AVAHO

While the incidence of lung cancer is decreasing in men, it continues to rise in women. With more than 19,000 new cases in France each year, lung cancer is now the third most commonly diagnosed cancer among women. This trend is also seen in other European countries but appears to be region-specific because other continents report a decline in incidence among women. Moreover, although overall prognosis remains better in the female population, the trend is worrying: Mortality associated with the disease is increasing in women, unlike in men with lung cancer. A session at the French-Language Pneumology Congress held from January 30 to February 1, 2026, in Lille, France, provided an opportunity to review the situation.

Efficacy and Toxicity

Lung tumors in women have a distinct tumor profile: Women have a higher proportion of adenocarcinomas than men and a higher frequency of somatic mutations (EGFR, BRAF, or HER2), including in nonsmokers. In addition, 65% of lung cancers in women are associated with smoking compared with 87% of those in men.

The role of estrogens is central because they interact directly with tumor growth signaling pathways. Moreover, “sex is the second leading factor of variability in drug pharmacokinetics after weight and accounts for 28% of anticancer drug kinetics,” emphasized Julien Mazières, pulmonologist, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France. Also involved in this equation are a higher body fat percentage, lower gastric acidity, and, above all, reduced renal and hepatic clearance.

As a result, exposure to drugs — represented by the area under the curve — is often greater in women and translates into not only improved progression-free survival with targeted therapies and chemotherapy but also increased toxicity. Carboplatin and paclitaxel are among the drugs whose kinetics are most affected by clearance. There are differences in clearance of more than 20% for these drugs in women vs men, though dosages are not systematically adjusted except for weight-based dosing. This vulnerability to adverse effects is particularly pronounced with targeted therapies, with more neuropsychiatric and gastrointestinal disorders. Data on the efficacy of immunotherapy in lung cancer by sex are contradictory. However, endocrine-related adverse effects and pneumonitis are more frequent in women, especially before menopause.

Women remain underrepresented in clinical trials, and sex-specific analyses of results are too rarely performed, which limits understanding of mechanisms and prevents tailoring management recommendations according to sex.

Impaired Quality of Life

Lung cancer most severely impairs physical functioning in women. “In the absence of sex-stratified studies, psycho-oncologists’ experience suggests that women have more cognitive disorders, anxiety, and depression associated with this disease. Its impact on quality of life is major, with deterioration of social relationships and reduced treatment adherence,” summarized Céline Mascaux, MD, PhD, pulmonologist, Strasbourg University Hospital, Strasbourg, France. Women also face social and family pressure — a mental burden that pushes them to “hold on” for their loved ones. Regarding sexual health, women with lung cancer who are sexually active often report dissatisfaction with the quality of their sexual relations because of fatigue, lack of energy, sadness, and shortness of breath, not to mention treatment-related sexual dysfunction. These problems are often not given sufficient attention by physicians.

Finally, fertility requires greater attention from the medical community: According to the VICAN study conducted by France’s National Health Insurance Fund, a discussion about fertility preservation did not take place at the time of cancer diagnosis for 60% of men and 67% of women of childbearing age. “In lung cancer specifically, the desire for children nevertheless exists in nearly 40% of patients of childbearing age,” regretted Jacques Cadranel, pulmonologist, Tenon Hospital, Paris, France. This desire does not appear to have influenced therapeutic strategy, and fertility preservation was ultimately proposed in only a third of cases and was carried out in only 3% of women compared with21% of men.

This story has been translated from Univadis France, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com

While the incidence of lung cancer is decreasing in men, it continues to rise in women. With more than 19,000 new cases in France each year, lung cancer is now the third most commonly diagnosed cancer among women. This trend is also seen in other European countries but appears to be region-specific because other continents report a decline in incidence among women. Moreover, although overall prognosis remains better in the female population, the trend is worrying: Mortality associated with the disease is increasing in women, unlike in men with lung cancer. A session at the French-Language Pneumology Congress held from January 30 to February 1, 2026, in Lille, France, provided an opportunity to review the situation.

Efficacy and Toxicity

Lung tumors in women have a distinct tumor profile: Women have a higher proportion of adenocarcinomas than men and a higher frequency of somatic mutations (EGFR, BRAF, or HER2), including in nonsmokers. In addition, 65% of lung cancers in women are associated with smoking compared with 87% of those in men.

The role of estrogens is central because they interact directly with tumor growth signaling pathways. Moreover, “sex is the second leading factor of variability in drug pharmacokinetics after weight and accounts for 28% of anticancer drug kinetics,” emphasized Julien Mazières, pulmonologist, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France. Also involved in this equation are a higher body fat percentage, lower gastric acidity, and, above all, reduced renal and hepatic clearance.

As a result, exposure to drugs — represented by the area under the curve — is often greater in women and translates into not only improved progression-free survival with targeted therapies and chemotherapy but also increased toxicity. Carboplatin and paclitaxel are among the drugs whose kinetics are most affected by clearance. There are differences in clearance of more than 20% for these drugs in women vs men, though dosages are not systematically adjusted except for weight-based dosing. This vulnerability to adverse effects is particularly pronounced with targeted therapies, with more neuropsychiatric and gastrointestinal disorders. Data on the efficacy of immunotherapy in lung cancer by sex are contradictory. However, endocrine-related adverse effects and pneumonitis are more frequent in women, especially before menopause.

Women remain underrepresented in clinical trials, and sex-specific analyses of results are too rarely performed, which limits understanding of mechanisms and prevents tailoring management recommendations according to sex.

Impaired Quality of Life

Lung cancer most severely impairs physical functioning in women. “In the absence of sex-stratified studies, psycho-oncologists’ experience suggests that women have more cognitive disorders, anxiety, and depression associated with this disease. Its impact on quality of life is major, with deterioration of social relationships and reduced treatment adherence,” summarized Céline Mascaux, MD, PhD, pulmonologist, Strasbourg University Hospital, Strasbourg, France. Women also face social and family pressure — a mental burden that pushes them to “hold on” for their loved ones. Regarding sexual health, women with lung cancer who are sexually active often report dissatisfaction with the quality of their sexual relations because of fatigue, lack of energy, sadness, and shortness of breath, not to mention treatment-related sexual dysfunction. These problems are often not given sufficient attention by physicians.

Finally, fertility requires greater attention from the medical community: According to the VICAN study conducted by France’s National Health Insurance Fund, a discussion about fertility preservation did not take place at the time of cancer diagnosis for 60% of men and 67% of women of childbearing age. “In lung cancer specifically, the desire for children nevertheless exists in nearly 40% of patients of childbearing age,” regretted Jacques Cadranel, pulmonologist, Tenon Hospital, Paris, France. This desire does not appear to have influenced therapeutic strategy, and fertility preservation was ultimately proposed in only a third of cases and was carried out in only 3% of women compared with21% of men.

This story has been translated from Univadis France, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com

While the incidence of lung cancer is decreasing in men, it continues to rise in women. With more than 19,000 new cases in France each year, lung cancer is now the third most commonly diagnosed cancer among women. This trend is also seen in other European countries but appears to be region-specific because other continents report a decline in incidence among women. Moreover, although overall prognosis remains better in the female population, the trend is worrying: Mortality associated with the disease is increasing in women, unlike in men with lung cancer. A session at the French-Language Pneumology Congress held from January 30 to February 1, 2026, in Lille, France, provided an opportunity to review the situation.

Efficacy and Toxicity

Lung tumors in women have a distinct tumor profile: Women have a higher proportion of adenocarcinomas than men and a higher frequency of somatic mutations (EGFR, BRAF, or HER2), including in nonsmokers. In addition, 65% of lung cancers in women are associated with smoking compared with 87% of those in men.

The role of estrogens is central because they interact directly with tumor growth signaling pathways. Moreover, “sex is the second leading factor of variability in drug pharmacokinetics after weight and accounts for 28% of anticancer drug kinetics,” emphasized Julien Mazières, pulmonologist, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France. Also involved in this equation are a higher body fat percentage, lower gastric acidity, and, above all, reduced renal and hepatic clearance.

As a result, exposure to drugs — represented by the area under the curve — is often greater in women and translates into not only improved progression-free survival with targeted therapies and chemotherapy but also increased toxicity. Carboplatin and paclitaxel are among the drugs whose kinetics are most affected by clearance. There are differences in clearance of more than 20% for these drugs in women vs men, though dosages are not systematically adjusted except for weight-based dosing. This vulnerability to adverse effects is particularly pronounced with targeted therapies, with more neuropsychiatric and gastrointestinal disorders. Data on the efficacy of immunotherapy in lung cancer by sex are contradictory. However, endocrine-related adverse effects and pneumonitis are more frequent in women, especially before menopause.

Women remain underrepresented in clinical trials, and sex-specific analyses of results are too rarely performed, which limits understanding of mechanisms and prevents tailoring management recommendations according to sex.

Impaired Quality of Life

Lung cancer most severely impairs physical functioning in women. “In the absence of sex-stratified studies, psycho-oncologists’ experience suggests that women have more cognitive disorders, anxiety, and depression associated with this disease. Its impact on quality of life is major, with deterioration of social relationships and reduced treatment adherence,” summarized Céline Mascaux, MD, PhD, pulmonologist, Strasbourg University Hospital, Strasbourg, France. Women also face social and family pressure — a mental burden that pushes them to “hold on” for their loved ones. Regarding sexual health, women with lung cancer who are sexually active often report dissatisfaction with the quality of their sexual relations because of fatigue, lack of energy, sadness, and shortness of breath, not to mention treatment-related sexual dysfunction. These problems are often not given sufficient attention by physicians.

Finally, fertility requires greater attention from the medical community: According to the VICAN study conducted by France’s National Health Insurance Fund, a discussion about fertility preservation did not take place at the time of cancer diagnosis for 60% of men and 67% of women of childbearing age. “In lung cancer specifically, the desire for children nevertheless exists in nearly 40% of patients of childbearing age,” regretted Jacques Cadranel, pulmonologist, Tenon Hospital, Paris, France. This desire does not appear to have influenced therapeutic strategy, and fertility preservation was ultimately proposed in only a third of cases and was carried out in only 3% of women compared with21% of men.

This story has been translated from Univadis France, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com

TOPLINE:

In a review of physician-related malpractice cases from 1930 to 2025, melanoma was the most frequently litigated skin cancer, and failure or delay in diagnosis was the most common allegation, with documented death in nearly one third of cases.

METHODOLOGY:

Researchers conducted a review of physician-related medicolegal cases involving skin cancer using the LexisNexis legal database and identified 188 unique cases from 1930 through May 2025.

Cases were included if physicians were named as defendants and the litigation centered on diagnosis or management of a cutaneous malignancy.

Study outcomes examined case characteristics including cancer type, practice setting, defendant specialty, primary allegations, clinical outcomes, and case verdicts across the US.

TAKEAWAY:

Melanoma accounted for 49.5% of litigated cases, followed by squamous cell carcinoma (21.6%), basal cell carcinoma (14.2%), unspecified skin cancer (11.6%), and other rare tumors (3.1%). Death was reported in 29.8% of cases and metastatic disease in 39.9%.

Failure or delay in diagnosis was the leading allegation (38.1%), followed by treatment or management errors (24.2%), misdiagnosis (11.4%), “deliberate indifference” (8.3%), inadequate informed consent (7.5%), and pathology-related errors (7.2%).

Family physicians were the most common defendants (27.5%), followed by dermatologists, including Mohs surgeons (20.1%), and pathologists or dermatopathologists (14.4%), followed by general or plastic surgeons (7.9%), and internists (4.4%). Most cases originated in private practices (59.7%), and New York (16.0%) and California (13.3%) were the states with the most cases.

Among 109 closed cases, 5.5% resulted in plaintiff verdicts, whereas defense verdicts predominated in 55.0%. Plaintiff awards ranged from $10,000 to $4.25 million.

IN PRACTICE:

“This comprehensive review demonstrates that melanoma is the most frequently litigated skin cancer, particularly in cases involving metastatic disease or death, and that family physicians are the most commonly named defendants overall,” the authors wrote. “By examining both allegations and outcomes,” they added, “this analysis provides a pragmatic assessment of real-world litigation exposure and the clinical scenarios that expose physicians to legal proceedings, financial cost, reputational harm, and psychological burden, regardless of case disposition.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ghassan Barnawi, MD, Division of Dermatology, McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and was published online on February 20, 2026, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on published court decisions, which likely underestimated malpractice burden by excluding settlements and unreported claims.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The study had no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

TOPLINE:

In a review of physician-related malpractice cases from 1930 to 2025, melanoma was the most frequently litigated skin cancer, and failure or delay in diagnosis was the most common allegation, with documented death in nearly one third of cases.

METHODOLOGY:

Researchers conducted a review of physician-related medicolegal cases involving skin cancer using the LexisNexis legal database and identified 188 unique cases from 1930 through May 2025.

Cases were included if physicians were named as defendants and the litigation centered on diagnosis or management of a cutaneous malignancy.

Study outcomes examined case characteristics including cancer type, practice setting, defendant specialty, primary allegations, clinical outcomes, and case verdicts across the US.

TAKEAWAY:

Melanoma accounted for 49.5% of litigated cases, followed by squamous cell carcinoma (21.6%), basal cell carcinoma (14.2%), unspecified skin cancer (11.6%), and other rare tumors (3.1%). Death was reported in 29.8% of cases and metastatic disease in 39.9%.

Failure or delay in diagnosis was the leading allegation (38.1%), followed by treatment or management errors (24.2%), misdiagnosis (11.4%), “deliberate indifference” (8.3%), inadequate informed consent (7.5%), and pathology-related errors (7.2%).

Family physicians were the most common defendants (27.5%), followed by dermatologists, including Mohs surgeons (20.1%), and pathologists or dermatopathologists (14.4%), followed by general or plastic surgeons (7.9%), and internists (4.4%). Most cases originated in private practices (59.7%), and New York (16.0%) and California (13.3%) were the states with the most cases.

Among 109 closed cases, 5.5% resulted in plaintiff verdicts, whereas defense verdicts predominated in 55.0%. Plaintiff awards ranged from $10,000 to $4.25 million.

IN PRACTICE:

“This comprehensive review demonstrates that melanoma is the most frequently litigated skin cancer, particularly in cases involving metastatic disease or death, and that family physicians are the most commonly named defendants overall,” the authors wrote. “By examining both allegations and outcomes,” they added, “this analysis provides a pragmatic assessment of real-world litigation exposure and the clinical scenarios that expose physicians to legal proceedings, financial cost, reputational harm, and psychological burden, regardless of case disposition.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ghassan Barnawi, MD, Division of Dermatology, McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and was published online on February 20, 2026, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on published court decisions, which likely underestimated malpractice burden by excluding settlements and unreported claims.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The study had no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

TOPLINE:

In a review of physician-related malpractice cases from 1930 to 2025, melanoma was the most frequently litigated skin cancer, and failure or delay in diagnosis was the most common allegation, with documented death in nearly one third of cases.

METHODOLOGY:

Researchers conducted a review of physician-related medicolegal cases involving skin cancer using the LexisNexis legal database and identified 188 unique cases from 1930 through May 2025.

Cases were included if physicians were named as defendants and the litigation centered on diagnosis or management of a cutaneous malignancy.

Study outcomes examined case characteristics including cancer type, practice setting, defendant specialty, primary allegations, clinical outcomes, and case verdicts across the US.

TAKEAWAY:

Melanoma accounted for 49.5% of litigated cases, followed by squamous cell carcinoma (21.6%), basal cell carcinoma (14.2%), unspecified skin cancer (11.6%), and other rare tumors (3.1%). Death was reported in 29.8% of cases and metastatic disease in 39.9%.

Failure or delay in diagnosis was the leading allegation (38.1%), followed by treatment or management errors (24.2%), misdiagnosis (11.4%), “deliberate indifference” (8.3%), inadequate informed consent (7.5%), and pathology-related errors (7.2%).

Family physicians were the most common defendants (27.5%), followed by dermatologists, including Mohs surgeons (20.1%), and pathologists or dermatopathologists (14.4%), followed by general or plastic surgeons (7.9%), and internists (4.4%). Most cases originated in private practices (59.7%), and New York (16.0%) and California (13.3%) were the states with the most cases.

Among 109 closed cases, 5.5% resulted in plaintiff verdicts, whereas defense verdicts predominated in 55.0%. Plaintiff awards ranged from $10,000 to $4.25 million.

IN PRACTICE:

“This comprehensive review demonstrates that melanoma is the most frequently litigated skin cancer, particularly in cases involving metastatic disease or death, and that family physicians are the most commonly named defendants overall,” the authors wrote. “By examining both allegations and outcomes,” they added, “this analysis provides a pragmatic assessment of real-world litigation exposure and the clinical scenarios that expose physicians to legal proceedings, financial cost, reputational harm, and psychological burden, regardless of case disposition.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ghassan Barnawi, MD, Division of Dermatology, McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and was published online on February 20, 2026, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on published court decisions, which likely underestimated malpractice burden by excluding settlements and unreported claims.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The study had no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

A pilot program appeared to more than double the rate of germline genetic testing among veterans with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) by using remote communication rather than relying on clinicians for in-person outreach to patients. 

Of 1952 veterans with mPC, 681 (34.9%) provided consent and 459 (23.5%) completed testing, exceeding the usual 10% to 12% of patients who undergo testing, reported Bruce Montgomery, MD, et al in Cancer.

Although testing is recommended for all patients with mPC to guide therapy and alert relatives who may be at risk, 23.5% is still an impressive number, Montgomery, an oncologist with Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle told Federal Practitioner: “With a letter and very little money and very little real time from clinicians, we could get testing done at 3 times the rate happening out there in the big wide world,” he said. “For 2000 patients, we needed one research coordinator and a small part of a genetic counselor's time.”

According to the study, germline genetic testing—which examines inherited DNA—is now recommended for all men with mPC by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American Urological Association. Germline genetic testing differs from somatic testing, which seeks genetic changes in the tumors themselves.

In the VA and community at large, the percentage of men with mPC who undergo germline genetic testing is low, Montgomery said. Research suggests < 40% of patients undergo somatic testing.

Germline genetic testing only costs about 10% compared with somatic testing, Montgomery said, and can be conducted at any time. In about 10% of mPC cases, the testing provides insight into the best treatment, he said.

Montgomery noted another benefit to germline genetic testing: It can raise the alarm about pathogenic variants that could boost cancer risk in family members, allowing them to get screened and take action.

There are many reasons veterans do not get tested, Montgomery said. The process is not automatic because patient consent is needed, and clinicians often fail to ask. In some cases, veterans worry about privacy or whether they will lose service-connected benefits if their cancer is blamed on genetics.

The study focused on 2104 veterans with mPC who had already agreed to take part in the Million Veteran Program, a prospective cohort study examining genetic and nongenetic risk for disease. The genetic analysis from that project did not provide guidance about mPC, so researchers approached the veterans directly.

Patients were enrolled from February 2021 to October 2023. A total of 1952 veterans did not opt out when contacted by mail (median age, 75 years; 63% White, 25% Black; 74% urban and 24% rural). The median age of those who consented and completed testing after phone contact was 74 years; 67% of patients were White and 22% were Black; 78% of patients lived in urban communities and 20% lived in rural communities.

Fifty-nine patients (13%) had pathogenic variants, and 37 of those had variants that indicated treatment with targeted therapies. Of the 37, 14 received targeted therapy, 18 were not at the point where targeted therapy was indicated, and 5 were not treated with targeted therapy for various reasons before they died.

Twelve of the 59 patients with pathogenic variants agreed to let the study team contact their first-degree relatives. Thirty relatives underwent testing, and 10 of them were positive for the variants.

Following completion of the study, researchers examined electronic records for the 59 patients with pathogenic variants and found that 19% did not have documentation of the germline finding in the medical record. The authors cited an “urgent need” to standardize where genetic information is included in the records.

While “it seems like a very small number of patients took up testing,” Montgomery said, the study findings are promising: “If we did the same thing nationally in the VA, there would be 15,000 men with metastatic disease, and we’d be testing 5000 of them with almost no effort.”

In an interview, Susan Vadaparampil, PhD, MPH, associate center director of Community Outreach and Engagement at Moffitt Cancer Center, who studies genetic testing, praised the strengths of the study. Vadaparampil, who did not take part in the research, told Federal Practitioner that the study relies on “an intervention that could likely be incorporated into routine clinical practice, a less resource-intensive model that provides posttest counseling for those who test positive, and support to share results with family members.”

However, she said, “testing uptake was uneven based on participant sociodemographic characteristics. It's important to consider how discussions and resources to facilitate testing may need to be adapted to meet the needs of all patients.

“Strategies that facilitate clinicians’ knowledge, comfort, and consistency in discussing testing with all mPC patients are essential,” Vadaparampil added. “Simultaneously using multiple strategies targeted to different levels can further help boost uptake.”

The study was funded by the VA Office of Research and Development, Prostate Cancer Foundation, Pacific Northwest Prostate Cancer SPORE, Institute for Prostate Cancer Research, Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP), and Put VA Data to Work for Veterans. 

Montgomery discloses relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, INmune Bio, Clovis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson and Johnson, and Merck. Some other authors report various disclosures. Vadaparampil has no disclosures.

A pilot program appeared to more than double the rate of germline genetic testing among veterans with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) by using remote communication rather than relying on clinicians for in-person outreach to patients. 

Of 1952 veterans with mPC, 681 (34.9%) provided consent and 459 (23.5%) completed testing, exceeding the usual 10% to 12% of patients who undergo testing, reported Bruce Montgomery, MD, et al in Cancer.

Although testing is recommended for all patients with mPC to guide therapy and alert relatives who may be at risk, 23.5% is still an impressive number, Montgomery, an oncologist with Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle told Federal Practitioner: “With a letter and very little money and very little real time from clinicians, we could get testing done at 3 times the rate happening out there in the big wide world,” he said. “For 2000 patients, we needed one research coordinator and a small part of a genetic counselor's time.”

According to the study, germline genetic testing—which examines inherited DNA—is now recommended for all men with mPC by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American Urological Association. Germline genetic testing differs from somatic testing, which seeks genetic changes in the tumors themselves.

In the VA and community at large, the percentage of men with mPC who undergo germline genetic testing is low, Montgomery said. Research suggests < 40% of patients undergo somatic testing.

Germline genetic testing only costs about 10% compared with somatic testing, Montgomery said, and can be conducted at any time. In about 10% of mPC cases, the testing provides insight into the best treatment, he said.

Montgomery noted another benefit to germline genetic testing: It can raise the alarm about pathogenic variants that could boost cancer risk in family members, allowing them to get screened and take action.

There are many reasons veterans do not get tested, Montgomery said. The process is not automatic because patient consent is needed, and clinicians often fail to ask. In some cases, veterans worry about privacy or whether they will lose service-connected benefits if their cancer is blamed on genetics.

The study focused on 2104 veterans with mPC who had already agreed to take part in the Million Veteran Program, a prospective cohort study examining genetic and nongenetic risk for disease. The genetic analysis from that project did not provide guidance about mPC, so researchers approached the veterans directly.

Patients were enrolled from February 2021 to October 2023. A total of 1952 veterans did not opt out when contacted by mail (median age, 75 years; 63% White, 25% Black; 74% urban and 24% rural). The median age of those who consented and completed testing after phone contact was 74 years; 67% of patients were White and 22% were Black; 78% of patients lived in urban communities and 20% lived in rural communities.

Fifty-nine patients (13%) had pathogenic variants, and 37 of those had variants that indicated treatment with targeted therapies. Of the 37, 14 received targeted therapy, 18 were not at the point where targeted therapy was indicated, and 5 were not treated with targeted therapy for various reasons before they died.

Twelve of the 59 patients with pathogenic variants agreed to let the study team contact their first-degree relatives. Thirty relatives underwent testing, and 10 of them were positive for the variants.

Following completion of the study, researchers examined electronic records for the 59 patients with pathogenic variants and found that 19% did not have documentation of the germline finding in the medical record. The authors cited an “urgent need” to standardize where genetic information is included in the records.

While “it seems like a very small number of patients took up testing,” Montgomery said, the study findings are promising: “If we did the same thing nationally in the VA, there would be 15,000 men with metastatic disease, and we’d be testing 5000 of them with almost no effort.”

In an interview, Susan Vadaparampil, PhD, MPH, associate center director of Community Outreach and Engagement at Moffitt Cancer Center, who studies genetic testing, praised the strengths of the study. Vadaparampil, who did not take part in the research, told Federal Practitioner that the study relies on “an intervention that could likely be incorporated into routine clinical practice, a less resource-intensive model that provides posttest counseling for those who test positive, and support to share results with family members.”

However, she said, “testing uptake was uneven based on participant sociodemographic characteristics. It's important to consider how discussions and resources to facilitate testing may need to be adapted to meet the needs of all patients.

“Strategies that facilitate clinicians’ knowledge, comfort, and consistency in discussing testing with all mPC patients are essential,” Vadaparampil added. “Simultaneously using multiple strategies targeted to different levels can further help boost uptake.”

The study was funded by the VA Office of Research and Development, Prostate Cancer Foundation, Pacific Northwest Prostate Cancer SPORE, Institute for Prostate Cancer Research, Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP), and Put VA Data to Work for Veterans. 

Montgomery discloses relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, INmune Bio, Clovis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson and Johnson, and Merck. Some other authors report various disclosures. Vadaparampil has no disclosures.

A pilot program appeared to more than double the rate of germline genetic testing among veterans with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) by using remote communication rather than relying on clinicians for in-person outreach to patients. 

Of 1952 veterans with mPC, 681 (34.9%) provided consent and 459 (23.5%) completed testing, exceeding the usual 10% to 12% of patients who undergo testing, reported Bruce Montgomery, MD, et al in Cancer.

Although testing is recommended for all patients with mPC to guide therapy and alert relatives who may be at risk, 23.5% is still an impressive number, Montgomery, an oncologist with Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle told Federal Practitioner: “With a letter and very little money and very little real time from clinicians, we could get testing done at 3 times the rate happening out there in the big wide world,” he said. “For 2000 patients, we needed one research coordinator and a small part of a genetic counselor's time.”

According to the study, germline genetic testing—which examines inherited DNA—is now recommended for all men with mPC by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American Urological Association. Germline genetic testing differs from somatic testing, which seeks genetic changes in the tumors themselves.

In the VA and community at large, the percentage of men with mPC who undergo germline genetic testing is low, Montgomery said. Research suggests < 40% of patients undergo somatic testing.

Germline genetic testing only costs about 10% compared with somatic testing, Montgomery said, and can be conducted at any time. In about 10% of mPC cases, the testing provides insight into the best treatment, he said.

Montgomery noted another benefit to germline genetic testing: It can raise the alarm about pathogenic variants that could boost cancer risk in family members, allowing them to get screened and take action.

There are many reasons veterans do not get tested, Montgomery said. The process is not automatic because patient consent is needed, and clinicians often fail to ask. In some cases, veterans worry about privacy or whether they will lose service-connected benefits if their cancer is blamed on genetics.

The study focused on 2104 veterans with mPC who had already agreed to take part in the Million Veteran Program, a prospective cohort study examining genetic and nongenetic risk for disease. The genetic analysis from that project did not provide guidance about mPC, so researchers approached the veterans directly.

Patients were enrolled from February 2021 to October 2023. A total of 1952 veterans did not opt out when contacted by mail (median age, 75 years; 63% White, 25% Black; 74% urban and 24% rural). The median age of those who consented and completed testing after phone contact was 74 years; 67% of patients were White and 22% were Black; 78% of patients lived in urban communities and 20% lived in rural communities.

Fifty-nine patients (13%) had pathogenic variants, and 37 of those had variants that indicated treatment with targeted therapies. Of the 37, 14 received targeted therapy, 18 were not at the point where targeted therapy was indicated, and 5 were not treated with targeted therapy for various reasons before they died.

Twelve of the 59 patients with pathogenic variants agreed to let the study team contact their first-degree relatives. Thirty relatives underwent testing, and 10 of them were positive for the variants.

Following completion of the study, researchers examined electronic records for the 59 patients with pathogenic variants and found that 19% did not have documentation of the germline finding in the medical record. The authors cited an “urgent need” to standardize where genetic information is included in the records.

While “it seems like a very small number of patients took up testing,” Montgomery said, the study findings are promising: “If we did the same thing nationally in the VA, there would be 15,000 men with metastatic disease, and we’d be testing 5000 of them with almost no effort.”

In an interview, Susan Vadaparampil, PhD, MPH, associate center director of Community Outreach and Engagement at Moffitt Cancer Center, who studies genetic testing, praised the strengths of the study. Vadaparampil, who did not take part in the research, told Federal Practitioner that the study relies on “an intervention that could likely be incorporated into routine clinical practice, a less resource-intensive model that provides posttest counseling for those who test positive, and support to share results with family members.”

However, she said, “testing uptake was uneven based on participant sociodemographic characteristics. It's important to consider how discussions and resources to facilitate testing may need to be adapted to meet the needs of all patients.

“Strategies that facilitate clinicians’ knowledge, comfort, and consistency in discussing testing with all mPC patients are essential,” Vadaparampil added. “Simultaneously using multiple strategies targeted to different levels can further help boost uptake.”

The study was funded by the VA Office of Research and Development, Prostate Cancer Foundation, Pacific Northwest Prostate Cancer SPORE, Institute for Prostate Cancer Research, Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP), and Put VA Data to Work for Veterans. 

Montgomery discloses relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, INmune Bio, Clovis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson and Johnson, and Merck. Some other authors report various disclosures. Vadaparampil has no disclosures.

Patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to have a survival benefit if they receive influenza vaccination, a new retrospective analysis found. The results also suggest no increase in the risk for immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) in these patients and that the improvement in survival outcomes may be stronger among those with cutaneous malignant melanoma.

“Our findings align with a growing body of evidence, mainly from retrospective studies, that suggest a potential association between influenza vaccination during immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment and improved survival among patients with cancer,” wrote senior author Antonis Valachis, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in JCO Clinical Practice on February 9. “An additional clinically relevant observation is that the association between influenza vaccination and survival may vary by tumor type.”

The new research supports “current recommendations to offer influenza vaccination to all patients undergoing cancer therapy, including those receiving the drugs,” Valachis, of the Department of Oncology, Örebro University in Örebro, Sweden, and his coauthors wrote.

“What we observed is that influenza vaccination is safe for patients under immunotherapy treatment,” Valachis told Medscape Medical News. But “whether influenza vaccination can be used to boost immunotherapy effectiveness should be tested in a study with a different design,” such as a prospective interventional trial.

Discussing potential explanations for why influenza vaccination could affect immunotherapy outcomes without affecting rates of IRAEs, Valachis said that this “cannot be answered within the constraints of our study design, since all patients were treated with immunotherapy.”

It may nevertheless be hypothesized that “immune activation triggered by vaccination preferentially stimulates immune mechanisms that enhance immunotherapy efficacy, while sparing those that contribute to IRAEs.”

Steady Was 'Relatively Modestly Sized'

Question marks were raised over the study itself and, as a result, its findings.

Justin Jee, MD, PhD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, told Medscape Medical News that there are “a lot of challenges when looking at retrospective data.”

“The authors did a very reasonable job of trying to control for confounders and certain time dependent issues, like immortality bias,” he said. “That said, it’s a relatively modestly sized retrospective study for looking at something that has enormous potential for confounding bias that really can’t be captured with any standard statistical method.”

Jee pointed to factors such as providers potentially being more likely to refer people for vaccination if they’re healthier “vs if the patient is in hospice care,” or individuals simply not getting vaccinated because it is not uppermost in their mind.

“Those things are very, very difficult to control for.”

Jee also said he believes the benefit with influenza vaccination being stronger in cutaneous malignant melanoma could be a study artifact, while the lack of difference in rates of IRAEs could be the result of selection bias, but “it’s just impossible to say with a study like this.”

“I’ve seen several studies looking at both COVID and flu vaccines and whether or not they improve immune checkpoint blockade efficacy,” he added, explaining that “some of them say COVID vaccine good, flu vaccine not as good; others say both flu and COVID vaccines good; others say flu vaccine good, COVID vaccine not as good.”

All Patients With Cancer Should Be Vaccinated

What is clear is that “patients with cancer are [at] especially high risk of developing complications from viral illnesses, including flu, including COVID, and vaccines are a very important part of reducing morbidity, mortality, and spread,” Jee said. The “big picture” is that everyone should get the influenza vaccine, especially patients with cancer, “so in that sense I agree with that part of the conclusion of the paper” and that’s “an important message.”

Mini Kamboj, MD, chief medical epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, agreed, saying that the results are “consistent with other research showing that vaccines are safe and beneficial for patients on checkpoint inhibitors.”

“While vaccinated patients with melanoma showed the greatest survival benefit, the authors note small sample size and unrecognized differences between the groups as a potential explanation for their findings. This does not change vaccine recommendations as evidence already supports flu vaccine safety and effectiveness in people with lung cancer on checkpoint inhibitors.”

Nearly 600 Patients With Advanced Cancer

The researchers performed a retrospective cohort study of patients from three regions in Sweden who had advanced solid tumors and were treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy, or PD-1 combination therapy with a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor, between January 1, 2016, until December 31, 2021. Treatment was given either routinely or as part of a clinical trial.

Electronic medical records were examined to gather data on a range of variables, including age at diagnosis, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, type of cancer, primary treatment at diagnosis, number of previous lines of treatment, best treatment response, IRAEs, influenza vaccination status, and date and cause of death.

In all, 587 patients were treated with immune checkpoint inhibition over the study period. They had a median age of 66 years, and 58.1% were men. The most common malignancies were nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), cutaneous malignant melanoma (32.5%), and renal cell carcinoma (14.7%).

The most commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitor was nivolumab, which was administered to 47.9% of patients, followed by pembrolizumab (34.6%), atezolizumab (9.4%), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (6.8%).

Only Patients With Malignant Melanoma Benefit

Over the study period, 17.7% of patients underwent influenza vaccination, at a median time between initiation of immune checkpoint inhibition and vaccination of 2 months. Ninety per cent of patients received the vaccine within 9 months of starting treatment.

Time-dependent Cox regression analysis revealed that real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was significantly longer with vaccinated patients than unvaccinated patients at a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79), as was overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42-0.75).

There was no significant difference in rwPFS and overall survival between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients among those with NSCLC, but significant differences were seen in those with cutaneous malignant melanoma, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96) and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96), respectively.

Restricting the analysis to immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy indicated that vaccinated patients had significantly longer rwPFS and overall survival than unvaccinated patients, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.43-0.79) and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.38-0.76), respectively.

Finally, the team found that there were no significant differences in the rates of any grade IRAEs between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, at 48.4% vs 51.2% (P = .455), or in rates of multiple IRAEs, at 15.1% vs 19.2% (P = .297). The therapeutic management and outcomes of IRAEs were also comparable.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to have a survival benefit if they receive influenza vaccination, a new retrospective analysis found. The results also suggest no increase in the risk for immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) in these patients and that the improvement in survival outcomes may be stronger among those with cutaneous malignant melanoma.

“Our findings align with a growing body of evidence, mainly from retrospective studies, that suggest a potential association between influenza vaccination during immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment and improved survival among patients with cancer,” wrote senior author Antonis Valachis, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in JCO Clinical Practice on February 9. “An additional clinically relevant observation is that the association between influenza vaccination and survival may vary by tumor type.”

The new research supports “current recommendations to offer influenza vaccination to all patients undergoing cancer therapy, including those receiving the drugs,” Valachis, of the Department of Oncology, Örebro University in Örebro, Sweden, and his coauthors wrote.

“What we observed is that influenza vaccination is safe for patients under immunotherapy treatment,” Valachis told Medscape Medical News. But “whether influenza vaccination can be used to boost immunotherapy effectiveness should be tested in a study with a different design,” such as a prospective interventional trial.

Discussing potential explanations for why influenza vaccination could affect immunotherapy outcomes without affecting rates of IRAEs, Valachis said that this “cannot be answered within the constraints of our study design, since all patients were treated with immunotherapy.”

It may nevertheless be hypothesized that “immune activation triggered by vaccination preferentially stimulates immune mechanisms that enhance immunotherapy efficacy, while sparing those that contribute to IRAEs.”

Steady Was 'Relatively Modestly Sized'

Question marks were raised over the study itself and, as a result, its findings.

Justin Jee, MD, PhD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, told Medscape Medical News that there are “a lot of challenges when looking at retrospective data.”

“The authors did a very reasonable job of trying to control for confounders and certain time dependent issues, like immortality bias,” he said. “That said, it’s a relatively modestly sized retrospective study for looking at something that has enormous potential for confounding bias that really can’t be captured with any standard statistical method.”

Jee pointed to factors such as providers potentially being more likely to refer people for vaccination if they’re healthier “vs if the patient is in hospice care,” or individuals simply not getting vaccinated because it is not uppermost in their mind.

“Those things are very, very difficult to control for.”

Jee also said he believes the benefit with influenza vaccination being stronger in cutaneous malignant melanoma could be a study artifact, while the lack of difference in rates of IRAEs could be the result of selection bias, but “it’s just impossible to say with a study like this.”

“I’ve seen several studies looking at both COVID and flu vaccines and whether or not they improve immune checkpoint blockade efficacy,” he added, explaining that “some of them say COVID vaccine good, flu vaccine not as good; others say both flu and COVID vaccines good; others say flu vaccine good, COVID vaccine not as good.”

All Patients With Cancer Should Be Vaccinated

What is clear is that “patients with cancer are [at] especially high risk of developing complications from viral illnesses, including flu, including COVID, and vaccines are a very important part of reducing morbidity, mortality, and spread,” Jee said. The “big picture” is that everyone should get the influenza vaccine, especially patients with cancer, “so in that sense I agree with that part of the conclusion of the paper” and that’s “an important message.”

Mini Kamboj, MD, chief medical epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, agreed, saying that the results are “consistent with other research showing that vaccines are safe and beneficial for patients on checkpoint inhibitors.”

“While vaccinated patients with melanoma showed the greatest survival benefit, the authors note small sample size and unrecognized differences between the groups as a potential explanation for their findings. This does not change vaccine recommendations as evidence already supports flu vaccine safety and effectiveness in people with lung cancer on checkpoint inhibitors.”

Nearly 600 Patients With Advanced Cancer

The researchers performed a retrospective cohort study of patients from three regions in Sweden who had advanced solid tumors and were treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy, or PD-1 combination therapy with a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor, between January 1, 2016, until December 31, 2021. Treatment was given either routinely or as part of a clinical trial.

Electronic medical records were examined to gather data on a range of variables, including age at diagnosis, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, type of cancer, primary treatment at diagnosis, number of previous lines of treatment, best treatment response, IRAEs, influenza vaccination status, and date and cause of death.

In all, 587 patients were treated with immune checkpoint inhibition over the study period. They had a median age of 66 years, and 58.1% were men. The most common malignancies were nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), cutaneous malignant melanoma (32.5%), and renal cell carcinoma (14.7%).

The most commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitor was nivolumab, which was administered to 47.9% of patients, followed by pembrolizumab (34.6%), atezolizumab (9.4%), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (6.8%).

Only Patients With Malignant Melanoma Benefit

Over the study period, 17.7% of patients underwent influenza vaccination, at a median time between initiation of immune checkpoint inhibition and vaccination of 2 months. Ninety per cent of patients received the vaccine within 9 months of starting treatment.

Time-dependent Cox regression analysis revealed that real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was significantly longer with vaccinated patients than unvaccinated patients at a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79), as was overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42-0.75).

There was no significant difference in rwPFS and overall survival between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients among those with NSCLC, but significant differences were seen in those with cutaneous malignant melanoma, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96) and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96), respectively.

Restricting the analysis to immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy indicated that vaccinated patients had significantly longer rwPFS and overall survival than unvaccinated patients, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.43-0.79) and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.38-0.76), respectively.

Finally, the team found that there were no significant differences in the rates of any grade IRAEs between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, at 48.4% vs 51.2% (P = .455), or in rates of multiple IRAEs, at 15.1% vs 19.2% (P = .297). The therapeutic management and outcomes of IRAEs were also comparable.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to have a survival benefit if they receive influenza vaccination, a new retrospective analysis found. The results also suggest no increase in the risk for immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) in these patients and that the improvement in survival outcomes may be stronger among those with cutaneous malignant melanoma.

“Our findings align with a growing body of evidence, mainly from retrospective studies, that suggest a potential association between influenza vaccination during immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment and improved survival among patients with cancer,” wrote senior author Antonis Valachis, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in JCO Clinical Practice on February 9. “An additional clinically relevant observation is that the association between influenza vaccination and survival may vary by tumor type.”

The new research supports “current recommendations to offer influenza vaccination to all patients undergoing cancer therapy, including those receiving the drugs,” Valachis, of the Department of Oncology, Örebro University in Örebro, Sweden, and his coauthors wrote.

“What we observed is that influenza vaccination is safe for patients under immunotherapy treatment,” Valachis told Medscape Medical News. But “whether influenza vaccination can be used to boost immunotherapy effectiveness should be tested in a study with a different design,” such as a prospective interventional trial.

Discussing potential explanations for why influenza vaccination could affect immunotherapy outcomes without affecting rates of IRAEs, Valachis said that this “cannot be answered within the constraints of our study design, since all patients were treated with immunotherapy.”

It may nevertheless be hypothesized that “immune activation triggered by vaccination preferentially stimulates immune mechanisms that enhance immunotherapy efficacy, while sparing those that contribute to IRAEs.”

Steady Was 'Relatively Modestly Sized'

Question marks were raised over the study itself and, as a result, its findings.

Justin Jee, MD, PhD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, told Medscape Medical News that there are “a lot of challenges when looking at retrospective data.”

“The authors did a very reasonable job of trying to control for confounders and certain time dependent issues, like immortality bias,” he said. “That said, it’s a relatively modestly sized retrospective study for looking at something that has enormous potential for confounding bias that really can’t be captured with any standard statistical method.”

Jee pointed to factors such as providers potentially being more likely to refer people for vaccination if they’re healthier “vs if the patient is in hospice care,” or individuals simply not getting vaccinated because it is not uppermost in their mind.

“Those things are very, very difficult to control for.”

Jee also said he believes the benefit with influenza vaccination being stronger in cutaneous malignant melanoma could be a study artifact, while the lack of difference in rates of IRAEs could be the result of selection bias, but “it’s just impossible to say with a study like this.”

“I’ve seen several studies looking at both COVID and flu vaccines and whether or not they improve immune checkpoint blockade efficacy,” he added, explaining that “some of them say COVID vaccine good, flu vaccine not as good; others say both flu and COVID vaccines good; others say flu vaccine good, COVID vaccine not as good.”

All Patients With Cancer Should Be Vaccinated

What is clear is that “patients with cancer are [at] especially high risk of developing complications from viral illnesses, including flu, including COVID, and vaccines are a very important part of reducing morbidity, mortality, and spread,” Jee said. The “big picture” is that everyone should get the influenza vaccine, especially patients with cancer, “so in that sense I agree with that part of the conclusion of the paper” and that’s “an important message.”

Mini Kamboj, MD, chief medical epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, agreed, saying that the results are “consistent with other research showing that vaccines are safe and beneficial for patients on checkpoint inhibitors.”

“While vaccinated patients with melanoma showed the greatest survival benefit, the authors note small sample size and unrecognized differences between the groups as a potential explanation for their findings. This does not change vaccine recommendations as evidence already supports flu vaccine safety and effectiveness in people with lung cancer on checkpoint inhibitors.”

Nearly 600 Patients With Advanced Cancer

The researchers performed a retrospective cohort study of patients from three regions in Sweden who had advanced solid tumors and were treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy, or PD-1 combination therapy with a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor, between January 1, 2016, until December 31, 2021. Treatment was given either routinely or as part of a clinical trial.

Electronic medical records were examined to gather data on a range of variables, including age at diagnosis, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, type of cancer, primary treatment at diagnosis, number of previous lines of treatment, best treatment response, IRAEs, influenza vaccination status, and date and cause of death.

In all, 587 patients were treated with immune checkpoint inhibition over the study period. They had a median age of 66 years, and 58.1% were men. The most common malignancies were nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), cutaneous malignant melanoma (32.5%), and renal cell carcinoma (14.7%).

The most commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitor was nivolumab, which was administered to 47.9% of patients, followed by pembrolizumab (34.6%), atezolizumab (9.4%), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (6.8%).

Only Patients With Malignant Melanoma Benefit

Over the study period, 17.7% of patients underwent influenza vaccination, at a median time between initiation of immune checkpoint inhibition and vaccination of 2 months. Ninety per cent of patients received the vaccine within 9 months of starting treatment.

Time-dependent Cox regression analysis revealed that real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was significantly longer with vaccinated patients than unvaccinated patients at a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79), as was overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42-0.75).

There was no significant difference in rwPFS and overall survival between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients among those with NSCLC, but significant differences were seen in those with cutaneous malignant melanoma, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96) and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96), respectively.

Restricting the analysis to immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy indicated that vaccinated patients had significantly longer rwPFS and overall survival than unvaccinated patients, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.43-0.79) and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.38-0.76), respectively.

Finally, the team found that there were no significant differences in the rates of any grade IRAEs between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, at 48.4% vs 51.2% (P = .455), or in rates of multiple IRAEs, at 15.1% vs 19.2% (P = .297). The therapeutic management and outcomes of IRAEs were also comparable.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

One of the most common questions my patients ask is, “What diet can help me beat this cancer?” It is a profoundly important question that is worthy of our efforts to answer. In this brief essay, I will take a deep dive into this question in depth and explore the broader clinical and scientific themes it brings into play.

Low-Hanging Fruit: Nutrition Science

A cancer diagnosis can be a deeply disempowering experience. Although I have not lived with cancer myself, I have seen this play out repeatedly over the past 5 years in my role as an oncologist treating patients with hematologic malignancies.

Our diet is an important part of our personal identity, culturally and spiritually. If lifestyle changes, such as a modified diet or more exercise, can contribute to cancer treatment, it may help us regain a sense of control over our lives, one that cancer so often cruelly strips away. I hypothesize that, among other factors, this is why diet is so important to our patients.

Another factor is exposure to a compelling diet-cancer narrative. Nearly every day, a media headline appears claiming that eating a particular food, or drinking coffee, can either increase or decrease your risk for a certain disease.

These claims, however, are often based on studies of large observational datasets where individuals fill out surveys about their dietary habits and are subsequently assessed for disease outcomes. In these studies, people aren’t asked to eat a particular diet; instead, their dietary habits are analyzed by researchers who have endless permutations to explore. This, in a nutshell, is the field of nutritional epidemiology.

In my opinion, nutritional epidemiology represents the collision of the well-intentioned effort to answer clinically meaningful questions with the ease — and near-infinite permutations — of dietary questions that can be asked from an increasingly larger number of different datasets.

Now, factor in the never-ending appetite (pun intended) of journalism and the public’s desire for dietary studies, and you create the perfect storm of incentives that drives a flood of low-quality nutritional science. These studies are highly malleable to analytical choices and can essentially produce results consistent with your prior beliefs, regardless of the philosophical inclination you have (pro keto-diet, pro-vegan, etc.). I love quoting this study to my trainees that, depending on what variables are included and how the analysis is conducted, the same dataset could be used to show that red meat either increases, decreases, or has no effect on all-cause mortality. Unfortunately, much of the evidence base for diet in cancer comes from similarly confounded, low-quality studies.

Diet and Cancer

So, what do randomized trials show for diet and cancer?

The highest-quality evidence is generated from randomized controlled trials. One of their key advantages is the ability to control both measured and unmeasured confounders.

Unfortunately, the evidence supporting diet as an anticancer modality in randomized trials in patients with cancer is bleak. We did a systematic review of all randomized trials of dietary intervention ever done in patients with cancer. Most of the trials measured outcomes such as feasibility (often small pilot studies that measure variables such as weight changes or lab values). The trials that measure clinical endpoints, such as survival, were largely negative and demonstrated no meaningful effect of diet on outcomes. Take trials exploring whether a Mediterranean diet helps prevent breast cancer recurrence, or whether a diet rich in fruits and vegetables improves prostate cancer outcomes. Although these diets may offer benefits, these studies found that specific diets did not change the natural history of cancer.

Myeloma and Diet

In my specialty, multiple myeloma, I am thankful that some trials are beginning to shed light on whether diet influences cancer outcomes.

One study, which was recently published in Cancer Discovery, explored whether a high-fiber, plant-based diet could potentially slow or delay progression from myeloma precursor conditions toward full-blown multiple myeloma. The trial enrolled 23 participants, with the primary endpoints of dietary adherence and changes to BMI. Measures of progression to multiple myeloma were exploratory at best. Yet, the media coverage, as well as the majority of the discussion and results sections of this study manuscript, claimed that the diet changes can prevent progression to myeloma.

However, the study design and conclusions were flawed. The paper focused on two patients who had some improvement in disease trajectory, while descriptions of patients who had an increase in their bone marrow plasma cell percentage were relegated to the supplemental section.

As a primary investigator of a trial in smoldering myeloma where we use advanced imaging as an alternative to pharmacologic treatment, I frequently see myeloma markers fluctuate and often decrease. I attribute these changes to random variation, or possibly regression to the mean, rather than the effect of any intervention.

Future randomized studies by this group used primary endpoints of stool butyrate level and implement dietary interventions for a limited period— 2 weeks in one study and 12 weeks in another — to again assess the impact of a high-fiber, plant-based diet on progression to myeloma. Although there are no data yet, the limited timeframes in these studies severely limits generalizability for outcomes that would truly matter, such as cancer control and longevity. There is also no evidence that changes in stool butyrate levels influence patient outcomes.

High-quality science — whether it is evaluating diet or other interventions—requires high-quality data, effort, funding, and time. It is not impossible.

We can draw inspiration from the CHALLENGE trial. This large, randomized trial, which took over a decade to complete, assessed the benefit of a structured exercise program in the adjuvant setting for colon cancer. The endpoint of this study was disease-free survival, and the intervention was deployed over a much longer period: 3 years, as opposed to a 2-week intervention. This trial took years from inception to completion, but it yielded a conclusive result and will probably lead to more dedicated efforts to facilitate exercise programs for patients with cancer.

Our patients deserve the same effort as the CHALLENGE trial to answer their important dietary questions. Until such trials are completed, we must acknowledge, with humility, that despite the common sense and feel-good factor that many diets offer us, their impact on cancer remains uncertain.

Conversely, we must recognize that even if diet does not cure or alter the course of a certain cancer, it can still impact quality of life, treatment tolerance, and other supportive care outcomes, making it an important factor in patient care.

This is what I tell my patients that it is unlikely any one diet will change the trajectory of your cancer. Focus on eating healthy, and remember that most things in moderation are fine. Your diet remains an important risk factor and determinant for health outcomes beyond cancer. Eat what makes you happy. You are going through a tough time, and this is not the moment to impose stringent restrictions on yourself.

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

One of the most common questions my patients ask is, “What diet can help me beat this cancer?” It is a profoundly important question that is worthy of our efforts to answer. In this brief essay, I will take a deep dive into this question in depth and explore the broader clinical and scientific themes it brings into play.

Low-Hanging Fruit: Nutrition Science

A cancer diagnosis can be a deeply disempowering experience. Although I have not lived with cancer myself, I have seen this play out repeatedly over the past 5 years in my role as an oncologist treating patients with hematologic malignancies.

Our diet is an important part of our personal identity, culturally and spiritually. If lifestyle changes, such as a modified diet or more exercise, can contribute to cancer treatment, it may help us regain a sense of control over our lives, one that cancer so often cruelly strips away. I hypothesize that, among other factors, this is why diet is so important to our patients.

Another factor is exposure to a compelling diet-cancer narrative. Nearly every day, a media headline appears claiming that eating a particular food, or drinking coffee, can either increase or decrease your risk for a certain disease.

These claims, however, are often based on studies of large observational datasets where individuals fill out surveys about their dietary habits and are subsequently assessed for disease outcomes. In these studies, people aren’t asked to eat a particular diet; instead, their dietary habits are analyzed by researchers who have endless permutations to explore. This, in a nutshell, is the field of nutritional epidemiology.

In my opinion, nutritional epidemiology represents the collision of the well-intentioned effort to answer clinically meaningful questions with the ease — and near-infinite permutations — of dietary questions that can be asked from an increasingly larger number of different datasets.

Now, factor in the never-ending appetite (pun intended) of journalism and the public’s desire for dietary studies, and you create the perfect storm of incentives that drives a flood of low-quality nutritional science. These studies are highly malleable to analytical choices and can essentially produce results consistent with your prior beliefs, regardless of the philosophical inclination you have (pro keto-diet, pro-vegan, etc.). I love quoting this study to my trainees that, depending on what variables are included and how the analysis is conducted, the same dataset could be used to show that red meat either increases, decreases, or has no effect on all-cause mortality. Unfortunately, much of the evidence base for diet in cancer comes from similarly confounded, low-quality studies.

Diet and Cancer

So, what do randomized trials show for diet and cancer?

The highest-quality evidence is generated from randomized controlled trials. One of their key advantages is the ability to control both measured and unmeasured confounders.

Unfortunately, the evidence supporting diet as an anticancer modality in randomized trials in patients with cancer is bleak. We did a systematic review of all randomized trials of dietary intervention ever done in patients with cancer. Most of the trials measured outcomes such as feasibility (often small pilot studies that measure variables such as weight changes or lab values). The trials that measure clinical endpoints, such as survival, were largely negative and demonstrated no meaningful effect of diet on outcomes. Take trials exploring whether a Mediterranean diet helps prevent breast cancer recurrence, or whether a diet rich in fruits and vegetables improves prostate cancer outcomes. Although these diets may offer benefits, these studies found that specific diets did not change the natural history of cancer.

Myeloma and Diet

In my specialty, multiple myeloma, I am thankful that some trials are beginning to shed light on whether diet influences cancer outcomes.

One study, which was recently published in Cancer Discovery, explored whether a high-fiber, plant-based diet could potentially slow or delay progression from myeloma precursor conditions toward full-blown multiple myeloma. The trial enrolled 23 participants, with the primary endpoints of dietary adherence and changes to BMI. Measures of progression to multiple myeloma were exploratory at best. Yet, the media coverage, as well as the majority of the discussion and results sections of this study manuscript, claimed that the diet changes can prevent progression to myeloma.

However, the study design and conclusions were flawed. The paper focused on two patients who had some improvement in disease trajectory, while descriptions of patients who had an increase in their bone marrow plasma cell percentage were relegated to the supplemental section.

As a primary investigator of a trial in smoldering myeloma where we use advanced imaging as an alternative to pharmacologic treatment, I frequently see myeloma markers fluctuate and often decrease. I attribute these changes to random variation, or possibly regression to the mean, rather than the effect of any intervention.

Future randomized studies by this group used primary endpoints of stool butyrate level and implement dietary interventions for a limited period— 2 weeks in one study and 12 weeks in another — to again assess the impact of a high-fiber, plant-based diet on progression to myeloma. Although there are no data yet, the limited timeframes in these studies severely limits generalizability for outcomes that would truly matter, such as cancer control and longevity. There is also no evidence that changes in stool butyrate levels influence patient outcomes.

High-quality science — whether it is evaluating diet or other interventions—requires high-quality data, effort, funding, and time. It is not impossible.

We can draw inspiration from the CHALLENGE trial. This large, randomized trial, which took over a decade to complete, assessed the benefit of a structured exercise program in the adjuvant setting for colon cancer. The endpoint of this study was disease-free survival, and the intervention was deployed over a much longer period: 3 years, as opposed to a 2-week intervention. This trial took years from inception to completion, but it yielded a conclusive result and will probably lead to more dedicated efforts to facilitate exercise programs for patients with cancer.

Our patients deserve the same effort as the CHALLENGE trial to answer their important dietary questions. Until such trials are completed, we must acknowledge, with humility, that despite the common sense and feel-good factor that many diets offer us, their impact on cancer remains uncertain.

Conversely, we must recognize that even if diet does not cure or alter the course of a certain cancer, it can still impact quality of life, treatment tolerance, and other supportive care outcomes, making it an important factor in patient care.

This is what I tell my patients that it is unlikely any one diet will change the trajectory of your cancer. Focus on eating healthy, and remember that most things in moderation are fine. Your diet remains an important risk factor and determinant for health outcomes beyond cancer. Eat what makes you happy. You are going through a tough time, and this is not the moment to impose stringent restrictions on yourself.

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

One of the most common questions my patients ask is, “What diet can help me beat this cancer?” It is a profoundly important question that is worthy of our efforts to answer. In this brief essay, I will take a deep dive into this question in depth and explore the broader clinical and scientific themes it brings into play.

Low-Hanging Fruit: Nutrition Science

A cancer diagnosis can be a deeply disempowering experience. Although I have not lived with cancer myself, I have seen this play out repeatedly over the past 5 years in my role as an oncologist treating patients with hematologic malignancies.

Our diet is an important part of our personal identity, culturally and spiritually. If lifestyle changes, such as a modified diet or more exercise, can contribute to cancer treatment, it may help us regain a sense of control over our lives, one that cancer so often cruelly strips away. I hypothesize that, among other factors, this is why diet is so important to our patients.

Another factor is exposure to a compelling diet-cancer narrative. Nearly every day, a media headline appears claiming that eating a particular food, or drinking coffee, can either increase or decrease your risk for a certain disease.

These claims, however, are often based on studies of large observational datasets where individuals fill out surveys about their dietary habits and are subsequently assessed for disease outcomes. In these studies, people aren’t asked to eat a particular diet; instead, their dietary habits are analyzed by researchers who have endless permutations to explore. This, in a nutshell, is the field of nutritional epidemiology.

In my opinion, nutritional epidemiology represents the collision of the well-intentioned effort to answer clinically meaningful questions with the ease — and near-infinite permutations — of dietary questions that can be asked from an increasingly larger number of different datasets.

Now, factor in the never-ending appetite (pun intended) of journalism and the public’s desire for dietary studies, and you create the perfect storm of incentives that drives a flood of low-quality nutritional science. These studies are highly malleable to analytical choices and can essentially produce results consistent with your prior beliefs, regardless of the philosophical inclination you have (pro keto-diet, pro-vegan, etc.). I love quoting this study to my trainees that, depending on what variables are included and how the analysis is conducted, the same dataset could be used to show that red meat either increases, decreases, or has no effect on all-cause mortality. Unfortunately, much of the evidence base for diet in cancer comes from similarly confounded, low-quality studies.

Diet and Cancer

So, what do randomized trials show for diet and cancer?

The highest-quality evidence is generated from randomized controlled trials. One of their key advantages is the ability to control both measured and unmeasured confounders.

Unfortunately, the evidence supporting diet as an anticancer modality in randomized trials in patients with cancer is bleak. We did a systematic review of all randomized trials of dietary intervention ever done in patients with cancer. Most of the trials measured outcomes such as feasibility (often small pilot studies that measure variables such as weight changes or lab values). The trials that measure clinical endpoints, such as survival, were largely negative and demonstrated no meaningful effect of diet on outcomes. Take trials exploring whether a Mediterranean diet helps prevent breast cancer recurrence, or whether a diet rich in fruits and vegetables improves prostate cancer outcomes. Although these diets may offer benefits, these studies found that specific diets did not change the natural history of cancer.

Myeloma and Diet

In my specialty, multiple myeloma, I am thankful that some trials are beginning to shed light on whether diet influences cancer outcomes.

One study, which was recently published in Cancer Discovery, explored whether a high-fiber, plant-based diet could potentially slow or delay progression from myeloma precursor conditions toward full-blown multiple myeloma. The trial enrolled 23 participants, with the primary endpoints of dietary adherence and changes to BMI. Measures of progression to multiple myeloma were exploratory at best. Yet, the media coverage, as well as the majority of the discussion and results sections of this study manuscript, claimed that the diet changes can prevent progression to myeloma.

However, the study design and conclusions were flawed. The paper focused on two patients who had some improvement in disease trajectory, while descriptions of patients who had an increase in their bone marrow plasma cell percentage were relegated to the supplemental section.

As a primary investigator of a trial in smoldering myeloma where we use advanced imaging as an alternative to pharmacologic treatment, I frequently see myeloma markers fluctuate and often decrease. I attribute these changes to random variation, or possibly regression to the mean, rather than the effect of any intervention.

Future randomized studies by this group used primary endpoints of stool butyrate level and implement dietary interventions for a limited period— 2 weeks in one study and 12 weeks in another — to again assess the impact of a high-fiber, plant-based diet on progression to myeloma. Although there are no data yet, the limited timeframes in these studies severely limits generalizability for outcomes that would truly matter, such as cancer control and longevity. There is also no evidence that changes in stool butyrate levels influence patient outcomes.

High-quality science — whether it is evaluating diet or other interventions—requires high-quality data, effort, funding, and time. It is not impossible.

We can draw inspiration from the CHALLENGE trial. This large, randomized trial, which took over a decade to complete, assessed the benefit of a structured exercise program in the adjuvant setting for colon cancer. The endpoint of this study was disease-free survival, and the intervention was deployed over a much longer period: 3 years, as opposed to a 2-week intervention. This trial took years from inception to completion, but it yielded a conclusive result and will probably lead to more dedicated efforts to facilitate exercise programs for patients with cancer.

Our patients deserve the same effort as the CHALLENGE trial to answer their important dietary questions. Until such trials are completed, we must acknowledge, with humility, that despite the common sense and feel-good factor that many diets offer us, their impact on cancer remains uncertain.

Conversely, we must recognize that even if diet does not cure or alter the course of a certain cancer, it can still impact quality of life, treatment tolerance, and other supportive care outcomes, making it an important factor in patient care.

This is what I tell my patients that it is unlikely any one diet will change the trajectory of your cancer. Focus on eating healthy, and remember that most things in moderation are fine. Your diet remains an important risk factor and determinant for health outcomes beyond cancer. Eat what makes you happy. You are going through a tough time, and this is not the moment to impose stringent restrictions on yourself.

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

The FDA has granted traditional approval to encorafenib (Braftovi, Pfizer) in combination with cetuximab (Erbitux, Eli Lilly) and fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for treatment of adults with metastatic colorectal cancer with a BRAF V600E mutation, as detected by an FDA-authorized test.

Encorafenib received accelerated approval for use with cetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 in this patient population in 2024, based on results from the BREAKWATER trial showing improved objective response rates. The conversion to full approval is supported by progression-free and overall survival outcomes.

As reported previously by Medscape Medical News, the combination of encorafenib/cetuximab/mFOLFOX6 doubled median overall survival compared with standard chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. At a median follow-up of 22 months, overall survival was 30 months with the encorafenib regimen vs 15 months with standard chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; P < .0001).

At median follow up of 16.8 months, median progression-free survival was 12.8 in the encorafenib group vs 7.1 months in the standard chemotherapy group (HR, 0.53; P < .0001).

The survival results are “unprecedented” and “practice changing” for these patients, who historically have a poor prognosis, lead investigator Elena Élez, MD, PhD, of Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona, Spain, said in presenting the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.

The results were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Speaking at the ASCO meeting, study discussant Andrea Sartore-Bianchi, MD, of the University of Milan, Italy, called the results “striking” and said the encorafenib combination should be considered the first-line standard of care.

As for safety, the rate of treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events in the trial was 76% with encorafenib vs 59% with standard chemotherapy. Patients receiving encorafenib also had higher rates of anemia, arthralgia, rash, and pyrexia, but there was no substantial increase in treatment discontinuation.

The recommended encorafenib dose is 300 mg (four 75 mg capsules) once daily, in combination with cetuximab and mFOLFOX6 or in combination with cetuximab and FOLFIRI until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, the FDA said in its approval announcement.

Prescribing information includes warnings and precautions for new primary malignancies (cutaneous and noncutaneous), tumor promotion in BRAF-wild-type tumors, cardiomyopathy, hepatotoxicity, hemorrhage, uveitis, QT prolongation, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

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

The FDA has granted traditional approval to encorafenib (Braftovi, Pfizer) in combination with cetuximab (Erbitux, Eli Lilly) and fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for treatment of adults with metastatic colorectal cancer with a BRAF V600E mutation, as detected by an FDA-authorized test.

Encorafenib received accelerated approval for use with cetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 in this patient population in 2024, based on results from the BREAKWATER trial showing improved objective response rates. The conversion to full approval is supported by progression-free and overall survival outcomes.

As reported previously by Medscape Medical News, the combination of encorafenib/cetuximab/mFOLFOX6 doubled median overall survival compared with standard chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. At a median follow-up of 22 months, overall survival was 30 months with the encorafenib regimen vs 15 months with standard chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; P < .0001).

At median follow up of 16.8 months, median progression-free survival was 12.8 in the encorafenib group vs 7.1 months in the standard chemotherapy group (HR, 0.53; P < .0001).

The survival results are “unprecedented” and “practice changing” for these patients, who historically have a poor prognosis, lead investigator Elena Élez, MD, PhD, of Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona, Spain, said in presenting the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.

The results were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Speaking at the ASCO meeting, study discussant Andrea Sartore-Bianchi, MD, of the University of Milan, Italy, called the results “striking” and said the encorafenib combination should be considered the first-line standard of care.

As for safety, the rate of treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events in the trial was 76% with encorafenib vs 59% with standard chemotherapy. Patients receiving encorafenib also had higher rates of anemia, arthralgia, rash, and pyrexia, but there was no substantial increase in treatment discontinuation.

The recommended encorafenib dose is 300 mg (four 75 mg capsules) once daily, in combination with cetuximab and mFOLFOX6 or in combination with cetuximab and FOLFIRI until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, the FDA said in its approval announcement.

Prescribing information includes warnings and precautions for new primary malignancies (cutaneous and noncutaneous), tumor promotion in BRAF-wild-type tumors, cardiomyopathy, hepatotoxicity, hemorrhage, uveitis, QT prolongation, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

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

The FDA has granted traditional approval to encorafenib (Braftovi, Pfizer) in combination with cetuximab (Erbitux, Eli Lilly) and fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for treatment of adults with metastatic colorectal cancer with a BRAF V600E mutation, as detected by an FDA-authorized test.

Encorafenib received accelerated approval for use with cetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 in this patient population in 2024, based on results from the BREAKWATER trial showing improved objective response rates. The conversion to full approval is supported by progression-free and overall survival outcomes.

As reported previously by Medscape Medical News, the combination of encorafenib/cetuximab/mFOLFOX6 doubled median overall survival compared with standard chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. At a median follow-up of 22 months, overall survival was 30 months with the encorafenib regimen vs 15 months with standard chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; P < .0001).

At median follow up of 16.8 months, median progression-free survival was 12.8 in the encorafenib group vs 7.1 months in the standard chemotherapy group (HR, 0.53; P < .0001).

The survival results are “unprecedented” and “practice changing” for these patients, who historically have a poor prognosis, lead investigator Elena Élez, MD, PhD, of Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona, Spain, said in presenting the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.

The results were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Speaking at the ASCO meeting, study discussant Andrea Sartore-Bianchi, MD, of the University of Milan, Italy, called the results “striking” and said the encorafenib combination should be considered the first-line standard of care.

As for safety, the rate of treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events in the trial was 76% with encorafenib vs 59% with standard chemotherapy. Patients receiving encorafenib also had higher rates of anemia, arthralgia, rash, and pyrexia, but there was no substantial increase in treatment discontinuation.

The recommended encorafenib dose is 300 mg (four 75 mg capsules) once daily, in combination with cetuximab and mFOLFOX6 or in combination with cetuximab and FOLFIRI until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, the FDA said in its approval announcement.

Prescribing information includes warnings and precautions for new primary malignancies (cutaneous and noncutaneous), tumor promotion in BRAF-wild-type tumors, cardiomyopathy, hepatotoxicity, hemorrhage, uveitis, QT prolongation, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

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

TOPLINE: Among Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients experiencing homelessness, gaining housing is linked to higher 24-month colorectal (CRC) and breast cancer screening completion. In cohorts of 117,619 veterans eligible for colorectal screening and 6517 veterans eligible for breast cancer screening veterans, screening occurs in 36.1% and 47.9% after housing gain vs 18.8% and 23.7% if homelessness persists.

METHODOLOGY

• A retrospective cohort study examined all veterans experiencing homelessness who received care at the VHA from 2011 to 2021 and were eligible for but not up to date on CRC and breast cancer screening.

• 117,619 veterans experiencing homelessness were eligible for but not up to date on CRC screening (aged 50-75 years without prior cancer diagnosis, inflammatory bowel disease, or colectomy) and 6517 veterans experiencing homelessness were eligible for but not up to date on breast cancer screening (women aged 50-75 years without prior cancer diagnosis, lumpectomy, or mastectomy) were included at their index clinic visit.

• Exposure was defined as gaining housing within 24 months following index clinic visit, identified through the Homeless Screening Clinical Reminder, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Homeless Operations, Management, and Evaluation System assessments, or US Department of Housing and Urban Development—VA Supportive Housing program move-in dates.

• Primary outcome were undergoing screening for CRC (colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography colonography, barium enema, or stool-based study) or breast cancer (mammogram) that was at a VHA facility or paid by VA within 24 months following index clinic visit.

TAKEAWAY

• Among veterans who gained housing, 36.1% underwent CRC screening and 47.9% underwent breast cancer screening during the 24-month observation period, compared with 18.8% and 23.7% of veterans, respectively, among those who remained homeless.

• Veterans who gained housing had 2.3 times the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of undergoing CRC screening compared with those who remained homeless (AHR, 2.3; 95% CI, 2.2-2.3; P < .001).

• Veterans who gained housing had 2.4 times the adjusted hazard of undergoing breast cancer screening compared with those who remained homeless (AHR, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.2-2.7; P < .001).

• Median (interquartile range [IQR]) time from index visit to cancer screening was 8 months (4-15) for CRC screening and 8 months (3-14) for breast cancer screening; median (IQR) time from gaining housing to screening was 4 months (1-9) and 3 months (1-8), respectively.

IN PRACTICE: Veterans experiencing homelessness who gain housing have higher rates of cancer screening. “This finding supports promotion of housing to improve health outcomes for homeless individuals," wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE: The study was led by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco. It was published online in Annals of Family Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: Residual unmeasured confounding was likely due to the observational design of this study, because veterans able to navigate services to obtain housing may also be more likely to complete preventive care. Housing transitions may be misclassified because the Homeless Screening Clinical Reminder was not designed to track changes and may not be administered to veterans already identified as experiencing homelessness. The study did not capture data for screening completed outside VHA or that was not paid for by it. The study cohort only includes veterans with VHA contact, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES: Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative provided grant support for the work; Project Grant K24AG046372 was also awarded to Kushel for the study. Decker is a National Clinician Scholar with salary support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and reported receiving personal fees from Moon Surgical. Kanzaria and Kushel are faculty members of the Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative; Kanzaria also reported advisory work for Amae Health. Kushel is listed as serving on boards including Housing California, National Homelessness Law Center, and Steinberg Institute; other authors reported no conflicts.

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

TOPLINE: Among Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients experiencing homelessness, gaining housing is linked to higher 24-month colorectal (CRC) and breast cancer screening completion. In cohorts of 117,619 veterans eligible for colorectal screening and 6517 veterans eligible for breast cancer screening veterans, screening occurs in 36.1% and 47.9% after housing gain vs 18.8% and 23.7% if homelessness persists.

METHODOLOGY

• A retrospective cohort study examined all veterans experiencing homelessness who received care at the VHA from 2011 to 2021 and were eligible for but not up to date on CRC and breast cancer screening.

• 117,619 veterans experiencing homelessness were eligible for but not up to date on CRC screening (aged 50-75 years without prior cancer diagnosis, inflammatory bowel disease, or colectomy) and 6517 veterans experiencing homelessness were eligible for but not up to date on breast cancer screening (women aged 50-75 years without prior cancer diagnosis, lumpectomy, or mastectomy) were included at their index clinic visit.

• Exposure was defined as gaining housing within 24 months following index clinic visit, identified through the Homeless Screening Clinical Reminder, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Homeless Operations, Management, and Evaluation System assessments, or US Department of Housing and Urban Development—VA Supportive Housing program move-in dates.

• Primary outcome were undergoing screening for CRC (colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography colonography, barium enema, or stool-based study) or breast cancer (mammogram) that was at a VHA facility or paid by VA within 24 months following index clinic visit.

TAKEAWAY

• Among veterans who gained housing, 36.1% underwent CRC screening and 47.9% underwent breast cancer screening during the 24-month observation period, compared with 18.8% and 23.7% of veterans, respectively, among those who remained homeless.

• Veterans who gained housing had 2.3 times the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of undergoing CRC screening compared with those who remained homeless (AHR, 2.3; 95% CI, 2.2-2.3; P < .001).

• Veterans who gained housing had 2.4 times the adjusted hazard of undergoing breast cancer screening compared with those who remained homeless (AHR, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.2-2.7; P < .001).

• Median (interquartile range [IQR]) time from index visit to cancer screening was 8 months (4-15) for CRC screening and 8 months (3-14) for breast cancer screening; median (IQR) time from gaining housing to screening was 4 months (1-9) and 3 months (1-8), respectively.

IN PRACTICE: Veterans experiencing homelessness who gain housing have higher rates of cancer screening. “This finding supports promotion of housing to improve health outcomes for homeless individuals," wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE: The study was led by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco. It was published online in Annals of Family Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: Residual unmeasured confounding was likely due to the observational design of this study, because veterans able to navigate services to obtain housing may also be more likely to complete preventive care. Housing transitions may be misclassified because the Homeless Screening Clinical Reminder was not designed to track changes and may not be administered to veterans already identified as experiencing homelessness. The study did not capture data for screening completed outside VHA or that was not paid for by it. The study cohort only includes veterans with VHA contact, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES: Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative provided grant support for the work; Project Grant K24AG046372 was also awarded to Kushel for the study. Decker is a National Clinician Scholar with salary support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and reported receiving personal fees from Moon Surgical. Kanzaria and Kushel are faculty members of the Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative; Kanzaria also reported advisory work for Amae Health. Kushel is listed as serving on boards including Housing California, National Homelessness Law Center, and Steinberg Institute; other authors reported no conflicts.

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

TOPLINE: Among Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients experiencing homelessness, gaining housing is linked to higher 24-month colorectal (CRC) and breast cancer screening completion. In cohorts of 117,619 veterans eligible for colorectal screening and 6517 veterans eligible for breast cancer screening veterans, screening occurs in 36.1% and 47.9% after housing gain vs 18.8% and 23.7% if homelessness persists.

METHODOLOGY

• A retrospective cohort study examined all veterans experiencing homelessness who received care at the VHA from 2011 to 2021 and were eligible for but not up to date on CRC and breast cancer screening.

• 117,619 veterans experiencing homelessness were eligible for but not up to date on CRC screening (aged 50-75 years without prior cancer diagnosis, inflammatory bowel disease, or colectomy) and 6517 veterans experiencing homelessness were eligible for but not up to date on breast cancer screening (women aged 50-75 years without prior cancer diagnosis, lumpectomy, or mastectomy) were included at their index clinic visit.

• Exposure was defined as gaining housing within 24 months following index clinic visit, identified through the Homeless Screening Clinical Reminder, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Homeless Operations, Management, and Evaluation System assessments, or US Department of Housing and Urban Development—VA Supportive Housing program move-in dates.

• Primary outcome were undergoing screening for CRC (colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography colonography, barium enema, or stool-based study) or breast cancer (mammogram) that was at a VHA facility or paid by VA within 24 months following index clinic visit.

TAKEAWAY

• Among veterans who gained housing, 36.1% underwent CRC screening and 47.9% underwent breast cancer screening during the 24-month observation period, compared with 18.8% and 23.7% of veterans, respectively, among those who remained homeless.

• Veterans who gained housing had 2.3 times the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of undergoing CRC screening compared with those who remained homeless (AHR, 2.3; 95% CI, 2.2-2.3; P < .001).

• Veterans who gained housing had 2.4 times the adjusted hazard of undergoing breast cancer screening compared with those who remained homeless (AHR, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.2-2.7; P < .001).

• Median (interquartile range [IQR]) time from index visit to cancer screening was 8 months (4-15) for CRC screening and 8 months (3-14) for breast cancer screening; median (IQR) time from gaining housing to screening was 4 months (1-9) and 3 months (1-8), respectively.

IN PRACTICE: Veterans experiencing homelessness who gain housing have higher rates of cancer screening. “This finding supports promotion of housing to improve health outcomes for homeless individuals," wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE: The study was led by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco. It was published online in Annals of Family Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: Residual unmeasured confounding was likely due to the observational design of this study, because veterans able to navigate services to obtain housing may also be more likely to complete preventive care. Housing transitions may be misclassified because the Homeless Screening Clinical Reminder was not designed to track changes and may not be administered to veterans already identified as experiencing homelessness. The study did not capture data for screening completed outside VHA or that was not paid for by it. The study cohort only includes veterans with VHA contact, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES: Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative provided grant support for the work; Project Grant K24AG046372 was also awarded to Kushel for the study. Decker is a National Clinician Scholar with salary support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and reported receiving personal fees from Moon Surgical. Kanzaria and Kushel are faculty members of the Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative; Kanzaria also reported advisory work for Amae Health. Kushel is listed as serving on boards including Housing California, National Homelessness Law Center, and Steinberg Institute; other authors reported no conflicts.

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

TOPLINE:

In patients with 5-20 brain metastases, stereotactic radiation improved symptoms and reduced interference with daily functioning compared to hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation. The weighted composite MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor score changed from 2.69 to 2.37 with stereotactic radiation compared with 2.29 to 3.03 with hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Randomized trials have shown stereotactic radiation preserves neurocognitive function and patient-reported outcomes compared with whole brain radiation in patients with four or less brain metastases. For patients with more than four brain metastases, published randomized comparisons of stereotactic radiation vs whole brain radiation were lacking prior to this study.
• Researchers conducted a phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical trial at four US-based centers, enrolling 196 patients between April 2017 and May 2024, with final follow-up in March 2025.
• Participants included patients with 5-20 brain metastases and no prior brain-directed radiation, with a median of 14 brain metastases per patient and 25% having undergone prior neurosurgical resection.
• The primary outcome was the mean weighted patient-reported symptom severity and interference score change over 6 months. The researchers used the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor instrument, with scores ranging from 0-10 and change range of -10 to 10, to measure outcomes.
• Stereotactic radiation was delivered in either 1 day (20 Gy) or five daily fractions (30 Gy, or 25 Gy for surgically removed tumors), while hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation was administered as 30 Gy in 10 daily fractions with memantine.

TAKEAWAY:

• Primary outcome analysis showed that stereotactic radiation was linked to a change in the weighted composite MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor score of 2.69 to 2.37 (mean change, -0.32) compared with 2.29 to 3.03 (mean change, 0.74) with hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation (mean difference, -1.06; 95% CI, -1.54 to -0.58; P < .001).
• Functional independence via the Barthel Index was better in the stereotactic radiation group at 4 months (mean difference, 6.79; 95% CI, 1.19-12.38; P = .02) and 12 months (mean difference, 7.92; 95% CI, 1.34-14.49; P = .02).
• New brain metastases were more frequent with stereotactic radiation (1-year cumulative incidence, 45.4% vs 24.2%; P = .003), while local recurrence was lower (3.2% vs 39.5%; P < .001).
• Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 12% of stereotactic radiation patients vs 13% in the hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation group, with fatigue being most common (28% vs 44%).

IN PRACTICE:

“While [the trial] clearly demonstrates that patients with 5-20 brain metastases have improved symptom burden and lowered interference with daily functioning, there are questions that remain for stereotactic radiosurgery in this population. Patients receiving stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases have a higher need for future salvage procedures, and this rate of salvage procedures is higher for patients with an increased number of brain metastases at diagnosis… Moreover, it has been shown that the upfront decision between stereotactic radiosurgery and whole brain radiotherapy is the single decision that contributes most to the cost of care of a patient with brain metastases,” said Michael Chan, MD, in an accompanying editorial published in JAMA.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ayal A. Aizer, MD, MHS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. It was published online on February 19 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, the study was not blinded, and the primary outcome was subjective. High mortality limited long-term data collection, reducing precision and biasing outcomes toward survivors. Additionally, randomization was not stratified by treating center, allowing possible unmeasured imbalances. The minimal clinically important difference had not been defined for many study outcome measures.

DISCLOSURES:

The trial was supported by Varian, a Siemens Healthineers Company. Aizer disclosed receiving grants from NH TherAguix Research outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

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

TOPLINE:

In patients with 5-20 brain metastases, stereotactic radiation improved symptoms and reduced interference with daily functioning compared to hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation. The weighted composite MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor score changed from 2.69 to 2.37 with stereotactic radiation compared with 2.29 to 3.03 with hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Randomized trials have shown stereotactic radiation preserves neurocognitive function and patient-reported outcomes compared with whole brain radiation in patients with four or less brain metastases. For patients with more than four brain metastases, published randomized comparisons of stereotactic radiation vs whole brain radiation were lacking prior to this study.
• Researchers conducted a phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical trial at four US-based centers, enrolling 196 patients between April 2017 and May 2024, with final follow-up in March 2025.
• Participants included patients with 5-20 brain metastases and no prior brain-directed radiation, with a median of 14 brain metastases per patient and 25% having undergone prior neurosurgical resection.
• The primary outcome was the mean weighted patient-reported symptom severity and interference score change over 6 months. The researchers used the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor instrument, with scores ranging from 0-10 and change range of -10 to 10, to measure outcomes.
• Stereotactic radiation was delivered in either 1 day (20 Gy) or five daily fractions (30 Gy, or 25 Gy for surgically removed tumors), while hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation was administered as 30 Gy in 10 daily fractions with memantine.

TAKEAWAY:

• Primary outcome analysis showed that stereotactic radiation was linked to a change in the weighted composite MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor score of 2.69 to 2.37 (mean change, -0.32) compared with 2.29 to 3.03 (mean change, 0.74) with hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation (mean difference, -1.06; 95% CI, -1.54 to -0.58; P < .001).
• Functional independence via the Barthel Index was better in the stereotactic radiation group at 4 months (mean difference, 6.79; 95% CI, 1.19-12.38; P = .02) and 12 months (mean difference, 7.92; 95% CI, 1.34-14.49; P = .02).
• New brain metastases were more frequent with stereotactic radiation (1-year cumulative incidence, 45.4% vs 24.2%; P = .003), while local recurrence was lower (3.2% vs 39.5%; P < .001).
• Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 12% of stereotactic radiation patients vs 13% in the hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation group, with fatigue being most common (28% vs 44%).

IN PRACTICE:

“While [the trial] clearly demonstrates that patients with 5-20 brain metastases have improved symptom burden and lowered interference with daily functioning, there are questions that remain for stereotactic radiosurgery in this population. Patients receiving stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases have a higher need for future salvage procedures, and this rate of salvage procedures is higher for patients with an increased number of brain metastases at diagnosis… Moreover, it has been shown that the upfront decision between stereotactic radiosurgery and whole brain radiotherapy is the single decision that contributes most to the cost of care of a patient with brain metastases,” said Michael Chan, MD, in an accompanying editorial published in JAMA.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ayal A. Aizer, MD, MHS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. It was published online on February 19 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, the study was not blinded, and the primary outcome was subjective. High mortality limited long-term data collection, reducing precision and biasing outcomes toward survivors. Additionally, randomization was not stratified by treating center, allowing possible unmeasured imbalances. The minimal clinically important difference had not been defined for many study outcome measures.

DISCLOSURES:

The trial was supported by Varian, a Siemens Healthineers Company. Aizer disclosed receiving grants from NH TherAguix Research outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

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

TOPLINE:

In patients with 5-20 brain metastases, stereotactic radiation improved symptoms and reduced interference with daily functioning compared to hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation. The weighted composite MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor score changed from 2.69 to 2.37 with stereotactic radiation compared with 2.29 to 3.03 with hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Randomized trials have shown stereotactic radiation preserves neurocognitive function and patient-reported outcomes compared with whole brain radiation in patients with four or less brain metastases. For patients with more than four brain metastases, published randomized comparisons of stereotactic radiation vs whole brain radiation were lacking prior to this study.
• Researchers conducted a phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical trial at four US-based centers, enrolling 196 patients between April 2017 and May 2024, with final follow-up in March 2025.
• Participants included patients with 5-20 brain metastases and no prior brain-directed radiation, with a median of 14 brain metastases per patient and 25% having undergone prior neurosurgical resection.
• The primary outcome was the mean weighted patient-reported symptom severity and interference score change over 6 months. The researchers used the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor instrument, with scores ranging from 0-10 and change range of -10 to 10, to measure outcomes.
• Stereotactic radiation was delivered in either 1 day (20 Gy) or five daily fractions (30 Gy, or 25 Gy for surgically removed tumors), while hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation was administered as 30 Gy in 10 daily fractions with memantine.

TAKEAWAY:

• Primary outcome analysis showed that stereotactic radiation was linked to a change in the weighted composite MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor score of 2.69 to 2.37 (mean change, -0.32) compared with 2.29 to 3.03 (mean change, 0.74) with hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation (mean difference, -1.06; 95% CI, -1.54 to -0.58; P < .001).
• Functional independence via the Barthel Index was better in the stereotactic radiation group at 4 months (mean difference, 6.79; 95% CI, 1.19-12.38; P = .02) and 12 months (mean difference, 7.92; 95% CI, 1.34-14.49; P = .02).
• New brain metastases were more frequent with stereotactic radiation (1-year cumulative incidence, 45.4% vs 24.2%; P = .003), while local recurrence was lower (3.2% vs 39.5%; P < .001).
• Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 12% of stereotactic radiation patients vs 13% in the hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation group, with fatigue being most common (28% vs 44%).

IN PRACTICE:

“While [the trial] clearly demonstrates that patients with 5-20 brain metastases have improved symptom burden and lowered interference with daily functioning, there are questions that remain for stereotactic radiosurgery in this population. Patients receiving stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases have a higher need for future salvage procedures, and this rate of salvage procedures is higher for patients with an increased number of brain metastases at diagnosis… Moreover, it has been shown that the upfront decision between stereotactic radiosurgery and whole brain radiotherapy is the single decision that contributes most to the cost of care of a patient with brain metastases,” said Michael Chan, MD, in an accompanying editorial published in JAMA.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ayal A. Aizer, MD, MHS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. It was published online on February 19 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, the study was not blinded, and the primary outcome was subjective. High mortality limited long-term data collection, reducing precision and biasing outcomes toward survivors. Additionally, randomization was not stratified by treating center, allowing possible unmeasured imbalances. The minimal clinically important difference had not been defined for many study outcome measures.

DISCLOSURES:

The trial was supported by Varian, a Siemens Healthineers Company. Aizer disclosed receiving grants from NH TherAguix Research outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

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

Transcript generated from video captions.

Hello. I'm Dr Maurie Markman, from City of Hope. I'd like to discuss over the next few minutes an absolutely provocative — and I don't use that term loosely — report that I would humbly suggest may, or perhaps even should, change standard of practice in the care of patients with breast cancer. The paper was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, entitled, “Aprepitant Use During Chemotherapy and Association With Survival in Women With Early Breast Cancer.”

This is a very complex, important, and provocative topic, and I'm only going to have a short time to summarize these results, but again, I would suggest this is a topic worthy of very serious consideration in terms of the implications.

Aprepitant, as many of you know, is a standard antiemetic that has been used for many years. It’s very effective and very well tolerated. There’s not any question about that. It’s a supportive-care medication that may be used or not used; a variety of drugs might be used in its place.

However, there are preclinical data —I cannot go into any kind of detail here—that have revealed that aprepitant in these preclinical settings will slow breast cancer growth and progression.

What we're looking at in this report is retrospective data linking a nationwide registry of 13,811 women diagnosed with early breast cancer between 2008 and 2020 in Norway. These are population-based data that were very well documented because that's how things work in Scandinavian countries in general, but in Norway in particular. They know what patients receive nationally, over time, and there's follow-up.

The point is that they had knowledge of the diagnoses and the therapy. These women that I'm referring to had received chemotherapy and antiemetics, which, of course, is standard of care and has been for decades. These women were followed for the development of metastatic disease and death from 1 year after diagnosis to the end of 2021, which was the duration of this particular report.

During this period of time, of these 13,811 women, 7047 were given aprepitant, which is, interestingly, 51% or about half of the population. Here's the bottom line: Aprepitant use resulted in superior distant disease-free survival, with a hazard ratio of 0.89, and breast cancer-specific survival, with a hazard ratio of 0.83.

Increasingly interesting, only nonluminal breast cancer had this demonstrated benefit, with a hazard ratio of 0.69. Again, that's a hazard ratio for metastatic disease or death of 0.69 if aprepitant was used. It was strongest in triple-negative breast cancer, with a hazard ratio of 0.66. Let me repeat that: a hazard ratio of 0.66 for the reduction in the risk of distant disease or death. This was a difference that was able to be documented with the use of aprepitant or not.

Finally, in this analysis, survival outcomes were not observed with any other class of antiemetics, only aprepitant. In the nonluminal breast cancer population, the longer duration of aprepitant use — presumably multiple cycles over time — was associated with increasingly favorable survival outcomes. This was a trend analysis, so the longer it was used, the more superior the outcomes.

I’m not surprised. To get this paper published in a high-impact journal, the authors had to conclude that clinical trials are required to confirm these findings. Really?

If you're a patient, a family member, or an oncologist caring for a woman with triple-negative breast cancer, you are going to wait for a phase 3, randomized trial to be conducted and reported maybe in 5 or 10 years? When you're talking about a drug that is widely used and is safe, you're going to make a decision to wait for the clinical trial before you conclude that aprepitant should be used in this setting, based upon these excellent data?

I would challenge that and ask, on average today, certainly in patients that I'm seeing or counseling, aprepitant should become a component of the standard of care unless there's a contraindication to the use of the drug, based upon these excellent registry and population-based data.

We don't have to wait for randomized phase 3 trials to answer every question if what we see here makes sense, based on a plausible biological explanation and well-analyzed data. Obviously, other databases can look at this and see if they come up with different answers, but we do not need to wait for a phase 3, randomized trial before we incorporate something that we believe the data support as having a favorable impact on the outcome of patients we are seeing today.

I thank you for your attention.

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

Transcript generated from video captions.

Hello. I'm Dr Maurie Markman, from City of Hope. I'd like to discuss over the next few minutes an absolutely provocative — and I don't use that term loosely — report that I would humbly suggest may, or perhaps even should, change standard of practice in the care of patients with breast cancer. The paper was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, entitled, “Aprepitant Use During Chemotherapy and Association With Survival in Women With Early Breast Cancer.”

This is a very complex, important, and provocative topic, and I'm only going to have a short time to summarize these results, but again, I would suggest this is a topic worthy of very serious consideration in terms of the implications.

Aprepitant, as many of you know, is a standard antiemetic that has been used for many years. It’s very effective and very well tolerated. There’s not any question about that. It’s a supportive-care medication that may be used or not used; a variety of drugs might be used in its place.

However, there are preclinical data —I cannot go into any kind of detail here—that have revealed that aprepitant in these preclinical settings will slow breast cancer growth and progression.

What we're looking at in this report is retrospective data linking a nationwide registry of 13,811 women diagnosed with early breast cancer between 2008 and 2020 in Norway. These are population-based data that were very well documented because that's how things work in Scandinavian countries in general, but in Norway in particular. They know what patients receive nationally, over time, and there's follow-up.

The point is that they had knowledge of the diagnoses and the therapy. These women that I'm referring to had received chemotherapy and antiemetics, which, of course, is standard of care and has been for decades. These women were followed for the development of metastatic disease and death from 1 year after diagnosis to the end of 2021, which was the duration of this particular report.

During this period of time, of these 13,811 women, 7047 were given aprepitant, which is, interestingly, 51% or about half of the population. Here's the bottom line: Aprepitant use resulted in superior distant disease-free survival, with a hazard ratio of 0.89, and breast cancer-specific survival, with a hazard ratio of 0.83.

Increasingly interesting, only nonluminal breast cancer had this demonstrated benefit, with a hazard ratio of 0.69. Again, that's a hazard ratio for metastatic disease or death of 0.69 if aprepitant was used. It was strongest in triple-negative breast cancer, with a hazard ratio of 0.66. Let me repeat that: a hazard ratio of 0.66 for the reduction in the risk of distant disease or death. This was a difference that was able to be documented with the use of aprepitant or not.

Finally, in this analysis, survival outcomes were not observed with any other class of antiemetics, only aprepitant. In the nonluminal breast cancer population, the longer duration of aprepitant use — presumably multiple cycles over time — was associated with increasingly favorable survival outcomes. This was a trend analysis, so the longer it was used, the more superior the outcomes.

I’m not surprised. To get this paper published in a high-impact journal, the authors had to conclude that clinical trials are required to confirm these findings. Really?

If you're a patient, a family member, or an oncologist caring for a woman with triple-negative breast cancer, you are going to wait for a phase 3, randomized trial to be conducted and reported maybe in 5 or 10 years? When you're talking about a drug that is widely used and is safe, you're going to make a decision to wait for the clinical trial before you conclude that aprepitant should be used in this setting, based upon these excellent data?

I would challenge that and ask, on average today, certainly in patients that I'm seeing or counseling, aprepitant should become a component of the standard of care unless there's a contraindication to the use of the drug, based upon these excellent registry and population-based data.

We don't have to wait for randomized phase 3 trials to answer every question if what we see here makes sense, based on a plausible biological explanation and well-analyzed data. Obviously, other databases can look at this and see if they come up with different answers, but we do not need to wait for a phase 3, randomized trial before we incorporate something that we believe the data support as having a favorable impact on the outcome of patients we are seeing today.

I thank you for your attention.

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

Transcript generated from video captions.

Hello. I'm Dr Maurie Markman, from City of Hope. I'd like to discuss over the next few minutes an absolutely provocative — and I don't use that term loosely — report that I would humbly suggest may, or perhaps even should, change standard of practice in the care of patients with breast cancer. The paper was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, entitled, “Aprepitant Use During Chemotherapy and Association With Survival in Women With Early Breast Cancer.”

This is a very complex, important, and provocative topic, and I'm only going to have a short time to summarize these results, but again, I would suggest this is a topic worthy of very serious consideration in terms of the implications.

Aprepitant, as many of you know, is a standard antiemetic that has been used for many years. It’s very effective and very well tolerated. There’s not any question about that. It’s a supportive-care medication that may be used or not used; a variety of drugs might be used in its place.

However, there are preclinical data —I cannot go into any kind of detail here—that have revealed that aprepitant in these preclinical settings will slow breast cancer growth and progression.

What we're looking at in this report is retrospective data linking a nationwide registry of 13,811 women diagnosed with early breast cancer between 2008 and 2020 in Norway. These are population-based data that were very well documented because that's how things work in Scandinavian countries in general, but in Norway in particular. They know what patients receive nationally, over time, and there's follow-up.

The point is that they had knowledge of the diagnoses and the therapy. These women that I'm referring to had received chemotherapy and antiemetics, which, of course, is standard of care and has been for decades. These women were followed for the development of metastatic disease and death from 1 year after diagnosis to the end of 2021, which was the duration of this particular report.

During this period of time, of these 13,811 women, 7047 were given aprepitant, which is, interestingly, 51% or about half of the population. Here's the bottom line: Aprepitant use resulted in superior distant disease-free survival, with a hazard ratio of 0.89, and breast cancer-specific survival, with a hazard ratio of 0.83.

Increasingly interesting, only nonluminal breast cancer had this demonstrated benefit, with a hazard ratio of 0.69. Again, that's a hazard ratio for metastatic disease or death of 0.69 if aprepitant was used. It was strongest in triple-negative breast cancer, with a hazard ratio of 0.66. Let me repeat that: a hazard ratio of 0.66 for the reduction in the risk of distant disease or death. This was a difference that was able to be documented with the use of aprepitant or not.

Finally, in this analysis, survival outcomes were not observed with any other class of antiemetics, only aprepitant. In the nonluminal breast cancer population, the longer duration of aprepitant use — presumably multiple cycles over time — was associated with increasingly favorable survival outcomes. This was a trend analysis, so the longer it was used, the more superior the outcomes.

I’m not surprised. To get this paper published in a high-impact journal, the authors had to conclude that clinical trials are required to confirm these findings. Really?

If you're a patient, a family member, or an oncologist caring for a woman with triple-negative breast cancer, you are going to wait for a phase 3, randomized trial to be conducted and reported maybe in 5 or 10 years? When you're talking about a drug that is widely used and is safe, you're going to make a decision to wait for the clinical trial before you conclude that aprepitant should be used in this setting, based upon these excellent data?

I would challenge that and ask, on average today, certainly in patients that I'm seeing or counseling, aprepitant should become a component of the standard of care unless there's a contraindication to the use of the drug, based upon these excellent registry and population-based data.

We don't have to wait for randomized phase 3 trials to answer every question if what we see here makes sense, based on a plausible biological explanation and well-analyzed data. Obviously, other databases can look at this and see if they come up with different answers, but we do not need to wait for a phase 3, randomized trial before we incorporate something that we believe the data support as having a favorable impact on the outcome of patients we are seeing today.

I thank you for your attention.

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

DNA methylation-derived biomarkers called Protein EpiScores may improve the accuracy of disease-free and overall survival prediction in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), compared with traditional clinical risk factors alone, suggest results of a prospective study.

Although Protein EpiScores require further validation before they are ready for clinical use, the present data offer insights into the underlying processes shaping CRC outcomes, lead author Alicia R. Richards, PhD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, and colleagues wrote in Clinical Epigenetics.

“The immediate value of our findings is highlighting biological pathways like immune suppression and coagulation as drivers of poor outcomes,” senior author Jacob K. Kresovich, PhD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

What Are Protein EpiScores?

Previous studies have evaluated epigenetic clocks, which are derived from DNA methylation profiles, as markers for CRC risk. However, these clocks cannot pinpoint specific biological drivers of cancer progression, the investigators wrote.

Protein EpiScores may fill this gap; they were developed based on previous work suggesting that DNA methylation profiles may improve disease prediction based on circulating proteins (eg, C-reactive protein) and physiologic traits (eg, smoking status) beyond directly measuring those same variables.

“Protein EpiScores may therefore represent a complementary class of biomarker to direct measurements,” the investigators wrote.

Although Protein EpiScores have helped uncover biological processes driving various conditions such as cardiovascular disease and cancer, this is the first study to evaluate them specifically in the context of cancer survival.

How Did This Study Evaluate Protein EpiScores in Patients With CRC?

The present study involved 136 patients with newly diagnosed CRC from the prospective ColoCare Study.

For each patient, the investigators recorded 107 Protein EpiScores from pretreatment whole blood samples. Disease-free and overall survival were monitored over a median follow-up of 7.3 years and as long as 13.8 years. During follow-up, 26% of patients experienced disease recurrence, and 35% died.

With these data, the investigators compared the predictive power of the Protein EpiScores vs traditional clinical risk factors for disease-free and overall survival. “We used the standard factors doctors routinely collect before treatment starts to assess prognosis, including tumor stage, age at cancer diagnosis, sex, body mass index, race, and tumor location,” Kresovich said. “These are well-established predictors readily available from medical records.”

What Were the Key Findings?

Adding specific Protein EpiScores to the standard clinical risk factors significantly improved prognostic accuracy for survival.

After adjusting for confounding variables, the HCII, VEGFA, CCL17, and LGALS3BP Protein EpiScores were each independently associated with worse disease-free survival, with hazard ratios ranging from 1.62 to 1.71. Adding these scores to the clinical model improved the concordance index (C-index) from 0.64 to 0.70.

The LGALS3BP Protein EpiScore was also independently linked to overall survival, with a hazard ratio of 1.80. Adding this score to the model raised the C-index from 0.70 to 0.75.

Finally, the HCII, LGALS3BP, MMP12, and VEGFA Protein EpiScores were tied to both disease-free and overall survival with hazard ratios above 1.50.

Are These Findings Practice-Changing?

“The improvements [in prognostic accuracy] are modest but potentially meaningful and comparable to gains from other established biomarkers,” Kresovich said. “The 6-point improvement for recurrence (C-index 0.64 to 0.70) resulted in 34% of patients being reclassified into more accurate risk categories.”

In theory, this could have a meaningful clinical impact.

“In cancer care, even incremental gains matter if they prevent undertreating high-risk patients or overtreating low-risk ones,” Kresovich said.

Despite this potential, he was clear that more work is needed.

“If our findings are validated in other epidemiologic settings, these Protein EpiScores could eventually complement existing risk tools, but we’re realistically several years from clinical implementation,” Kresovich said. “We see these current findings more as a research tool that requires validation in larger cohorts before clinical use.”

How Might These Findings Shape Future Research?

Although more studies are needed before clinical rollout, the present findings point to key biological pathways, such as those involving immune suppression and coagulation, which may be driving worse outcomes in patients with CRC.

“This information can guide basic scientists and mechanistic studies to identify potential therapeutic targets,” Kresovich said.

Beyond evaluating Protein EpiScores in larger patient populations, future studies may also need to recruit a more diverse patient population, given the present cohort was 93% White.

Although the investigators noted that “the racial homogeneity reduced potential confounding by ancestry,” they also explained that “Protein EpiScores were developed in European populations, and their translation to individuals with different ancestries has not been closely examined.”

The study was supported by the Miles for Moffitt Team Science Mechanism. The investigators reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

DNA methylation-derived biomarkers called Protein EpiScores may improve the accuracy of disease-free and overall survival prediction in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), compared with traditional clinical risk factors alone, suggest results of a prospective study.

Although Protein EpiScores require further validation before they are ready for clinical use, the present data offer insights into the underlying processes shaping CRC outcomes, lead author Alicia R. Richards, PhD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, and colleagues wrote in Clinical Epigenetics.

“The immediate value of our findings is highlighting biological pathways like immune suppression and coagulation as drivers of poor outcomes,” senior author Jacob K. Kresovich, PhD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

What Are Protein EpiScores?

Previous studies have evaluated epigenetic clocks, which are derived from DNA methylation profiles, as markers for CRC risk. However, these clocks cannot pinpoint specific biological drivers of cancer progression, the investigators wrote.

Protein EpiScores may fill this gap; they were developed based on previous work suggesting that DNA methylation profiles may improve disease prediction based on circulating proteins (eg, C-reactive protein) and physiologic traits (eg, smoking status) beyond directly measuring those same variables.

“Protein EpiScores may therefore represent a complementary class of biomarker to direct measurements,” the investigators wrote.

Although Protein EpiScores have helped uncover biological processes driving various conditions such as cardiovascular disease and cancer, this is the first study to evaluate them specifically in the context of cancer survival.

How Did This Study Evaluate Protein EpiScores in Patients With CRC?

The present study involved 136 patients with newly diagnosed CRC from the prospective ColoCare Study.

For each patient, the investigators recorded 107 Protein EpiScores from pretreatment whole blood samples. Disease-free and overall survival were monitored over a median follow-up of 7.3 years and as long as 13.8 years. During follow-up, 26% of patients experienced disease recurrence, and 35% died.

With these data, the investigators compared the predictive power of the Protein EpiScores vs traditional clinical risk factors for disease-free and overall survival. “We used the standard factors doctors routinely collect before treatment starts to assess prognosis, including tumor stage, age at cancer diagnosis, sex, body mass index, race, and tumor location,” Kresovich said. “These are well-established predictors readily available from medical records.”

What Were the Key Findings?

Adding specific Protein EpiScores to the standard clinical risk factors significantly improved prognostic accuracy for survival.

After adjusting for confounding variables, the HCII, VEGFA, CCL17, and LGALS3BP Protein EpiScores were each independently associated with worse disease-free survival, with hazard ratios ranging from 1.62 to 1.71. Adding these scores to the clinical model improved the concordance index (C-index) from 0.64 to 0.70.

The LGALS3BP Protein EpiScore was also independently linked to overall survival, with a hazard ratio of 1.80. Adding this score to the model raised the C-index from 0.70 to 0.75.

Finally, the HCII, LGALS3BP, MMP12, and VEGFA Protein EpiScores were tied to both disease-free and overall survival with hazard ratios above 1.50.

Are These Findings Practice-Changing?

“The improvements [in prognostic accuracy] are modest but potentially meaningful and comparable to gains from other established biomarkers,” Kresovich said. “The 6-point improvement for recurrence (C-index 0.64 to 0.70) resulted in 34% of patients being reclassified into more accurate risk categories.”

In theory, this could have a meaningful clinical impact.

“In cancer care, even incremental gains matter if they prevent undertreating high-risk patients or overtreating low-risk ones,” Kresovich said.

Despite this potential, he was clear that more work is needed.

“If our findings are validated in other epidemiologic settings, these Protein EpiScores could eventually complement existing risk tools, but we’re realistically several years from clinical implementation,” Kresovich said. “We see these current findings more as a research tool that requires validation in larger cohorts before clinical use.”

How Might These Findings Shape Future Research?

Although more studies are needed before clinical rollout, the present findings point to key biological pathways, such as those involving immune suppression and coagulation, which may be driving worse outcomes in patients with CRC.

“This information can guide basic scientists and mechanistic studies to identify potential therapeutic targets,” Kresovich said.

Beyond evaluating Protein EpiScores in larger patient populations, future studies may also need to recruit a more diverse patient population, given the present cohort was 93% White.

Although the investigators noted that “the racial homogeneity reduced potential confounding by ancestry,” they also explained that “Protein EpiScores were developed in European populations, and their translation to individuals with different ancestries has not been closely examined.”

The study was supported by the Miles for Moffitt Team Science Mechanism. The investigators reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

DNA methylation-derived biomarkers called Protein EpiScores may improve the accuracy of disease-free and overall survival prediction in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), compared with traditional clinical risk factors alone, suggest results of a prospective study.

Although Protein EpiScores require further validation before they are ready for clinical use, the present data offer insights into the underlying processes shaping CRC outcomes, lead author Alicia R. Richards, PhD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, and colleagues wrote in Clinical Epigenetics.

“The immediate value of our findings is highlighting biological pathways like immune suppression and coagulation as drivers of poor outcomes,” senior author Jacob K. Kresovich, PhD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

What Are Protein EpiScores?

Previous studies have evaluated epigenetic clocks, which are derived from DNA methylation profiles, as markers for CRC risk. However, these clocks cannot pinpoint specific biological drivers of cancer progression, the investigators wrote.

Protein EpiScores may fill this gap; they were developed based on previous work suggesting that DNA methylation profiles may improve disease prediction based on circulating proteins (eg, C-reactive protein) and physiologic traits (eg, smoking status) beyond directly measuring those same variables.

“Protein EpiScores may therefore represent a complementary class of biomarker to direct measurements,” the investigators wrote.

Although Protein EpiScores have helped uncover biological processes driving various conditions such as cardiovascular disease and cancer, this is the first study to evaluate them specifically in the context of cancer survival.

How Did This Study Evaluate Protein EpiScores in Patients With CRC?

The present study involved 136 patients with newly diagnosed CRC from the prospective ColoCare Study.

For each patient, the investigators recorded 107 Protein EpiScores from pretreatment whole blood samples. Disease-free and overall survival were monitored over a median follow-up of 7.3 years and as long as 13.8 years. During follow-up, 26% of patients experienced disease recurrence, and 35% died.

With these data, the investigators compared the predictive power of the Protein EpiScores vs traditional clinical risk factors for disease-free and overall survival. “We used the standard factors doctors routinely collect before treatment starts to assess prognosis, including tumor stage, age at cancer diagnosis, sex, body mass index, race, and tumor location,” Kresovich said. “These are well-established predictors readily available from medical records.”

What Were the Key Findings?

Adding specific Protein EpiScores to the standard clinical risk factors significantly improved prognostic accuracy for survival.

After adjusting for confounding variables, the HCII, VEGFA, CCL17, and LGALS3BP Protein EpiScores were each independently associated with worse disease-free survival, with hazard ratios ranging from 1.62 to 1.71. Adding these scores to the clinical model improved the concordance index (C-index) from 0.64 to 0.70.

The LGALS3BP Protein EpiScore was also independently linked to overall survival, with a hazard ratio of 1.80. Adding this score to the model raised the C-index from 0.70 to 0.75.

Finally, the HCII, LGALS3BP, MMP12, and VEGFA Protein EpiScores were tied to both disease-free and overall survival with hazard ratios above 1.50.

Are These Findings Practice-Changing?

“The improvements [in prognostic accuracy] are modest but potentially meaningful and comparable to gains from other established biomarkers,” Kresovich said. “The 6-point improvement for recurrence (C-index 0.64 to 0.70) resulted in 34% of patients being reclassified into more accurate risk categories.”

In theory, this could have a meaningful clinical impact.

“In cancer care, even incremental gains matter if they prevent undertreating high-risk patients or overtreating low-risk ones,” Kresovich said.

Despite this potential, he was clear that more work is needed.

“If our findings are validated in other epidemiologic settings, these Protein EpiScores could eventually complement existing risk tools, but we’re realistically several years from clinical implementation,” Kresovich said. “We see these current findings more as a research tool that requires validation in larger cohorts before clinical use.”

How Might These Findings Shape Future Research?

Although more studies are needed before clinical rollout, the present findings point to key biological pathways, such as those involving immune suppression and coagulation, which may be driving worse outcomes in patients with CRC.

“This information can guide basic scientists and mechanistic studies to identify potential therapeutic targets,” Kresovich said.

Beyond evaluating Protein EpiScores in larger patient populations, future studies may also need to recruit a more diverse patient population, given the present cohort was 93% White.

Although the investigators noted that “the racial homogeneity reduced potential confounding by ancestry,” they also explained that “Protein EpiScores were developed in European populations, and their translation to individuals with different ancestries has not been closely examined.”

The study was supported by the Miles for Moffitt Team Science Mechanism. The investigators reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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