contributing to a modest decline over time,” Dr. Feigin and his colleagues wrote.
Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis, meanwhile, were both seen rising in incidence, prevalence, and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) even with age-standardized figures. The United States saw comparatively more disability in 2017 from dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, and headache disorders, which together comprised 6.7% of DALYs, compared with 4.4% globally; these also accounted for a higher share of mortality in the U.S. than worldwide. The authors attributed at least some of the difference to better case ascertainment in the U.S.
Regional variations
The researchers also reported variations in disease burden by state and region. While previous studies have identified a “stroke belt” concentrated in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, the new findings point to stroke disability highest in Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, and mortality highest in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina. The researchers noted increases in dementia mortality in these states, “likely attributable to the reciprocal association between stroke and dementia.”
Northern states saw higher burdens of multiple sclerosis compared with the rest of the country, while eastern states had higher rates of Parkinson’s disease.
Such regional and state-by state variations, Dr. Feigin and colleagues wrote in their analysis, “may be associated with differences in the case ascertainment, as well as access to health care; racial/ethnic, genetic, and socioeconomic diversity; quality and comprehensiveness of preventive strategies; and risk factor distribution.”
The researchers noted as a limitation of their study that the 14 diseases captured were not an exhaustive list of neurological conditions; chronic lower back pain, a condition included in a previous major study of the burden of neurological disease in the United States, was omitted, as were restless legs syndrome and peripheral neuropathy. The researchers cited changes to coding practice in the U.S. and accuracy of medical claims data as potential limitations of their analysis. The Global Burden of Disease study is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and several of Dr. Feigin’s coauthors reported financial relationships with industry.
Time to adjust the stroke belt?
Amelia Boehme, PhD, a stroke epidemiologist at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York, said in an interview that the current study added to recent findings showing surprising local variability in stroke prevalence, incidence, and mortality. “What we had always conceptually thought of as the ‘stroke belt’ isn’t necessarily the case,” Dr. Boehme said, but is rather subject to local, county-by-county variations. “Looking at the data here in conjunction with what previous authors have found, it raises some questions as to whether or not state-level data is giving a completely accurate picture, and whether we need to start looking at the county level and adjust for populations and age.” Importantly, Dr. Boehme said, data collected in the Global Burden of Disease study tends to be exceptionally rigorous and systematic, adding weight to Dr. Feigin and colleagues’ suggestions that prevention efforts may be making a dent in stroke and dementia.
“More data is always needed before we start to say we’re seeing things change,” Dr. Boehme noted. “But any glimmer of optimism is welcome, especially with regard to interventions that have been put in place, to allow us to build on those interventions.”
Dr. Boehme disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.
, according to new findings derived from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease study.
The authors of the analysis, led by Valery Feigin, MD, PhD, of New Zealand’s National Institute for Stroke and Applied Neurosciences, and published in the February 2021 issue of JAMA Neurology, looked at prevalence, incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years for 14 neurological disorders across 50 states between 1990 and 2017. The diseases included in the analysis were stroke, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, headaches, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries, brain and other nervous system cancers, meningitis, encephalitis, and tetanus.
Tracking the burden of neurologic diseases
Dr. Feigin and colleagues estimated that a full 60% of the U.S. population lives with one or more of these disorders, a figure much greater than previous estimates for neurological disease burden nationwide. Tension-type headache and migraine were the most prevalent in the analysis by Dr. Feigin and colleagues. During the study period, they found, prevalence, incidence, and disability burden of nearly all the included disorders increased, with the exception of brain and spinal cord injuries, meningitis, and encephalitis.
The researchers attributed most of the rise in noncommunicable neurological diseases to population aging. An age-standardized analysis found trends for stroke and Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias to be declining or flat. Age-standardized stroke incidence dropped by 16% from 1990 to 2017, while stroke mortality declined by nearly a third, and stroke disability by a quarter. Age-standardized incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias dropped by 12%, and their prevalence by 13%, during the study period, though dementia mortality and disability were seen increasing.
The authors surmised that the age-standardized declines in stroke and dementias could reflect that “primary prevention of these disorders are beginning to show an influence.” With dementia, which is linked to cognitive reserve and education, “improving educational levels of cohort reaching the age groups at greatest risk of disease may also be contributing to a modest decline over time,” Dr. Feigin and his colleagues wrote.
Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis, meanwhile, were both seen rising in incidence, prevalence, and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) even with age-standardized figures. The United States saw comparatively more disability in 2017 from dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, and headache disorders, which together comprised 6.7% of DALYs, compared with 4.4% globally; these also accounted for a higher share of mortality in the U.S. than worldwide. The authors attributed at least some of the difference to better case ascertainment in the U.S.
Regional variations
The researchers also reported variations in disease burden by state and region. While previous studies have identified a “stroke belt” concentrated in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, the new findings point to stroke disability highest in Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, and mortality highest in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina. The researchers noted increases in dementia mortality in these states, “likely attributable to the reciprocal association between stroke and dementia.”
Northern states saw higher burdens of multiple sclerosis compared with the rest of the country, while eastern states had higher rates of Parkinson’s disease.
Such regional and state-by state variations, Dr. Feigin and colleagues wrote in their analysis, “may be associated with differences in the case ascertainment, as well as access to health care; racial/ethnic, genetic, and socioeconomic diversity; quality and comprehensiveness of preventive strategies; and risk factor distribution.”
The researchers noted as a limitation of their study that the 14 diseases captured were not an exhaustive list of neurological conditions; chronic lower back pain, a condition included in a previous major study of the burden of neurological disease in the United States, was omitted, as were restless legs syndrome and peripheral neuropathy. The researchers cited changes to coding practice in the U.S. and accuracy of medical claims data as potential limitations of their analysis. The Global Burden of Disease study is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and several of Dr. Feigin’s coauthors reported financial relationships with industry.
Time to adjust the stroke belt?
Amelia Boehme, PhD, a stroke epidemiologist at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York, said in an interview that the current study added to recent findings showing surprising local variability in stroke prevalence, incidence, and mortality. “What we had always conceptually thought of as the ‘stroke belt’ isn’t necessarily the case,” Dr. Boehme said, but is rather subject to local, county-by-county variations. “Looking at the data here in conjunction with what previous authors have found, it raises some questions as to whether or not state-level data is giving a completely accurate picture, and whether we need to start looking at the county level and adjust for populations and age.” Importantly, Dr. Boehme said, data collected in the Global Burden of Disease study tends to be exceptionally rigorous and systematic, adding weight to Dr. Feigin and colleagues’ suggestions that prevention efforts may be making a dent in stroke and dementia.
“More data is always needed before we start to say we’re seeing things change,” Dr. Boehme noted. “But any glimmer of optimism is welcome, especially with regard to interventions that have been put in place, to allow us to build on those interventions.”
Dr. Boehme disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.
, according to new findings derived from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease study.
The authors of the analysis, led by Valery Feigin, MD, PhD, of New Zealand’s National Institute for Stroke and Applied Neurosciences, and published in the February 2021 issue of JAMA Neurology, looked at prevalence, incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years for 14 neurological disorders across 50 states between 1990 and 2017. The diseases included in the analysis were stroke, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, headaches, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries, brain and other nervous system cancers, meningitis, encephalitis, and tetanus.
Tracking the burden of neurologic diseases
Dr. Feigin and colleagues estimated that a full 60% of the U.S. population lives with one or more of these disorders, a figure much greater than previous estimates for neurological disease burden nationwide. Tension-type headache and migraine were the most prevalent in the analysis by Dr. Feigin and colleagues. During the study period, they found, prevalence, incidence, and disability burden of nearly all the included disorders increased, with the exception of brain and spinal cord injuries, meningitis, and encephalitis.
The researchers attributed most of the rise in noncommunicable neurological diseases to population aging. An age-standardized analysis found trends for stroke and Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias to be declining or flat. Age-standardized stroke incidence dropped by 16% from 1990 to 2017, while stroke mortality declined by nearly a third, and stroke disability by a quarter. Age-standardized incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias dropped by 12%, and their prevalence by 13%, during the study period, though dementia mortality and disability were seen increasing.
The authors surmised that the age-standardized declines in stroke and dementias could reflect that “primary prevention of these disorders are beginning to show an influence.” With dementia, which is linked to cognitive reserve and education, “improving educational levels of cohort reaching the age groups at greatest risk of disease may also be contributing to a modest decline over time,” Dr. Feigin and his colleagues wrote.
Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis, meanwhile, were both seen rising in incidence, prevalence, and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) even with age-standardized figures. The United States saw comparatively more disability in 2017 from dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, and headache disorders, which together comprised 6.7% of DALYs, compared with 4.4% globally; these also accounted for a higher share of mortality in the U.S. than worldwide. The authors attributed at least some of the difference to better case ascertainment in the U.S.
Regional variations
The researchers also reported variations in disease burden by state and region. While previous studies have identified a “stroke belt” concentrated in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, the new findings point to stroke disability highest in Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, and mortality highest in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina. The researchers noted increases in dementia mortality in these states, “likely attributable to the reciprocal association between stroke and dementia.”
Northern states saw higher burdens of multiple sclerosis compared with the rest of the country, while eastern states had higher rates of Parkinson’s disease.
Such regional and state-by state variations, Dr. Feigin and colleagues wrote in their analysis, “may be associated with differences in the case ascertainment, as well as access to health care; racial/ethnic, genetic, and socioeconomic diversity; quality and comprehensiveness of preventive strategies; and risk factor distribution.”
The researchers noted as a limitation of their study that the 14 diseases captured were not an exhaustive list of neurological conditions; chronic lower back pain, a condition included in a previous major study of the burden of neurological disease in the United States, was omitted, as were restless legs syndrome and peripheral neuropathy. The researchers cited changes to coding practice in the U.S. and accuracy of medical claims data as potential limitations of their analysis. The Global Burden of Disease study is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and several of Dr. Feigin’s coauthors reported financial relationships with industry.
Time to adjust the stroke belt?
Amelia Boehme, PhD, a stroke epidemiologist at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York, said in an interview that the current study added to recent findings showing surprising local variability in stroke prevalence, incidence, and mortality. “What we had always conceptually thought of as the ‘stroke belt’ isn’t necessarily the case,” Dr. Boehme said, but is rather subject to local, county-by-county variations. “Looking at the data here in conjunction with what previous authors have found, it raises some questions as to whether or not state-level data is giving a completely accurate picture, and whether we need to start looking at the county level and adjust for populations and age.” Importantly, Dr. Boehme said, data collected in the Global Burden of Disease study tends to be exceptionally rigorous and systematic, adding weight to Dr. Feigin and colleagues’ suggestions that prevention efforts may be making a dent in stroke and dementia.
“More data is always needed before we start to say we’re seeing things change,” Dr. Boehme noted. “But any glimmer of optimism is welcome, especially with regard to interventions that have been put in place, to allow us to build on those interventions.”
Dr. Boehme disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY
Detailed glioblastoma map could lead to better treatment approaches
An integrated analysis of data derived from 99 treatment-naive glioblastomas has identified characteristics that could help stratify patients for more effective treatment, according to the investigators.
The analysis provides a detailed map of genes, proteins, infiltrating cells, and signaling pathways that play key roles in driving glioblastoma, Liang-Bo Wang, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and colleagues reported in Cancer Cell.
For example, the team identified key phosphorylation events as potential mediators of oncogenic pathway activation and potential targets for EGFR-, TP53-, and RB1-altered tumors. Specifically, phosphorylated PTPN11 and PLCG1 represent a signaling hub in RTK-altered tumors, they found.
The investigators also identified four immune glioblastoma tumor subtypes characterized by distinct immune cell populations. Type 1 tumors have a high macrophage count and few T cells, type 2 tumors have a moderate macrophage count, type 3 tumors have a high T-cell count and few macrophages, and type 4 tumors have few or no immune cells of any type.
They also found that mesenchymal subtype EMT signature is specific to tumor cells but not to stroma, and histone H2B acetylation is enriched in classical glioblastomas with low macrophage content.
“To improve therapies for this deadly cancer, understanding the tumor cells themselves is important but not enough,” senior author Li Ding, PhD, a professor of medicine and genetics and director of computational biology in the division of oncology at Washington University stated in a press release. “We also must understand the tumor cells’ interactions with the surrounding environment, including immune cells and the connective tissues and blood vessels.”
The investigators, including researchers from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Case Western Reserve University, and the National Cancer Institute, performed high-resolution and high-depth analyses on 99 tumors.
“Harnessing new technologies, including proteomics, metabolomics, and single-cell sequencing, this study is an extremely deep dive into glioblastoma tumor biology, revealing new possibilities for therapy,” Dr. Ding said.
The study, which is part of the NCI’s Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium (CPTAC), is the largest and most detailed schematic of glioblastoma tumors to date, according to the press release.
The most immediate implication of the findings is better clinical trial design, study coauthor Milan G. Chheda, MD, stated in the press release.
Stratifying patients by tumor type, as identified in the current analysis, could allow researchers to test targeted therapies in the tumors most likely to respond to those therapies, explained Dr. Chheda, of Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes Jewish Hospital and Washington University.
The findings, particularly of multiple glioblastoma tumor subtypes, may explain the negative findings of trials looking at various immunotherapies for treating glioblastoma. Investigators for those trials haven’t considered the possibility of immune subgroups that may respond differently, the authors note, adding that research is underway to identify the best drugs to assess for the newly identified glioblastoma tumor types.
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium, the National Human Genome Research Institute, and the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Wang and Dr. Ding reported having no disclosures. Dr. Chheda receives research support from NeoimmuneTech and Orbus Therapeutics, and royalties from UpToDate.
sworcester@mdedge.com
An integrated analysis of data derived from 99 treatment-naive glioblastomas has identified characteristics that could help stratify patients for more effective treatment, according to the investigators.
The analysis provides a detailed map of genes, proteins, infiltrating cells, and signaling pathways that play key roles in driving glioblastoma, Liang-Bo Wang, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and colleagues reported in Cancer Cell.
For example, the team identified key phosphorylation events as potential mediators of oncogenic pathway activation and potential targets for EGFR-, TP53-, and RB1-altered tumors. Specifically, phosphorylated PTPN11 and PLCG1 represent a signaling hub in RTK-altered tumors, they found.
The investigators also identified four immune glioblastoma tumor subtypes characterized by distinct immune cell populations. Type 1 tumors have a high macrophage count and few T cells, type 2 tumors have a moderate macrophage count, type 3 tumors have a high T-cell count and few macrophages, and type 4 tumors have few or no immune cells of any type.
They also found that mesenchymal subtype EMT signature is specific to tumor cells but not to stroma, and histone H2B acetylation is enriched in classical glioblastomas with low macrophage content.
“To improve therapies for this deadly cancer, understanding the tumor cells themselves is important but not enough,” senior author Li Ding, PhD, a professor of medicine and genetics and director of computational biology in the division of oncology at Washington University stated in a press release. “We also must understand the tumor cells’ interactions with the surrounding environment, including immune cells and the connective tissues and blood vessels.”
The investigators, including researchers from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Case Western Reserve University, and the National Cancer Institute, performed high-resolution and high-depth analyses on 99 tumors.
“Harnessing new technologies, including proteomics, metabolomics, and single-cell sequencing, this study is an extremely deep dive into glioblastoma tumor biology, revealing new possibilities for therapy,” Dr. Ding said.
The study, which is part of the NCI’s Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium (CPTAC), is the largest and most detailed schematic of glioblastoma tumors to date, according to the press release.
The most immediate implication of the findings is better clinical trial design, study coauthor Milan G. Chheda, MD, stated in the press release.
Stratifying patients by tumor type, as identified in the current analysis, could allow researchers to test targeted therapies in the tumors most likely to respond to those therapies, explained Dr. Chheda, of Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes Jewish Hospital and Washington University.
The findings, particularly of multiple glioblastoma tumor subtypes, may explain the negative findings of trials looking at various immunotherapies for treating glioblastoma. Investigators for those trials haven’t considered the possibility of immune subgroups that may respond differently, the authors note, adding that research is underway to identify the best drugs to assess for the newly identified glioblastoma tumor types.
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium, the National Human Genome Research Institute, and the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Wang and Dr. Ding reported having no disclosures. Dr. Chheda receives research support from NeoimmuneTech and Orbus Therapeutics, and royalties from UpToDate.
sworcester@mdedge.com
An integrated analysis of data derived from 99 treatment-naive glioblastomas has identified characteristics that could help stratify patients for more effective treatment, according to the investigators.
The analysis provides a detailed map of genes, proteins, infiltrating cells, and signaling pathways that play key roles in driving glioblastoma, Liang-Bo Wang, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and colleagues reported in Cancer Cell.
For example, the team identified key phosphorylation events as potential mediators of oncogenic pathway activation and potential targets for EGFR-, TP53-, and RB1-altered tumors. Specifically, phosphorylated PTPN11 and PLCG1 represent a signaling hub in RTK-altered tumors, they found.
The investigators also identified four immune glioblastoma tumor subtypes characterized by distinct immune cell populations. Type 1 tumors have a high macrophage count and few T cells, type 2 tumors have a moderate macrophage count, type 3 tumors have a high T-cell count and few macrophages, and type 4 tumors have few or no immune cells of any type.
They also found that mesenchymal subtype EMT signature is specific to tumor cells but not to stroma, and histone H2B acetylation is enriched in classical glioblastomas with low macrophage content.
“To improve therapies for this deadly cancer, understanding the tumor cells themselves is important but not enough,” senior author Li Ding, PhD, a professor of medicine and genetics and director of computational biology in the division of oncology at Washington University stated in a press release. “We also must understand the tumor cells’ interactions with the surrounding environment, including immune cells and the connective tissues and blood vessels.”
The investigators, including researchers from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Case Western Reserve University, and the National Cancer Institute, performed high-resolution and high-depth analyses on 99 tumors.
“Harnessing new technologies, including proteomics, metabolomics, and single-cell sequencing, this study is an extremely deep dive into glioblastoma tumor biology, revealing new possibilities for therapy,” Dr. Ding said.
The study, which is part of the NCI’s Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium (CPTAC), is the largest and most detailed schematic of glioblastoma tumors to date, according to the press release.
The most immediate implication of the findings is better clinical trial design, study coauthor Milan G. Chheda, MD, stated in the press release.
Stratifying patients by tumor type, as identified in the current analysis, could allow researchers to test targeted therapies in the tumors most likely to respond to those therapies, explained Dr. Chheda, of Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes Jewish Hospital and Washington University.
The findings, particularly of multiple glioblastoma tumor subtypes, may explain the negative findings of trials looking at various immunotherapies for treating glioblastoma. Investigators for those trials haven’t considered the possibility of immune subgroups that may respond differently, the authors note, adding that research is underway to identify the best drugs to assess for the newly identified glioblastoma tumor types.
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium, the National Human Genome Research Institute, and the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Wang and Dr. Ding reported having no disclosures. Dr. Chheda receives research support from NeoimmuneTech and Orbus Therapeutics, and royalties from UpToDate.
sworcester@mdedge.com
FROM CANCER CELL