Gynecologic Cancer

Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.

Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place. Checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being initiated to treat metastatic cancer in patients approaching the end of life and have become the leading driver of end-of-life cancer spending.

This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.

What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
 

The N-of-1 Patient

With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.

The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.

Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”

At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”

This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
 

Back to Earth

The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.

Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.

She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.

Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.

Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.

And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.

In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
 

Prescribing Decisions

Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.

Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.

Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.

Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.

Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.

Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.

More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.

The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.

Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.

To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”

While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.

As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.

Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.

“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.

“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.

At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.

Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”

Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.

“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”

Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.

Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place. Checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being initiated to treat metastatic cancer in patients approaching the end of life and have become the leading driver of end-of-life cancer spending.

This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.

What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
 

The N-of-1 Patient

With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.

The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.

Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”

At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”

This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
 

Back to Earth

The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.

Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.

She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.

Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.

Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.

And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.

In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
 

Prescribing Decisions

Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.

Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.

Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.

Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.

Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.

Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.

More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.

The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.

Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.

To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”

While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.

As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.

Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.

“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.

“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.

At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.

Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”

Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.

“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”

Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.

Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place. Checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being initiated to treat metastatic cancer in patients approaching the end of life and have become the leading driver of end-of-life cancer spending.

This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.

What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
 

The N-of-1 Patient

With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.

The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.

Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”

At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”

This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
 

Back to Earth

The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.

Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.

She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.

Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.

Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.

And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.

In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
 

Prescribing Decisions

Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.

Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.

Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.

Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.

Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.

Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.

More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.

The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.

Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.

To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”

While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.

As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.

Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.

“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.

“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.

At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.

Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”

Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.

“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”

Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Elevated depression symptoms are linked to an increased risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer. This risk is mitigated by geriatric assessment (GA)-driven interventions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether greater reductions in grade 3 chemotherapy-related toxicities occurred with geriatric assessment-driven interventions vs standard care.
• A total of 605 patients aged 65 years and older with any stage of solid malignancy were included, with 402 randomized to the intervention arm and 203 to the standard-of-care arm.
• Mental health was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory 13, and chemotherapy toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
• Patients in the intervention arm received recommendations from a multidisciplinary team based on their baseline GA, while those in the standard-of-care arm received only the baseline assessment results.
• The study was conducted at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, and patients were followed throughout treatment or for up to 6 months from starting chemotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with depression had increased chemotherapy toxicity in the standard-of-care arm (70.7% vs 54.3%; P = .02) but not in the GA-driven intervention arm (54.3% vs 48.5%; P = .27).
• The association between depression and chemotherapy toxicity was also seen after adjustment for the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity score (odds ratio, [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65) and for demographic, disease, and treatment factors (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.03-3.85).
• No significant association was found between anxiety and chemotherapy toxicity in either the standard-of-care arm (univariate OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88) or the GA-driven intervention arm (univariate OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.78-1.71).
• The authors stated that depression was associated with increased odds of hematologic-only toxicities (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.13-5.56) in the standard-of-care arm.
• An analysis of a small subgroup found associations between elevated anxiety symptoms and increased risk for hematologic and nonhematologic chemotherapy toxicities.

IN PRACTICE:

“The current study showed that elevated depression symptoms are associated with increased risk of severe chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer. This risk was mitigated in those in the GA intervention arm, which suggests that addressing elevated depression symptoms may lower the risk of toxicities,” the authors wrote. “Overall, elevated anxiety symptoms were not associated with risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity.”

SOURCE:

Reena V. Jayani, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, was the first and corresponding author for this paper. This study was published online August 4, 2024, in Cancer. 

LIMITATIONS:

The thresholds for depression and anxiety used in the Mental Health Inventory 13 were based on an English-speaking population, which may not be fully applicable to Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients included in the study. Depression and anxiety were not evaluated by a mental health professional or with a structured interview to assess formal diagnostic criteria. Psychiatric medication used at the time of baseline GA was not included in the analysis. The study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, and it is not known which components of the interventions affected mental health.

DISCLOSURES:

This research project was supported by the UniHealth Foundation, the City of Hope Center for Cancer and Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics and consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Adagene, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. William Dale, MD, PhD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, served as senior author and a principal investigator. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Elevated depression symptoms are linked to an increased risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer. This risk is mitigated by geriatric assessment (GA)-driven interventions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether greater reductions in grade 3 chemotherapy-related toxicities occurred with geriatric assessment-driven interventions vs standard care.
• A total of 605 patients aged 65 years and older with any stage of solid malignancy were included, with 402 randomized to the intervention arm and 203 to the standard-of-care arm.
• Mental health was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory 13, and chemotherapy toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
• Patients in the intervention arm received recommendations from a multidisciplinary team based on their baseline GA, while those in the standard-of-care arm received only the baseline assessment results.
• The study was conducted at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, and patients were followed throughout treatment or for up to 6 months from starting chemotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with depression had increased chemotherapy toxicity in the standard-of-care arm (70.7% vs 54.3%; P = .02) but not in the GA-driven intervention arm (54.3% vs 48.5%; P = .27).
• The association between depression and chemotherapy toxicity was also seen after adjustment for the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity score (odds ratio, [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65) and for demographic, disease, and treatment factors (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.03-3.85).
• No significant association was found between anxiety and chemotherapy toxicity in either the standard-of-care arm (univariate OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88) or the GA-driven intervention arm (univariate OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.78-1.71).
• The authors stated that depression was associated with increased odds of hematologic-only toxicities (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.13-5.56) in the standard-of-care arm.
• An analysis of a small subgroup found associations between elevated anxiety symptoms and increased risk for hematologic and nonhematologic chemotherapy toxicities.

IN PRACTICE:

“The current study showed that elevated depression symptoms are associated with increased risk of severe chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer. This risk was mitigated in those in the GA intervention arm, which suggests that addressing elevated depression symptoms may lower the risk of toxicities,” the authors wrote. “Overall, elevated anxiety symptoms were not associated with risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity.”

SOURCE:

Reena V. Jayani, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, was the first and corresponding author for this paper. This study was published online August 4, 2024, in Cancer. 

LIMITATIONS:

The thresholds for depression and anxiety used in the Mental Health Inventory 13 were based on an English-speaking population, which may not be fully applicable to Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients included in the study. Depression and anxiety were not evaluated by a mental health professional or with a structured interview to assess formal diagnostic criteria. Psychiatric medication used at the time of baseline GA was not included in the analysis. The study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, and it is not known which components of the interventions affected mental health.

DISCLOSURES:

This research project was supported by the UniHealth Foundation, the City of Hope Center for Cancer and Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics and consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Adagene, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. William Dale, MD, PhD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, served as senior author and a principal investigator. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Elevated depression symptoms are linked to an increased risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer. This risk is mitigated by geriatric assessment (GA)-driven interventions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether greater reductions in grade 3 chemotherapy-related toxicities occurred with geriatric assessment-driven interventions vs standard care.
• A total of 605 patients aged 65 years and older with any stage of solid malignancy were included, with 402 randomized to the intervention arm and 203 to the standard-of-care arm.
• Mental health was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory 13, and chemotherapy toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
• Patients in the intervention arm received recommendations from a multidisciplinary team based on their baseline GA, while those in the standard-of-care arm received only the baseline assessment results.
• The study was conducted at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, and patients were followed throughout treatment or for up to 6 months from starting chemotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with depression had increased chemotherapy toxicity in the standard-of-care arm (70.7% vs 54.3%; P = .02) but not in the GA-driven intervention arm (54.3% vs 48.5%; P = .27).
• The association between depression and chemotherapy toxicity was also seen after adjustment for the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity score (odds ratio, [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65) and for demographic, disease, and treatment factors (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.03-3.85).
• No significant association was found between anxiety and chemotherapy toxicity in either the standard-of-care arm (univariate OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88) or the GA-driven intervention arm (univariate OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.78-1.71).
• The authors stated that depression was associated with increased odds of hematologic-only toxicities (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.13-5.56) in the standard-of-care arm.
• An analysis of a small subgroup found associations between elevated anxiety symptoms and increased risk for hematologic and nonhematologic chemotherapy toxicities.

IN PRACTICE:

“The current study showed that elevated depression symptoms are associated with increased risk of severe chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer. This risk was mitigated in those in the GA intervention arm, which suggests that addressing elevated depression symptoms may lower the risk of toxicities,” the authors wrote. “Overall, elevated anxiety symptoms were not associated with risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity.”

SOURCE:

Reena V. Jayani, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, was the first and corresponding author for this paper. This study was published online August 4, 2024, in Cancer. 

LIMITATIONS:

The thresholds for depression and anxiety used in the Mental Health Inventory 13 were based on an English-speaking population, which may not be fully applicable to Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients included in the study. Depression and anxiety were not evaluated by a mental health professional or with a structured interview to assess formal diagnostic criteria. Psychiatric medication used at the time of baseline GA was not included in the analysis. The study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, and it is not known which components of the interventions affected mental health.

DISCLOSURES:

This research project was supported by the UniHealth Foundation, the City of Hope Center for Cancer and Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics and consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Adagene, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. William Dale, MD, PhD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, served as senior author and a principal investigator. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the approval of dostarlimab-gxly (Jemperli, GSK) in conjunction with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by single-agent dostarlimab-gxly, for adults with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.

Prior FDA approval of the combination was granted for adults with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer that was mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H).

The expanded approval, granted following a priority review, was based on efficacy and safety demonstrated in the randomized, controlled, multicenter RUBY trial, which included 494 patients who were randomized to receive the dostarlimab-gxly regimen or placebo plus carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by placebo.

Researchers observed a significant improvement in median overall survival with treatment vs placebo in the overall population — 44.6 vs 28.2 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69). Median progression-free survival was also significantly better in the treatment vs placebo group — 11.8 vs 7.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.64).

“Today’s expanded approval will offer even more patients the opportunity for improved outcomes,” Matthew Powell, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, and principal investigator on the RUBY trial, said in a press release. “This is the only immuno-oncology treatment regimen that has shown a statistically significant overall survival benefit for the full patient population, which is a meaningful step forward in treating this challenging cancer.”

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients receiving dostarlimab-gxly include anemia, increased creatinine levels, peripheral neuropathy, decreased white blood cell counts, fatigue, nausea, alopecia, low platelet counts, increased glucose levels, lymphopenia, neutropenia, liver function test abnormalities, arthralgia, rash, constipation, diarrhea, decreased albumin levels, abdominal pain, dyspnea, decreased appetite, increased amylase levels, urinary tract infection, and vomiting. Immune-mediated adverse reactions with dostarlimab-gxly were similar to those previously reported.

The recommended dostarlimab-gxly dose, according to the full prescribing information, is 500 mg every 3 weeks for six cycles administered before carboplatin and paclitaxel if given on the same day, followed by 1000 mg monotherapy every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 3 years.
 

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the approval of dostarlimab-gxly (Jemperli, GSK) in conjunction with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by single-agent dostarlimab-gxly, for adults with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.

Prior FDA approval of the combination was granted for adults with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer that was mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H).

The expanded approval, granted following a priority review, was based on efficacy and safety demonstrated in the randomized, controlled, multicenter RUBY trial, which included 494 patients who were randomized to receive the dostarlimab-gxly regimen or placebo plus carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by placebo.

Researchers observed a significant improvement in median overall survival with treatment vs placebo in the overall population — 44.6 vs 28.2 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69). Median progression-free survival was also significantly better in the treatment vs placebo group — 11.8 vs 7.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.64).

“Today’s expanded approval will offer even more patients the opportunity for improved outcomes,” Matthew Powell, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, and principal investigator on the RUBY trial, said in a press release. “This is the only immuno-oncology treatment regimen that has shown a statistically significant overall survival benefit for the full patient population, which is a meaningful step forward in treating this challenging cancer.”

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients receiving dostarlimab-gxly include anemia, increased creatinine levels, peripheral neuropathy, decreased white blood cell counts, fatigue, nausea, alopecia, low platelet counts, increased glucose levels, lymphopenia, neutropenia, liver function test abnormalities, arthralgia, rash, constipation, diarrhea, decreased albumin levels, abdominal pain, dyspnea, decreased appetite, increased amylase levels, urinary tract infection, and vomiting. Immune-mediated adverse reactions with dostarlimab-gxly were similar to those previously reported.

The recommended dostarlimab-gxly dose, according to the full prescribing information, is 500 mg every 3 weeks for six cycles administered before carboplatin and paclitaxel if given on the same day, followed by 1000 mg monotherapy every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 3 years.
 

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the approval of dostarlimab-gxly (Jemperli, GSK) in conjunction with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by single-agent dostarlimab-gxly, for adults with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.

Prior FDA approval of the combination was granted for adults with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer that was mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H).

The expanded approval, granted following a priority review, was based on efficacy and safety demonstrated in the randomized, controlled, multicenter RUBY trial, which included 494 patients who were randomized to receive the dostarlimab-gxly regimen or placebo plus carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by placebo.

Researchers observed a significant improvement in median overall survival with treatment vs placebo in the overall population — 44.6 vs 28.2 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69). Median progression-free survival was also significantly better in the treatment vs placebo group — 11.8 vs 7.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.64).

“Today’s expanded approval will offer even more patients the opportunity for improved outcomes,” Matthew Powell, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, and principal investigator on the RUBY trial, said in a press release. “This is the only immuno-oncology treatment regimen that has shown a statistically significant overall survival benefit for the full patient population, which is a meaningful step forward in treating this challenging cancer.”

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients receiving dostarlimab-gxly include anemia, increased creatinine levels, peripheral neuropathy, decreased white blood cell counts, fatigue, nausea, alopecia, low platelet counts, increased glucose levels, lymphopenia, neutropenia, liver function test abnormalities, arthralgia, rash, constipation, diarrhea, decreased albumin levels, abdominal pain, dyspnea, decreased appetite, increased amylase levels, urinary tract infection, and vomiting. Immune-mediated adverse reactions with dostarlimab-gxly were similar to those previously reported.

The recommended dostarlimab-gxly dose, according to the full prescribing information, is 500 mg every 3 weeks for six cycles administered before carboplatin and paclitaxel if given on the same day, followed by 1000 mg monotherapy every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 3 years.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Oncologists show significant variability in prescribing systemic cancer therapies in the last 30 days of life. Patients treated by oncologists in the top quartile for end-of-life prescribing behavior were almost four and a half times more likely to receive end-of-life therapy than those treated by these specialists in the bottom quartile.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, focusing on patients who died of cancer between 2012 and 2017.
• A total of 17,609 patients with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer were included, treated by 960 oncologists across 388 practices.
• Patients were required to have had at least one systemic cancer therapy claim in the last 180 days of life, with the treating oncologist identified on the basis of the therapy claim closest to the time of death.
• The study used multilevel models to estimate oncologists’ rates of providing cancer therapy in the last 30 days of life, adjusting for patient characteristics and practice variation.
• Functional status was assessed on the basis of paid claims for durable medical equipment in the last 60 months of life, with scores categorized as 0, 1, ≥ 2, or unknown.

TAKEAWAY:

• Oncologists in the 95th percentile for high end-of-life prescribing behavior had a 45% adjusted rate of treating patients in the last 30 days of life, compared with 17% among those in the 5th percentile.
• Patients treated by high end-of-life prescribing oncologists had over four times higher odds of receiving systemic therapy in the last 30 days of life (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 4.00-4.89).
• Higher end-of-life prescribing oncologists also had a higher proportion of patients hospitalized in the last 30 days of life than low prescribers (58% vs 51.9%).
• No significant association was found between oncologist prescribing behavior and patient race or ethnicity, except for Black patients who had lower odds of receiving treatment (OR, 0.77; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given calls to rein in overutilization of end-of-life six to eight cancer therapies, our findings highlight an underappreciated area for further research: How treatment discontinuation before death is shaped by oncologists’ unique treatment propensities. Elucidating the reasons for this remarkable variability in oncologist treatment behavior could inform efforts to reduce end-of-life cancer treatment overutilization,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Login S. George, PhD, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. It was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on SEER-Medicare data may limit the generalizability of the findings to patients with Medicare Advantage, private insurance, or Medicaid, as well as younger patients. The lack of data on patient preferences and other health characteristics could confound the results. The study focused on systemic therapies and may not be generalizable to other treatments such as clinical trial drugs, oral therapies, surgery, or radiation. The data from 2012 to 2017 may not reflect more recent trends in cancer treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey. George disclosed receiving grants from these organizations. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Oncologists show significant variability in prescribing systemic cancer therapies in the last 30 days of life. Patients treated by oncologists in the top quartile for end-of-life prescribing behavior were almost four and a half times more likely to receive end-of-life therapy than those treated by these specialists in the bottom quartile.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, focusing on patients who died of cancer between 2012 and 2017.
• A total of 17,609 patients with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer were included, treated by 960 oncologists across 388 practices.
• Patients were required to have had at least one systemic cancer therapy claim in the last 180 days of life, with the treating oncologist identified on the basis of the therapy claim closest to the time of death.
• The study used multilevel models to estimate oncologists’ rates of providing cancer therapy in the last 30 days of life, adjusting for patient characteristics and practice variation.
• Functional status was assessed on the basis of paid claims for durable medical equipment in the last 60 months of life, with scores categorized as 0, 1, ≥ 2, or unknown.

TAKEAWAY:

• Oncologists in the 95th percentile for high end-of-life prescribing behavior had a 45% adjusted rate of treating patients in the last 30 days of life, compared with 17% among those in the 5th percentile.
• Patients treated by high end-of-life prescribing oncologists had over four times higher odds of receiving systemic therapy in the last 30 days of life (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 4.00-4.89).
• Higher end-of-life prescribing oncologists also had a higher proportion of patients hospitalized in the last 30 days of life than low prescribers (58% vs 51.9%).
• No significant association was found between oncologist prescribing behavior and patient race or ethnicity, except for Black patients who had lower odds of receiving treatment (OR, 0.77; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given calls to rein in overutilization of end-of-life six to eight cancer therapies, our findings highlight an underappreciated area for further research: How treatment discontinuation before death is shaped by oncologists’ unique treatment propensities. Elucidating the reasons for this remarkable variability in oncologist treatment behavior could inform efforts to reduce end-of-life cancer treatment overutilization,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Login S. George, PhD, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. It was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on SEER-Medicare data may limit the generalizability of the findings to patients with Medicare Advantage, private insurance, or Medicaid, as well as younger patients. The lack of data on patient preferences and other health characteristics could confound the results. The study focused on systemic therapies and may not be generalizable to other treatments such as clinical trial drugs, oral therapies, surgery, or radiation. The data from 2012 to 2017 may not reflect more recent trends in cancer treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey. George disclosed receiving grants from these organizations. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Oncologists show significant variability in prescribing systemic cancer therapies in the last 30 days of life. Patients treated by oncologists in the top quartile for end-of-life prescribing behavior were almost four and a half times more likely to receive end-of-life therapy than those treated by these specialists in the bottom quartile.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, focusing on patients who died of cancer between 2012 and 2017.
• A total of 17,609 patients with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer were included, treated by 960 oncologists across 388 practices.
• Patients were required to have had at least one systemic cancer therapy claim in the last 180 days of life, with the treating oncologist identified on the basis of the therapy claim closest to the time of death.
• The study used multilevel models to estimate oncologists’ rates of providing cancer therapy in the last 30 days of life, adjusting for patient characteristics and practice variation.
• Functional status was assessed on the basis of paid claims for durable medical equipment in the last 60 months of life, with scores categorized as 0, 1, ≥ 2, or unknown.

TAKEAWAY:

• Oncologists in the 95th percentile for high end-of-life prescribing behavior had a 45% adjusted rate of treating patients in the last 30 days of life, compared with 17% among those in the 5th percentile.
• Patients treated by high end-of-life prescribing oncologists had over four times higher odds of receiving systemic therapy in the last 30 days of life (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 4.00-4.89).
• Higher end-of-life prescribing oncologists also had a higher proportion of patients hospitalized in the last 30 days of life than low prescribers (58% vs 51.9%).
• No significant association was found between oncologist prescribing behavior and patient race or ethnicity, except for Black patients who had lower odds of receiving treatment (OR, 0.77; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given calls to rein in overutilization of end-of-life six to eight cancer therapies, our findings highlight an underappreciated area for further research: How treatment discontinuation before death is shaped by oncologists’ unique treatment propensities. Elucidating the reasons for this remarkable variability in oncologist treatment behavior could inform efforts to reduce end-of-life cancer treatment overutilization,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Login S. George, PhD, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. It was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on SEER-Medicare data may limit the generalizability of the findings to patients with Medicare Advantage, private insurance, or Medicaid, as well as younger patients. The lack of data on patient preferences and other health characteristics could confound the results. The study focused on systemic therapies and may not be generalizable to other treatments such as clinical trial drugs, oral therapies, surgery, or radiation. The data from 2012 to 2017 may not reflect more recent trends in cancer treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey. George disclosed receiving grants from these organizations. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOPLINE:

The transvaginal ultrasonography triage strategy is unreliable for diagnosing endometrial cancer in high-risk Black women, with a significant risk for false-negative results at different endometrial thickness thresholds.

METHODOLOGY:

• Poor performance of transvaginal ultrasonography-measured endometrial thickness as a diagnostic triage strategy for endometrial cancer may contribute to racial disparity in stage at diagnosis between Black and White women.
• Researchers assessed the false-negative probability using transvaginal ultrasonography-measured endometrial thickness thresholds as triage for endometrial cancer in 1494 Black women (median age, 46 years) who underwent hysterectomy.
• The researchers focused on endometrial thickness measurements recorded within 24 months before hysterectomy, as well as demographic and clinical data.
• The endometrial thickness thresholds were defined as < 3 mm, < 4 mm, and < 5 mm, with the rest grouped as ≥ 5 mm, consistent with guidelines.
• A total of 210 women had endometrial cancer. The most common presenting symptoms were fibroids (78%), vaginal bleeding (71%), and pelvic pain (57%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Twenty-four cases of endometrial cancer were below the 5-mm endometrial thickness threshold that would trigger biopsy, resulting overall in 11.4% of endometrial cancer cases potentially missed.
• The false-negative probability was 9.5% (20 cases) at the < 4-mm threshold and 3.8% (8 cases) at the < 3-mm threshold.
• Classic risk factors for endometrial cancer (postmenopausal bleeding, age ≥ 50 years, and BMI > 40) did not result in improved performance of the endometrial thickness triage strategy.
• False-negative probability was also similar among those with fibroids (12%) but higher in the setting of partial endometrial thickness visibility (26%) and pelvic pain (15%).

IN PRACTICE:

This study reveals a “concerning error rate for a triage strategy that would terminate further workup and provide false reassurance to both patients and physicians.” The results contribute to “an increasing body of work questioning the wisdom of the (transvaginal ultrasonography) triage strategy. It may be the case that the (transvaginal ultrasonography) triage for endometrial biopsy is no longer a preferred strategy in the setting of increasing endometrial cancer rates for all. For Black patients with concerning symptoms, tissue biopsy is recommended to avoid misdiagnosis of endometrial cancer,” the researchers concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Kemi M. Doll, MD, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, University of Washington, Seattle, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not include cases where transvaginal ultrasonography reports omitted endometrial thickness measurements or reported nonvisible endometrial thickness, possibly underestimating the failure rate of the transvaginal ultrasonography triage strategy.

The sample did not include endometrial cancer cases that were not treated with hysterectomy, which may occur in young women with grade 1 endometrial cancer, those medically incapable of undergoing surgery, and those with disease so advanced that surgery is no longer an option. 
 

DISCLOSURES:

Funding was provided by Kuni Discovery Grants for Cancer Research: Advancing Innovation and by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Doll reported receiving investigator-initiated research grants from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, American Association of Cancer Research, and Merck.

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

TOPLINE:

The transvaginal ultrasonography triage strategy is unreliable for diagnosing endometrial cancer in high-risk Black women, with a significant risk for false-negative results at different endometrial thickness thresholds.

METHODOLOGY:

• Poor performance of transvaginal ultrasonography-measured endometrial thickness as a diagnostic triage strategy for endometrial cancer may contribute to racial disparity in stage at diagnosis between Black and White women.
• Researchers assessed the false-negative probability using transvaginal ultrasonography-measured endometrial thickness thresholds as triage for endometrial cancer in 1494 Black women (median age, 46 years) who underwent hysterectomy.
• The researchers focused on endometrial thickness measurements recorded within 24 months before hysterectomy, as well as demographic and clinical data.
• The endometrial thickness thresholds were defined as < 3 mm, < 4 mm, and < 5 mm, with the rest grouped as ≥ 5 mm, consistent with guidelines.
• A total of 210 women had endometrial cancer. The most common presenting symptoms were fibroids (78%), vaginal bleeding (71%), and pelvic pain (57%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Twenty-four cases of endometrial cancer were below the 5-mm endometrial thickness threshold that would trigger biopsy, resulting overall in 11.4% of endometrial cancer cases potentially missed.
• The false-negative probability was 9.5% (20 cases) at the < 4-mm threshold and 3.8% (8 cases) at the < 3-mm threshold.
• Classic risk factors for endometrial cancer (postmenopausal bleeding, age ≥ 50 years, and BMI > 40) did not result in improved performance of the endometrial thickness triage strategy.
• False-negative probability was also similar among those with fibroids (12%) but higher in the setting of partial endometrial thickness visibility (26%) and pelvic pain (15%).

IN PRACTICE:

This study reveals a “concerning error rate for a triage strategy that would terminate further workup and provide false reassurance to both patients and physicians.” The results contribute to “an increasing body of work questioning the wisdom of the (transvaginal ultrasonography) triage strategy. It may be the case that the (transvaginal ultrasonography) triage for endometrial biopsy is no longer a preferred strategy in the setting of increasing endometrial cancer rates for all. For Black patients with concerning symptoms, tissue biopsy is recommended to avoid misdiagnosis of endometrial cancer,” the researchers concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Kemi M. Doll, MD, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, University of Washington, Seattle, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not include cases where transvaginal ultrasonography reports omitted endometrial thickness measurements or reported nonvisible endometrial thickness, possibly underestimating the failure rate of the transvaginal ultrasonography triage strategy.

The sample did not include endometrial cancer cases that were not treated with hysterectomy, which may occur in young women with grade 1 endometrial cancer, those medically incapable of undergoing surgery, and those with disease so advanced that surgery is no longer an option. 
 

DISCLOSURES:

Funding was provided by Kuni Discovery Grants for Cancer Research: Advancing Innovation and by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Doll reported receiving investigator-initiated research grants from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, American Association of Cancer Research, and Merck.

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

TOPLINE:

The transvaginal ultrasonography triage strategy is unreliable for diagnosing endometrial cancer in high-risk Black women, with a significant risk for false-negative results at different endometrial thickness thresholds.

METHODOLOGY:

• Poor performance of transvaginal ultrasonography-measured endometrial thickness as a diagnostic triage strategy for endometrial cancer may contribute to racial disparity in stage at diagnosis between Black and White women.
• Researchers assessed the false-negative probability using transvaginal ultrasonography-measured endometrial thickness thresholds as triage for endometrial cancer in 1494 Black women (median age, 46 years) who underwent hysterectomy.
• The researchers focused on endometrial thickness measurements recorded within 24 months before hysterectomy, as well as demographic and clinical data.
• The endometrial thickness thresholds were defined as < 3 mm, < 4 mm, and < 5 mm, with the rest grouped as ≥ 5 mm, consistent with guidelines.
• A total of 210 women had endometrial cancer. The most common presenting symptoms were fibroids (78%), vaginal bleeding (71%), and pelvic pain (57%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Twenty-four cases of endometrial cancer were below the 5-mm endometrial thickness threshold that would trigger biopsy, resulting overall in 11.4% of endometrial cancer cases potentially missed.
• The false-negative probability was 9.5% (20 cases) at the < 4-mm threshold and 3.8% (8 cases) at the < 3-mm threshold.
• Classic risk factors for endometrial cancer (postmenopausal bleeding, age ≥ 50 years, and BMI > 40) did not result in improved performance of the endometrial thickness triage strategy.
• False-negative probability was also similar among those with fibroids (12%) but higher in the setting of partial endometrial thickness visibility (26%) and pelvic pain (15%).

IN PRACTICE:

This study reveals a “concerning error rate for a triage strategy that would terminate further workup and provide false reassurance to both patients and physicians.” The results contribute to “an increasing body of work questioning the wisdom of the (transvaginal ultrasonography) triage strategy. It may be the case that the (transvaginal ultrasonography) triage for endometrial biopsy is no longer a preferred strategy in the setting of increasing endometrial cancer rates for all. For Black patients with concerning symptoms, tissue biopsy is recommended to avoid misdiagnosis of endometrial cancer,” the researchers concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Kemi M. Doll, MD, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, University of Washington, Seattle, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not include cases where transvaginal ultrasonography reports omitted endometrial thickness measurements or reported nonvisible endometrial thickness, possibly underestimating the failure rate of the transvaginal ultrasonography triage strategy.

The sample did not include endometrial cancer cases that were not treated with hysterectomy, which may occur in young women with grade 1 endometrial cancer, those medically incapable of undergoing surgery, and those with disease so advanced that surgery is no longer an option. 
 

DISCLOSURES:

Funding was provided by Kuni Discovery Grants for Cancer Research: Advancing Innovation and by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Doll reported receiving investigator-initiated research grants from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, American Association of Cancer Research, and Merck.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total mesometrial resection (TMMR) is associated with significantly longer recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) than standard treatment for patients with early-stage cervical cancer, while outcomes were not different among those with locally advanced disease, according to a new study.

These findings suggest that TMMR may be considered a primary treatment option for both early-stage and locally advanced cervical cancer confined to the Müllerian compartment, reported lead author Henrik Falconer, MD, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, and colleagues.
 

What is the rationale behind TMMR?

“Current international guidelines [for cervical cancer] are primarily based on retrospective case series and a small number of outdated randomized controlled trials,” the investigators wrote in EClinicalMedicine, part of The Lancet publication platform. “The stage-dependent treatment recommendations, with surgery advised for early-stage and radiation therapy for locally advanced disease, may be considered too simplistic, suggesting that early stages of cervical cancer cannot be controlled with surgical resection alone or that locally advanced cervical cancer is inoperable.”

This mindset, they noted, overlooks the complexities of cancer spread. In contrast, TMMR and similar surgical approaches based on the cancer field model are mapped along routes of locoregional dissemination, leading to “excellent local control” in more than 600 cases at the University Hospital of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.

To date, however, TMMR’s adoption has been limited, and it has not been compared directly with current guideline treatments, prompting the present study.
 

What methods were used to compare TMMR with standard treatment?

The study compared TMMR plus therapeutic lymph node dissection (tLND) without adjuvant radiation versus standard treatment (ST) for early-stage (FIGO 2009 IB1, IIA1) and locally advanced (FIGO 2009 IB2, IIA2, IIB) cervical cancer. Standard treatment for patients with early-stage disease involved radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, with adjuvant chemoradiation dependent upon final pathology. Those with locally advanced disease received definitive chemoradiation.

Data for the standard treatment group were drawn from population-based registries in Sweden, while those for the TMMR group came from the Leipzig Mesometrial Resection Study Database. The final dataset included 1,007 women treated between 2011 and 2020, with 733 undergoing standard treatment and 274 receiving TMMR.

Outcomes included RFS and OS, adjusted for clinical and tumor-related variables.
 

How did TMMR compare with standard treatment?

TMMR was associated with superior oncologic outcomes compared with standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer.

Specifically, 5-year RFS was 91.2% for TMMR versus 81.8% for standard therapy (P = .002). In the adjusted analysis, TMMR was associated with a significantly lower hazard of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22–0.69) and death (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.86). Also favoring TMMR, absolute difference in the risk of recurrence at 5 years was 9.4% (95% CI 3.2–15.7). In addition, 5-year OS was better in the TMMR group, at 93.3%, compared with 90.3% for standard treatment (P = .034).

Among patients with locally advanced disease, no significant differences in RFS or OS were observed.
 

Are these data strong enough to make TMMR the new standard treatment?

Dr. Falconer and colleagues concluded that TMMR with tLND “may replace the standard treatment approach in early-stage cervical cancer and furthermore be evaluated as an option in locally advanced cervical cancer confined to the Müllerian compartment.”

While the investigators anticipated demands for randomized controlled trials, they questioned the value of such studies, suggesting that any control arm would be “based on inconsistent or flawed concepts.”

How does TMMR fit into the current treatment landscape for cervical cancer?

“This is a very niche surgery that most places don’t do,” Dr. Modesitt said.

She pointed out that “multiple variations” on the standard radical hysterectomy have been proposed in the past, such as the laterally extended endopelvic resection.

“[TMMR] is not a new concept,” she said. “It’s just a question of how radical it is.”

Instead of developing new types of radical surgery, she said, the trend in the United States is toward de-escalation of surgical treatments altogether, with greater reliance upon medical options, such as immunotherapy.

“[This study] is thought provoking, and I applaud them for doing it,” Dr. Modesitt said. “But I’m not going to go out and do that on my next patient.”

This study was supported by grants from Centre for Clinical Research Sörmland (Sweden) and Region Stockholm (Sweden). Dr. Falconer is a board member of Surgical Science.

Total mesometrial resection (TMMR) is associated with significantly longer recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) than standard treatment for patients with early-stage cervical cancer, while outcomes were not different among those with locally advanced disease, according to a new study.

These findings suggest that TMMR may be considered a primary treatment option for both early-stage and locally advanced cervical cancer confined to the Müllerian compartment, reported lead author Henrik Falconer, MD, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, and colleagues.
 

What is the rationale behind TMMR?

“Current international guidelines [for cervical cancer] are primarily based on retrospective case series and a small number of outdated randomized controlled trials,” the investigators wrote in EClinicalMedicine, part of The Lancet publication platform. “The stage-dependent treatment recommendations, with surgery advised for early-stage and radiation therapy for locally advanced disease, may be considered too simplistic, suggesting that early stages of cervical cancer cannot be controlled with surgical resection alone or that locally advanced cervical cancer is inoperable.”

This mindset, they noted, overlooks the complexities of cancer spread. In contrast, TMMR and similar surgical approaches based on the cancer field model are mapped along routes of locoregional dissemination, leading to “excellent local control” in more than 600 cases at the University Hospital of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.

To date, however, TMMR’s adoption has been limited, and it has not been compared directly with current guideline treatments, prompting the present study.
 

What methods were used to compare TMMR with standard treatment?

The study compared TMMR plus therapeutic lymph node dissection (tLND) without adjuvant radiation versus standard treatment (ST) for early-stage (FIGO 2009 IB1, IIA1) and locally advanced (FIGO 2009 IB2, IIA2, IIB) cervical cancer. Standard treatment for patients with early-stage disease involved radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, with adjuvant chemoradiation dependent upon final pathology. Those with locally advanced disease received definitive chemoradiation.

Data for the standard treatment group were drawn from population-based registries in Sweden, while those for the TMMR group came from the Leipzig Mesometrial Resection Study Database. The final dataset included 1,007 women treated between 2011 and 2020, with 733 undergoing standard treatment and 274 receiving TMMR.

Outcomes included RFS and OS, adjusted for clinical and tumor-related variables.
 

How did TMMR compare with standard treatment?

TMMR was associated with superior oncologic outcomes compared with standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer.

Specifically, 5-year RFS was 91.2% for TMMR versus 81.8% for standard therapy (P = .002). In the adjusted analysis, TMMR was associated with a significantly lower hazard of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22–0.69) and death (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.86). Also favoring TMMR, absolute difference in the risk of recurrence at 5 years was 9.4% (95% CI 3.2–15.7). In addition, 5-year OS was better in the TMMR group, at 93.3%, compared with 90.3% for standard treatment (P = .034).

Among patients with locally advanced disease, no significant differences in RFS or OS were observed.
 

Are these data strong enough to make TMMR the new standard treatment?

Dr. Falconer and colleagues concluded that TMMR with tLND “may replace the standard treatment approach in early-stage cervical cancer and furthermore be evaluated as an option in locally advanced cervical cancer confined to the Müllerian compartment.”

While the investigators anticipated demands for randomized controlled trials, they questioned the value of such studies, suggesting that any control arm would be “based on inconsistent or flawed concepts.”

How does TMMR fit into the current treatment landscape for cervical cancer?

“This is a very niche surgery that most places don’t do,” Dr. Modesitt said.

She pointed out that “multiple variations” on the standard radical hysterectomy have been proposed in the past, such as the laterally extended endopelvic resection.

“[TMMR] is not a new concept,” she said. “It’s just a question of how radical it is.”

Instead of developing new types of radical surgery, she said, the trend in the United States is toward de-escalation of surgical treatments altogether, with greater reliance upon medical options, such as immunotherapy.

“[This study] is thought provoking, and I applaud them for doing it,” Dr. Modesitt said. “But I’m not going to go out and do that on my next patient.”

This study was supported by grants from Centre for Clinical Research Sörmland (Sweden) and Region Stockholm (Sweden). Dr. Falconer is a board member of Surgical Science.

Total mesometrial resection (TMMR) is associated with significantly longer recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) than standard treatment for patients with early-stage cervical cancer, while outcomes were not different among those with locally advanced disease, according to a new study.

These findings suggest that TMMR may be considered a primary treatment option for both early-stage and locally advanced cervical cancer confined to the Müllerian compartment, reported lead author Henrik Falconer, MD, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, and colleagues.
 

What is the rationale behind TMMR?

“Current international guidelines [for cervical cancer] are primarily based on retrospective case series and a small number of outdated randomized controlled trials,” the investigators wrote in EClinicalMedicine, part of The Lancet publication platform. “The stage-dependent treatment recommendations, with surgery advised for early-stage and radiation therapy for locally advanced disease, may be considered too simplistic, suggesting that early stages of cervical cancer cannot be controlled with surgical resection alone or that locally advanced cervical cancer is inoperable.”

This mindset, they noted, overlooks the complexities of cancer spread. In contrast, TMMR and similar surgical approaches based on the cancer field model are mapped along routes of locoregional dissemination, leading to “excellent local control” in more than 600 cases at the University Hospital of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.

To date, however, TMMR’s adoption has been limited, and it has not been compared directly with current guideline treatments, prompting the present study.
 

What methods were used to compare TMMR with standard treatment?

The study compared TMMR plus therapeutic lymph node dissection (tLND) without adjuvant radiation versus standard treatment (ST) for early-stage (FIGO 2009 IB1, IIA1) and locally advanced (FIGO 2009 IB2, IIA2, IIB) cervical cancer. Standard treatment for patients with early-stage disease involved radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, with adjuvant chemoradiation dependent upon final pathology. Those with locally advanced disease received definitive chemoradiation.

Data for the standard treatment group were drawn from population-based registries in Sweden, while those for the TMMR group came from the Leipzig Mesometrial Resection Study Database. The final dataset included 1,007 women treated between 2011 and 2020, with 733 undergoing standard treatment and 274 receiving TMMR.

Outcomes included RFS and OS, adjusted for clinical and tumor-related variables.
 

How did TMMR compare with standard treatment?

TMMR was associated with superior oncologic outcomes compared with standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer.

Specifically, 5-year RFS was 91.2% for TMMR versus 81.8% for standard therapy (P = .002). In the adjusted analysis, TMMR was associated with a significantly lower hazard of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22–0.69) and death (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.86). Also favoring TMMR, absolute difference in the risk of recurrence at 5 years was 9.4% (95% CI 3.2–15.7). In addition, 5-year OS was better in the TMMR group, at 93.3%, compared with 90.3% for standard treatment (P = .034).

Among patients with locally advanced disease, no significant differences in RFS or OS were observed.
 

Are these data strong enough to make TMMR the new standard treatment?

Dr. Falconer and colleagues concluded that TMMR with tLND “may replace the standard treatment approach in early-stage cervical cancer and furthermore be evaluated as an option in locally advanced cervical cancer confined to the Müllerian compartment.”

While the investigators anticipated demands for randomized controlled trials, they questioned the value of such studies, suggesting that any control arm would be “based on inconsistent or flawed concepts.”

How does TMMR fit into the current treatment landscape for cervical cancer?

“This is a very niche surgery that most places don’t do,” Dr. Modesitt said.

She pointed out that “multiple variations” on the standard radical hysterectomy have been proposed in the past, such as the laterally extended endopelvic resection.

“[TMMR] is not a new concept,” she said. “It’s just a question of how radical it is.”

Instead of developing new types of radical surgery, she said, the trend in the United States is toward de-escalation of surgical treatments altogether, with greater reliance upon medical options, such as immunotherapy.

“[This study] is thought provoking, and I applaud them for doing it,” Dr. Modesitt said. “But I’m not going to go out and do that on my next patient.”

This study was supported by grants from Centre for Clinical Research Sörmland (Sweden) and Region Stockholm (Sweden). Dr. Falconer is a board member of Surgical Science.

Ovarian cancer risk was higher in women with endometriosis overall and markedly increased in those with severe forms, a large population-based cohort study found.

The findings, published in JAMA, suggest these women may benefit from counseling on ovarian cancer risk and prevention and potentially from targeted screening, according to a group led by Mollie E. Barnard, ScD, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

While the absolute increase in number of cases was small, endometriosis patients overall had a more than fourfold higher risk for any type of ovarian cancer. Those with more severe forms, such as ovarian endometriomas or deep infiltrating endometriosis, had a nearly 10-fold higher risk of any type of ovarian cancer. In addition, those with more severe endometriosis had a 19-fold higher risk of type 1 (slow-growing) ovarian cancer and almost three times the risk of the more aggressive type 2.

“Given the rarity of ovarian cancer, the excess risk was relatively small, with 10-20 additional cases per 10,000 women. Nevertheless, women with endometriosis, notably the more severe subtypes, may be an important population for targeted cancer screening and prevention studies,” said corresponding author Karen C. Schliep, PhD, MSPH, associate professor in the university’s Division of Public Health.

Prior studies have shown modest associations between endometriosis and ovarian cancer, Dr. Schliep said in an interview. A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis found endometriosis conferred nearly double the risk of ovarian cancer, although associations varied by ovarian cancer histotype. Few studies have been large enough to assess associations between endometriosis types — including superficial or peritoneal endometriosis vs ovarian endometriomas or deep infiltrating endometriosis and ovarian cancer histotypes such as low-grade serous, endometrioid, clear cell, and mucinous carcinomas (type 1), and the most aggressive and lethal form, high-grade serous type 2, she said in an interview. “Our large health administrative database of over 11 million individuals with linked electronic health and cancer registry data allowed us to answer this as yet poorly studied research question.”
 

Study Details

Drawing on Utah electronic health records from 1992 to 2019, the investigators matched 78,893 women with endometriosis in a 1:5 ratio to unaffected women. Cases were categorized as superficial endometriosis, ovarian endometriomas, deep infiltrating endometriosis, or other, and the types of endometriosis were matched to ovarian cancer histotypes.

The mean age of patients at first endometriosis diagnosis was 36 and the mean follow-up was 12 years. Compared with controls, endometriosis patients were more likely to be nulliparous (31% vs 24%) and to have had a hysterectomy (39% vs 6%) during follow-up.

There were 596 reported cases of ovarian cancer in the cohort. Those with incident endometriosis were 4.2 times more likely to develop ovarian cancer (95% CI, 3.59-4.91), 7.48 times more likely to develop type 1 ovarian cancer (95% CI, 5.80-9.65), and 2.70 times more likely to develop type 2 ovarian cancer (95% CI, 2.09-3.49) compared with those without endometriosis.

The magnitudes of these associations varied by endometriosis subtype. Individuals diagnosed with deep infiltrating endometriosis and/or ovarian endometriomas had 9.66 times the risk of ovarian cancer vs individuals without endometriosis (95% CI, 7.77-12.00). “Women with, compared to without, more severe endometriosis had a 19-fold higher risk of type 1 ovarian cancer, including endometrioid, clear cell, mucinous, and low-grade serous,” Dr. Schliep said, with associated risk highest for malignant subtypes such as clear cell and endometrioid carcinoma (adjusted hazard ratios, 11.15 and 7.96, respectively.

According to Dr. Schliep, physicians should encourage endometriosis patients to be aware of but not worry about ovarian cancer risk because the likelihood of developing it remains low. For their part, patients can reduce their risk of cancer through a balanced diet with low intake of alcohol, regular exercise, a healthy weight, and abstention from smoking.

Her message for researchers is as follows: “We need more studies that explore how different types of endometriosis impact different types of ovarian cancer risk. These studies will guide improved ovarian cancer screening and prevention strategies among women with severe endometriosis, with or without other important ovarian cancer risk factors such as BRCA 1/2 variations.”

An accompanying editorial called the Utah study “eloquent” and noted its distinguishing contribution of observing associations between subtypes of endometriosis with overall risk for ovarian cancer as well as histologic subtypes of epithelial ovarian cancer.

Nevertheless, Michael T. McHale, MD, of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at Moores Cancer Center, UC San Diego Health, University of California, expressed some methodological concerns. Although the authors attempted to control for key confounders, he noted, the dataset could not provide details on the medical management of endometriosis, such as oral contraceptives or gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists. “Additionally, there is a possibility that women in the control cohort could have had undiagnosed endometriosis,” he wrote.

Furthermore, making clinical recommendations from these reported observations, particularly with respect to deep infiltrating endometriosis, would require a clear and consistent definition of this type in the dataset over the entire study interval from 1992 to 2019 and for the state of Utah, which the authors did not provide.

“Despite this potential challenge, the increased risk associated with deep infiltrating and/or ovarian endometriosis was clearly significant,” Dr. McHale wrote.

And although the absolute number of ovarian cancers is limited, in his view, the increased risk is sufficiently significant to advise women who have completed childbearing or have alternative fertility options to consider “more definitive surgery.”

This study was supported by multiple not-for-profit agencies, including the National Cancer Institute, the University of Utah, the National Center for Research Resources, the Utah Department of Health and Human Services, the Utah Cancer Registry, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Huntsman Cancer Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and Doris Duke Foundation. Dr. Barnard reported grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Epi Excellence LLC outside the submitted work. Other coauthors reported similar funding from nonprofit agencies or private research organizations. Dr Schliep disclosed no competing interests. Dr McHale reported educational consulting for Eisai Training outside the submitted work.

Ovarian cancer risk was higher in women with endometriosis overall and markedly increased in those with severe forms, a large population-based cohort study found.

The findings, published in JAMA, suggest these women may benefit from counseling on ovarian cancer risk and prevention and potentially from targeted screening, according to a group led by Mollie E. Barnard, ScD, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

While the absolute increase in number of cases was small, endometriosis patients overall had a more than fourfold higher risk for any type of ovarian cancer. Those with more severe forms, such as ovarian endometriomas or deep infiltrating endometriosis, had a nearly 10-fold higher risk of any type of ovarian cancer. In addition, those with more severe endometriosis had a 19-fold higher risk of type 1 (slow-growing) ovarian cancer and almost three times the risk of the more aggressive type 2.

“Given the rarity of ovarian cancer, the excess risk was relatively small, with 10-20 additional cases per 10,000 women. Nevertheless, women with endometriosis, notably the more severe subtypes, may be an important population for targeted cancer screening and prevention studies,” said corresponding author Karen C. Schliep, PhD, MSPH, associate professor in the university’s Division of Public Health.

Prior studies have shown modest associations between endometriosis and ovarian cancer, Dr. Schliep said in an interview. A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis found endometriosis conferred nearly double the risk of ovarian cancer, although associations varied by ovarian cancer histotype. Few studies have been large enough to assess associations between endometriosis types — including superficial or peritoneal endometriosis vs ovarian endometriomas or deep infiltrating endometriosis and ovarian cancer histotypes such as low-grade serous, endometrioid, clear cell, and mucinous carcinomas (type 1), and the most aggressive and lethal form, high-grade serous type 2, she said in an interview. “Our large health administrative database of over 11 million individuals with linked electronic health and cancer registry data allowed us to answer this as yet poorly studied research question.”
 

Study Details

Drawing on Utah electronic health records from 1992 to 2019, the investigators matched 78,893 women with endometriosis in a 1:5 ratio to unaffected women. Cases were categorized as superficial endometriosis, ovarian endometriomas, deep infiltrating endometriosis, or other, and the types of endometriosis were matched to ovarian cancer histotypes.

The mean age of patients at first endometriosis diagnosis was 36 and the mean follow-up was 12 years. Compared with controls, endometriosis patients were more likely to be nulliparous (31% vs 24%) and to have had a hysterectomy (39% vs 6%) during follow-up.

There were 596 reported cases of ovarian cancer in the cohort. Those with incident endometriosis were 4.2 times more likely to develop ovarian cancer (95% CI, 3.59-4.91), 7.48 times more likely to develop type 1 ovarian cancer (95% CI, 5.80-9.65), and 2.70 times more likely to develop type 2 ovarian cancer (95% CI, 2.09-3.49) compared with those without endometriosis.

The magnitudes of these associations varied by endometriosis subtype. Individuals diagnosed with deep infiltrating endometriosis and/or ovarian endometriomas had 9.66 times the risk of ovarian cancer vs individuals without endometriosis (95% CI, 7.77-12.00). “Women with, compared to without, more severe endometriosis had a 19-fold higher risk of type 1 ovarian cancer, including endometrioid, clear cell, mucinous, and low-grade serous,” Dr. Schliep said, with associated risk highest for malignant subtypes such as clear cell and endometrioid carcinoma (adjusted hazard ratios, 11.15 and 7.96, respectively.

According to Dr. Schliep, physicians should encourage endometriosis patients to be aware of but not worry about ovarian cancer risk because the likelihood of developing it remains low. For their part, patients can reduce their risk of cancer through a balanced diet with low intake of alcohol, regular exercise, a healthy weight, and abstention from smoking.

Her message for researchers is as follows: “We need more studies that explore how different types of endometriosis impact different types of ovarian cancer risk. These studies will guide improved ovarian cancer screening and prevention strategies among women with severe endometriosis, with or without other important ovarian cancer risk factors such as BRCA 1/2 variations.”

An accompanying editorial called the Utah study “eloquent” and noted its distinguishing contribution of observing associations between subtypes of endometriosis with overall risk for ovarian cancer as well as histologic subtypes of epithelial ovarian cancer.

Nevertheless, Michael T. McHale, MD, of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at Moores Cancer Center, UC San Diego Health, University of California, expressed some methodological concerns. Although the authors attempted to control for key confounders, he noted, the dataset could not provide details on the medical management of endometriosis, such as oral contraceptives or gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists. “Additionally, there is a possibility that women in the control cohort could have had undiagnosed endometriosis,” he wrote.

Furthermore, making clinical recommendations from these reported observations, particularly with respect to deep infiltrating endometriosis, would require a clear and consistent definition of this type in the dataset over the entire study interval from 1992 to 2019 and for the state of Utah, which the authors did not provide.

“Despite this potential challenge, the increased risk associated with deep infiltrating and/or ovarian endometriosis was clearly significant,” Dr. McHale wrote.

And although the absolute number of ovarian cancers is limited, in his view, the increased risk is sufficiently significant to advise women who have completed childbearing or have alternative fertility options to consider “more definitive surgery.”

This study was supported by multiple not-for-profit agencies, including the National Cancer Institute, the University of Utah, the National Center for Research Resources, the Utah Department of Health and Human Services, the Utah Cancer Registry, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Huntsman Cancer Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and Doris Duke Foundation. Dr. Barnard reported grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Epi Excellence LLC outside the submitted work. Other coauthors reported similar funding from nonprofit agencies or private research organizations. Dr Schliep disclosed no competing interests. Dr McHale reported educational consulting for Eisai Training outside the submitted work.

Ovarian cancer risk was higher in women with endometriosis overall and markedly increased in those with severe forms, a large population-based cohort study found.

The findings, published in JAMA, suggest these women may benefit from counseling on ovarian cancer risk and prevention and potentially from targeted screening, according to a group led by Mollie E. Barnard, ScD, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

While the absolute increase in number of cases was small, endometriosis patients overall had a more than fourfold higher risk for any type of ovarian cancer. Those with more severe forms, such as ovarian endometriomas or deep infiltrating endometriosis, had a nearly 10-fold higher risk of any type of ovarian cancer. In addition, those with more severe endometriosis had a 19-fold higher risk of type 1 (slow-growing) ovarian cancer and almost three times the risk of the more aggressive type 2.

“Given the rarity of ovarian cancer, the excess risk was relatively small, with 10-20 additional cases per 10,000 women. Nevertheless, women with endometriosis, notably the more severe subtypes, may be an important population for targeted cancer screening and prevention studies,” said corresponding author Karen C. Schliep, PhD, MSPH, associate professor in the university’s Division of Public Health.

Prior studies have shown modest associations between endometriosis and ovarian cancer, Dr. Schliep said in an interview. A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis found endometriosis conferred nearly double the risk of ovarian cancer, although associations varied by ovarian cancer histotype. Few studies have been large enough to assess associations between endometriosis types — including superficial or peritoneal endometriosis vs ovarian endometriomas or deep infiltrating endometriosis and ovarian cancer histotypes such as low-grade serous, endometrioid, clear cell, and mucinous carcinomas (type 1), and the most aggressive and lethal form, high-grade serous type 2, she said in an interview. “Our large health administrative database of over 11 million individuals with linked electronic health and cancer registry data allowed us to answer this as yet poorly studied research question.”
 

Study Details

Drawing on Utah electronic health records from 1992 to 2019, the investigators matched 78,893 women with endometriosis in a 1:5 ratio to unaffected women. Cases were categorized as superficial endometriosis, ovarian endometriomas, deep infiltrating endometriosis, or other, and the types of endometriosis were matched to ovarian cancer histotypes.

The mean age of patients at first endometriosis diagnosis was 36 and the mean follow-up was 12 years. Compared with controls, endometriosis patients were more likely to be nulliparous (31% vs 24%) and to have had a hysterectomy (39% vs 6%) during follow-up.

There were 596 reported cases of ovarian cancer in the cohort. Those with incident endometriosis were 4.2 times more likely to develop ovarian cancer (95% CI, 3.59-4.91), 7.48 times more likely to develop type 1 ovarian cancer (95% CI, 5.80-9.65), and 2.70 times more likely to develop type 2 ovarian cancer (95% CI, 2.09-3.49) compared with those without endometriosis.

The magnitudes of these associations varied by endometriosis subtype. Individuals diagnosed with deep infiltrating endometriosis and/or ovarian endometriomas had 9.66 times the risk of ovarian cancer vs individuals without endometriosis (95% CI, 7.77-12.00). “Women with, compared to without, more severe endometriosis had a 19-fold higher risk of type 1 ovarian cancer, including endometrioid, clear cell, mucinous, and low-grade serous,” Dr. Schliep said, with associated risk highest for malignant subtypes such as clear cell and endometrioid carcinoma (adjusted hazard ratios, 11.15 and 7.96, respectively.

According to Dr. Schliep, physicians should encourage endometriosis patients to be aware of but not worry about ovarian cancer risk because the likelihood of developing it remains low. For their part, patients can reduce their risk of cancer through a balanced diet with low intake of alcohol, regular exercise, a healthy weight, and abstention from smoking.

Her message for researchers is as follows: “We need more studies that explore how different types of endometriosis impact different types of ovarian cancer risk. These studies will guide improved ovarian cancer screening and prevention strategies among women with severe endometriosis, with or without other important ovarian cancer risk factors such as BRCA 1/2 variations.”

An accompanying editorial called the Utah study “eloquent” and noted its distinguishing contribution of observing associations between subtypes of endometriosis with overall risk for ovarian cancer as well as histologic subtypes of epithelial ovarian cancer.

Nevertheless, Michael T. McHale, MD, of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at Moores Cancer Center, UC San Diego Health, University of California, expressed some methodological concerns. Although the authors attempted to control for key confounders, he noted, the dataset could not provide details on the medical management of endometriosis, such as oral contraceptives or gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists. “Additionally, there is a possibility that women in the control cohort could have had undiagnosed endometriosis,” he wrote.

Furthermore, making clinical recommendations from these reported observations, particularly with respect to deep infiltrating endometriosis, would require a clear and consistent definition of this type in the dataset over the entire study interval from 1992 to 2019 and for the state of Utah, which the authors did not provide.

“Despite this potential challenge, the increased risk associated with deep infiltrating and/or ovarian endometriosis was clearly significant,” Dr. McHale wrote.

And although the absolute number of ovarian cancers is limited, in his view, the increased risk is sufficiently significant to advise women who have completed childbearing or have alternative fertility options to consider “more definitive surgery.”

This study was supported by multiple not-for-profit agencies, including the National Cancer Institute, the University of Utah, the National Center for Research Resources, the Utah Department of Health and Human Services, the Utah Cancer Registry, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Huntsman Cancer Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and Doris Duke Foundation. Dr. Barnard reported grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Epi Excellence LLC outside the submitted work. Other coauthors reported similar funding from nonprofit agencies or private research organizations. Dr Schliep disclosed no competing interests. Dr McHale reported educational consulting for Eisai Training outside the submitted work.