Oncology

TOPLINE:

Death rates for patients aged < 50 years with early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) are higher in native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander individuals and non-Hispanic Black individuals than in non-Hispanic White individuals (adjusted hazard ratios [aHR] of 1.34 and 1.18, respectively). The largest racial and ethnic disparities in survival were linked to neighborhood socioeconomic status.

METHODOLOGY:

• US rates of EOCRC are increasing, with differences across racial and ethnic groups, but few studies have provided detailed risk estimates in the categories of Asian American and of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, as well as the contribution of sociodemographic factors to these differences.
• A population-based cohort study analyzed California Cancer Registry data for 22,834 individuals aged 18-49 years diagnosed with EOCRC between January 2000 and December 2019.
• Researchers examined the association between mortality risk and racial and ethnic groups, including Asian American (15.5%, separated into seven subcategories), Hispanic (30.2%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (0.6%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (0.5%), non-Hispanic Black (7.3%), and non-Hispanic White (45.9%) individuals, with a median follow-up of 4.2 years.
• Statistical models measured baseline associations adjusting for clinical features and then tested for the contribution of socioeconomic factors together and separately, with adjustments for insurance status, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and more.

TAKEAWAY:

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals demonstrated the highest EOCRC mortality risk compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (socioeconomic status–adjusted HR [SES aHR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76).
• Non-Hispanic Black individuals showed a higher EOCRC mortality risk than non-Hispanic White individuals (SES aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29).
• Hispanic individuals’ higher EOCRC mortality (base aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22) disappeared after adjusting for neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04).
• Southeast Asian individuals’ increased mortality risk (base aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34) was no longer significant after adjusting for insurance status (SES aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.26).

IN PRACTICE:

“As clinicians and researchers, we should ask ourselves how to act on these findings,” wrote the authors of an invited commentary. “The effort cannot stop with data analysis alone, it must extend to actionable steps,” such as tailored efforts to deliver culturally competent care and patient navigation services to those with greatest need and at highest risk, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Joshua Demb, PhD, University of California, San Diego. The study was published online on November 22 in JAMA Network Open (2024. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46820) with the invited commentary led by Clare E. Jacobson, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a relatively short follow-up time and small sample sizes in some racial and ethnic groups, potentially leading to imprecise aHR estimates. The generalizability of findings beyond California requires further investigation, and the ability to examine potential associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status and other factors was also constrained by small sample sizes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. One study author reported receiving consulting fees from Guardant Health, InterVenn Biosciences, Geneoscopy, and Universal DX; research support from Freenome; and stock options from CellMax outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported by other authors of the study or the commentary.

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

TOPLINE:

Death rates for patients aged < 50 years with early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) are higher in native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander individuals and non-Hispanic Black individuals than in non-Hispanic White individuals (adjusted hazard ratios [aHR] of 1.34 and 1.18, respectively). The largest racial and ethnic disparities in survival were linked to neighborhood socioeconomic status.

METHODOLOGY:

• US rates of EOCRC are increasing, with differences across racial and ethnic groups, but few studies have provided detailed risk estimates in the categories of Asian American and of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, as well as the contribution of sociodemographic factors to these differences.
• A population-based cohort study analyzed California Cancer Registry data for 22,834 individuals aged 18-49 years diagnosed with EOCRC between January 2000 and December 2019.
• Researchers examined the association between mortality risk and racial and ethnic groups, including Asian American (15.5%, separated into seven subcategories), Hispanic (30.2%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (0.6%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (0.5%), non-Hispanic Black (7.3%), and non-Hispanic White (45.9%) individuals, with a median follow-up of 4.2 years.
• Statistical models measured baseline associations adjusting for clinical features and then tested for the contribution of socioeconomic factors together and separately, with adjustments for insurance status, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and more.

TAKEAWAY:

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals demonstrated the highest EOCRC mortality risk compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (socioeconomic status–adjusted HR [SES aHR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76).
• Non-Hispanic Black individuals showed a higher EOCRC mortality risk than non-Hispanic White individuals (SES aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29).
• Hispanic individuals’ higher EOCRC mortality (base aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22) disappeared after adjusting for neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04).
• Southeast Asian individuals’ increased mortality risk (base aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34) was no longer significant after adjusting for insurance status (SES aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.26).

IN PRACTICE:

“As clinicians and researchers, we should ask ourselves how to act on these findings,” wrote the authors of an invited commentary. “The effort cannot stop with data analysis alone, it must extend to actionable steps,” such as tailored efforts to deliver culturally competent care and patient navigation services to those with greatest need and at highest risk, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Joshua Demb, PhD, University of California, San Diego. The study was published online on November 22 in JAMA Network Open (2024. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46820) with the invited commentary led by Clare E. Jacobson, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a relatively short follow-up time and small sample sizes in some racial and ethnic groups, potentially leading to imprecise aHR estimates. The generalizability of findings beyond California requires further investigation, and the ability to examine potential associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status and other factors was also constrained by small sample sizes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. One study author reported receiving consulting fees from Guardant Health, InterVenn Biosciences, Geneoscopy, and Universal DX; research support from Freenome; and stock options from CellMax outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported by other authors of the study or the commentary.

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

TOPLINE:

Death rates for patients aged < 50 years with early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) are higher in native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander individuals and non-Hispanic Black individuals than in non-Hispanic White individuals (adjusted hazard ratios [aHR] of 1.34 and 1.18, respectively). The largest racial and ethnic disparities in survival were linked to neighborhood socioeconomic status.

METHODOLOGY:

• US rates of EOCRC are increasing, with differences across racial and ethnic groups, but few studies have provided detailed risk estimates in the categories of Asian American and of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, as well as the contribution of sociodemographic factors to these differences.
• A population-based cohort study analyzed California Cancer Registry data for 22,834 individuals aged 18-49 years diagnosed with EOCRC between January 2000 and December 2019.
• Researchers examined the association between mortality risk and racial and ethnic groups, including Asian American (15.5%, separated into seven subcategories), Hispanic (30.2%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (0.6%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (0.5%), non-Hispanic Black (7.3%), and non-Hispanic White (45.9%) individuals, with a median follow-up of 4.2 years.
• Statistical models measured baseline associations adjusting for clinical features and then tested for the contribution of socioeconomic factors together and separately, with adjustments for insurance status, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and more.

TAKEAWAY:

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals demonstrated the highest EOCRC mortality risk compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (socioeconomic status–adjusted HR [SES aHR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76).
• Non-Hispanic Black individuals showed a higher EOCRC mortality risk than non-Hispanic White individuals (SES aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29).
• Hispanic individuals’ higher EOCRC mortality (base aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22) disappeared after adjusting for neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04).
• Southeast Asian individuals’ increased mortality risk (base aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34) was no longer significant after adjusting for insurance status (SES aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.26).

IN PRACTICE:

“As clinicians and researchers, we should ask ourselves how to act on these findings,” wrote the authors of an invited commentary. “The effort cannot stop with data analysis alone, it must extend to actionable steps,” such as tailored efforts to deliver culturally competent care and patient navigation services to those with greatest need and at highest risk, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Joshua Demb, PhD, University of California, San Diego. The study was published online on November 22 in JAMA Network Open (2024. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46820) with the invited commentary led by Clare E. Jacobson, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a relatively short follow-up time and small sample sizes in some racial and ethnic groups, potentially leading to imprecise aHR estimates. The generalizability of findings beyond California requires further investigation, and the ability to examine potential associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status and other factors was also constrained by small sample sizes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. One study author reported receiving consulting fees from Guardant Health, InterVenn Biosciences, Geneoscopy, and Universal DX; research support from Freenome; and stock options from CellMax outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported by other authors of the study or the commentary.

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

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has expanded two cancer genetic risk assessment guidelines to meet the growing understanding of hereditary cancer risk and use of genetic tests in cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. 

Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.

For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.

“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.

Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants. 

For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.” 

“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release. 

“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.

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

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has expanded two cancer genetic risk assessment guidelines to meet the growing understanding of hereditary cancer risk and use of genetic tests in cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. 

Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.

For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.

“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.

Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants. 

For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.” 

“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release. 

“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.

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

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has expanded two cancer genetic risk assessment guidelines to meet the growing understanding of hereditary cancer risk and use of genetic tests in cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. 

Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.

For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.

“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.

Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants. 

For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.” 

“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release. 

“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.

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

TOPLINE: 

The Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation (POLAR) biomarker, a 16-gene molecular signature, can help predict locoregional recurrence in patients with ER-positive early breast cancer following breast-conserving surgery as well as which patients will benefit most from adjuvant radiotherapy. Overall, patients with a high POLAR score derived a significant benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy, while those with a low score did not and might consider forgoing radiotherapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery has been shown to reduce the risk for locoregional recurrence and is a standard approach to manage early breast cancer. However, certain patients with low locoregional recurrence risks may not necessarily benefit from adjuvant radiation, but there has not been a commercially available molecular test to help identify which patients that might be.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed whether the POLAR biomarker test could reliably predict locoregional recurrence as well as identify patients who would not benefit from radiotherapy.
• The meta-analysis used data from three randomized trials — Scottish Conservation Trial, SweBCG91-RT, and Princess Margaret RT trial — to validate the POLAR biomarker test in patients with low-risk, HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer.
• The analysis included 623 patients (ages 50-76), of whom 429 (69%) had high POLAR scores and 194 (31%) had low POLAR scores.
• The primary endpoint was the time to locoregional recurrence, and secondary endpoints included evaluating POLAR as a prognostic factor for locoregional recurrence in patients without radiotherapy and effect of radiotherapy in patients with low and high POLAR scores.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with high POLAR scores demonstrated a significant benefit from radiotherapy. The 10-year locoregional recurrence rate was 7% with radiotherapy vs 20% without radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; P < .001).
• Patients with low POLAR scores, however, did not experience a significant benefit from radiotherapy. In this group, the 10-year locoregional recurrence rates were similar with and without radiotherapy (7% vs 5%, respectively; HR, 0.92; P = .832), indicating that radiotherapy could potentially be omitted for these patients.
• Among patients who did not receive radiotherapy (n = 309), higher POLAR scores predicted a greater risk for recurrence, suggesting the genomic signature has prognostic value. There is no evidence, however, that POLAR predicts radiotherapy benefit or predicts patients’ risk for distant metastases or mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“This meta-analysis from three randomized controlled trials clearly demonstrates the clinical potential for POLAR to be used in smaller estrogen receptor positive node negative breast cancer patients to identify those women who do not appear to benefit from the use of post-operative adjuvant radiotherapy,” the authors wrote. “ This classifier is an important step towards molecularly-stratified targeting of the use of radiotherapy.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Per Karlsson, MD, PhD, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

One cohort (SweBCG) had limited use of adjuvant systemic therapy, which could affect generalizability. Additionally, low numbers of patients with low POLAR scores in two trials could affect the observed benefit of radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Institute Fund (Edinburgh and Lothians Health Foundation), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Exact Sciences Corporation, PFS Genomics, Swedish Cancer Society, and Swedish Research Council. One author reported being an employee and owning stock or stock options or patents with Exact Sciences. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources including Exact Sciences.

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

TOPLINE: 

The Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation (POLAR) biomarker, a 16-gene molecular signature, can help predict locoregional recurrence in patients with ER-positive early breast cancer following breast-conserving surgery as well as which patients will benefit most from adjuvant radiotherapy. Overall, patients with a high POLAR score derived a significant benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy, while those with a low score did not and might consider forgoing radiotherapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery has been shown to reduce the risk for locoregional recurrence and is a standard approach to manage early breast cancer. However, certain patients with low locoregional recurrence risks may not necessarily benefit from adjuvant radiation, but there has not been a commercially available molecular test to help identify which patients that might be.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed whether the POLAR biomarker test could reliably predict locoregional recurrence as well as identify patients who would not benefit from radiotherapy.
• The meta-analysis used data from three randomized trials — Scottish Conservation Trial, SweBCG91-RT, and Princess Margaret RT trial — to validate the POLAR biomarker test in patients with low-risk, HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer.
• The analysis included 623 patients (ages 50-76), of whom 429 (69%) had high POLAR scores and 194 (31%) had low POLAR scores.
• The primary endpoint was the time to locoregional recurrence, and secondary endpoints included evaluating POLAR as a prognostic factor for locoregional recurrence in patients without radiotherapy and effect of radiotherapy in patients with low and high POLAR scores.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with high POLAR scores demonstrated a significant benefit from radiotherapy. The 10-year locoregional recurrence rate was 7% with radiotherapy vs 20% without radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; P < .001).
• Patients with low POLAR scores, however, did not experience a significant benefit from radiotherapy. In this group, the 10-year locoregional recurrence rates were similar with and without radiotherapy (7% vs 5%, respectively; HR, 0.92; P = .832), indicating that radiotherapy could potentially be omitted for these patients.
• Among patients who did not receive radiotherapy (n = 309), higher POLAR scores predicted a greater risk for recurrence, suggesting the genomic signature has prognostic value. There is no evidence, however, that POLAR predicts radiotherapy benefit or predicts patients’ risk for distant metastases or mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“This meta-analysis from three randomized controlled trials clearly demonstrates the clinical potential for POLAR to be used in smaller estrogen receptor positive node negative breast cancer patients to identify those women who do not appear to benefit from the use of post-operative adjuvant radiotherapy,” the authors wrote. “ This classifier is an important step towards molecularly-stratified targeting of the use of radiotherapy.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Per Karlsson, MD, PhD, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

One cohort (SweBCG) had limited use of adjuvant systemic therapy, which could affect generalizability. Additionally, low numbers of patients with low POLAR scores in two trials could affect the observed benefit of radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Institute Fund (Edinburgh and Lothians Health Foundation), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Exact Sciences Corporation, PFS Genomics, Swedish Cancer Society, and Swedish Research Council. One author reported being an employee and owning stock or stock options or patents with Exact Sciences. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources including Exact Sciences.

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

TOPLINE: 

The Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation (POLAR) biomarker, a 16-gene molecular signature, can help predict locoregional recurrence in patients with ER-positive early breast cancer following breast-conserving surgery as well as which patients will benefit most from adjuvant radiotherapy. Overall, patients with a high POLAR score derived a significant benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy, while those with a low score did not and might consider forgoing radiotherapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery has been shown to reduce the risk for locoregional recurrence and is a standard approach to manage early breast cancer. However, certain patients with low locoregional recurrence risks may not necessarily benefit from adjuvant radiation, but there has not been a commercially available molecular test to help identify which patients that might be.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed whether the POLAR biomarker test could reliably predict locoregional recurrence as well as identify patients who would not benefit from radiotherapy.
• The meta-analysis used data from three randomized trials — Scottish Conservation Trial, SweBCG91-RT, and Princess Margaret RT trial — to validate the POLAR biomarker test in patients with low-risk, HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer.
• The analysis included 623 patients (ages 50-76), of whom 429 (69%) had high POLAR scores and 194 (31%) had low POLAR scores.
• The primary endpoint was the time to locoregional recurrence, and secondary endpoints included evaluating POLAR as a prognostic factor for locoregional recurrence in patients without radiotherapy and effect of radiotherapy in patients with low and high POLAR scores.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with high POLAR scores demonstrated a significant benefit from radiotherapy. The 10-year locoregional recurrence rate was 7% with radiotherapy vs 20% without radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; P < .001).
• Patients with low POLAR scores, however, did not experience a significant benefit from radiotherapy. In this group, the 10-year locoregional recurrence rates were similar with and without radiotherapy (7% vs 5%, respectively; HR, 0.92; P = .832), indicating that radiotherapy could potentially be omitted for these patients.
• Among patients who did not receive radiotherapy (n = 309), higher POLAR scores predicted a greater risk for recurrence, suggesting the genomic signature has prognostic value. There is no evidence, however, that POLAR predicts radiotherapy benefit or predicts patients’ risk for distant metastases or mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“This meta-analysis from three randomized controlled trials clearly demonstrates the clinical potential for POLAR to be used in smaller estrogen receptor positive node negative breast cancer patients to identify those women who do not appear to benefit from the use of post-operative adjuvant radiotherapy,” the authors wrote. “ This classifier is an important step towards molecularly-stratified targeting of the use of radiotherapy.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Per Karlsson, MD, PhD, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

One cohort (SweBCG) had limited use of adjuvant systemic therapy, which could affect generalizability. Additionally, low numbers of patients with low POLAR scores in two trials could affect the observed benefit of radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Institute Fund (Edinburgh and Lothians Health Foundation), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Exact Sciences Corporation, PFS Genomics, Swedish Cancer Society, and Swedish Research Council. One author reported being an employee and owning stock or stock options or patents with Exact Sciences. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources including Exact Sciences.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with stages I-III screen-detected colorectal cancer (CRC) have better disease-free survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, an effect that was independent of patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with screen-detected CRC have better stage-specific overall survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, but the impact of screening on recurrence rates is unknown.
• A retrospective study analyzed patients with CRC (age, 55-75 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry diagnosed by screening or not.
• Screen-detected CRC were identified in patients who underwent colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT), whereas non-screen–detected CRC were those that were detected in symptomatic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 3725 patients with CRC (39.6% women), of which 1652 (44.3%) and 2073 (55.7%) patients had screen-detected and non-screen–detected CRC, respectively; CRC was distributed approximately evenly across stages I-III (35.3%, 27.1%, and 37.6%, respectively).
• Screen-detected CRC had significantly higher 3-year rates of disease-free survival compared with non-screen–detected CRC (87.8% vs 77.2%; P < .001).
• The improvement in disease-free survival rates for screen-detected CRC was particularly notable in stage III cases, with rates of 77.9% vs 66.7% for non-screen–detected CRC (P < .001).
• Screen-detected CRC was more often detected at an earlier stage than non-screen–detected CRC (stage I or II: 72.4% vs 54.4%; P < .001).
• Across all stages, detection of CRC by screening was associated with a 33% lower risk for recurrence (P < .001) independent of patient age, gender, tumor location, stage, and treatment.
• Recurrence was the strongest predictor of overall survival across the study population (hazard ratio, 15.90; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Apart from CRC stage, mode of detection could be used to assess an individual’s risk for recurrence and survival, which may contribute to a more personalized treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sanne J.K.F. Pluimers, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center/Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The follow-up time was relatively short, restricting the ability to evaluate the long-term effects of screening on CRC recurrence. This study focused on recurrence solely within the FIT-based screening program, and the results were not generalizable to other screening methods. Due to Dutch privacy law, data on CRC-specific causes of death were unavailable, which may have affected the specificity of survival outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding source for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

 

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with stages I-III screen-detected colorectal cancer (CRC) have better disease-free survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, an effect that was independent of patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with screen-detected CRC have better stage-specific overall survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, but the impact of screening on recurrence rates is unknown.
• A retrospective study analyzed patients with CRC (age, 55-75 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry diagnosed by screening or not.
• Screen-detected CRC were identified in patients who underwent colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT), whereas non-screen–detected CRC were those that were detected in symptomatic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 3725 patients with CRC (39.6% women), of which 1652 (44.3%) and 2073 (55.7%) patients had screen-detected and non-screen–detected CRC, respectively; CRC was distributed approximately evenly across stages I-III (35.3%, 27.1%, and 37.6%, respectively).
• Screen-detected CRC had significantly higher 3-year rates of disease-free survival compared with non-screen–detected CRC (87.8% vs 77.2%; P < .001).
• The improvement in disease-free survival rates for screen-detected CRC was particularly notable in stage III cases, with rates of 77.9% vs 66.7% for non-screen–detected CRC (P < .001).
• Screen-detected CRC was more often detected at an earlier stage than non-screen–detected CRC (stage I or II: 72.4% vs 54.4%; P < .001).
• Across all stages, detection of CRC by screening was associated with a 33% lower risk for recurrence (P < .001) independent of patient age, gender, tumor location, stage, and treatment.
• Recurrence was the strongest predictor of overall survival across the study population (hazard ratio, 15.90; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Apart from CRC stage, mode of detection could be used to assess an individual’s risk for recurrence and survival, which may contribute to a more personalized treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sanne J.K.F. Pluimers, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center/Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The follow-up time was relatively short, restricting the ability to evaluate the long-term effects of screening on CRC recurrence. This study focused on recurrence solely within the FIT-based screening program, and the results were not generalizable to other screening methods. Due to Dutch privacy law, data on CRC-specific causes of death were unavailable, which may have affected the specificity of survival outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding source for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

 

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with stages I-III screen-detected colorectal cancer (CRC) have better disease-free survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, an effect that was independent of patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with screen-detected CRC have better stage-specific overall survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, but the impact of screening on recurrence rates is unknown.
• A retrospective study analyzed patients with CRC (age, 55-75 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry diagnosed by screening or not.
• Screen-detected CRC were identified in patients who underwent colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT), whereas non-screen–detected CRC were those that were detected in symptomatic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 3725 patients with CRC (39.6% women), of which 1652 (44.3%) and 2073 (55.7%) patients had screen-detected and non-screen–detected CRC, respectively; CRC was distributed approximately evenly across stages I-III (35.3%, 27.1%, and 37.6%, respectively).
• Screen-detected CRC had significantly higher 3-year rates of disease-free survival compared with non-screen–detected CRC (87.8% vs 77.2%; P < .001).
• The improvement in disease-free survival rates for screen-detected CRC was particularly notable in stage III cases, with rates of 77.9% vs 66.7% for non-screen–detected CRC (P < .001).
• Screen-detected CRC was more often detected at an earlier stage than non-screen–detected CRC (stage I or II: 72.4% vs 54.4%; P < .001).
• Across all stages, detection of CRC by screening was associated with a 33% lower risk for recurrence (P < .001) independent of patient age, gender, tumor location, stage, and treatment.
• Recurrence was the strongest predictor of overall survival across the study population (hazard ratio, 15.90; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Apart from CRC stage, mode of detection could be used to assess an individual’s risk for recurrence and survival, which may contribute to a more personalized treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sanne J.K.F. Pluimers, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center/Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The follow-up time was relatively short, restricting the ability to evaluate the long-term effects of screening on CRC recurrence. This study focused on recurrence solely within the FIT-based screening program, and the results were not generalizable to other screening methods. Due to Dutch privacy law, data on CRC-specific causes of death were unavailable, which may have affected the specificity of survival outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding source for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

 

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

TOPLINE:

The increase in incidence of pancreatic cancer among young Americans is largely caused by improved detection of early-stage endocrine cancer, not an increase in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Given the stable mortality rates in this population, the increase in incidence likely reflects previously undetected cases instead of a true rise in new cases, researchers say.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from several registries have indicated that the incidence of pancreatic cancer among younger individuals, particularly women, is on the rise in the United States and worldwide.
• In a new analysis, researchers wanted to see if the observed increase in pancreatic cancer incidence among young Americans represented a true rise in cancer occurrence or indicated greater diagnostic scrutiny. If pancreatic cancer incidence is really increasing, “incidence and mortality would be expected to increase concurrently, as would early- and late-stage diagnoses,” the researchers explained.
• The researchers collected data on pancreatic cancer incidence, histology, and stage distribution for individuals aged 15-39 years from US Cancer Statistics, a database covering almost the entire US population from 2001 to 2020. Pancreatic cancer mortality data from the same timeframe came from the National Vital Statistics System.
• The researchers looked at four histologic categories: Adenocarcinoma, the dominant pancreatic cancer histology, as well as more rare subtypes — endocrine and solid pseudopapillary — and “other” category. Researchers also categorized stage-specific incidence as early stage (in situ or localized) or late stage (regional or distant).

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of pancreatic cancer increased 2.1-fold in young women (incidence, 3.3-6.9 per million) and 1.6-fold in young men (incidence, 3.9-6.2 per million) between 2001 and 2019. However, mortality rates remained stable for women (1.5 deaths per million; annual percent change [AAPC], −0.5%; 95% CI, –1.4% to 0.5%) and men (2.5 deaths per million; AAPC, –0.1%; 95% CI, –0.8% to 0.6%) over this period.
• Looking at cancer subtypes, the increase in incidence was largely caused by early-stage endocrine cancer and solid pseudopapillary neoplasms in women, not adenocarcinoma (which remained stable over the study period).
• Looking at cancer stage, most of the increase in incidence came from detection of smaller tumors (< 2 cm) and early-stage cancer, which rose from 0.6 to 3.7 per million in women and from 0.4 to 2.2 per million in men. The authors also found no statistically significant change in the incidence of late-stage cancer in women or men.
• Rates of surgical treatment for pancreatic cancer increased, more than tripling among women (from 1.5 to 4.7 per million) and more than doubling among men (from 1.1 to 2.3 per million).

IN PRACTICE:

“Pancreatic cancer now can be another cancer subject to overdiagnosis: The detection of disease not destined to cause symptoms or death,” the authors concluded. “Although the observed changes in incidence are small, overdiagnosis is especially concerning for pancreatic cancer, as pancreatic surgery has substantial risk for morbidity (in particular, pancreatic fistulas) and mortality.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Vishal R. Patel, MD, MPH, and corresponding author H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online on November 19 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the lack of data on the method of cancer detection, which may have affected the interpretation of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

Disclosure forms are available with the article online.

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

TOPLINE:

The increase in incidence of pancreatic cancer among young Americans is largely caused by improved detection of early-stage endocrine cancer, not an increase in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Given the stable mortality rates in this population, the increase in incidence likely reflects previously undetected cases instead of a true rise in new cases, researchers say.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from several registries have indicated that the incidence of pancreatic cancer among younger individuals, particularly women, is on the rise in the United States and worldwide.
• In a new analysis, researchers wanted to see if the observed increase in pancreatic cancer incidence among young Americans represented a true rise in cancer occurrence or indicated greater diagnostic scrutiny. If pancreatic cancer incidence is really increasing, “incidence and mortality would be expected to increase concurrently, as would early- and late-stage diagnoses,” the researchers explained.
• The researchers collected data on pancreatic cancer incidence, histology, and stage distribution for individuals aged 15-39 years from US Cancer Statistics, a database covering almost the entire US population from 2001 to 2020. Pancreatic cancer mortality data from the same timeframe came from the National Vital Statistics System.
• The researchers looked at four histologic categories: Adenocarcinoma, the dominant pancreatic cancer histology, as well as more rare subtypes — endocrine and solid pseudopapillary — and “other” category. Researchers also categorized stage-specific incidence as early stage (in situ or localized) or late stage (regional or distant).

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of pancreatic cancer increased 2.1-fold in young women (incidence, 3.3-6.9 per million) and 1.6-fold in young men (incidence, 3.9-6.2 per million) between 2001 and 2019. However, mortality rates remained stable for women (1.5 deaths per million; annual percent change [AAPC], −0.5%; 95% CI, –1.4% to 0.5%) and men (2.5 deaths per million; AAPC, –0.1%; 95% CI, –0.8% to 0.6%) over this period.
• Looking at cancer subtypes, the increase in incidence was largely caused by early-stage endocrine cancer and solid pseudopapillary neoplasms in women, not adenocarcinoma (which remained stable over the study period).
• Looking at cancer stage, most of the increase in incidence came from detection of smaller tumors (< 2 cm) and early-stage cancer, which rose from 0.6 to 3.7 per million in women and from 0.4 to 2.2 per million in men. The authors also found no statistically significant change in the incidence of late-stage cancer in women or men.
• Rates of surgical treatment for pancreatic cancer increased, more than tripling among women (from 1.5 to 4.7 per million) and more than doubling among men (from 1.1 to 2.3 per million).

IN PRACTICE:

“Pancreatic cancer now can be another cancer subject to overdiagnosis: The detection of disease not destined to cause symptoms or death,” the authors concluded. “Although the observed changes in incidence are small, overdiagnosis is especially concerning for pancreatic cancer, as pancreatic surgery has substantial risk for morbidity (in particular, pancreatic fistulas) and mortality.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Vishal R. Patel, MD, MPH, and corresponding author H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online on November 19 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the lack of data on the method of cancer detection, which may have affected the interpretation of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

Disclosure forms are available with the article online.

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

TOPLINE:

The increase in incidence of pancreatic cancer among young Americans is largely caused by improved detection of early-stage endocrine cancer, not an increase in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Given the stable mortality rates in this population, the increase in incidence likely reflects previously undetected cases instead of a true rise in new cases, researchers say.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from several registries have indicated that the incidence of pancreatic cancer among younger individuals, particularly women, is on the rise in the United States and worldwide.
• In a new analysis, researchers wanted to see if the observed increase in pancreatic cancer incidence among young Americans represented a true rise in cancer occurrence or indicated greater diagnostic scrutiny. If pancreatic cancer incidence is really increasing, “incidence and mortality would be expected to increase concurrently, as would early- and late-stage diagnoses,” the researchers explained.
• The researchers collected data on pancreatic cancer incidence, histology, and stage distribution for individuals aged 15-39 years from US Cancer Statistics, a database covering almost the entire US population from 2001 to 2020. Pancreatic cancer mortality data from the same timeframe came from the National Vital Statistics System.
• The researchers looked at four histologic categories: Adenocarcinoma, the dominant pancreatic cancer histology, as well as more rare subtypes — endocrine and solid pseudopapillary — and “other” category. Researchers also categorized stage-specific incidence as early stage (in situ or localized) or late stage (regional or distant).

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of pancreatic cancer increased 2.1-fold in young women (incidence, 3.3-6.9 per million) and 1.6-fold in young men (incidence, 3.9-6.2 per million) between 2001 and 2019. However, mortality rates remained stable for women (1.5 deaths per million; annual percent change [AAPC], −0.5%; 95% CI, –1.4% to 0.5%) and men (2.5 deaths per million; AAPC, –0.1%; 95% CI, –0.8% to 0.6%) over this period.
• Looking at cancer subtypes, the increase in incidence was largely caused by early-stage endocrine cancer and solid pseudopapillary neoplasms in women, not adenocarcinoma (which remained stable over the study period).
• Looking at cancer stage, most of the increase in incidence came from detection of smaller tumors (< 2 cm) and early-stage cancer, which rose from 0.6 to 3.7 per million in women and from 0.4 to 2.2 per million in men. The authors also found no statistically significant change in the incidence of late-stage cancer in women or men.
• Rates of surgical treatment for pancreatic cancer increased, more than tripling among women (from 1.5 to 4.7 per million) and more than doubling among men (from 1.1 to 2.3 per million).

IN PRACTICE:

“Pancreatic cancer now can be another cancer subject to overdiagnosis: The detection of disease not destined to cause symptoms or death,” the authors concluded. “Although the observed changes in incidence are small, overdiagnosis is especially concerning for pancreatic cancer, as pancreatic surgery has substantial risk for morbidity (in particular, pancreatic fistulas) and mortality.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Vishal R. Patel, MD, MPH, and corresponding author H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online on November 19 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the lack of data on the method of cancer detection, which may have affected the interpretation of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

Disclosure forms are available with the article online.

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

WASHINGTON — Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase mortality in people with preexisting autoimmune diseases, new research has found. 

Results from a large database analysis of patients with and without autoimmune diseases suggest it is safe to treat them with ICI if they develop a cancer for which it is indicated, Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the American College of Rheumatology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“One message is that, when rheumatologists are asked by oncologists about patients with rheumatoid arthritis or vasculitis or other autoimmune diseases and whether it’s safe to treat them with immune checkpoint inhibitors, this result provides some evidence that it probably is safe…. Checkpoint inhibitors are really incredible drugs, and they’ve improved mortality for a lot of cancers, particularly melanoma, and so I think there should be a pretty high threshold for us to say a patient shouldn’t receive them because of an autoimmune condition,” he told this news organization.

Another implication, Challener said, is that people with autoimmune diseases shouldn’t routinely be excluded from clinical trials of ICIs. Currently they are excluded because of concerns about exacerbation of underlying autoimmunity, possible interference between the ICI and the immunosuppressive drugs used to treat the autoimmune condition, and a theoretical risk for serious adverse events. 

“Clinical trials are continuing to exclude these patients, and they paint with a very broad brush anyone with underlying autoimmunity ... I’m hoping that that changes. I don’t think there’s a great evidence base to support that practice, and it’s unfortunate that patients with underlying autoimmune diseases are excluded from important studies,” Challener said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Matlock Jeffries, MD, director of the Arthritis Research Unit at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, told this news organization that he agrees the data are generally reassuring. “If one of our patients gets cancer and their oncologist wants to use a checkpoint inhibitor, we’d obviously still monitor them for complications, but we wouldn’t automatically assume the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and autoimmune disease would increase their mortality.” 

 

No Difference in Mortality for Those With and Without Autoimmune Disease

Challener and colleagues used administrative health data from the TriNetX Diamond network of 92 US healthcare sites with 212 million patients. All patients included in the study were receiving anti-programmed death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 to treat malignancies involving the skin, lung/bronchus, digestive organs, or urinary tract. The study population also had at least one rheumatologic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, dermatologic, or endocrine autoimmune disease.

Propensity score matching between those with and without autoimmune disease was performed for about 100 covariates. Prior to the matching, the autoimmune disease group had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular and other comorbidities. The matching yielded 23,714 individuals with autoimmune disease and the same number without who had similar demographics and comorbidity rates, as well as malignancy type, alcohol/tobacco use, and medication use. 

At a median follow-up of 250 days, the risk for mortality prior to propensity matching was 40.0% in the autoimmune disease group and 38.1% for those without, a significant difference with hazard ratio 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.10). But after the matching, the difference was no longer significant: 39.8% vs 40.2%, respectively (0.97, 0.94-1.00). 

The Kaplan-Meier curves for survival probability for those with or without autoimmune disease were nearly superimposed, showing no difference up to 1600 days. An analysis of just the patients with rheumatic diseases yielded similar results, Challener said. 

 

Some Caveats About the Data

Jeffries, who is also an associate professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and the Oklahoma VA, said he would like to see additional data on outcomes, both for the autoimmune conditions and the cancers. Challener said there are plans to look at other hard endpoints such as myocardial infarction and end-stage renal disease, but that the database is limited. 

Both Challener and Jeffries also cautioned that the reassurance may not apply to patients with active disease. 

“One thing this research doesn’t address is whether active autoimmune disease might have a different outcome compared to more kind of quiet disease…. If you have a patient who has extremely active rheumatoid arthritis or extremely active giant cell arthritis, for instance, I think that could be more challenging. I would be frightened to put a patient with really active GCA on pembrolizumab or say that it’s safe without their disease being controlled. But for someone who has well-controlled disease or minimally active disease, this is very reassuring,” Challener told this news organization.

“I think this may also be important in that it’s a good argument to tell the drug companies to include autoimmune patients in these trials so we can get better data,” Jeffries said.

Challener and Jeffries had no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase mortality in people with preexisting autoimmune diseases, new research has found. 

Results from a large database analysis of patients with and without autoimmune diseases suggest it is safe to treat them with ICI if they develop a cancer for which it is indicated, Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the American College of Rheumatology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“One message is that, when rheumatologists are asked by oncologists about patients with rheumatoid arthritis or vasculitis or other autoimmune diseases and whether it’s safe to treat them with immune checkpoint inhibitors, this result provides some evidence that it probably is safe…. Checkpoint inhibitors are really incredible drugs, and they’ve improved mortality for a lot of cancers, particularly melanoma, and so I think there should be a pretty high threshold for us to say a patient shouldn’t receive them because of an autoimmune condition,” he told this news organization.

Another implication, Challener said, is that people with autoimmune diseases shouldn’t routinely be excluded from clinical trials of ICIs. Currently they are excluded because of concerns about exacerbation of underlying autoimmunity, possible interference between the ICI and the immunosuppressive drugs used to treat the autoimmune condition, and a theoretical risk for serious adverse events. 

“Clinical trials are continuing to exclude these patients, and they paint with a very broad brush anyone with underlying autoimmunity ... I’m hoping that that changes. I don’t think there’s a great evidence base to support that practice, and it’s unfortunate that patients with underlying autoimmune diseases are excluded from important studies,” Challener said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Matlock Jeffries, MD, director of the Arthritis Research Unit at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, told this news organization that he agrees the data are generally reassuring. “If one of our patients gets cancer and their oncologist wants to use a checkpoint inhibitor, we’d obviously still monitor them for complications, but we wouldn’t automatically assume the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and autoimmune disease would increase their mortality.” 

 

No Difference in Mortality for Those With and Without Autoimmune Disease

Challener and colleagues used administrative health data from the TriNetX Diamond network of 92 US healthcare sites with 212 million patients. All patients included in the study were receiving anti-programmed death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 to treat malignancies involving the skin, lung/bronchus, digestive organs, or urinary tract. The study population also had at least one rheumatologic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, dermatologic, or endocrine autoimmune disease.

Propensity score matching between those with and without autoimmune disease was performed for about 100 covariates. Prior to the matching, the autoimmune disease group had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular and other comorbidities. The matching yielded 23,714 individuals with autoimmune disease and the same number without who had similar demographics and comorbidity rates, as well as malignancy type, alcohol/tobacco use, and medication use. 

At a median follow-up of 250 days, the risk for mortality prior to propensity matching was 40.0% in the autoimmune disease group and 38.1% for those without, a significant difference with hazard ratio 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.10). But after the matching, the difference was no longer significant: 39.8% vs 40.2%, respectively (0.97, 0.94-1.00). 

The Kaplan-Meier curves for survival probability for those with or without autoimmune disease were nearly superimposed, showing no difference up to 1600 days. An analysis of just the patients with rheumatic diseases yielded similar results, Challener said. 

 

Some Caveats About the Data

Jeffries, who is also an associate professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and the Oklahoma VA, said he would like to see additional data on outcomes, both for the autoimmune conditions and the cancers. Challener said there are plans to look at other hard endpoints such as myocardial infarction and end-stage renal disease, but that the database is limited. 

Both Challener and Jeffries also cautioned that the reassurance may not apply to patients with active disease. 

“One thing this research doesn’t address is whether active autoimmune disease might have a different outcome compared to more kind of quiet disease…. If you have a patient who has extremely active rheumatoid arthritis or extremely active giant cell arthritis, for instance, I think that could be more challenging. I would be frightened to put a patient with really active GCA on pembrolizumab or say that it’s safe without their disease being controlled. But for someone who has well-controlled disease or minimally active disease, this is very reassuring,” Challener told this news organization.

“I think this may also be important in that it’s a good argument to tell the drug companies to include autoimmune patients in these trials so we can get better data,” Jeffries said.

Challener and Jeffries had no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase mortality in people with preexisting autoimmune diseases, new research has found. 

Results from a large database analysis of patients with and without autoimmune diseases suggest it is safe to treat them with ICI if they develop a cancer for which it is indicated, Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the American College of Rheumatology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“One message is that, when rheumatologists are asked by oncologists about patients with rheumatoid arthritis or vasculitis or other autoimmune diseases and whether it’s safe to treat them with immune checkpoint inhibitors, this result provides some evidence that it probably is safe…. Checkpoint inhibitors are really incredible drugs, and they’ve improved mortality for a lot of cancers, particularly melanoma, and so I think there should be a pretty high threshold for us to say a patient shouldn’t receive them because of an autoimmune condition,” he told this news organization.

Another implication, Challener said, is that people with autoimmune diseases shouldn’t routinely be excluded from clinical trials of ICIs. Currently they are excluded because of concerns about exacerbation of underlying autoimmunity, possible interference between the ICI and the immunosuppressive drugs used to treat the autoimmune condition, and a theoretical risk for serious adverse events. 

“Clinical trials are continuing to exclude these patients, and they paint with a very broad brush anyone with underlying autoimmunity ... I’m hoping that that changes. I don’t think there’s a great evidence base to support that practice, and it’s unfortunate that patients with underlying autoimmune diseases are excluded from important studies,” Challener said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Matlock Jeffries, MD, director of the Arthritis Research Unit at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, told this news organization that he agrees the data are generally reassuring. “If one of our patients gets cancer and their oncologist wants to use a checkpoint inhibitor, we’d obviously still monitor them for complications, but we wouldn’t automatically assume the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and autoimmune disease would increase their mortality.” 

 

No Difference in Mortality for Those With and Without Autoimmune Disease

Challener and colleagues used administrative health data from the TriNetX Diamond network of 92 US healthcare sites with 212 million patients. All patients included in the study were receiving anti-programmed death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 to treat malignancies involving the skin, lung/bronchus, digestive organs, or urinary tract. The study population also had at least one rheumatologic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, dermatologic, or endocrine autoimmune disease.

Propensity score matching between those with and without autoimmune disease was performed for about 100 covariates. Prior to the matching, the autoimmune disease group had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular and other comorbidities. The matching yielded 23,714 individuals with autoimmune disease and the same number without who had similar demographics and comorbidity rates, as well as malignancy type, alcohol/tobacco use, and medication use. 

At a median follow-up of 250 days, the risk for mortality prior to propensity matching was 40.0% in the autoimmune disease group and 38.1% for those without, a significant difference with hazard ratio 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.10). But after the matching, the difference was no longer significant: 39.8% vs 40.2%, respectively (0.97, 0.94-1.00). 

The Kaplan-Meier curves for survival probability for those with or without autoimmune disease were nearly superimposed, showing no difference up to 1600 days. An analysis of just the patients with rheumatic diseases yielded similar results, Challener said. 

 

Some Caveats About the Data

Jeffries, who is also an associate professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and the Oklahoma VA, said he would like to see additional data on outcomes, both for the autoimmune conditions and the cancers. Challener said there are plans to look at other hard endpoints such as myocardial infarction and end-stage renal disease, but that the database is limited. 

Both Challener and Jeffries also cautioned that the reassurance may not apply to patients with active disease. 

“One thing this research doesn’t address is whether active autoimmune disease might have a different outcome compared to more kind of quiet disease…. If you have a patient who has extremely active rheumatoid arthritis or extremely active giant cell arthritis, for instance, I think that could be more challenging. I would be frightened to put a patient with really active GCA on pembrolizumab or say that it’s safe without their disease being controlled. But for someone who has well-controlled disease or minimally active disease, this is very reassuring,” Challener told this news organization.

“I think this may also be important in that it’s a good argument to tell the drug companies to include autoimmune patients in these trials so we can get better data,” Jeffries said.

Challener and Jeffries had no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Overtreatment of men with prostate cancer and limited life expectancy (LE) has persisted in the era of active surveillance and worsened in some instances, according to a new study.

“Overtreatment of men with limited longevity for intermediate- and high-risk tumors has not only failed to improve but has actually worsened over the last 20 years,” Timothy Daskivich, MD, MSHPM, with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“Many doctors assume that the increase in uptake of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancers has solved the problem of overtreatment, but this trend has not affected overtreatment of men with low likelihood of living long enough to benefit from treatment who have higher-risk tumors,” Daskivich said.

The study was published online on November 11 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

‘Concerning’ Real-World Data

For men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer expected to live fewer than 10 years, prostate cancer screening and aggressive treatment are not recommended.

Daskivich and colleagues analyzed data on 243,928 men (mean age, 66 years) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2019.

About 21% had LE < 10 years, and about 4% had LE < 5 years, according to the validated age-adjusted Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index.

Overtreatment was defined as aggressive treatment (surgery or radiation) in those with LE < 10 years and low- to intermediate-risk disease and in those with LE < 5 years and high-risk disease, in line with current guidelines.

Among men with LE < 10 years, the proportion of men overtreated with surgery or radiotherapy for low-risk disease decreased 22% but increased 22% for intermediate-risk disease during the study period.

Among men with LE < 5 years, the proportion of men treated with definitive treatment for high-risk disease increased 29%.

“While lower-risk tumors are treated less aggressively across the board, including in men with limited longevity, it seems that we are more indiscriminately treating men with higher-risk disease without considering their expected longevity,” Daskivich said in an interview.

 

Is This Happening in the General US Population?

Daskivich noted that the sample included a large sample of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in the VA Health System.

“Rates of overtreatment are likely to be lower in the VA [Health System], so the problem may be worse in the community setting. The VA [Health System] has been exemplary in its uptake of active surveillance for low-risk cancers, leading the effort to reduce overtreatment of men with low-risk cancers. However, the problem of overtreatment of men with limited longevity persists in the VA [Health System], underscoring the pervasiveness of this problem,” he explained.

“We don’t have a perfect head-to-head comparison of overtreatment in the VA setting vs in the community. [However, one study shows] that this is not a VA-specific phenomenon and that there is an increase in overtreatment of men with limited longevity in a Medicare population as well,” Daskivich noted.

 

Is Overtreatment All Bad?

Overtreatment of prostate cancer, especially in cases where the cancer is unlikely to progress or cause symptoms, can lead to significant physical, psychological, and financial harms, Christopher Anderson, MD, urologist with Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted in an interview.

In the study by Daskivich and colleagues, over three quarters of the overtreatment was radiation therapy, which carries the risk for urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.

“Overscreening, which can lead to overtreatment, is a core issue,” Anderson said. It’s easy to order a “simple” prostate-specific antigen blood test, but in an older man with limited LE, that can lead to a host of further testing, he said.

Stopping the pipeline of overscreening that then feeds into the cascade of overtreatment is the first step in addressing the problem of prostate cancer overtreatment, Nancy Li Schoenborn, MD, MHS, with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and Louise C. Walter, MD, with University of California San Francisco, wrote in an editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Considering LE during screening decision-making is “fundamental to reducing harms of prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment” because limited LE increases the likelihood of experiencing “harms all along the diagnostic and treatment cascade following screening,” the editorial writers said.

The time spent diagnosing, monitoring, and treating asymptomatic prostate cancer in men with limited LE distracts from monitoring and treating chronic symptomatic life-limiting illnesses, they noted.

 

Tough to Talk About?

Anderson noted that, in general, doctors are not great at estimating and counseling patients on LE. “It’s sometimes difficult to have that conversation,” he said.

Daskivich said physicians may fail to include average LE when advising patients on treatments because they believe that the patients do not want to discuss this topic. “Yet, in interviews with patients, we found that prostate cancer patients reported they wanted this information,” he continued, in an interview.

Solving the problem of overscreening and overtreatment will require a “multifaceted approach, including improving access to life expectancy data at the point of care for providers, educating providers on how to communicate this information, and improving data sources to predict longevity,” Daskivich said.

He said it’s equally important to note that some men with prostate cancer may choose treatment even if they have a limited longevity.

“Not all patients will choose conservative management, even if it is recommended by guidelines. However, they need to be given the opportunity to make a good decision for themselves with the best possible data,” Daskivich said.

This work was supported in part by a US Department of VA Merit Review. Daskivich reported receiving personal fees from the Medical Education Speakers Network, EDAP, and RAND; research support from Lantheus and Janssen; and a patent pending for a system for healthcare visit quality assessment outside the submitted work. Schoenborn, Walter, and Anderson had no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Overtreatment of men with prostate cancer and limited life expectancy (LE) has persisted in the era of active surveillance and worsened in some instances, according to a new study.

“Overtreatment of men with limited longevity for intermediate- and high-risk tumors has not only failed to improve but has actually worsened over the last 20 years,” Timothy Daskivich, MD, MSHPM, with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“Many doctors assume that the increase in uptake of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancers has solved the problem of overtreatment, but this trend has not affected overtreatment of men with low likelihood of living long enough to benefit from treatment who have higher-risk tumors,” Daskivich said.

The study was published online on November 11 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

‘Concerning’ Real-World Data

For men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer expected to live fewer than 10 years, prostate cancer screening and aggressive treatment are not recommended.

Daskivich and colleagues analyzed data on 243,928 men (mean age, 66 years) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2019.

About 21% had LE < 10 years, and about 4% had LE < 5 years, according to the validated age-adjusted Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index.

Overtreatment was defined as aggressive treatment (surgery or radiation) in those with LE < 10 years and low- to intermediate-risk disease and in those with LE < 5 years and high-risk disease, in line with current guidelines.

Among men with LE < 10 years, the proportion of men overtreated with surgery or radiotherapy for low-risk disease decreased 22% but increased 22% for intermediate-risk disease during the study period.

Among men with LE < 5 years, the proportion of men treated with definitive treatment for high-risk disease increased 29%.

“While lower-risk tumors are treated less aggressively across the board, including in men with limited longevity, it seems that we are more indiscriminately treating men with higher-risk disease without considering their expected longevity,” Daskivich said in an interview.

 

Is This Happening in the General US Population?

Daskivich noted that the sample included a large sample of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in the VA Health System.

“Rates of overtreatment are likely to be lower in the VA [Health System], so the problem may be worse in the community setting. The VA [Health System] has been exemplary in its uptake of active surveillance for low-risk cancers, leading the effort to reduce overtreatment of men with low-risk cancers. However, the problem of overtreatment of men with limited longevity persists in the VA [Health System], underscoring the pervasiveness of this problem,” he explained.

“We don’t have a perfect head-to-head comparison of overtreatment in the VA setting vs in the community. [However, one study shows] that this is not a VA-specific phenomenon and that there is an increase in overtreatment of men with limited longevity in a Medicare population as well,” Daskivich noted.

 

Is Overtreatment All Bad?

Overtreatment of prostate cancer, especially in cases where the cancer is unlikely to progress or cause symptoms, can lead to significant physical, psychological, and financial harms, Christopher Anderson, MD, urologist with Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted in an interview.

In the study by Daskivich and colleagues, over three quarters of the overtreatment was radiation therapy, which carries the risk for urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.

“Overscreening, which can lead to overtreatment, is a core issue,” Anderson said. It’s easy to order a “simple” prostate-specific antigen blood test, but in an older man with limited LE, that can lead to a host of further testing, he said.

Stopping the pipeline of overscreening that then feeds into the cascade of overtreatment is the first step in addressing the problem of prostate cancer overtreatment, Nancy Li Schoenborn, MD, MHS, with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and Louise C. Walter, MD, with University of California San Francisco, wrote in an editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Considering LE during screening decision-making is “fundamental to reducing harms of prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment” because limited LE increases the likelihood of experiencing “harms all along the diagnostic and treatment cascade following screening,” the editorial writers said.

The time spent diagnosing, monitoring, and treating asymptomatic prostate cancer in men with limited LE distracts from monitoring and treating chronic symptomatic life-limiting illnesses, they noted.

 

Tough to Talk About?

Anderson noted that, in general, doctors are not great at estimating and counseling patients on LE. “It’s sometimes difficult to have that conversation,” he said.

Daskivich said physicians may fail to include average LE when advising patients on treatments because they believe that the patients do not want to discuss this topic. “Yet, in interviews with patients, we found that prostate cancer patients reported they wanted this information,” he continued, in an interview.

Solving the problem of overscreening and overtreatment will require a “multifaceted approach, including improving access to life expectancy data at the point of care for providers, educating providers on how to communicate this information, and improving data sources to predict longevity,” Daskivich said.

He said it’s equally important to note that some men with prostate cancer may choose treatment even if they have a limited longevity.

“Not all patients will choose conservative management, even if it is recommended by guidelines. However, they need to be given the opportunity to make a good decision for themselves with the best possible data,” Daskivich said.

This work was supported in part by a US Department of VA Merit Review. Daskivich reported receiving personal fees from the Medical Education Speakers Network, EDAP, and RAND; research support from Lantheus and Janssen; and a patent pending for a system for healthcare visit quality assessment outside the submitted work. Schoenborn, Walter, and Anderson had no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Overtreatment of men with prostate cancer and limited life expectancy (LE) has persisted in the era of active surveillance and worsened in some instances, according to a new study.

“Overtreatment of men with limited longevity for intermediate- and high-risk tumors has not only failed to improve but has actually worsened over the last 20 years,” Timothy Daskivich, MD, MSHPM, with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“Many doctors assume that the increase in uptake of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancers has solved the problem of overtreatment, but this trend has not affected overtreatment of men with low likelihood of living long enough to benefit from treatment who have higher-risk tumors,” Daskivich said.

The study was published online on November 11 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

‘Concerning’ Real-World Data

For men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer expected to live fewer than 10 years, prostate cancer screening and aggressive treatment are not recommended.

Daskivich and colleagues analyzed data on 243,928 men (mean age, 66 years) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2019.

About 21% had LE < 10 years, and about 4% had LE < 5 years, according to the validated age-adjusted Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index.

Overtreatment was defined as aggressive treatment (surgery or radiation) in those with LE < 10 years and low- to intermediate-risk disease and in those with LE < 5 years and high-risk disease, in line with current guidelines.

Among men with LE < 10 years, the proportion of men overtreated with surgery or radiotherapy for low-risk disease decreased 22% but increased 22% for intermediate-risk disease during the study period.

Among men with LE < 5 years, the proportion of men treated with definitive treatment for high-risk disease increased 29%.

“While lower-risk tumors are treated less aggressively across the board, including in men with limited longevity, it seems that we are more indiscriminately treating men with higher-risk disease without considering their expected longevity,” Daskivich said in an interview.

 

Is This Happening in the General US Population?

Daskivich noted that the sample included a large sample of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in the VA Health System.

“Rates of overtreatment are likely to be lower in the VA [Health System], so the problem may be worse in the community setting. The VA [Health System] has been exemplary in its uptake of active surveillance for low-risk cancers, leading the effort to reduce overtreatment of men with low-risk cancers. However, the problem of overtreatment of men with limited longevity persists in the VA [Health System], underscoring the pervasiveness of this problem,” he explained.

“We don’t have a perfect head-to-head comparison of overtreatment in the VA setting vs in the community. [However, one study shows] that this is not a VA-specific phenomenon and that there is an increase in overtreatment of men with limited longevity in a Medicare population as well,” Daskivich noted.

 

Is Overtreatment All Bad?

Overtreatment of prostate cancer, especially in cases where the cancer is unlikely to progress or cause symptoms, can lead to significant physical, psychological, and financial harms, Christopher Anderson, MD, urologist with Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted in an interview.

In the study by Daskivich and colleagues, over three quarters of the overtreatment was radiation therapy, which carries the risk for urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.

“Overscreening, which can lead to overtreatment, is a core issue,” Anderson said. It’s easy to order a “simple” prostate-specific antigen blood test, but in an older man with limited LE, that can lead to a host of further testing, he said.

Stopping the pipeline of overscreening that then feeds into the cascade of overtreatment is the first step in addressing the problem of prostate cancer overtreatment, Nancy Li Schoenborn, MD, MHS, with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and Louise C. Walter, MD, with University of California San Francisco, wrote in an editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Considering LE during screening decision-making is “fundamental to reducing harms of prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment” because limited LE increases the likelihood of experiencing “harms all along the diagnostic and treatment cascade following screening,” the editorial writers said.

The time spent diagnosing, monitoring, and treating asymptomatic prostate cancer in men with limited LE distracts from monitoring and treating chronic symptomatic life-limiting illnesses, they noted.

 

Tough to Talk About?

Anderson noted that, in general, doctors are not great at estimating and counseling patients on LE. “It’s sometimes difficult to have that conversation,” he said.

Daskivich said physicians may fail to include average LE when advising patients on treatments because they believe that the patients do not want to discuss this topic. “Yet, in interviews with patients, we found that prostate cancer patients reported they wanted this information,” he continued, in an interview.

Solving the problem of overscreening and overtreatment will require a “multifaceted approach, including improving access to life expectancy data at the point of care for providers, educating providers on how to communicate this information, and improving data sources to predict longevity,” Daskivich said.

He said it’s equally important to note that some men with prostate cancer may choose treatment even if they have a limited longevity.

“Not all patients will choose conservative management, even if it is recommended by guidelines. However, they need to be given the opportunity to make a good decision for themselves with the best possible data,” Daskivich said.

This work was supported in part by a US Department of VA Merit Review. Daskivich reported receiving personal fees from the Medical Education Speakers Network, EDAP, and RAND; research support from Lantheus and Janssen; and a patent pending for a system for healthcare visit quality assessment outside the submitted work. Schoenborn, Walter, and Anderson had no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.