Lung Cancer

Health-related social needs and medical financial hardship are associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, based on data from more than 10,000 individuals.

Little is known about the specific association between health-related social needs (HRSNs) and mortality risk even though HRSNs, defined as challenges in affording food, housing, and other necessities of daily living, are potential challenges for cancer survivors, wrote Zhiyuan Zheng, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, and colleagues.

A 2020 study by Dr. Zheng and colleagues published in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that food insecurity and financial worries had a negative impact on cancer survivorship. In the new study, published in Cancer, the researchers identified cancer survivors using the 2013-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the NHIS Mortality File through December 31, 2019. The researchers examined mortality using the data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index (NDI) through December 31, 2019, which links to the National Health Interview Survey Data used in the study.

Individuals’ HRSNs were categorized into three groups: severe, moderate, and minor/none. HRSNs included food insecurity and nonmedical financial concerns, such as housing costs (rent, mortgage). Medical financial hardship included material, psychological, and behavioral domains and was divided into three groups: 2-3 domains, 1 domain, or 0 domains.
 

What Are the Potential Financial Implications of this Research?

The high costs of cancer care often cause medical financial hardships for cancer survivors, and expenses also may cause psychological distress and nonmedical financial hardship as survivors try to make ends meet while facing medical bills, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Policy makers are increasingly interested in adding HRSNs to insurance coverage; recent guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) allows individual states to apply to provide nutrition and housing supports through state Medicaid programs, according to authors of a 2023 article published in JAMA Health Forum.

The new study adds to the understanding of how HRSNs impact people with cancer by examining the association with mortality risk, Yelak Biru, MSc, president and chief executive officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, said in an interview.

“This is a key area of study for addressing the disparities in treatments and outcomes that result in inequities,” said Mr. Biru, a patient advocate and multiple myeloma survivor who was not involved in the study.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

The new study characterized HRSNs in 5,855 adult cancer survivors aged 18-64 years and 5,918 aged 65-79 years. In the 18- to 64-year-old group, 25.5% reported moderate levels of HRSNs, and 18.3% reported severe HRSNs. In patients aged 65-79 years, 15.6% and 6.6% reported moderate HRSNs and severe HRSNs, respectively.

Severe HRSN was significantly associated with higher mortality risk in an adjusted analysis in patients aged 18-64 years (hazard ratio 2.00, P < .001).

Among adults aged 65-79 years, severe HRSN was not associated with higher mortality risk; however, in this older age group, those with 2-3 domains of medical financial hardship had significantly increased mortality risk compared with adults aged 65-79 years with zero domains of medical financial hardship (HR 1.58, P = .007).

Although the findings that HRSNs were associated with increased mortality risk, especially in the younger group, were not surprising, they serve as a call to action to address how HRSNs are contributing to cancer mortality, Mr. Biru said in an interview. “HRSNs, like food or housing insecurity, can lead to patients being unable to undergo the best treatment approach for their cancer,” he said.
 

What Are the Limitations and Research Gaps?

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports to measure medical financial hardship, food insecurity, and nonmedical financial concerns in the NHIS, the researchers wrote in their discussion. More research with longer follow-up time beyond 1-5 years is needed, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Studies also are needed to illustrate how patient navigation can help prevent patients from falling through the cracks with regard to social needs and financial hardships, Mr. Biru told this news organization.

Other areas for research include how addressing social needs affects health outcomes and whether programs designed to address social needs are effective, he said.

“Finally, qualitative research is needed to capture the lived experiences of cancer survivors facing these challenges. This knowledge can inform the development of more patient-centered interventions and policies that effectively address the social determinants of health and improve overall outcomes for all cancer survivors,” Mr. Biru said.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinicians?

HRSNs and financial hardship are significantly associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, Dr. Zheng and colleagues concluded. Looking ahead, comprehensive assessment of HRSNs and financial hardship may help clinicians connect patients with relevant services to mitigate the social and financial impacts of cancer, they wrote.

“The takeaway message for oncologists in practice is that addressing [HRSNs] and financial hardship is crucial for providing comprehensive and equitable cancer care,” Mr. Biru said during his interview.

“The impact of social determinants of health on cancer outcomes cannot be ignored, and oncologists play a vital role in identifying and addressing these needs,” he said. Sensitive, discussion-based screenings are needed to identify core needs such as food and transportation, but clinicians also can consider broader social factors and work with a team to connect patients to appropriate resources, he added.

“By recognizing the importance of HRSN screening and taking proactive steps to address these needs, oncologists can contribute to improving health outcomes, reducing healthcare disparities, and providing more equitable cancer care for their patients,” he said.
 

What Other Guidance Is Available?

“High-quality cancer care requires treating the whole person; measuring and addressing anything in their life that could result in poorer health outcomes is a key component of comprehensive care,” Mr. Biru emphasized.

In September 2023, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) convened a working group cochaired by Mr. Biru that developed recommendations for how oncology practices should routinely measure HRSNs (NCCN.org/social-needs).

“The working group proposed that every cancer patient be assessed for food, transportation access, and financial and housing security at least once a year, and be reassessed at every care transition point as well,” Mr. Biru said. Such screenings should include follow-up to connect patients with services to address any HRSNs they are experiencing, he added.

Lead author Dr. Zheng is employed by the American Cancer Society, which as a nonprofit receives funds from the public through fundraising and contributions, as well as some support from corporations and industry to support its mission programs and services. Mr. Biru had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Health-related social needs and medical financial hardship are associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, based on data from more than 10,000 individuals.

Little is known about the specific association between health-related social needs (HRSNs) and mortality risk even though HRSNs, defined as challenges in affording food, housing, and other necessities of daily living, are potential challenges for cancer survivors, wrote Zhiyuan Zheng, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, and colleagues.

A 2020 study by Dr. Zheng and colleagues published in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that food insecurity and financial worries had a negative impact on cancer survivorship. In the new study, published in Cancer, the researchers identified cancer survivors using the 2013-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the NHIS Mortality File through December 31, 2019. The researchers examined mortality using the data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index (NDI) through December 31, 2019, which links to the National Health Interview Survey Data used in the study.

Individuals’ HRSNs were categorized into three groups: severe, moderate, and minor/none. HRSNs included food insecurity and nonmedical financial concerns, such as housing costs (rent, mortgage). Medical financial hardship included material, psychological, and behavioral domains and was divided into three groups: 2-3 domains, 1 domain, or 0 domains.
 

What Are the Potential Financial Implications of this Research?

The high costs of cancer care often cause medical financial hardships for cancer survivors, and expenses also may cause psychological distress and nonmedical financial hardship as survivors try to make ends meet while facing medical bills, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Policy makers are increasingly interested in adding HRSNs to insurance coverage; recent guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) allows individual states to apply to provide nutrition and housing supports through state Medicaid programs, according to authors of a 2023 article published in JAMA Health Forum.

The new study adds to the understanding of how HRSNs impact people with cancer by examining the association with mortality risk, Yelak Biru, MSc, president and chief executive officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, said in an interview.

“This is a key area of study for addressing the disparities in treatments and outcomes that result in inequities,” said Mr. Biru, a patient advocate and multiple myeloma survivor who was not involved in the study.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

The new study characterized HRSNs in 5,855 adult cancer survivors aged 18-64 years and 5,918 aged 65-79 years. In the 18- to 64-year-old group, 25.5% reported moderate levels of HRSNs, and 18.3% reported severe HRSNs. In patients aged 65-79 years, 15.6% and 6.6% reported moderate HRSNs and severe HRSNs, respectively.

Severe HRSN was significantly associated with higher mortality risk in an adjusted analysis in patients aged 18-64 years (hazard ratio 2.00, P < .001).

Among adults aged 65-79 years, severe HRSN was not associated with higher mortality risk; however, in this older age group, those with 2-3 domains of medical financial hardship had significantly increased mortality risk compared with adults aged 65-79 years with zero domains of medical financial hardship (HR 1.58, P = .007).

Although the findings that HRSNs were associated with increased mortality risk, especially in the younger group, were not surprising, they serve as a call to action to address how HRSNs are contributing to cancer mortality, Mr. Biru said in an interview. “HRSNs, like food or housing insecurity, can lead to patients being unable to undergo the best treatment approach for their cancer,” he said.
 

What Are the Limitations and Research Gaps?

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports to measure medical financial hardship, food insecurity, and nonmedical financial concerns in the NHIS, the researchers wrote in their discussion. More research with longer follow-up time beyond 1-5 years is needed, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Studies also are needed to illustrate how patient navigation can help prevent patients from falling through the cracks with regard to social needs and financial hardships, Mr. Biru told this news organization.

Other areas for research include how addressing social needs affects health outcomes and whether programs designed to address social needs are effective, he said.

“Finally, qualitative research is needed to capture the lived experiences of cancer survivors facing these challenges. This knowledge can inform the development of more patient-centered interventions and policies that effectively address the social determinants of health and improve overall outcomes for all cancer survivors,” Mr. Biru said.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinicians?

HRSNs and financial hardship are significantly associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, Dr. Zheng and colleagues concluded. Looking ahead, comprehensive assessment of HRSNs and financial hardship may help clinicians connect patients with relevant services to mitigate the social and financial impacts of cancer, they wrote.

“The takeaway message for oncologists in practice is that addressing [HRSNs] and financial hardship is crucial for providing comprehensive and equitable cancer care,” Mr. Biru said during his interview.

“The impact of social determinants of health on cancer outcomes cannot be ignored, and oncologists play a vital role in identifying and addressing these needs,” he said. Sensitive, discussion-based screenings are needed to identify core needs such as food and transportation, but clinicians also can consider broader social factors and work with a team to connect patients to appropriate resources, he added.

“By recognizing the importance of HRSN screening and taking proactive steps to address these needs, oncologists can contribute to improving health outcomes, reducing healthcare disparities, and providing more equitable cancer care for their patients,” he said.
 

What Other Guidance Is Available?

“High-quality cancer care requires treating the whole person; measuring and addressing anything in their life that could result in poorer health outcomes is a key component of comprehensive care,” Mr. Biru emphasized.

In September 2023, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) convened a working group cochaired by Mr. Biru that developed recommendations for how oncology practices should routinely measure HRSNs (NCCN.org/social-needs).

“The working group proposed that every cancer patient be assessed for food, transportation access, and financial and housing security at least once a year, and be reassessed at every care transition point as well,” Mr. Biru said. Such screenings should include follow-up to connect patients with services to address any HRSNs they are experiencing, he added.

Lead author Dr. Zheng is employed by the American Cancer Society, which as a nonprofit receives funds from the public through fundraising and contributions, as well as some support from corporations and industry to support its mission programs and services. Mr. Biru had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Health-related social needs and medical financial hardship are associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, based on data from more than 10,000 individuals.

Little is known about the specific association between health-related social needs (HRSNs) and mortality risk even though HRSNs, defined as challenges in affording food, housing, and other necessities of daily living, are potential challenges for cancer survivors, wrote Zhiyuan Zheng, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, and colleagues.

A 2020 study by Dr. Zheng and colleagues published in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that food insecurity and financial worries had a negative impact on cancer survivorship. In the new study, published in Cancer, the researchers identified cancer survivors using the 2013-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the NHIS Mortality File through December 31, 2019. The researchers examined mortality using the data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index (NDI) through December 31, 2019, which links to the National Health Interview Survey Data used in the study.

Individuals’ HRSNs were categorized into three groups: severe, moderate, and minor/none. HRSNs included food insecurity and nonmedical financial concerns, such as housing costs (rent, mortgage). Medical financial hardship included material, psychological, and behavioral domains and was divided into three groups: 2-3 domains, 1 domain, or 0 domains.
 

What Are the Potential Financial Implications of this Research?

The high costs of cancer care often cause medical financial hardships for cancer survivors, and expenses also may cause psychological distress and nonmedical financial hardship as survivors try to make ends meet while facing medical bills, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Policy makers are increasingly interested in adding HRSNs to insurance coverage; recent guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) allows individual states to apply to provide nutrition and housing supports through state Medicaid programs, according to authors of a 2023 article published in JAMA Health Forum.

The new study adds to the understanding of how HRSNs impact people with cancer by examining the association with mortality risk, Yelak Biru, MSc, president and chief executive officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, said in an interview.

“This is a key area of study for addressing the disparities in treatments and outcomes that result in inequities,” said Mr. Biru, a patient advocate and multiple myeloma survivor who was not involved in the study.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

The new study characterized HRSNs in 5,855 adult cancer survivors aged 18-64 years and 5,918 aged 65-79 years. In the 18- to 64-year-old group, 25.5% reported moderate levels of HRSNs, and 18.3% reported severe HRSNs. In patients aged 65-79 years, 15.6% and 6.6% reported moderate HRSNs and severe HRSNs, respectively.

Severe HRSN was significantly associated with higher mortality risk in an adjusted analysis in patients aged 18-64 years (hazard ratio 2.00, P < .001).

Among adults aged 65-79 years, severe HRSN was not associated with higher mortality risk; however, in this older age group, those with 2-3 domains of medical financial hardship had significantly increased mortality risk compared with adults aged 65-79 years with zero domains of medical financial hardship (HR 1.58, P = .007).

Although the findings that HRSNs were associated with increased mortality risk, especially in the younger group, were not surprising, they serve as a call to action to address how HRSNs are contributing to cancer mortality, Mr. Biru said in an interview. “HRSNs, like food or housing insecurity, can lead to patients being unable to undergo the best treatment approach for their cancer,” he said.
 

What Are the Limitations and Research Gaps?

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports to measure medical financial hardship, food insecurity, and nonmedical financial concerns in the NHIS, the researchers wrote in their discussion. More research with longer follow-up time beyond 1-5 years is needed, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Studies also are needed to illustrate how patient navigation can help prevent patients from falling through the cracks with regard to social needs and financial hardships, Mr. Biru told this news organization.

Other areas for research include how addressing social needs affects health outcomes and whether programs designed to address social needs are effective, he said.

“Finally, qualitative research is needed to capture the lived experiences of cancer survivors facing these challenges. This knowledge can inform the development of more patient-centered interventions and policies that effectively address the social determinants of health and improve overall outcomes for all cancer survivors,” Mr. Biru said.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinicians?

HRSNs and financial hardship are significantly associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, Dr. Zheng and colleagues concluded. Looking ahead, comprehensive assessment of HRSNs and financial hardship may help clinicians connect patients with relevant services to mitigate the social and financial impacts of cancer, they wrote.

“The takeaway message for oncologists in practice is that addressing [HRSNs] and financial hardship is crucial for providing comprehensive and equitable cancer care,” Mr. Biru said during his interview.

“The impact of social determinants of health on cancer outcomes cannot be ignored, and oncologists play a vital role in identifying and addressing these needs,” he said. Sensitive, discussion-based screenings are needed to identify core needs such as food and transportation, but clinicians also can consider broader social factors and work with a team to connect patients to appropriate resources, he added.

“By recognizing the importance of HRSN screening and taking proactive steps to address these needs, oncologists can contribute to improving health outcomes, reducing healthcare disparities, and providing more equitable cancer care for their patients,” he said.
 

What Other Guidance Is Available?

“High-quality cancer care requires treating the whole person; measuring and addressing anything in their life that could result in poorer health outcomes is a key component of comprehensive care,” Mr. Biru emphasized.

In September 2023, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) convened a working group cochaired by Mr. Biru that developed recommendations for how oncology practices should routinely measure HRSNs (NCCN.org/social-needs).

“The working group proposed that every cancer patient be assessed for food, transportation access, and financial and housing security at least once a year, and be reassessed at every care transition point as well,” Mr. Biru said. Such screenings should include follow-up to connect patients with services to address any HRSNs they are experiencing, he added.

Lead author Dr. Zheng is employed by the American Cancer Society, which as a nonprofit receives funds from the public through fundraising and contributions, as well as some support from corporations and industry to support its mission programs and services. Mr. Biru had no financial conflicts to disclose.

What’s most important to patients with terminal cancer and their caregivers?

New research found that patients and caregivers both tend to prioritize symptom control over life extension but often preferring a balance. Patients and caregivers, however, are less aligned on decisions about cost containment, with patients more likely to prioritize cost containment.

“Our research has revealed that patients and caregivers generally share similar end-of-life goals,” with a “notable exception” when it comes to costs, first author Semra Ozdemir, PhD, with the Lien Centre for Palliative Care, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, told this news organization.

However, when patients and caregivers have a better understanding of the patient’s prognosis, both may be more inclined to avoid costly life-extending treatments and prioritize symptom management.

In other words, the survey suggests that “knowing the prognosis helps patients and their families set realistic expectations for care and adequately prepare for end-of-life decisions,” said Dr. Ozdemir.

This study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Patients with advanced cancer often face difficult decisions: Do they opt for treatments that may — or may not — extend life or do they focus more on symptom control?

Family caregivers, who also play an important role in this decision-making process, may have different care goals. Some research suggests that caregivers tend to prioritize treatments that could extend life, whereas patients prioritize symptom management, but it’s less clear how these priorities may change over time and how patients and caregivers may influence each other.

In the current study, the researchers examined goals of care among patients with stage IV solid tumors and caregivers during the last 2 years of life, focusing on life extension vs symptom management and cost containment, as well as how these goals changed over time.

The survey included 210 patient-caregiver pairs, recruited from outpatient clinics at two major cancer centers in Singapore. Patients had a mean age of 63 years, and about half were men. The caregivers had a mean age of 49 years, and almost two third (63%) were women.

Overall, 34% patients and 29% caregivers prioritized symptom management over life extension, whereas 24% patients and 19% caregivers prioritized life extension. Most patients and caregivers preferred balancing the two, with 34%-47% patients and 37%-69% caregivers supporting this approach.

When balancing cost and treatment decisions, however, patients were more likely to prioritize containing costs — 28% vs 17% for caregivers — over extending life — 26% of patients vs 35% of caregivers.

Cost containment tended to be more of a priority for older patients, those with a higher symptom burden, and those with less family caregiver support. For caregivers, cost containment was more of a priority for those who reported that caregiving had a big impact on their finances, those with worse self-esteem related to their caregiving abilities, as well as those caring for older patients.

To better align cost containment priorities between patients and caregivers, it’s essential for families to engage in open and thorough discussions about the allocation of resources, Dr. Ozdemir said.

Although “patients, families, and physicians often avoid discussions about prognosis,” such conversations are essential for setting realistic expectations for care and adequately preparing for end-of-life decisions, Dr. Ozdemir told this news organization.

“These conversations should aim to balance competing interests and create care plans that are mutually acceptable to both patients and caregivers,” she said, adding that “this approach will help in minimizing any potential conflicts and ensure that both parties feel respected and understood in their decision-making process.”

Managing Unrealistic Expectations

As patients approached the end of life, neither patients nor caregivers shifted their priorities from life extension to symptom management.

This finding raises concerns because it suggests that many patients hold unrealistic expectations regarding their care and “underscores the need for continuous dialogue and reassessment of care goals throughout the progression of illness,” Dr. Ozdemir said.

“This stability in preferences over time suggests that initial care decisions are deeply ingrained or that there may be a lack of ongoing communication about evolving care needs and possibilities as conditions change,” Ozdemir said.

Yet, it can be hard to define what unrealistic expectations mean, said Olivia Seecof, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“I think people are hopeful that a devastating diagnosis won’t lead to the end of their life and that there will be a treatment or something that will change [their prognosis], and they’ll get better,” said Dr. Seecof, palliative care expert with the Supportive Oncology Program at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York City.

Giving patients and caregivers a realistic understanding of the prognosis is important, but “there’s more to it than just telling the patient their diagnosis,” she said.

“We have to plan for end of life, what it can look like,” said Dr. Seecof, adding that “often we don’t do a very good job of talking about that early on in an illness course.”

Overall, though, Dr. Seecof stressed that no two patients or situations are the same, and it’s important to understand what’s important in each scenario. End-of-life care requires “an individual approach because every patient is different, even if they have the same diagnosis as someone else,” she said.

This work was supported by funding from the Singapore Millennium Foundation and the Lien Centre for Palliative Care. Dr. Ozdemir and Dr. Seecof had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What’s most important to patients with terminal cancer and their caregivers?

New research found that patients and caregivers both tend to prioritize symptom control over life extension but often preferring a balance. Patients and caregivers, however, are less aligned on decisions about cost containment, with patients more likely to prioritize cost containment.

“Our research has revealed that patients and caregivers generally share similar end-of-life goals,” with a “notable exception” when it comes to costs, first author Semra Ozdemir, PhD, with the Lien Centre for Palliative Care, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, told this news organization.

However, when patients and caregivers have a better understanding of the patient’s prognosis, both may be more inclined to avoid costly life-extending treatments and prioritize symptom management.

In other words, the survey suggests that “knowing the prognosis helps patients and their families set realistic expectations for care and adequately prepare for end-of-life decisions,” said Dr. Ozdemir.

This study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Patients with advanced cancer often face difficult decisions: Do they opt for treatments that may — or may not — extend life or do they focus more on symptom control?

Family caregivers, who also play an important role in this decision-making process, may have different care goals. Some research suggests that caregivers tend to prioritize treatments that could extend life, whereas patients prioritize symptom management, but it’s less clear how these priorities may change over time and how patients and caregivers may influence each other.

In the current study, the researchers examined goals of care among patients with stage IV solid tumors and caregivers during the last 2 years of life, focusing on life extension vs symptom management and cost containment, as well as how these goals changed over time.

The survey included 210 patient-caregiver pairs, recruited from outpatient clinics at two major cancer centers in Singapore. Patients had a mean age of 63 years, and about half were men. The caregivers had a mean age of 49 years, and almost two third (63%) were women.

Overall, 34% patients and 29% caregivers prioritized symptom management over life extension, whereas 24% patients and 19% caregivers prioritized life extension. Most patients and caregivers preferred balancing the two, with 34%-47% patients and 37%-69% caregivers supporting this approach.

When balancing cost and treatment decisions, however, patients were more likely to prioritize containing costs — 28% vs 17% for caregivers — over extending life — 26% of patients vs 35% of caregivers.

Cost containment tended to be more of a priority for older patients, those with a higher symptom burden, and those with less family caregiver support. For caregivers, cost containment was more of a priority for those who reported that caregiving had a big impact on their finances, those with worse self-esteem related to their caregiving abilities, as well as those caring for older patients.

To better align cost containment priorities between patients and caregivers, it’s essential for families to engage in open and thorough discussions about the allocation of resources, Dr. Ozdemir said.

Although “patients, families, and physicians often avoid discussions about prognosis,” such conversations are essential for setting realistic expectations for care and adequately preparing for end-of-life decisions, Dr. Ozdemir told this news organization.

“These conversations should aim to balance competing interests and create care plans that are mutually acceptable to both patients and caregivers,” she said, adding that “this approach will help in minimizing any potential conflicts and ensure that both parties feel respected and understood in their decision-making process.”

Managing Unrealistic Expectations

As patients approached the end of life, neither patients nor caregivers shifted their priorities from life extension to symptom management.

This finding raises concerns because it suggests that many patients hold unrealistic expectations regarding their care and “underscores the need for continuous dialogue and reassessment of care goals throughout the progression of illness,” Dr. Ozdemir said.

“This stability in preferences over time suggests that initial care decisions are deeply ingrained or that there may be a lack of ongoing communication about evolving care needs and possibilities as conditions change,” Ozdemir said.

Yet, it can be hard to define what unrealistic expectations mean, said Olivia Seecof, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“I think people are hopeful that a devastating diagnosis won’t lead to the end of their life and that there will be a treatment or something that will change [their prognosis], and they’ll get better,” said Dr. Seecof, palliative care expert with the Supportive Oncology Program at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York City.

Giving patients and caregivers a realistic understanding of the prognosis is important, but “there’s more to it than just telling the patient their diagnosis,” she said.

“We have to plan for end of life, what it can look like,” said Dr. Seecof, adding that “often we don’t do a very good job of talking about that early on in an illness course.”

Overall, though, Dr. Seecof stressed that no two patients or situations are the same, and it’s important to understand what’s important in each scenario. End-of-life care requires “an individual approach because every patient is different, even if they have the same diagnosis as someone else,” she said.

This work was supported by funding from the Singapore Millennium Foundation and the Lien Centre for Palliative Care. Dr. Ozdemir and Dr. Seecof had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What’s most important to patients with terminal cancer and their caregivers?

New research found that patients and caregivers both tend to prioritize symptom control over life extension but often preferring a balance. Patients and caregivers, however, are less aligned on decisions about cost containment, with patients more likely to prioritize cost containment.

“Our research has revealed that patients and caregivers generally share similar end-of-life goals,” with a “notable exception” when it comes to costs, first author Semra Ozdemir, PhD, with the Lien Centre for Palliative Care, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, told this news organization.

However, when patients and caregivers have a better understanding of the patient’s prognosis, both may be more inclined to avoid costly life-extending treatments and prioritize symptom management.

In other words, the survey suggests that “knowing the prognosis helps patients and their families set realistic expectations for care and adequately prepare for end-of-life decisions,” said Dr. Ozdemir.

This study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Patients with advanced cancer often face difficult decisions: Do they opt for treatments that may — or may not — extend life or do they focus more on symptom control?

Family caregivers, who also play an important role in this decision-making process, may have different care goals. Some research suggests that caregivers tend to prioritize treatments that could extend life, whereas patients prioritize symptom management, but it’s less clear how these priorities may change over time and how patients and caregivers may influence each other.

In the current study, the researchers examined goals of care among patients with stage IV solid tumors and caregivers during the last 2 years of life, focusing on life extension vs symptom management and cost containment, as well as how these goals changed over time.

The survey included 210 patient-caregiver pairs, recruited from outpatient clinics at two major cancer centers in Singapore. Patients had a mean age of 63 years, and about half were men. The caregivers had a mean age of 49 years, and almost two third (63%) were women.

Overall, 34% patients and 29% caregivers prioritized symptom management over life extension, whereas 24% patients and 19% caregivers prioritized life extension. Most patients and caregivers preferred balancing the two, with 34%-47% patients and 37%-69% caregivers supporting this approach.

When balancing cost and treatment decisions, however, patients were more likely to prioritize containing costs — 28% vs 17% for caregivers — over extending life — 26% of patients vs 35% of caregivers.

Cost containment tended to be more of a priority for older patients, those with a higher symptom burden, and those with less family caregiver support. For caregivers, cost containment was more of a priority for those who reported that caregiving had a big impact on their finances, those with worse self-esteem related to their caregiving abilities, as well as those caring for older patients.

To better align cost containment priorities between patients and caregivers, it’s essential for families to engage in open and thorough discussions about the allocation of resources, Dr. Ozdemir said.

Although “patients, families, and physicians often avoid discussions about prognosis,” such conversations are essential for setting realistic expectations for care and adequately preparing for end-of-life decisions, Dr. Ozdemir told this news organization.

“These conversations should aim to balance competing interests and create care plans that are mutually acceptable to both patients and caregivers,” she said, adding that “this approach will help in minimizing any potential conflicts and ensure that both parties feel respected and understood in their decision-making process.”

Managing Unrealistic Expectations

As patients approached the end of life, neither patients nor caregivers shifted their priorities from life extension to symptom management.

This finding raises concerns because it suggests that many patients hold unrealistic expectations regarding their care and “underscores the need for continuous dialogue and reassessment of care goals throughout the progression of illness,” Dr. Ozdemir said.

“This stability in preferences over time suggests that initial care decisions are deeply ingrained or that there may be a lack of ongoing communication about evolving care needs and possibilities as conditions change,” Ozdemir said.

Yet, it can be hard to define what unrealistic expectations mean, said Olivia Seecof, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“I think people are hopeful that a devastating diagnosis won’t lead to the end of their life and that there will be a treatment or something that will change [their prognosis], and they’ll get better,” said Dr. Seecof, palliative care expert with the Supportive Oncology Program at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York City.

Giving patients and caregivers a realistic understanding of the prognosis is important, but “there’s more to it than just telling the patient their diagnosis,” she said.

“We have to plan for end of life, what it can look like,” said Dr. Seecof, adding that “often we don’t do a very good job of talking about that early on in an illness course.”

Overall, though, Dr. Seecof stressed that no two patients or situations are the same, and it’s important to understand what’s important in each scenario. End-of-life care requires “an individual approach because every patient is different, even if they have the same diagnosis as someone else,” she said.

This work was supported by funding from the Singapore Millennium Foundation and the Lien Centre for Palliative Care. Dr. Ozdemir and Dr. Seecof had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Thoracic Oncology and Chest Procedures Network

Ultrasound and Chest Imaging Section

CHEST

Historically, transesophageal ultrasound (TEE) has been regarded as a diagnostic and management tool for structural heart disease in relatively stable patients. However, TEE is more commonly being utilized by intensivists as a first-line tool in the diagnostics and management of patients in the ICU.

CHEST

TEE also provides ultrasonographic evaluation of the lungs through transesophageal lung ultrasound (TELUS). TELUS allows for visualization of all six traditional lung zones utilized in traditional lung ultrasound.⁵ Patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome may greatly benefit from TEE utilization. TEE enables early detection of right ventricular dysfunction, aids in fluid management, and assesses the severity of lung consolidation, thereby facilitating prompt utilization of prone positioning or adjustments in positive end-expiratory pressure.

Cardiac arrest is another unique opportunity for TEE utilization by providing real-time cardiac visualization during active cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This facilitates optimal chest compression positioning, early recognition of arrhythmia, timely identification of reversible cause, and procedural guidance for ECMO-assisted CPR.⁶ TEE is an invaluable tool for the modern-day intensivist, providing rapid and accurate assessments, and therefore holds the potential to become standard of care in the ICU.

References

1. Prager R, Bowdridge J, Pratte M, Cheng J, McInnes MD, Arntfield R. Indications, clinical impact, and complications of critical care transesophageal echocardiography: a scoping review. J Intensive Care Med. 2023;38(3):245-272. Preprint. Posted online July 19, 2022. PMID: 35854414; PMCID: PMC9806486. doi: 10.1177/08850666221115348

2. Hüttemann E, Schelenz C, Kara F, Chatzinikolaou K, Reinhart K. The use and safety of transoesophageal echocardiography in the general ICU – a minireview. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2004;48(7):827-36. PMID: 15242426. doi: 10.1111/j.0001-5172.2004.00423.x

3. Mayo PH, Narasimhan M, Koenig S. Critical care transesophageal echocardiography. Chest. 2015;148(5):1323-1332. PMID: 26204465. doi: 10.1378/chest.15-0260

4. Prager R, Ainsworth C, Arntfield R. Critical care transesophageal echocardiography for the resuscitation of shock: an important diagnostic skill for the modern intensivist. Chest. 2023;163(2):268-269. PMID: 36759112. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2022.09.001

5. Cavayas YA, Girard M, Desjardins G, Denault AY. Transesophageal lung ultrasonography: a novel technique for investigating hypoxemia. Can J Anaesth. 2016;63(11):1266-76. Preprint. Posted online July 29, 2016. PMID: 27473720. doi: 10.1007/s12630-016-0702-2

6. Teran F, Prats MI, Nelson BP, et al. Focused transesophageal echocardiography during cardiac arrest resuscitation: JACC review wopic of the Week. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76(6):745-754. PMID: 32762909. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.074

Thoracic Oncology and Chest Procedures Network

Ultrasound and Chest Imaging Section

CHEST

Historically, transesophageal ultrasound (TEE) has been regarded as a diagnostic and management tool for structural heart disease in relatively stable patients. However, TEE is more commonly being utilized by intensivists as a first-line tool in the diagnostics and management of patients in the ICU.

CHEST

TEE also provides ultrasonographic evaluation of the lungs through transesophageal lung ultrasound (TELUS). TELUS allows for visualization of all six traditional lung zones utilized in traditional lung ultrasound.⁵ Patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome may greatly benefit from TEE utilization. TEE enables early detection of right ventricular dysfunction, aids in fluid management, and assesses the severity of lung consolidation, thereby facilitating prompt utilization of prone positioning or adjustments in positive end-expiratory pressure.

Cardiac arrest is another unique opportunity for TEE utilization by providing real-time cardiac visualization during active cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This facilitates optimal chest compression positioning, early recognition of arrhythmia, timely identification of reversible cause, and procedural guidance for ECMO-assisted CPR.⁶ TEE is an invaluable tool for the modern-day intensivist, providing rapid and accurate assessments, and therefore holds the potential to become standard of care in the ICU.

References

1. Prager R, Bowdridge J, Pratte M, Cheng J, McInnes MD, Arntfield R. Indications, clinical impact, and complications of critical care transesophageal echocardiography: a scoping review. J Intensive Care Med. 2023;38(3):245-272. Preprint. Posted online July 19, 2022. PMID: 35854414; PMCID: PMC9806486. doi: 10.1177/08850666221115348

2. Hüttemann E, Schelenz C, Kara F, Chatzinikolaou K, Reinhart K. The use and safety of transoesophageal echocardiography in the general ICU – a minireview. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2004;48(7):827-36. PMID: 15242426. doi: 10.1111/j.0001-5172.2004.00423.x

3. Mayo PH, Narasimhan M, Koenig S. Critical care transesophageal echocardiography. Chest. 2015;148(5):1323-1332. PMID: 26204465. doi: 10.1378/chest.15-0260

4. Prager R, Ainsworth C, Arntfield R. Critical care transesophageal echocardiography for the resuscitation of shock: an important diagnostic skill for the modern intensivist. Chest. 2023;163(2):268-269. PMID: 36759112. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2022.09.001

5. Cavayas YA, Girard M, Desjardins G, Denault AY. Transesophageal lung ultrasonography: a novel technique for investigating hypoxemia. Can J Anaesth. 2016;63(11):1266-76. Preprint. Posted online July 29, 2016. PMID: 27473720. doi: 10.1007/s12630-016-0702-2

6. Teran F, Prats MI, Nelson BP, et al. Focused transesophageal echocardiography during cardiac arrest resuscitation: JACC review wopic of the Week. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76(6):745-754. PMID: 32762909. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.074

Thoracic Oncology and Chest Procedures Network

Ultrasound and Chest Imaging Section

CHEST

Historically, transesophageal ultrasound (TEE) has been regarded as a diagnostic and management tool for structural heart disease in relatively stable patients. However, TEE is more commonly being utilized by intensivists as a first-line tool in the diagnostics and management of patients in the ICU.

CHEST

TEE also provides ultrasonographic evaluation of the lungs through transesophageal lung ultrasound (TELUS). TELUS allows for visualization of all six traditional lung zones utilized in traditional lung ultrasound.⁵ Patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome may greatly benefit from TEE utilization. TEE enables early detection of right ventricular dysfunction, aids in fluid management, and assesses the severity of lung consolidation, thereby facilitating prompt utilization of prone positioning or adjustments in positive end-expiratory pressure.

Cardiac arrest is another unique opportunity for TEE utilization by providing real-time cardiac visualization during active cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This facilitates optimal chest compression positioning, early recognition of arrhythmia, timely identification of reversible cause, and procedural guidance for ECMO-assisted CPR.⁶ TEE is an invaluable tool for the modern-day intensivist, providing rapid and accurate assessments, and therefore holds the potential to become standard of care in the ICU.

References

1. Prager R, Bowdridge J, Pratte M, Cheng J, McInnes MD, Arntfield R. Indications, clinical impact, and complications of critical care transesophageal echocardiography: a scoping review. J Intensive Care Med. 2023;38(3):245-272. Preprint. Posted online July 19, 2022. PMID: 35854414; PMCID: PMC9806486. doi: 10.1177/08850666221115348

2. Hüttemann E, Schelenz C, Kara F, Chatzinikolaou K, Reinhart K. The use and safety of transoesophageal echocardiography in the general ICU – a minireview. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2004;48(7):827-36. PMID: 15242426. doi: 10.1111/j.0001-5172.2004.00423.x

3. Mayo PH, Narasimhan M, Koenig S. Critical care transesophageal echocardiography. Chest. 2015;148(5):1323-1332. PMID: 26204465. doi: 10.1378/chest.15-0260

4. Prager R, Ainsworth C, Arntfield R. Critical care transesophageal echocardiography for the resuscitation of shock: an important diagnostic skill for the modern intensivist. Chest. 2023;163(2):268-269. PMID: 36759112. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2022.09.001

5. Cavayas YA, Girard M, Desjardins G, Denault AY. Transesophageal lung ultrasonography: a novel technique for investigating hypoxemia. Can J Anaesth. 2016;63(11):1266-76. Preprint. Posted online July 29, 2016. PMID: 27473720. doi: 10.1007/s12630-016-0702-2

6. Teran F, Prats MI, Nelson BP, et al. Focused transesophageal echocardiography during cardiac arrest resuscitation: JACC review wopic of the Week. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76(6):745-754. PMID: 32762909. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.074

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the US Department of Justice officials announced this week. 

First reported by the Associated Press and since confirmed by this news organization through a US Department of Justice spokesperson, the news made international headlines. Despite the media splash, the final rule is still months away.

How did we get here? What happens next? What impact might rescheduling have on clinicians, patients, researchers, and the medical cannabis industry? 

Why Reschedule? Why Now? 

The DEA’s decision is based on a 2023 determination from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that marijuana has a legitimate medical use and should be moved to Schedule III. 

DEA defines Schedule I drugs as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That class includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Schedule III drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and have a currently accepted medical use. This class includes ketamine, acetaminophen with codeine, and buprenorphine. 

Even though the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana has long violated federal law, 38 states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states and DC have legalized its recreational use.

Congress has allowed states leeway for the distribution and use of medical marijuana, and current and previous presidential administrations have chosen not to aggressively pursue prosecution of state-allowed marijuana use, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. 

Pressure to address the conflict between federal and state laws and an increasing interest in drug development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products probably contributed to the DEA’s decision, said Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor, and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

“The trend toward legalization is everywhere and even though nationally the feds in this instance are lagging the states, the pressure to legalize has been intense for 50 years and it’s not surprising that the DEA is finally following that lead,” Dr. Strakowski told this news organization. 

How Does Rescheduling Work? What’s the Timeline?

The DEA will submit a formal rule proposing that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The timing of the submission is unclear. 

Once the proposed rule is posted to the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period, which usually lasts 30-60 days.

“This will likely generate a lot of public comment,” Robert Mikos, JD, LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee, told this news organization. “Then the agency has to go back and wade through those comments and decide if they want to proceed with the rule as proposed or modify it.”

A final rule will probably be posted before the end of the current presidential term in January, Mr. Mikos said. While a lawsuit blocking its implementation is possible, there is a “low chance that a court would block this,” he added.

How Will Rescheduling Affect Medical Marijuana?

For medical marijuana, changing the drug to a Schedule III means that it can legally be prescribed but only in states that have legalized medical cannabis, Mr. Mikos said. 

“If you’re a patient in a state with a medical marijuana law and your physician gives you a prescription for medical marijuana and you possess it, you will no longer be guilty of a federal crime,” he said.

Rescheduling could also benefit patients who receive care through the Veterans Administration (VA), Mr. Mikos said. For several years, the VA has had a policy that blocked clinicians from prescribing medical marijuana because as a Schedule I drug, it was determined to have no accepted medical use. 

“It’s possible the VA may drop that policy once the drug gets rescheduled. If you’re in a medical marijuana state, if you’re a VA patient, and you don’t want to spend the extra money to go outside that system, this will have meaningful impact on their lives,” Mr. Mikos said.

But what about patients living in states that have not legalized medical cannabis? 

“You still wouldn’t be committing a federal crime, but you could be violating state law,” Mr. Mikos said. “That’s a much more salient consideration because if you look at who goes after individuals who possess small amounts of drugs, the state handles 99% of those cases.” 

The manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

What Does It Mean for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?

Though rescheduling makes it legal for clinicians to prescribe medical marijuana and for patients to use it, the actual sale of the drug will remain illegal under federal law because rescheduling only changes prescribing under the CSA, Mr. Mikos said.

“If you’re a dispensary and you sell it, even if it’s to somebody who’s got a prescription, you’re still probably violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Rescheduling doesn’t change that,” he said. 

“Even assuming the DEA follows through with this and it doesn’t come undone at some future date, the industry is still going struggle to comply with the Controlled Substances Act post rescheduling because that statute is going to continue to impose a number of regulations on the industry,” Mr. Mikos added.

However, rescheduling would change the tax status of the estimated 12,000-15,000 state-licensed cannabis dispensaries in the United States, allowing access to certain tax deductions that are unavailable to sales involving Schedule I controlled substances, James Daily, JD, MS, with Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told this news organization.

“Many cannabis businesses do in fact pay federal taxes, but the inability to take any federal tax credits or deductions means that their effective tax rate is much higher than it would otherwise be,” Mr. Daily said. 

Although new federal tax deductions would likely available to cannabis businesses if marijuana were rescheduled to Schedule III, “their business would still be in violation of federal law,” he said. 

“This creates a further tension between state and federal law, which could be resolved by further legalization or it could be resolved by extending the prohibition on tax deductions to include cannabis and not just Schedule I and II drugs,” he added.

Will Rescheduling Make It Easier to Conduct Cannabis-Related Research? 

Research on medical cannabis has been stymied by FDA and DEA regulations regarding the study of Schedule I controlled substances. Although rescheduling could lift that barrier, other challenges would remain.

“Schedule III drugs can be more easily researched, but it’s unclear if, for example, a clinical trial could lawfully obtain the cannabis from a dispensary or if they would still have to go through the one legal federal supplier of cannabis,” Daily said. 

The FDA reports having received more than 800 investigational new drug applications for and pre-investigational new drug applications related to cannabis and cannabis-derived products since the 1970s, the agency reports. To date, the FDA has not approved any marketing drug applications for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. 

In January 2023, the agency published updated guidelines for researchers and sponsors interested in developing drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. 

It’s unclear whether those guidelines would be updated if the rescheduling moves forward. 

Does Rescheduling Marijuana Pose Any Risk? 

In its report to the DEA that marijuana be rescheduled, the FDA was careful to note that the agency’s recommendation is “not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana that would support FDA approval of a marijuana drug product for a particular indication.”

That’s a notation that clinicians and patients should take to heart, Dr. Strakowski said. 

“It’s important to remind people that Schedule III drugs, by definition, have addiction and other side effect risks,” he said. “The celebrity marketing that sits behind a lot of this is incompletely informed. It’s portrayed as fun and harmless in almost every movie and conversation you see, and we know that’s not true.”

Previous studies have linked cannabis to increased risk for mania, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. 

“It is increasingly clear that marijuana use is linked to poor outcomes in people who struggle with mental illness,” Dr. Strakowski said. “We have no evidence that it can help you but there is evidence that it can harm you.”

Dr. Strakowski likens cannabis use to alcohol, which is a known depressant that is associated with worse outcomes in people with mental illness. 

“I think with cannabis, we don’t know enough about it yet, but we do know that it does have some anxiety risks,” he said. “The risks in people with mental illness are simply different than in people who don’t have mental illness.”

Dr. Strakowski, Mr. Mikos, and Mr. Daily report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the US Department of Justice officials announced this week. 

First reported by the Associated Press and since confirmed by this news organization through a US Department of Justice spokesperson, the news made international headlines. Despite the media splash, the final rule is still months away.

How did we get here? What happens next? What impact might rescheduling have on clinicians, patients, researchers, and the medical cannabis industry? 

Why Reschedule? Why Now? 

The DEA’s decision is based on a 2023 determination from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that marijuana has a legitimate medical use and should be moved to Schedule III. 

DEA defines Schedule I drugs as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That class includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Schedule III drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and have a currently accepted medical use. This class includes ketamine, acetaminophen with codeine, and buprenorphine. 

Even though the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana has long violated federal law, 38 states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states and DC have legalized its recreational use.

Congress has allowed states leeway for the distribution and use of medical marijuana, and current and previous presidential administrations have chosen not to aggressively pursue prosecution of state-allowed marijuana use, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. 

Pressure to address the conflict between federal and state laws and an increasing interest in drug development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products probably contributed to the DEA’s decision, said Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor, and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

“The trend toward legalization is everywhere and even though nationally the feds in this instance are lagging the states, the pressure to legalize has been intense for 50 years and it’s not surprising that the DEA is finally following that lead,” Dr. Strakowski told this news organization. 

How Does Rescheduling Work? What’s the Timeline?

The DEA will submit a formal rule proposing that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The timing of the submission is unclear. 

Once the proposed rule is posted to the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period, which usually lasts 30-60 days.

“This will likely generate a lot of public comment,” Robert Mikos, JD, LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee, told this news organization. “Then the agency has to go back and wade through those comments and decide if they want to proceed with the rule as proposed or modify it.”

A final rule will probably be posted before the end of the current presidential term in January, Mr. Mikos said. While a lawsuit blocking its implementation is possible, there is a “low chance that a court would block this,” he added.

How Will Rescheduling Affect Medical Marijuana?

For medical marijuana, changing the drug to a Schedule III means that it can legally be prescribed but only in states that have legalized medical cannabis, Mr. Mikos said. 

“If you’re a patient in a state with a medical marijuana law and your physician gives you a prescription for medical marijuana and you possess it, you will no longer be guilty of a federal crime,” he said.

Rescheduling could also benefit patients who receive care through the Veterans Administration (VA), Mr. Mikos said. For several years, the VA has had a policy that blocked clinicians from prescribing medical marijuana because as a Schedule I drug, it was determined to have no accepted medical use. 

“It’s possible the VA may drop that policy once the drug gets rescheduled. If you’re in a medical marijuana state, if you’re a VA patient, and you don’t want to spend the extra money to go outside that system, this will have meaningful impact on their lives,” Mr. Mikos said.

But what about patients living in states that have not legalized medical cannabis? 

“You still wouldn’t be committing a federal crime, but you could be violating state law,” Mr. Mikos said. “That’s a much more salient consideration because if you look at who goes after individuals who possess small amounts of drugs, the state handles 99% of those cases.” 

The manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

What Does It Mean for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?

Though rescheduling makes it legal for clinicians to prescribe medical marijuana and for patients to use it, the actual sale of the drug will remain illegal under federal law because rescheduling only changes prescribing under the CSA, Mr. Mikos said.

“If you’re a dispensary and you sell it, even if it’s to somebody who’s got a prescription, you’re still probably violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Rescheduling doesn’t change that,” he said. 

“Even assuming the DEA follows through with this and it doesn’t come undone at some future date, the industry is still going struggle to comply with the Controlled Substances Act post rescheduling because that statute is going to continue to impose a number of regulations on the industry,” Mr. Mikos added.

However, rescheduling would change the tax status of the estimated 12,000-15,000 state-licensed cannabis dispensaries in the United States, allowing access to certain tax deductions that are unavailable to sales involving Schedule I controlled substances, James Daily, JD, MS, with Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told this news organization.

“Many cannabis businesses do in fact pay federal taxes, but the inability to take any federal tax credits or deductions means that their effective tax rate is much higher than it would otherwise be,” Mr. Daily said. 

Although new federal tax deductions would likely available to cannabis businesses if marijuana were rescheduled to Schedule III, “their business would still be in violation of federal law,” he said. 

“This creates a further tension between state and federal law, which could be resolved by further legalization or it could be resolved by extending the prohibition on tax deductions to include cannabis and not just Schedule I and II drugs,” he added.

Will Rescheduling Make It Easier to Conduct Cannabis-Related Research? 

Research on medical cannabis has been stymied by FDA and DEA regulations regarding the study of Schedule I controlled substances. Although rescheduling could lift that barrier, other challenges would remain.

“Schedule III drugs can be more easily researched, but it’s unclear if, for example, a clinical trial could lawfully obtain the cannabis from a dispensary or if they would still have to go through the one legal federal supplier of cannabis,” Daily said. 

The FDA reports having received more than 800 investigational new drug applications for and pre-investigational new drug applications related to cannabis and cannabis-derived products since the 1970s, the agency reports. To date, the FDA has not approved any marketing drug applications for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. 

In January 2023, the agency published updated guidelines for researchers and sponsors interested in developing drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. 

It’s unclear whether those guidelines would be updated if the rescheduling moves forward. 

Does Rescheduling Marijuana Pose Any Risk? 

In its report to the DEA that marijuana be rescheduled, the FDA was careful to note that the agency’s recommendation is “not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana that would support FDA approval of a marijuana drug product for a particular indication.”

That’s a notation that clinicians and patients should take to heart, Dr. Strakowski said. 

“It’s important to remind people that Schedule III drugs, by definition, have addiction and other side effect risks,” he said. “The celebrity marketing that sits behind a lot of this is incompletely informed. It’s portrayed as fun and harmless in almost every movie and conversation you see, and we know that’s not true.”

Previous studies have linked cannabis to increased risk for mania, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. 

“It is increasingly clear that marijuana use is linked to poor outcomes in people who struggle with mental illness,” Dr. Strakowski said. “We have no evidence that it can help you but there is evidence that it can harm you.”

Dr. Strakowski likens cannabis use to alcohol, which is a known depressant that is associated with worse outcomes in people with mental illness. 

“I think with cannabis, we don’t know enough about it yet, but we do know that it does have some anxiety risks,” he said. “The risks in people with mental illness are simply different than in people who don’t have mental illness.”

Dr. Strakowski, Mr. Mikos, and Mr. Daily report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the US Department of Justice officials announced this week. 

First reported by the Associated Press and since confirmed by this news organization through a US Department of Justice spokesperson, the news made international headlines. Despite the media splash, the final rule is still months away.

How did we get here? What happens next? What impact might rescheduling have on clinicians, patients, researchers, and the medical cannabis industry? 

Why Reschedule? Why Now? 

The DEA’s decision is based on a 2023 determination from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that marijuana has a legitimate medical use and should be moved to Schedule III. 

DEA defines Schedule I drugs as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That class includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Schedule III drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and have a currently accepted medical use. This class includes ketamine, acetaminophen with codeine, and buprenorphine. 

Even though the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana has long violated federal law, 38 states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states and DC have legalized its recreational use.

Congress has allowed states leeway for the distribution and use of medical marijuana, and current and previous presidential administrations have chosen not to aggressively pursue prosecution of state-allowed marijuana use, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. 

Pressure to address the conflict between federal and state laws and an increasing interest in drug development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products probably contributed to the DEA’s decision, said Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor, and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

“The trend toward legalization is everywhere and even though nationally the feds in this instance are lagging the states, the pressure to legalize has been intense for 50 years and it’s not surprising that the DEA is finally following that lead,” Dr. Strakowski told this news organization. 

How Does Rescheduling Work? What’s the Timeline?

The DEA will submit a formal rule proposing that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The timing of the submission is unclear. 

Once the proposed rule is posted to the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period, which usually lasts 30-60 days.

“This will likely generate a lot of public comment,” Robert Mikos, JD, LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee, told this news organization. “Then the agency has to go back and wade through those comments and decide if they want to proceed with the rule as proposed or modify it.”

A final rule will probably be posted before the end of the current presidential term in January, Mr. Mikos said. While a lawsuit blocking its implementation is possible, there is a “low chance that a court would block this,” he added.

How Will Rescheduling Affect Medical Marijuana?

For medical marijuana, changing the drug to a Schedule III means that it can legally be prescribed but only in states that have legalized medical cannabis, Mr. Mikos said. 

“If you’re a patient in a state with a medical marijuana law and your physician gives you a prescription for medical marijuana and you possess it, you will no longer be guilty of a federal crime,” he said.

Rescheduling could also benefit patients who receive care through the Veterans Administration (VA), Mr. Mikos said. For several years, the VA has had a policy that blocked clinicians from prescribing medical marijuana because as a Schedule I drug, it was determined to have no accepted medical use. 

“It’s possible the VA may drop that policy once the drug gets rescheduled. If you’re in a medical marijuana state, if you’re a VA patient, and you don’t want to spend the extra money to go outside that system, this will have meaningful impact on their lives,” Mr. Mikos said.

But what about patients living in states that have not legalized medical cannabis? 

“You still wouldn’t be committing a federal crime, but you could be violating state law,” Mr. Mikos said. “That’s a much more salient consideration because if you look at who goes after individuals who possess small amounts of drugs, the state handles 99% of those cases.” 

The manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

What Does It Mean for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?

Though rescheduling makes it legal for clinicians to prescribe medical marijuana and for patients to use it, the actual sale of the drug will remain illegal under federal law because rescheduling only changes prescribing under the CSA, Mr. Mikos said.

“If you’re a dispensary and you sell it, even if it’s to somebody who’s got a prescription, you’re still probably violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Rescheduling doesn’t change that,” he said. 

“Even assuming the DEA follows through with this and it doesn’t come undone at some future date, the industry is still going struggle to comply with the Controlled Substances Act post rescheduling because that statute is going to continue to impose a number of regulations on the industry,” Mr. Mikos added.

However, rescheduling would change the tax status of the estimated 12,000-15,000 state-licensed cannabis dispensaries in the United States, allowing access to certain tax deductions that are unavailable to sales involving Schedule I controlled substances, James Daily, JD, MS, with Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told this news organization.

“Many cannabis businesses do in fact pay federal taxes, but the inability to take any federal tax credits or deductions means that their effective tax rate is much higher than it would otherwise be,” Mr. Daily said. 

Although new federal tax deductions would likely available to cannabis businesses if marijuana were rescheduled to Schedule III, “their business would still be in violation of federal law,” he said. 

“This creates a further tension between state and federal law, which could be resolved by further legalization or it could be resolved by extending the prohibition on tax deductions to include cannabis and not just Schedule I and II drugs,” he added.

Will Rescheduling Make It Easier to Conduct Cannabis-Related Research? 

Research on medical cannabis has been stymied by FDA and DEA regulations regarding the study of Schedule I controlled substances. Although rescheduling could lift that barrier, other challenges would remain.

“Schedule III drugs can be more easily researched, but it’s unclear if, for example, a clinical trial could lawfully obtain the cannabis from a dispensary or if they would still have to go through the one legal federal supplier of cannabis,” Daily said. 

The FDA reports having received more than 800 investigational new drug applications for and pre-investigational new drug applications related to cannabis and cannabis-derived products since the 1970s, the agency reports. To date, the FDA has not approved any marketing drug applications for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. 

In January 2023, the agency published updated guidelines for researchers and sponsors interested in developing drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. 

It’s unclear whether those guidelines would be updated if the rescheduling moves forward. 

Does Rescheduling Marijuana Pose Any Risk? 

In its report to the DEA that marijuana be rescheduled, the FDA was careful to note that the agency’s recommendation is “not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana that would support FDA approval of a marijuana drug product for a particular indication.”

That’s a notation that clinicians and patients should take to heart, Dr. Strakowski said. 

“It’s important to remind people that Schedule III drugs, by definition, have addiction and other side effect risks,” he said. “The celebrity marketing that sits behind a lot of this is incompletely informed. It’s portrayed as fun and harmless in almost every movie and conversation you see, and we know that’s not true.”

Previous studies have linked cannabis to increased risk for mania, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. 

“It is increasingly clear that marijuana use is linked to poor outcomes in people who struggle with mental illness,” Dr. Strakowski said. “We have no evidence that it can help you but there is evidence that it can harm you.”

Dr. Strakowski likens cannabis use to alcohol, which is a known depressant that is associated with worse outcomes in people with mental illness. 

“I think with cannabis, we don’t know enough about it yet, but we do know that it does have some anxiety risks,” he said. “The risks in people with mental illness are simply different than in people who don’t have mental illness.”

Dr. Strakowski, Mr. Mikos, and Mr. Daily report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A contentious scientific debate is clouding prospects for a deeper understanding of the microbiome’s role in cancer, a relatively young field of research that some believe could lead to breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of the second-leading cause of death in the United States. 

Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.

The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.

This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies? 
 

Cancer Controversy

The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.

The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes. 

“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.” 

For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.

“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.” 

The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?

This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. 

Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study. 

“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”

Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.

Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.

Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed. 

The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.

For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading. 

It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.

Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed. 

Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.” 

Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions. 

“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
 

Underdeveloped Technology 

Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question. 

For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies. 

Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one. 

Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible. 

“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.

Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.

Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.

“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said. 
 

Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes

Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.

The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.

“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost. 

“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said. 

In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said. 

Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.

Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”

It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted. 
 

No Consensus Yet

Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans. 

It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges. 

“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.

“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A contentious scientific debate is clouding prospects for a deeper understanding of the microbiome’s role in cancer, a relatively young field of research that some believe could lead to breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of the second-leading cause of death in the United States. 

Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.

The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.

This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies? 
 

Cancer Controversy

The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.

The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes. 

“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.” 

For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.

“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.” 

The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?

This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. 

Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study. 

“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”

Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.

Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.

Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed. 

The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.

For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading. 

It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.

Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed. 

Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.” 

Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions. 

“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
 

Underdeveloped Technology 

Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question. 

For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies. 

Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one. 

Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible. 

“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.

Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.

Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.

“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said. 
 

Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes

Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.

The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.

“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost. 

“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said. 

In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said. 

Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.

Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”

It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted. 
 

No Consensus Yet

Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans. 

It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges. 

“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.

“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A contentious scientific debate is clouding prospects for a deeper understanding of the microbiome’s role in cancer, a relatively young field of research that some believe could lead to breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of the second-leading cause of death in the United States. 

Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.

The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.

This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies? 
 

Cancer Controversy

The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.

The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes. 

“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.” 

For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.

“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.” 

The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?

This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. 

Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study. 

“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”

Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.

Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.

Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed. 

The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.

For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading. 

It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.

Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed. 

Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.” 

Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions. 

“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
 

Underdeveloped Technology 

Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question. 

For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies. 

Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one. 

Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible. 

“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.

Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.

Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.

“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said. 
 

Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes

Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.

The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.

“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost. 

“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said. 

In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said. 

Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.

Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”

It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted. 
 

No Consensus Yet

Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans. 

It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges. 

“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.

“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. It’s Mark Kris reporting back after attending the New York Lung Cancer Foundation Summit here in New York. A large amount of discussion went on, but as usual, I was most interested in the perioperative space.

In previous videos, I’ve talked about this ongoing discussion of whether you should operate and give adjuvant therapy or give neoadjuvant therapy, and I’ve addressed that already. One thing I want to bring up – and as we move off of that argument, which frankly doesn’t have an answer today, with neoadjuvant therapy, having all the data to support it – is what are the patterns of recurrence now that we have more successful systemic therapies, both targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors?

I was taught early on by my surgical mentors that the issue here was systemic control. While they could do very successful surgery to get high levels of local control, they could not control systemic disease. Sadly, the tools we had early on with chemotherapy were just not good enough. Suddenly, we have better tools to control systemic spread. In the past, the vast majority of occurrences were systemic; they’re now local.

What I think we need to do as a group of practitioners trying to deal with the problems getting in the way of curing our patients is look at what the issue is now. Frankly, the big issue now, as systemic therapy has controlled metastatic disease, is recurrence in the chest.

We give adjuvant osimertinib. Please remember what the numbers are. In the osimertinib arm, of the 11 recurrences reported in the European Society for Medical Oncology presentation a few years back, nine of them were in the chest or mediastinal nodes. In the arm that got no osimertinib afterward, there were 46 recurrences, and 32 of those 46 recurrences were in the chest, either the lung or mediastinal nodes. Therefore, 74% of the recurrences are suddenly in the chest. What’s the issue here?

The issue is we need to find strategies to give better disease control in the chest, as we have made inroads in controlling systemic disease with the targeted therapies in the endothelial growth factor receptor space, and very likely the checkpoint inhibitors, too, as that data kind of filters out. We need to think about how better to get local control.

I think rather than continue to get into this argument of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant, we should move to what’s really hurting our patients. Again, the data I quoted you was from the ADAURA trial, which was adjuvant therapy, and I’m sure the neoadjuvant is going to show the same thing. It’s better systemic therapy but now, more trouble in the chest.

How are we going to deal with that? I’d like to throw out one strategy, and that is to rethink the role of radiation in these patients. Again, if the problem is local in the chest, lung, and lymph nodes, we have to think about local therapy. Yes, we’re not recommending it routinely for everybody, but now that we have better systemic control, we need to rethink our options. The obvious one to rethink is about giving radiotherapy.

We should also use what we learned in the earlier trials, which is that there is harm in giving excessive radiation to the heart. If you avoid the heart, you avoid the harm. We have better planning strategies for stereotactic body radiotherapy and more traditional radiation, and of course, we have proton therapy as well.

As we continue to struggle with the idea of that patient with stage II or III disease, whether to give adjuvant vs neoadjuvant therapy, please remember to consider their risk in 2024. Their risk for first recurrence is in the chest.

What are we going to do to better control disease in the chest? We have a challenge. I’m sure we can meet it if we put our heads together.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, and attending physician, Thoracic Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and PUMA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. It’s Mark Kris reporting back after attending the New York Lung Cancer Foundation Summit here in New York. A large amount of discussion went on, but as usual, I was most interested in the perioperative space.

In previous videos, I’ve talked about this ongoing discussion of whether you should operate and give adjuvant therapy or give neoadjuvant therapy, and I’ve addressed that already. One thing I want to bring up – and as we move off of that argument, which frankly doesn’t have an answer today, with neoadjuvant therapy, having all the data to support it – is what are the patterns of recurrence now that we have more successful systemic therapies, both targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors?

I was taught early on by my surgical mentors that the issue here was systemic control. While they could do very successful surgery to get high levels of local control, they could not control systemic disease. Sadly, the tools we had early on with chemotherapy were just not good enough. Suddenly, we have better tools to control systemic spread. In the past, the vast majority of occurrences were systemic; they’re now local.

What I think we need to do as a group of practitioners trying to deal with the problems getting in the way of curing our patients is look at what the issue is now. Frankly, the big issue now, as systemic therapy has controlled metastatic disease, is recurrence in the chest.

We give adjuvant osimertinib. Please remember what the numbers are. In the osimertinib arm, of the 11 recurrences reported in the European Society for Medical Oncology presentation a few years back, nine of them were in the chest or mediastinal nodes. In the arm that got no osimertinib afterward, there were 46 recurrences, and 32 of those 46 recurrences were in the chest, either the lung or mediastinal nodes. Therefore, 74% of the recurrences are suddenly in the chest. What’s the issue here?

The issue is we need to find strategies to give better disease control in the chest, as we have made inroads in controlling systemic disease with the targeted therapies in the endothelial growth factor receptor space, and very likely the checkpoint inhibitors, too, as that data kind of filters out. We need to think about how better to get local control.

I think rather than continue to get into this argument of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant, we should move to what’s really hurting our patients. Again, the data I quoted you was from the ADAURA trial, which was adjuvant therapy, and I’m sure the neoadjuvant is going to show the same thing. It’s better systemic therapy but now, more trouble in the chest.

How are we going to deal with that? I’d like to throw out one strategy, and that is to rethink the role of radiation in these patients. Again, if the problem is local in the chest, lung, and lymph nodes, we have to think about local therapy. Yes, we’re not recommending it routinely for everybody, but now that we have better systemic control, we need to rethink our options. The obvious one to rethink is about giving radiotherapy.

We should also use what we learned in the earlier trials, which is that there is harm in giving excessive radiation to the heart. If you avoid the heart, you avoid the harm. We have better planning strategies for stereotactic body radiotherapy and more traditional radiation, and of course, we have proton therapy as well.

As we continue to struggle with the idea of that patient with stage II or III disease, whether to give adjuvant vs neoadjuvant therapy, please remember to consider their risk in 2024. Their risk for first recurrence is in the chest.

What are we going to do to better control disease in the chest? We have a challenge. I’m sure we can meet it if we put our heads together.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, and attending physician, Thoracic Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and PUMA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. It’s Mark Kris reporting back after attending the New York Lung Cancer Foundation Summit here in New York. A large amount of discussion went on, but as usual, I was most interested in the perioperative space.

In previous videos, I’ve talked about this ongoing discussion of whether you should operate and give adjuvant therapy or give neoadjuvant therapy, and I’ve addressed that already. One thing I want to bring up – and as we move off of that argument, which frankly doesn’t have an answer today, with neoadjuvant therapy, having all the data to support it – is what are the patterns of recurrence now that we have more successful systemic therapies, both targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors?

I was taught early on by my surgical mentors that the issue here was systemic control. While they could do very successful surgery to get high levels of local control, they could not control systemic disease. Sadly, the tools we had early on with chemotherapy were just not good enough. Suddenly, we have better tools to control systemic spread. In the past, the vast majority of occurrences were systemic; they’re now local.

What I think we need to do as a group of practitioners trying to deal with the problems getting in the way of curing our patients is look at what the issue is now. Frankly, the big issue now, as systemic therapy has controlled metastatic disease, is recurrence in the chest.

We give adjuvant osimertinib. Please remember what the numbers are. In the osimertinib arm, of the 11 recurrences reported in the European Society for Medical Oncology presentation a few years back, nine of them were in the chest or mediastinal nodes. In the arm that got no osimertinib afterward, there were 46 recurrences, and 32 of those 46 recurrences were in the chest, either the lung or mediastinal nodes. Therefore, 74% of the recurrences are suddenly in the chest. What’s the issue here?

The issue is we need to find strategies to give better disease control in the chest, as we have made inroads in controlling systemic disease with the targeted therapies in the endothelial growth factor receptor space, and very likely the checkpoint inhibitors, too, as that data kind of filters out. We need to think about how better to get local control.

I think rather than continue to get into this argument of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant, we should move to what’s really hurting our patients. Again, the data I quoted you was from the ADAURA trial, which was adjuvant therapy, and I’m sure the neoadjuvant is going to show the same thing. It’s better systemic therapy but now, more trouble in the chest.

How are we going to deal with that? I’d like to throw out one strategy, and that is to rethink the role of radiation in these patients. Again, if the problem is local in the chest, lung, and lymph nodes, we have to think about local therapy. Yes, we’re not recommending it routinely for everybody, but now that we have better systemic control, we need to rethink our options. The obvious one to rethink is about giving radiotherapy.

We should also use what we learned in the earlier trials, which is that there is harm in giving excessive radiation to the heart. If you avoid the heart, you avoid the harm. We have better planning strategies for stereotactic body radiotherapy and more traditional radiation, and of course, we have proton therapy as well.

As we continue to struggle with the idea of that patient with stage II or III disease, whether to give adjuvant vs neoadjuvant therapy, please remember to consider their risk in 2024. Their risk for first recurrence is in the chest.

What are we going to do to better control disease in the chest? We have a challenge. I’m sure we can meet it if we put our heads together.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, and attending physician, Thoracic Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and PUMA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — When should patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer receive osimertinib plus platinum-based chemotherapy in the frontline setting and when is osimertinib enough on its own?

That is a question brewing among some oncologists now that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) for both indications in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.

An answer began to emerge in research presented at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

An exploratory analysis of the FLAURA2 trial found that, when patients have EGFR mutations on baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing, the combination treatment can extend progression-free survival (PFS). In this patient group, those receiving osimertinib alongside pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin had a 9-month PFS advantage compared with those who received osimertinib alone.

Conversely, when patients do not have EGFR mutations following baseline ctDNA testing, osimertinib alone appears to offer similar PFS outcomes to the combination therapy, but with less toxicity.

“Baseline detection of plasma EGFR mutations may identify a subgroup of patients who derive most benefit from the addition of platinum-pemetrexed to osimertinib as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated advance non–small cell lung cancer,” investigator Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, a lung cancer oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said during his presentation.

The FLAURA2 trial randomized 557 patients equally to daily osimertinib either alone or with pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by pemetrexed every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Patients were tested for Ex19del or L858R EGFR mutations at baseline and at 3 and 6 weeks; baseline mutations were found in 73% of evaluable patients.

In patients with baseline mutations, the median PFS was 24.8 months with the combination therapy vs 13.9 months with osimertinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60).

In patients without baseline mutations, the median PFS was similar in both groups — 33.3 months with the combination vs 30.3 months with monotherapy (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.51-1.72).

The investigators also found that having baseline mutations was associated with worse outcomes regardless of study arm, and mutation clearance was associated with improved outcomes. Clearance occurred more quickly among patients receiving the combination treatment, but almost 90% of patients in both arms cleared their mutations by week 6.

“As we move forward and think about which of our patients we would treat with the combination ... the presence of baseline EGFR mutations in ctDNA may be one of the features that goes into the conversation,” Dr. Jänne said.

Study discussant Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, a thoracic oncologist at the University of Chicago, agreed that this trial can help oncologists make this kind of treatment decision.

Patients with baseline EGFR mutations also tended to have larger tumors, more brain metastases, and worse performance scores; the combination therapy makes sense when such factors are present in patients with baseline EGFR mutations, Dr. Garassino said.

The wrinkle in the findings is that the study used digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (Biodesix) to test for EGFR mutations, which is not commonly used. Clinicians often use next-generation sequencing, which is less sensitive and can lead to false negatives.

It makes it difficult to know how to apply the findings to everyday practice, but Janne hopes a study will be done to correlate next-generation sequencing detection with outcomes.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of osimertinib, and researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Jänne is a consultant for and reported research funding from the company. He is a co-inventor on an EGFR mutations patent. Dr. Garassino is also an AstraZeneca consultant and reported institutional financial interests in the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — When should patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer receive osimertinib plus platinum-based chemotherapy in the frontline setting and when is osimertinib enough on its own?

That is a question brewing among some oncologists now that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) for both indications in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.

An answer began to emerge in research presented at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

An exploratory analysis of the FLAURA2 trial found that, when patients have EGFR mutations on baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing, the combination treatment can extend progression-free survival (PFS). In this patient group, those receiving osimertinib alongside pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin had a 9-month PFS advantage compared with those who received osimertinib alone.

Conversely, when patients do not have EGFR mutations following baseline ctDNA testing, osimertinib alone appears to offer similar PFS outcomes to the combination therapy, but with less toxicity.

“Baseline detection of plasma EGFR mutations may identify a subgroup of patients who derive most benefit from the addition of platinum-pemetrexed to osimertinib as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated advance non–small cell lung cancer,” investigator Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, a lung cancer oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said during his presentation.

The FLAURA2 trial randomized 557 patients equally to daily osimertinib either alone or with pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by pemetrexed every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Patients were tested for Ex19del or L858R EGFR mutations at baseline and at 3 and 6 weeks; baseline mutations were found in 73% of evaluable patients.

In patients with baseline mutations, the median PFS was 24.8 months with the combination therapy vs 13.9 months with osimertinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60).

In patients without baseline mutations, the median PFS was similar in both groups — 33.3 months with the combination vs 30.3 months with monotherapy (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.51-1.72).

The investigators also found that having baseline mutations was associated with worse outcomes regardless of study arm, and mutation clearance was associated with improved outcomes. Clearance occurred more quickly among patients receiving the combination treatment, but almost 90% of patients in both arms cleared their mutations by week 6.

“As we move forward and think about which of our patients we would treat with the combination ... the presence of baseline EGFR mutations in ctDNA may be one of the features that goes into the conversation,” Dr. Jänne said.

Study discussant Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, a thoracic oncologist at the University of Chicago, agreed that this trial can help oncologists make this kind of treatment decision.

Patients with baseline EGFR mutations also tended to have larger tumors, more brain metastases, and worse performance scores; the combination therapy makes sense when such factors are present in patients with baseline EGFR mutations, Dr. Garassino said.

The wrinkle in the findings is that the study used digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (Biodesix) to test for EGFR mutations, which is not commonly used. Clinicians often use next-generation sequencing, which is less sensitive and can lead to false negatives.

It makes it difficult to know how to apply the findings to everyday practice, but Janne hopes a study will be done to correlate next-generation sequencing detection with outcomes.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of osimertinib, and researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Jänne is a consultant for and reported research funding from the company. He is a co-inventor on an EGFR mutations patent. Dr. Garassino is also an AstraZeneca consultant and reported institutional financial interests in the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — When should patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer receive osimertinib plus platinum-based chemotherapy in the frontline setting and when is osimertinib enough on its own?

That is a question brewing among some oncologists now that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) for both indications in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.

An answer began to emerge in research presented at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

An exploratory analysis of the FLAURA2 trial found that, when patients have EGFR mutations on baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing, the combination treatment can extend progression-free survival (PFS). In this patient group, those receiving osimertinib alongside pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin had a 9-month PFS advantage compared with those who received osimertinib alone.

Conversely, when patients do not have EGFR mutations following baseline ctDNA testing, osimertinib alone appears to offer similar PFS outcomes to the combination therapy, but with less toxicity.

“Baseline detection of plasma EGFR mutations may identify a subgroup of patients who derive most benefit from the addition of platinum-pemetrexed to osimertinib as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated advance non–small cell lung cancer,” investigator Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, a lung cancer oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said during his presentation.

The FLAURA2 trial randomized 557 patients equally to daily osimertinib either alone or with pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by pemetrexed every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Patients were tested for Ex19del or L858R EGFR mutations at baseline and at 3 and 6 weeks; baseline mutations were found in 73% of evaluable patients.

In patients with baseline mutations, the median PFS was 24.8 months with the combination therapy vs 13.9 months with osimertinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60).

In patients without baseline mutations, the median PFS was similar in both groups — 33.3 months with the combination vs 30.3 months with monotherapy (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.51-1.72).

The investigators also found that having baseline mutations was associated with worse outcomes regardless of study arm, and mutation clearance was associated with improved outcomes. Clearance occurred more quickly among patients receiving the combination treatment, but almost 90% of patients in both arms cleared their mutations by week 6.

“As we move forward and think about which of our patients we would treat with the combination ... the presence of baseline EGFR mutations in ctDNA may be one of the features that goes into the conversation,” Dr. Jänne said.

Study discussant Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, a thoracic oncologist at the University of Chicago, agreed that this trial can help oncologists make this kind of treatment decision.

Patients with baseline EGFR mutations also tended to have larger tumors, more brain metastases, and worse performance scores; the combination therapy makes sense when such factors are present in patients with baseline EGFR mutations, Dr. Garassino said.

The wrinkle in the findings is that the study used digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (Biodesix) to test for EGFR mutations, which is not commonly used. Clinicians often use next-generation sequencing, which is less sensitive and can lead to false negatives.

It makes it difficult to know how to apply the findings to everyday practice, but Janne hopes a study will be done to correlate next-generation sequencing detection with outcomes.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of osimertinib, and researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Jänne is a consultant for and reported research funding from the company. He is a co-inventor on an EGFR mutations patent. Dr. Garassino is also an AstraZeneca consultant and reported institutional financial interests in the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study conducted in the United States showed that many individuals undergo lung cancer screening despite having a higher likelihood of experiencing harm rather than benefit. Why does this happen? Could it also occur in Italy?

Reasons in Favor

The authors of the study, which was published in Annals of Family Medicine interviewed 40 former military personnel with a significant history of smoking. Though the patients presented with various comorbidities and had a limited life expectancy, the Veterans Health Administration had offered them lung cancer screening.

Of the 40 respondents, 26 had accepted the screening test. When asked why they had done so, they responded, “to take care of my health and achieve my life goals,” “because screening is an opportunity to identify potential issues,” “because it was recommended by a doctor I trust,” and “because I don’t want to regret not accepting it.” Strangely, when deciding about lung cancer screening, the respondents did not consider their poor health or life expectancy.
 

Potential Harms 

The screening was also welcomed because low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a noninvasive test. However, many participants were unaware that the screening needed to be repeated annually and that further imaging or other types of tests could follow LDCT, such as biopsies and bronchoscopies.

Many did not recall discussing with the doctor the potential harms of screening, including overdiagnosis, stress due to false positives, and complications and risks associated with investigations and treatments. Informed about this, several patients stated that they would not necessarily undergo further tests or antitumor treatments, especially if intensive or invasive.

The authors of the article emphasized the importance of shared decision-making with patients who have a marginal expected benefit from screening. But is it correct to offer screening under these conditions? Guidelines advise against screening individuals with limited life expectancy and multiple comorbidities because the risk-benefit ratio is not favorable.
 

Screening in Italy

Italy has no organized public program for lung screening. However, in 2022, the Rete Italiana Screening Polmonare (RISP) program for early lung cancer diagnosis was launched. Supported by European funds, it is coordinated by the National Cancer Institute (INT) in Milan and aims to recruit 10,000 high-risk candidates for free screening at 18 hospitals across Italy.

Optimizing participant selection is important in any screening, but in a program like RISP, it is essential, said Alessandro Pardolesi, MD, a thoracic surgeon at INT. “Subjects with multiple comorbidities would create a limit to the study, because there would be too many confounding factors. By maintaining correct inclusion criteria, we can build a reproducible model to demonstrate that screening has a clear social and economic impact. Only after proving its effectiveness can we consider extending it to patients with pre-existing issues or who are very elderly,” he said. The RISP project is limited to participants aged 55-75 years. Participants must be smokers or have quit smoking no more than 15 years ago, with an average consumption of 20 cigarettes per day for 30 years.

Participant selection for the RISP program is also dictated by the costs to be incurred. “If something emerges from the CT scan, whether oncologic or not, it needs to be investigated, triggering mechanisms that consume time, space, and resources,” said Dr. Pardolesi. The economic aspect is crucial for determining the effectiveness of screening. “We need to demonstrate that in addition to increasing the patient’s life expectancy, healthcare costs are reduced. By anticipating the diagnosis, the intervention is less expensive, the patient is discharged in three days, and there’s no need for therapy, so there’s a saving. This is important, given the increasingly evident economic problems of the Italian public health system,” said Dr. Pardolesi.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study conducted in the United States showed that many individuals undergo lung cancer screening despite having a higher likelihood of experiencing harm rather than benefit. Why does this happen? Could it also occur in Italy?

Reasons in Favor

The authors of the study, which was published in Annals of Family Medicine interviewed 40 former military personnel with a significant history of smoking. Though the patients presented with various comorbidities and had a limited life expectancy, the Veterans Health Administration had offered them lung cancer screening.

Of the 40 respondents, 26 had accepted the screening test. When asked why they had done so, they responded, “to take care of my health and achieve my life goals,” “because screening is an opportunity to identify potential issues,” “because it was recommended by a doctor I trust,” and “because I don’t want to regret not accepting it.” Strangely, when deciding about lung cancer screening, the respondents did not consider their poor health or life expectancy.
 

Potential Harms 

The screening was also welcomed because low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a noninvasive test. However, many participants were unaware that the screening needed to be repeated annually and that further imaging or other types of tests could follow LDCT, such as biopsies and bronchoscopies.

Many did not recall discussing with the doctor the potential harms of screening, including overdiagnosis, stress due to false positives, and complications and risks associated with investigations and treatments. Informed about this, several patients stated that they would not necessarily undergo further tests or antitumor treatments, especially if intensive or invasive.

The authors of the article emphasized the importance of shared decision-making with patients who have a marginal expected benefit from screening. But is it correct to offer screening under these conditions? Guidelines advise against screening individuals with limited life expectancy and multiple comorbidities because the risk-benefit ratio is not favorable.
 

Screening in Italy

Italy has no organized public program for lung screening. However, in 2022, the Rete Italiana Screening Polmonare (RISP) program for early lung cancer diagnosis was launched. Supported by European funds, it is coordinated by the National Cancer Institute (INT) in Milan and aims to recruit 10,000 high-risk candidates for free screening at 18 hospitals across Italy.

Optimizing participant selection is important in any screening, but in a program like RISP, it is essential, said Alessandro Pardolesi, MD, a thoracic surgeon at INT. “Subjects with multiple comorbidities would create a limit to the study, because there would be too many confounding factors. By maintaining correct inclusion criteria, we can build a reproducible model to demonstrate that screening has a clear social and economic impact. Only after proving its effectiveness can we consider extending it to patients with pre-existing issues or who are very elderly,” he said. The RISP project is limited to participants aged 55-75 years. Participants must be smokers or have quit smoking no more than 15 years ago, with an average consumption of 20 cigarettes per day for 30 years.

Participant selection for the RISP program is also dictated by the costs to be incurred. “If something emerges from the CT scan, whether oncologic or not, it needs to be investigated, triggering mechanisms that consume time, space, and resources,” said Dr. Pardolesi. The economic aspect is crucial for determining the effectiveness of screening. “We need to demonstrate that in addition to increasing the patient’s life expectancy, healthcare costs are reduced. By anticipating the diagnosis, the intervention is less expensive, the patient is discharged in three days, and there’s no need for therapy, so there’s a saving. This is important, given the increasingly evident economic problems of the Italian public health system,” said Dr. Pardolesi.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study conducted in the United States showed that many individuals undergo lung cancer screening despite having a higher likelihood of experiencing harm rather than benefit. Why does this happen? Could it also occur in Italy?

Reasons in Favor

The authors of the study, which was published in Annals of Family Medicine interviewed 40 former military personnel with a significant history of smoking. Though the patients presented with various comorbidities and had a limited life expectancy, the Veterans Health Administration had offered them lung cancer screening.

Of the 40 respondents, 26 had accepted the screening test. When asked why they had done so, they responded, “to take care of my health and achieve my life goals,” “because screening is an opportunity to identify potential issues,” “because it was recommended by a doctor I trust,” and “because I don’t want to regret not accepting it.” Strangely, when deciding about lung cancer screening, the respondents did not consider their poor health or life expectancy.
 

Potential Harms 

The screening was also welcomed because low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a noninvasive test. However, many participants were unaware that the screening needed to be repeated annually and that further imaging or other types of tests could follow LDCT, such as biopsies and bronchoscopies.

Many did not recall discussing with the doctor the potential harms of screening, including overdiagnosis, stress due to false positives, and complications and risks associated with investigations and treatments. Informed about this, several patients stated that they would not necessarily undergo further tests or antitumor treatments, especially if intensive or invasive.

The authors of the article emphasized the importance of shared decision-making with patients who have a marginal expected benefit from screening. But is it correct to offer screening under these conditions? Guidelines advise against screening individuals with limited life expectancy and multiple comorbidities because the risk-benefit ratio is not favorable.
 

Screening in Italy

Italy has no organized public program for lung screening. However, in 2022, the Rete Italiana Screening Polmonare (RISP) program for early lung cancer diagnosis was launched. Supported by European funds, it is coordinated by the National Cancer Institute (INT) in Milan and aims to recruit 10,000 high-risk candidates for free screening at 18 hospitals across Italy.

Optimizing participant selection is important in any screening, but in a program like RISP, it is essential, said Alessandro Pardolesi, MD, a thoracic surgeon at INT. “Subjects with multiple comorbidities would create a limit to the study, because there would be too many confounding factors. By maintaining correct inclusion criteria, we can build a reproducible model to demonstrate that screening has a clear social and economic impact. Only after proving its effectiveness can we consider extending it to patients with pre-existing issues or who are very elderly,” he said. The RISP project is limited to participants aged 55-75 years. Participants must be smokers or have quit smoking no more than 15 years ago, with an average consumption of 20 cigarettes per day for 30 years.

Participant selection for the RISP program is also dictated by the costs to be incurred. “If something emerges from the CT scan, whether oncologic or not, it needs to be investigated, triggering mechanisms that consume time, space, and resources,” said Dr. Pardolesi. The economic aspect is crucial for determining the effectiveness of screening. “We need to demonstrate that in addition to increasing the patient’s life expectancy, healthcare costs are reduced. By anticipating the diagnosis, the intervention is less expensive, the patient is discharged in three days, and there’s no need for therapy, so there’s a saving. This is important, given the increasingly evident economic problems of the Italian public health system,” said Dr. Pardolesi.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.