Men's Health

In 2019, we interviewed Andrea Prince, MD, who was completing her internship in the Inuit village of Puvirnituq, a town of 2000 inhabitants located in Nunavik, in the Canadian Far North. Five years later, still in her position, what perspective does she have on her practice? Have the challenges of practicing medicine in a remote region within the Inuit community affected her vocation? Would she recommend this experience to young doctors?

Question: What position do you currently hold?

Dr. Prince: I am a full-time general practitioner at Puvirnituq Hospital. My responsibilities range from following up on hospitalized patients to those seen in outpatient clinics for chronic illnesses. Within our medical team, I receive patients in the emergency department (day and night shifts), and I travel to smaller dispensaries nearby, especially to the village of Akulivik. So, it’s quite a varied practice.

More recently, I have been involved in remote continuing medical education projects in collaboration with specialists based in Montreal. In this context, we are increasingly trying to collaborate with doctors from other indigenous communities, such as the Grand Council of the Cree, because our practices are quite similar.



Q: What is the patient volume you see?

Dr. Prince: We see approximately 20-30 patients per day in the clinic, plus about 10 by appointment, and dozens of calls from dispensaries, in addition to patients transferred from other villages. There are four daytime doctors (one at night) and about 15 nurses stationed full-time at Puvirnituq Hospital.

Our practice relies heavily on collaboration with the nursing team, which has an expanded role — they can manage certain patients according to the treatment plan established by the doctor and prescribe treatments (eg, antibiotics for uncomplicated otitis).



Q: Access to care in these isolated regions is considered difficult. Have you observed any improvement in the situation over the past 5 years? What about new material and human resources?

Dr. Prince: For the past year, we have had a Starlink internet connection at the hospital, which facilitates telemedicine exchanges with specialists; we can now send data and medical images to Montreal to obtain expertise much more easily. Previously, everything was done by phone or with significant delays. We do not yet have a cellular network, and all records are currently in paper format.

But the challenges remain numerous. Progress is very slow. Like everywhere in the country, we are experiencing a shortage of staff, particularly an insufficient number of nurses. But the impact is even more dramatic in these isolated territories. We have had to close dispensaries on the coast due to a lack of personnel and only offer emergency services. However, patients have no other options; they cannot drive to another hospital. In Nunavik, the road network is practically nonexistent, and travel to other regions is by plane (about a 2.5-hour medical evacuation trip).

So, sometimes, patients do not seek care in time, and when we finally see them, unfortunately, the issue can be quite advanced.



Q: What are the most pressing logistical needs?

Dr. Prince: We still do not have a scanner in the Far North. This has a significant impact on mortality, especially in the case of accidents and trauma, which are very common in these regions. “Residents of Nunavik are four times more likely to suffer trauma than the rest of Quebec’s population and 40 times more likely to die from it,” as recently reported in La Presse.

There has also been much discussion about cancer mortality, with a risk for death about 70% higher following a lung cancer diagnosis (reported by Medscape Medical News). We do not have a mammogram machine to diagnose breast cancer. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, equipped diagnostic teams sometimes traveled to the region, but this is no longer the case. Today, a patient needing a mammogram will have to travel to Montreal. The same goes for colonoscopies, but visits are becoming less frequent. Therefore, campaigns to screen for certain common types of cancer are practically nonexistent.

As for urgent surgeries (appendicitis, cesarean sections, trauma, etc.), patients must be transferred to Montreal by medical evacuation. We have a visiting surgeon twice a year.



Q: What improvement strategies do you foresee despite the lack of resources?

Dr. Prince: The saying “prevention is better than cure” makes perfect sense in such remote regions under extreme conditions (it is impossible to fly a medevac when it is too windy or during a snowstorm!). That’s why my colleagues and I believe that prevention should be the top priority in terms of healthcare intervention. It may seem obvious, but nothing is simple in the Far North.



Q: In which areas should prevention campaigns be prioritized in your opinion?

Dr. Prince: An example is wearing helmets. Practically no one wears this type of protection in the Far North. They use all-terrain vehicles that are dangerous and for which helmet use is crucial. But they are simply not available in stores. So, communication is difficult: We tell people, “you need a helmet for the ATV, another for the bike, for the snowmobile, for playing hockey, etc.” when it is difficult to obtain one. With traumatologists in Montreal, we had a project to create multifunctional helmets for children — to protect them but also to develop a culture of helmet use, which is not common practice in the community — but these are projects that take a lot of time and are more complex than they seem.

Villages still do not have running water. Therefore, it is difficult to give recommendations to patients as they live in sanitary conditions that are unseen elsewhere in Canada. Without clean water, we cannot ensure that wound care is done properly. Not to mention the occurrence of hepatitis A epidemics, like the one we had to face.

Residents also grapple with significant alcohol and smoking problems, but there is no detox center or dedicated psychological help on site. To follow a detox program, patients would have to leave, move away from their families, and that can be psychologically very destabilizing. I try, in my practice, to talk to my patients about this, especially pregnant women — because many continue to smoke or drink during their pregnancy — but we need more resources.



Q: What about women’s health in this region?

Dr. Prince: We are fortunate to have a team of midwives, several of whom are Inuit, who are of great help in accessing contraception, performing cervical cancer screening tests, etc. But some patients with high-risk pregnancies who should be transferred to Montreal refuse to give birth away from their families. Again, if we had the means to allow high-risk women — or those for whom continuous monitoring or a cesarean section may be necessary — to give birth here safely, it would be a big step. As for abortion, it is feasible but remains a very taboo subject in the community.

Regarding violence against women, I have not observed any particularly encouraging developments in the past 5 years, but recently, we met with the mayor about this, hoping that concrete actions will be taken to help victims of violence.
 

Q: What is the predominant feeling in your daily life in a situation that is slow to evolve?

Dr. Prince: I remain hopeful for my patients. We must continue to fight! Initiatives must also come from the communities themselves; they must be involved in developing solutions. Because patients, too, need to have hope. They have the right to be cared for like other inhabitants of Canada.

On my part, I try to find a balance between feeling good about my caregiving profession and not burning out professionally. But burnout is a subject that concerns many doctors around the world and is increasingly being discussed. We should all have psychological support when entering medicine!



Q: Would you recommend colleagues to come and work in the Far North? What would you tell them?

Dr. Prince: I would tell them they will have no regrets! Yes, it’s difficult, but it’s a unique type of practice and very rewarding on a human level.

Professionally, it is a general practice that is no longer seen in the city today. The spectrum is very broad, ranging from neonatology to geriatrics, from the simplest to the most complex. It’s very stimulating. Diagnostically, practice is also very different from what is done in the metropolis. Without a scanner, you really have to question and investigate to evaluate whether a patient should be evacuated by plane to Montreal or not. It’s not trivial. Decisions must be made judiciously and quickly.

The human experience is also unique. Inuit communities are little known, and the aspects relayed in the media are often negative due to their increased risk for addiction. However, they are cheerful and very warm people, with an extraordinary culture. I have learned a lot from them, including reconsidering the notion of time, reviewing my priorities, and approaching life one day at a time.

I am very grateful to them for accepting me. I am sometimes even greeted with a “Welcome home!” when I return from vacation...Being told that in Nunavik, I am also “at home,” touches me immensely. I have seen children grow up, adolescents become adults. A bond of trust has developed.

Of course, all of this comes with sacrifices like being away from family and loved ones. We miss birthdays, weddings, etc. But without hesitation, it’s worth it!



Q: What are the next steps in your career in Nunavik? Will you stay for a long time?

Dr. Prince: I take it one day at a time, especially since I am about to take maternity leave very soon. But if a full-time return to Nunavik is difficult with a newborn, I know that the Nunavummiuts [inhabitants of Nunavik] will always be part of my life and my practice.

I want to remain involved with these communities, whether on-site (by practicing there a few months a year) or in Montreal where many patients are transferred. Coming to be treated in a big city (Montreal, 1.7M inhabitants), in very large hospitals, can be very stressful for them. They express themselves much less verbally than Westerners, so we must know how to listen to them, dedicate the necessary time to them, consider their culture and beliefs. I would like to be the familiar face they will encounter when they are cared for away from home. It’s a bond I want to preserve.

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

In 2019, we interviewed Andrea Prince, MD, who was completing her internship in the Inuit village of Puvirnituq, a town of 2000 inhabitants located in Nunavik, in the Canadian Far North. Five years later, still in her position, what perspective does she have on her practice? Have the challenges of practicing medicine in a remote region within the Inuit community affected her vocation? Would she recommend this experience to young doctors?

Question: What position do you currently hold?

Dr. Prince: I am a full-time general practitioner at Puvirnituq Hospital. My responsibilities range from following up on hospitalized patients to those seen in outpatient clinics for chronic illnesses. Within our medical team, I receive patients in the emergency department (day and night shifts), and I travel to smaller dispensaries nearby, especially to the village of Akulivik. So, it’s quite a varied practice.

More recently, I have been involved in remote continuing medical education projects in collaboration with specialists based in Montreal. In this context, we are increasingly trying to collaborate with doctors from other indigenous communities, such as the Grand Council of the Cree, because our practices are quite similar.



Q: What is the patient volume you see?

Dr. Prince: We see approximately 20-30 patients per day in the clinic, plus about 10 by appointment, and dozens of calls from dispensaries, in addition to patients transferred from other villages. There are four daytime doctors (one at night) and about 15 nurses stationed full-time at Puvirnituq Hospital.

Our practice relies heavily on collaboration with the nursing team, which has an expanded role — they can manage certain patients according to the treatment plan established by the doctor and prescribe treatments (eg, antibiotics for uncomplicated otitis).



Q: Access to care in these isolated regions is considered difficult. Have you observed any improvement in the situation over the past 5 years? What about new material and human resources?

Dr. Prince: For the past year, we have had a Starlink internet connection at the hospital, which facilitates telemedicine exchanges with specialists; we can now send data and medical images to Montreal to obtain expertise much more easily. Previously, everything was done by phone or with significant delays. We do not yet have a cellular network, and all records are currently in paper format.

But the challenges remain numerous. Progress is very slow. Like everywhere in the country, we are experiencing a shortage of staff, particularly an insufficient number of nurses. But the impact is even more dramatic in these isolated territories. We have had to close dispensaries on the coast due to a lack of personnel and only offer emergency services. However, patients have no other options; they cannot drive to another hospital. In Nunavik, the road network is practically nonexistent, and travel to other regions is by plane (about a 2.5-hour medical evacuation trip).

So, sometimes, patients do not seek care in time, and when we finally see them, unfortunately, the issue can be quite advanced.



Q: What are the most pressing logistical needs?

Dr. Prince: We still do not have a scanner in the Far North. This has a significant impact on mortality, especially in the case of accidents and trauma, which are very common in these regions. “Residents of Nunavik are four times more likely to suffer trauma than the rest of Quebec’s population and 40 times more likely to die from it,” as recently reported in La Presse.

There has also been much discussion about cancer mortality, with a risk for death about 70% higher following a lung cancer diagnosis (reported by Medscape Medical News). We do not have a mammogram machine to diagnose breast cancer. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, equipped diagnostic teams sometimes traveled to the region, but this is no longer the case. Today, a patient needing a mammogram will have to travel to Montreal. The same goes for colonoscopies, but visits are becoming less frequent. Therefore, campaigns to screen for certain common types of cancer are practically nonexistent.

As for urgent surgeries (appendicitis, cesarean sections, trauma, etc.), patients must be transferred to Montreal by medical evacuation. We have a visiting surgeon twice a year.



Q: What improvement strategies do you foresee despite the lack of resources?

Dr. Prince: The saying “prevention is better than cure” makes perfect sense in such remote regions under extreme conditions (it is impossible to fly a medevac when it is too windy or during a snowstorm!). That’s why my colleagues and I believe that prevention should be the top priority in terms of healthcare intervention. It may seem obvious, but nothing is simple in the Far North.



Q: In which areas should prevention campaigns be prioritized in your opinion?

Dr. Prince: An example is wearing helmets. Practically no one wears this type of protection in the Far North. They use all-terrain vehicles that are dangerous and for which helmet use is crucial. But they are simply not available in stores. So, communication is difficult: We tell people, “you need a helmet for the ATV, another for the bike, for the snowmobile, for playing hockey, etc.” when it is difficult to obtain one. With traumatologists in Montreal, we had a project to create multifunctional helmets for children — to protect them but also to develop a culture of helmet use, which is not common practice in the community — but these are projects that take a lot of time and are more complex than they seem.

Villages still do not have running water. Therefore, it is difficult to give recommendations to patients as they live in sanitary conditions that are unseen elsewhere in Canada. Without clean water, we cannot ensure that wound care is done properly. Not to mention the occurrence of hepatitis A epidemics, like the one we had to face.

Residents also grapple with significant alcohol and smoking problems, but there is no detox center or dedicated psychological help on site. To follow a detox program, patients would have to leave, move away from their families, and that can be psychologically very destabilizing. I try, in my practice, to talk to my patients about this, especially pregnant women — because many continue to smoke or drink during their pregnancy — but we need more resources.



Q: What about women’s health in this region?

Dr. Prince: We are fortunate to have a team of midwives, several of whom are Inuit, who are of great help in accessing contraception, performing cervical cancer screening tests, etc. But some patients with high-risk pregnancies who should be transferred to Montreal refuse to give birth away from their families. Again, if we had the means to allow high-risk women — or those for whom continuous monitoring or a cesarean section may be necessary — to give birth here safely, it would be a big step. As for abortion, it is feasible but remains a very taboo subject in the community.

Regarding violence against women, I have not observed any particularly encouraging developments in the past 5 years, but recently, we met with the mayor about this, hoping that concrete actions will be taken to help victims of violence.
 

Q: What is the predominant feeling in your daily life in a situation that is slow to evolve?

Dr. Prince: I remain hopeful for my patients. We must continue to fight! Initiatives must also come from the communities themselves; they must be involved in developing solutions. Because patients, too, need to have hope. They have the right to be cared for like other inhabitants of Canada.

On my part, I try to find a balance between feeling good about my caregiving profession and not burning out professionally. But burnout is a subject that concerns many doctors around the world and is increasingly being discussed. We should all have psychological support when entering medicine!



Q: Would you recommend colleagues to come and work in the Far North? What would you tell them?

Dr. Prince: I would tell them they will have no regrets! Yes, it’s difficult, but it’s a unique type of practice and very rewarding on a human level.

Professionally, it is a general practice that is no longer seen in the city today. The spectrum is very broad, ranging from neonatology to geriatrics, from the simplest to the most complex. It’s very stimulating. Diagnostically, practice is also very different from what is done in the metropolis. Without a scanner, you really have to question and investigate to evaluate whether a patient should be evacuated by plane to Montreal or not. It’s not trivial. Decisions must be made judiciously and quickly.

The human experience is also unique. Inuit communities are little known, and the aspects relayed in the media are often negative due to their increased risk for addiction. However, they are cheerful and very warm people, with an extraordinary culture. I have learned a lot from them, including reconsidering the notion of time, reviewing my priorities, and approaching life one day at a time.

I am very grateful to them for accepting me. I am sometimes even greeted with a “Welcome home!” when I return from vacation...Being told that in Nunavik, I am also “at home,” touches me immensely. I have seen children grow up, adolescents become adults. A bond of trust has developed.

Of course, all of this comes with sacrifices like being away from family and loved ones. We miss birthdays, weddings, etc. But without hesitation, it’s worth it!



Q: What are the next steps in your career in Nunavik? Will you stay for a long time?

Dr. Prince: I take it one day at a time, especially since I am about to take maternity leave very soon. But if a full-time return to Nunavik is difficult with a newborn, I know that the Nunavummiuts [inhabitants of Nunavik] will always be part of my life and my practice.

I want to remain involved with these communities, whether on-site (by practicing there a few months a year) or in Montreal where many patients are transferred. Coming to be treated in a big city (Montreal, 1.7M inhabitants), in very large hospitals, can be very stressful for them. They express themselves much less verbally than Westerners, so we must know how to listen to them, dedicate the necessary time to them, consider their culture and beliefs. I would like to be the familiar face they will encounter when they are cared for away from home. It’s a bond I want to preserve.

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

In 2019, we interviewed Andrea Prince, MD, who was completing her internship in the Inuit village of Puvirnituq, a town of 2000 inhabitants located in Nunavik, in the Canadian Far North. Five years later, still in her position, what perspective does she have on her practice? Have the challenges of practicing medicine in a remote region within the Inuit community affected her vocation? Would she recommend this experience to young doctors?

Question: What position do you currently hold?

Dr. Prince: I am a full-time general practitioner at Puvirnituq Hospital. My responsibilities range from following up on hospitalized patients to those seen in outpatient clinics for chronic illnesses. Within our medical team, I receive patients in the emergency department (day and night shifts), and I travel to smaller dispensaries nearby, especially to the village of Akulivik. So, it’s quite a varied practice.

More recently, I have been involved in remote continuing medical education projects in collaboration with specialists based in Montreal. In this context, we are increasingly trying to collaborate with doctors from other indigenous communities, such as the Grand Council of the Cree, because our practices are quite similar.



Q: What is the patient volume you see?

Dr. Prince: We see approximately 20-30 patients per day in the clinic, plus about 10 by appointment, and dozens of calls from dispensaries, in addition to patients transferred from other villages. There are four daytime doctors (one at night) and about 15 nurses stationed full-time at Puvirnituq Hospital.

Our practice relies heavily on collaboration with the nursing team, which has an expanded role — they can manage certain patients according to the treatment plan established by the doctor and prescribe treatments (eg, antibiotics for uncomplicated otitis).



Q: Access to care in these isolated regions is considered difficult. Have you observed any improvement in the situation over the past 5 years? What about new material and human resources?

Dr. Prince: For the past year, we have had a Starlink internet connection at the hospital, which facilitates telemedicine exchanges with specialists; we can now send data and medical images to Montreal to obtain expertise much more easily. Previously, everything was done by phone or with significant delays. We do not yet have a cellular network, and all records are currently in paper format.

But the challenges remain numerous. Progress is very slow. Like everywhere in the country, we are experiencing a shortage of staff, particularly an insufficient number of nurses. But the impact is even more dramatic in these isolated territories. We have had to close dispensaries on the coast due to a lack of personnel and only offer emergency services. However, patients have no other options; they cannot drive to another hospital. In Nunavik, the road network is practically nonexistent, and travel to other regions is by plane (about a 2.5-hour medical evacuation trip).

So, sometimes, patients do not seek care in time, and when we finally see them, unfortunately, the issue can be quite advanced.



Q: What are the most pressing logistical needs?

Dr. Prince: We still do not have a scanner in the Far North. This has a significant impact on mortality, especially in the case of accidents and trauma, which are very common in these regions. “Residents of Nunavik are four times more likely to suffer trauma than the rest of Quebec’s population and 40 times more likely to die from it,” as recently reported in La Presse.

There has also been much discussion about cancer mortality, with a risk for death about 70% higher following a lung cancer diagnosis (reported by Medscape Medical News). We do not have a mammogram machine to diagnose breast cancer. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, equipped diagnostic teams sometimes traveled to the region, but this is no longer the case. Today, a patient needing a mammogram will have to travel to Montreal. The same goes for colonoscopies, but visits are becoming less frequent. Therefore, campaigns to screen for certain common types of cancer are practically nonexistent.

As for urgent surgeries (appendicitis, cesarean sections, trauma, etc.), patients must be transferred to Montreal by medical evacuation. We have a visiting surgeon twice a year.



Q: What improvement strategies do you foresee despite the lack of resources?

Dr. Prince: The saying “prevention is better than cure” makes perfect sense in such remote regions under extreme conditions (it is impossible to fly a medevac when it is too windy or during a snowstorm!). That’s why my colleagues and I believe that prevention should be the top priority in terms of healthcare intervention. It may seem obvious, but nothing is simple in the Far North.



Q: In which areas should prevention campaigns be prioritized in your opinion?

Dr. Prince: An example is wearing helmets. Practically no one wears this type of protection in the Far North. They use all-terrain vehicles that are dangerous and for which helmet use is crucial. But they are simply not available in stores. So, communication is difficult: We tell people, “you need a helmet for the ATV, another for the bike, for the snowmobile, for playing hockey, etc.” when it is difficult to obtain one. With traumatologists in Montreal, we had a project to create multifunctional helmets for children — to protect them but also to develop a culture of helmet use, which is not common practice in the community — but these are projects that take a lot of time and are more complex than they seem.

Villages still do not have running water. Therefore, it is difficult to give recommendations to patients as they live in sanitary conditions that are unseen elsewhere in Canada. Without clean water, we cannot ensure that wound care is done properly. Not to mention the occurrence of hepatitis A epidemics, like the one we had to face.

Residents also grapple with significant alcohol and smoking problems, but there is no detox center or dedicated psychological help on site. To follow a detox program, patients would have to leave, move away from their families, and that can be psychologically very destabilizing. I try, in my practice, to talk to my patients about this, especially pregnant women — because many continue to smoke or drink during their pregnancy — but we need more resources.



Q: What about women’s health in this region?

Dr. Prince: We are fortunate to have a team of midwives, several of whom are Inuit, who are of great help in accessing contraception, performing cervical cancer screening tests, etc. But some patients with high-risk pregnancies who should be transferred to Montreal refuse to give birth away from their families. Again, if we had the means to allow high-risk women — or those for whom continuous monitoring or a cesarean section may be necessary — to give birth here safely, it would be a big step. As for abortion, it is feasible but remains a very taboo subject in the community.

Regarding violence against women, I have not observed any particularly encouraging developments in the past 5 years, but recently, we met with the mayor about this, hoping that concrete actions will be taken to help victims of violence.
 

Q: What is the predominant feeling in your daily life in a situation that is slow to evolve?

Dr. Prince: I remain hopeful for my patients. We must continue to fight! Initiatives must also come from the communities themselves; they must be involved in developing solutions. Because patients, too, need to have hope. They have the right to be cared for like other inhabitants of Canada.

On my part, I try to find a balance between feeling good about my caregiving profession and not burning out professionally. But burnout is a subject that concerns many doctors around the world and is increasingly being discussed. We should all have psychological support when entering medicine!



Q: Would you recommend colleagues to come and work in the Far North? What would you tell them?

Dr. Prince: I would tell them they will have no regrets! Yes, it’s difficult, but it’s a unique type of practice and very rewarding on a human level.

Professionally, it is a general practice that is no longer seen in the city today. The spectrum is very broad, ranging from neonatology to geriatrics, from the simplest to the most complex. It’s very stimulating. Diagnostically, practice is also very different from what is done in the metropolis. Without a scanner, you really have to question and investigate to evaluate whether a patient should be evacuated by plane to Montreal or not. It’s not trivial. Decisions must be made judiciously and quickly.

The human experience is also unique. Inuit communities are little known, and the aspects relayed in the media are often negative due to their increased risk for addiction. However, they are cheerful and very warm people, with an extraordinary culture. I have learned a lot from them, including reconsidering the notion of time, reviewing my priorities, and approaching life one day at a time.

I am very grateful to them for accepting me. I am sometimes even greeted with a “Welcome home!” when I return from vacation...Being told that in Nunavik, I am also “at home,” touches me immensely. I have seen children grow up, adolescents become adults. A bond of trust has developed.

Of course, all of this comes with sacrifices like being away from family and loved ones. We miss birthdays, weddings, etc. But without hesitation, it’s worth it!



Q: What are the next steps in your career in Nunavik? Will you stay for a long time?

Dr. Prince: I take it one day at a time, especially since I am about to take maternity leave very soon. But if a full-time return to Nunavik is difficult with a newborn, I know that the Nunavummiuts [inhabitants of Nunavik] will always be part of my life and my practice.

I want to remain involved with these communities, whether on-site (by practicing there a few months a year) or in Montreal where many patients are transferred. Coming to be treated in a big city (Montreal, 1.7M inhabitants), in very large hospitals, can be very stressful for them. They express themselves much less verbally than Westerners, so we must know how to listen to them, dedicate the necessary time to them, consider their culture and beliefs. I would like to be the familiar face they will encounter when they are cared for away from home. It’s a bond I want to preserve.

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

More Black men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) counts are diagnosed with prostate cancer than their White counterparts, but incidence of advanced prostate cancer is similar for Black and White men within 1 year of the PSA test, a new study finds.

There was a substantial difference in prostate cancer diagnosis across ethnic groups: 25% of Black men with a raised PSA were diagnosed with prostate cancer within 1 year of being tested, compared with 20% of White men and 13% of Asian men, in the analysis of a large primary care cohort in the United Kingdom.

Incidence of advanced prostate cancer for Asian men with a raised PSA result was 4.5%, compared with 7.5% for White men and 7.0% for Black men.

Men included in the study were aged 40 and older and had no prior cancer diagnosis. Their ethnicity and PSA test result were logged in a national dataset between 2010 and 2017.

The study of more than 730,000 men, published in BMC Medicine, didn’t explore reasons for the differences, but experts offer their thoughts on what led to the findings and what these results imply.

Why the Higher Diagnosis Rates but Not More Advanced Disease in Black Men?

Lead author Liz Down, a graduate research assistant at the University of Exeter, Exeter, England, suggests the higher diagnosis rates but not more advanced disease in Black men may be linked to genetic variations.

Her team’s studies have shown that Black men in the United Kingdom and United States have higher levels of PSA. The PSA value is used to identify patients who might benefit from specialist investigation, and current guidelines in the UK and US don’t distinguish between ethnic groups.

As most men have slow-growing prostate cancer, this may lead to a disproportionately higher number of Black men being diagnosed with prostate cancer, she said.

“One possible interpretation,” Ms. Down notes, “is that prostate cancer follows a similar trajectory in Black and White men. What is different, however, is that Black men have higher PSA levels.”

As to why the advanced-cancer incidence is similar in Black and White patients in the study, Daniel George, MD, director of genitourinary oncology at Duke Cancer Institute in Durham, North Carolina, says it’s important to understand that the Black men in this study “are not necessarily representative of the Black population at large.”

In this study, “they’re a little bit more healthcare inclined,” Dr. George notes. The study population is actively seeking the PSA test. Their socioeconomic profile might be closer to their White counterparts’, and that may make results more similar, he said.

“It’s possible that because this is a screening and not just men coming in for symptoms or cause, that we’re not seeing as much advanced disease,” he continued.

Amar Kishan, MD, chief of the genitourinary oncology service at University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Health, says the genomic factors and environmental stressors that lead to elevated PSA counts don’t necessarily translate into aggressiveness of disease.

Why do Different Races have Different Prostate Cancer Risk?

Dr. George points out that the study also highlights that Asian men were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer within 1 year of the test.

The reasons for differences in prostate risk by race are complex, he notes. There are some clues that biologic factors may be at work. For instance, early puberty has a link to prostate cancer as it does to breast cancer, and height is also associated with a greater risk of prostate cancer, Dr. George said.

It’s not necessarily a racial association but there are some biological factors associated with prostate cancer later in life, he explained. “These may be enriched in certain populations, including northern Europeans and patients with African ancestries.”

The study also notes that Black men are more likely to die from prostate cancer than are White men, and Asian men are less likely than White or Black men to die from it.

Ms. Down said the difference in prostate cancer mortality between Black vs White men, in particular, may be related to a number of factors, and age, and lifetime risk of prostate cancer may play a major role, at least in the UK.

Should There Be Different ‘Normal’ PSA Levels for Different Races?

Dr. George says there is likely a need to change the system because a PSA level in one race may not signal the same risk it does in another. So medicine probably needs to standardize what a “normal” PSA is by race, he says, adding that he is a coauthor of an upcoming paper regarding that issue.

The lowest instances of prostate cancer were in Asian patients so this isn’t just a Black and White issue, Dr. George notes. “Being able to establish benchmarks by race and ethnicity is something that is probably needed in the field,” he says.

Dr. Kishan, on the other hand, says data from this study are not enough to support differentiating PSA levels based on race. He noted a limitation of the study is that it was not able to calculate the false-negative rate of PSA tests.

What are the Implications for Treating and Screening for Prostate Cancer

Dr. Kishan says there may be a role for increased intensity of screening, whether at an earlier age or with different intervals, but prostate cancer treatment should not differ by race.

“Our prior study, as well as others,” he says, “have shown that when you balance Black and White patients for every factor that might impact prognosis other than race — such as age, disease aggressiveness, etc. — Black men actually tend to have better  outcomes than White men. Thus, it would mean potentially overtreating (i.e., causing unnecessary side effects) to increase treatment intensity purely based on race with the available data.”

According to the paper, prostate cancer incidence in men with higher PSA levels increases with increasing age, even when using age-adjusted thresholds.

Dr. George says we know from this study and other studies as well that Black men are more likely to be diagnosed with prostate at a younger age. “Therefore, we probably need to be thinking about screening Black men starting at a younger age. These are the men who are most likely to benefit from an intervention — patients who have life expectancies of 20 years or more.”

What are the Downsides to Overdiagnosing Prostate Cancer in Men?

“It’s one of the biggest concerns that men have in proactively seeking healthcare,” Dr. George says. “They’re more likely to undergo treatment for this disease if they’re getting screened because (clinicians are) more likely to find it.”

Some of those men, he says, are going to undergo treatment for disease that won’t ultimately kill them, but may cause complications the men shouldn’t have had at all or otherwise may have had later.

“Overtreatment is a real concern. That’s why active surveillance is so important to minimize overtreatment of patients by finding out which cancers are low risk for progression and which are becoming more aggressive,” Dr. George says.

Authors of the study write that “the potential for overdiagnosis and the subsequent psychological and physical impact of diagnosis and treatment is an important consideration.”

All authors of the new paper received financial support from Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), and the Higgins family for the submitted work.

Dr. George reports no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Kishan reports consulting fees and speaking honoraria from Varian Medical Systems, Janssen, and Boston Scientific; research funding from PointBioPharma, Lantheus, and Janssen; and serving on advisory boards for Lantheus, Janssen and Boston Scientific.

More Black men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) counts are diagnosed with prostate cancer than their White counterparts, but incidence of advanced prostate cancer is similar for Black and White men within 1 year of the PSA test, a new study finds.

There was a substantial difference in prostate cancer diagnosis across ethnic groups: 25% of Black men with a raised PSA were diagnosed with prostate cancer within 1 year of being tested, compared with 20% of White men and 13% of Asian men, in the analysis of a large primary care cohort in the United Kingdom.

Incidence of advanced prostate cancer for Asian men with a raised PSA result was 4.5%, compared with 7.5% for White men and 7.0% for Black men.

Men included in the study were aged 40 and older and had no prior cancer diagnosis. Their ethnicity and PSA test result were logged in a national dataset between 2010 and 2017.

The study of more than 730,000 men, published in BMC Medicine, didn’t explore reasons for the differences, but experts offer their thoughts on what led to the findings and what these results imply.

Why the Higher Diagnosis Rates but Not More Advanced Disease in Black Men?

Lead author Liz Down, a graduate research assistant at the University of Exeter, Exeter, England, suggests the higher diagnosis rates but not more advanced disease in Black men may be linked to genetic variations.

Her team’s studies have shown that Black men in the United Kingdom and United States have higher levels of PSA. The PSA value is used to identify patients who might benefit from specialist investigation, and current guidelines in the UK and US don’t distinguish between ethnic groups.

As most men have slow-growing prostate cancer, this may lead to a disproportionately higher number of Black men being diagnosed with prostate cancer, she said.

“One possible interpretation,” Ms. Down notes, “is that prostate cancer follows a similar trajectory in Black and White men. What is different, however, is that Black men have higher PSA levels.”

As to why the advanced-cancer incidence is similar in Black and White patients in the study, Daniel George, MD, director of genitourinary oncology at Duke Cancer Institute in Durham, North Carolina, says it’s important to understand that the Black men in this study “are not necessarily representative of the Black population at large.”

In this study, “they’re a little bit more healthcare inclined,” Dr. George notes. The study population is actively seeking the PSA test. Their socioeconomic profile might be closer to their White counterparts’, and that may make results more similar, he said.

“It’s possible that because this is a screening and not just men coming in for symptoms or cause, that we’re not seeing as much advanced disease,” he continued.

Amar Kishan, MD, chief of the genitourinary oncology service at University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Health, says the genomic factors and environmental stressors that lead to elevated PSA counts don’t necessarily translate into aggressiveness of disease.

Why do Different Races have Different Prostate Cancer Risk?

Dr. George points out that the study also highlights that Asian men were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer within 1 year of the test.

The reasons for differences in prostate risk by race are complex, he notes. There are some clues that biologic factors may be at work. For instance, early puberty has a link to prostate cancer as it does to breast cancer, and height is also associated with a greater risk of prostate cancer, Dr. George said.

It’s not necessarily a racial association but there are some biological factors associated with prostate cancer later in life, he explained. “These may be enriched in certain populations, including northern Europeans and patients with African ancestries.”

The study also notes that Black men are more likely to die from prostate cancer than are White men, and Asian men are less likely than White or Black men to die from it.

Ms. Down said the difference in prostate cancer mortality between Black vs White men, in particular, may be related to a number of factors, and age, and lifetime risk of prostate cancer may play a major role, at least in the UK.

Should There Be Different ‘Normal’ PSA Levels for Different Races?

Dr. George says there is likely a need to change the system because a PSA level in one race may not signal the same risk it does in another. So medicine probably needs to standardize what a “normal” PSA is by race, he says, adding that he is a coauthor of an upcoming paper regarding that issue.

The lowest instances of prostate cancer were in Asian patients so this isn’t just a Black and White issue, Dr. George notes. “Being able to establish benchmarks by race and ethnicity is something that is probably needed in the field,” he says.

Dr. Kishan, on the other hand, says data from this study are not enough to support differentiating PSA levels based on race. He noted a limitation of the study is that it was not able to calculate the false-negative rate of PSA tests.

What are the Implications for Treating and Screening for Prostate Cancer

Dr. Kishan says there may be a role for increased intensity of screening, whether at an earlier age or with different intervals, but prostate cancer treatment should not differ by race.

“Our prior study, as well as others,” he says, “have shown that when you balance Black and White patients for every factor that might impact prognosis other than race — such as age, disease aggressiveness, etc. — Black men actually tend to have better  outcomes than White men. Thus, it would mean potentially overtreating (i.e., causing unnecessary side effects) to increase treatment intensity purely based on race with the available data.”

According to the paper, prostate cancer incidence in men with higher PSA levels increases with increasing age, even when using age-adjusted thresholds.

Dr. George says we know from this study and other studies as well that Black men are more likely to be diagnosed with prostate at a younger age. “Therefore, we probably need to be thinking about screening Black men starting at a younger age. These are the men who are most likely to benefit from an intervention — patients who have life expectancies of 20 years or more.”

What are the Downsides to Overdiagnosing Prostate Cancer in Men?

“It’s one of the biggest concerns that men have in proactively seeking healthcare,” Dr. George says. “They’re more likely to undergo treatment for this disease if they’re getting screened because (clinicians are) more likely to find it.”

Some of those men, he says, are going to undergo treatment for disease that won’t ultimately kill them, but may cause complications the men shouldn’t have had at all or otherwise may have had later.

“Overtreatment is a real concern. That’s why active surveillance is so important to minimize overtreatment of patients by finding out which cancers are low risk for progression and which are becoming more aggressive,” Dr. George says.

Authors of the study write that “the potential for overdiagnosis and the subsequent psychological and physical impact of diagnosis and treatment is an important consideration.”

All authors of the new paper received financial support from Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), and the Higgins family for the submitted work.

Dr. George reports no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Kishan reports consulting fees and speaking honoraria from Varian Medical Systems, Janssen, and Boston Scientific; research funding from PointBioPharma, Lantheus, and Janssen; and serving on advisory boards for Lantheus, Janssen and Boston Scientific.

More Black men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) counts are diagnosed with prostate cancer than their White counterparts, but incidence of advanced prostate cancer is similar for Black and White men within 1 year of the PSA test, a new study finds.

There was a substantial difference in prostate cancer diagnosis across ethnic groups: 25% of Black men with a raised PSA were diagnosed with prostate cancer within 1 year of being tested, compared with 20% of White men and 13% of Asian men, in the analysis of a large primary care cohort in the United Kingdom.

Incidence of advanced prostate cancer for Asian men with a raised PSA result was 4.5%, compared with 7.5% for White men and 7.0% for Black men.

Men included in the study were aged 40 and older and had no prior cancer diagnosis. Their ethnicity and PSA test result were logged in a national dataset between 2010 and 2017.

The study of more than 730,000 men, published in BMC Medicine, didn’t explore reasons for the differences, but experts offer their thoughts on what led to the findings and what these results imply.

Why the Higher Diagnosis Rates but Not More Advanced Disease in Black Men?

Lead author Liz Down, a graduate research assistant at the University of Exeter, Exeter, England, suggests the higher diagnosis rates but not more advanced disease in Black men may be linked to genetic variations.

Her team’s studies have shown that Black men in the United Kingdom and United States have higher levels of PSA. The PSA value is used to identify patients who might benefit from specialist investigation, and current guidelines in the UK and US don’t distinguish between ethnic groups.

As most men have slow-growing prostate cancer, this may lead to a disproportionately higher number of Black men being diagnosed with prostate cancer, she said.

“One possible interpretation,” Ms. Down notes, “is that prostate cancer follows a similar trajectory in Black and White men. What is different, however, is that Black men have higher PSA levels.”

As to why the advanced-cancer incidence is similar in Black and White patients in the study, Daniel George, MD, director of genitourinary oncology at Duke Cancer Institute in Durham, North Carolina, says it’s important to understand that the Black men in this study “are not necessarily representative of the Black population at large.”

In this study, “they’re a little bit more healthcare inclined,” Dr. George notes. The study population is actively seeking the PSA test. Their socioeconomic profile might be closer to their White counterparts’, and that may make results more similar, he said.

“It’s possible that because this is a screening and not just men coming in for symptoms or cause, that we’re not seeing as much advanced disease,” he continued.

Amar Kishan, MD, chief of the genitourinary oncology service at University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Health, says the genomic factors and environmental stressors that lead to elevated PSA counts don’t necessarily translate into aggressiveness of disease.

Why do Different Races have Different Prostate Cancer Risk?

Dr. George points out that the study also highlights that Asian men were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer within 1 year of the test.

The reasons for differences in prostate risk by race are complex, he notes. There are some clues that biologic factors may be at work. For instance, early puberty has a link to prostate cancer as it does to breast cancer, and height is also associated with a greater risk of prostate cancer, Dr. George said.

It’s not necessarily a racial association but there are some biological factors associated with prostate cancer later in life, he explained. “These may be enriched in certain populations, including northern Europeans and patients with African ancestries.”

The study also notes that Black men are more likely to die from prostate cancer than are White men, and Asian men are less likely than White or Black men to die from it.

Ms. Down said the difference in prostate cancer mortality between Black vs White men, in particular, may be related to a number of factors, and age, and lifetime risk of prostate cancer may play a major role, at least in the UK.

Should There Be Different ‘Normal’ PSA Levels for Different Races?

Dr. George says there is likely a need to change the system because a PSA level in one race may not signal the same risk it does in another. So medicine probably needs to standardize what a “normal” PSA is by race, he says, adding that he is a coauthor of an upcoming paper regarding that issue.

The lowest instances of prostate cancer were in Asian patients so this isn’t just a Black and White issue, Dr. George notes. “Being able to establish benchmarks by race and ethnicity is something that is probably needed in the field,” he says.

Dr. Kishan, on the other hand, says data from this study are not enough to support differentiating PSA levels based on race. He noted a limitation of the study is that it was not able to calculate the false-negative rate of PSA tests.

What are the Implications for Treating and Screening for Prostate Cancer

Dr. Kishan says there may be a role for increased intensity of screening, whether at an earlier age or with different intervals, but prostate cancer treatment should not differ by race.

“Our prior study, as well as others,” he says, “have shown that when you balance Black and White patients for every factor that might impact prognosis other than race — such as age, disease aggressiveness, etc. — Black men actually tend to have better  outcomes than White men. Thus, it would mean potentially overtreating (i.e., causing unnecessary side effects) to increase treatment intensity purely based on race with the available data.”

According to the paper, prostate cancer incidence in men with higher PSA levels increases with increasing age, even when using age-adjusted thresholds.

Dr. George says we know from this study and other studies as well that Black men are more likely to be diagnosed with prostate at a younger age. “Therefore, we probably need to be thinking about screening Black men starting at a younger age. These are the men who are most likely to benefit from an intervention — patients who have life expectancies of 20 years or more.”

What are the Downsides to Overdiagnosing Prostate Cancer in Men?

“It’s one of the biggest concerns that men have in proactively seeking healthcare,” Dr. George says. “They’re more likely to undergo treatment for this disease if they’re getting screened because (clinicians are) more likely to find it.”

Some of those men, he says, are going to undergo treatment for disease that won’t ultimately kill them, but may cause complications the men shouldn’t have had at all or otherwise may have had later.

“Overtreatment is a real concern. That’s why active surveillance is so important to minimize overtreatment of patients by finding out which cancers are low risk for progression and which are becoming more aggressive,” Dr. George says.

Authors of the study write that “the potential for overdiagnosis and the subsequent psychological and physical impact of diagnosis and treatment is an important consideration.”

All authors of the new paper received financial support from Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), and the Higgins family for the submitted work.

Dr. George reports no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Kishan reports consulting fees and speaking honoraria from Varian Medical Systems, Janssen, and Boston Scientific; research funding from PointBioPharma, Lantheus, and Janssen; and serving on advisory boards for Lantheus, Janssen and Boston Scientific.

“Exercise is medicine” has become something of a mantra, with good reason. There’s no doubt that regular physical activity has a broad range of health benefits. Exercise can improve circulation, help control weight, reduce stress, and boost mood — take your pick.

Lower cancer risk is also on the list — with exercise promoted as a risk-cutting strategy in government guidelines and in recommendations from professional groups such as the American Cancer Society.

Despite confidently worded recommendations, the relationship between exercise and cancer risk is much less certain than the guidelines would suggest. The bulk of the data hangs on less rigorous, observational studies that have linked physical activity to lower risks for certain cancers, but plenty of questions remain.

What are the cancer types where exercise makes a difference? How significant is that impact? And what, exactly, defines a physical activity pattern powerful enough to move the needle on cancer risk?

Here’s an overview of the state of the evidence.

Exercise and Cancer Types: A Mixed Bag

When it comes to cancer prevention strategies, guidelines uniformly endorse less couch time and more movement. But a deeper look at the science reveals a complex and often poorly understood connection between exercise and cancer risk.

For certain cancer types, the benefits of exercise on cancer risk seem fairly well established.

The latest edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published in 2018, cites “strong evidence” that regular exercise might curb the risks for breast and colon cancers as well as bladder, endometrial, esophageal, kidney, and gastric cancers. These guidelines also point to “moderate”-strength evidence of a protective association with lung cancer.

The evidence of a protective effect, however, is strongest for breast and colon cancers, said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, senior physician in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, . “But,” she pointed out, “that may be because they’re some of the most common cancers, and it’s been easier to detect an association.”

Guidelines from the American Cancer Society, published in 2020, align with the 2018 recommendations. 

“We believe there’s strong evidence to suggest at least eight different types of cancer are associated with physical activity,” said Erika Rees-Punia, PhD, MPH, senior principal scientist, epidemiology and behavioral research at the American Cancer Society.

That view is not universal, however. Current recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, for example, are more circumspect, citing only three cancers with good evidence of a protective effect from exercise: Breast (postmenopausal), colon, and endometrial.

“We definitely can’t say exercise reduces the risk of all cancers,” said Lee Jones, PhD, head of the Exercise Oncology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “The data suggest it’s just not that simple.”

And it’s challenging to put all the evidence together, Dr. Jones added.

The physical activity guidelines are based on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses of data from observational studies that examined the relationship between physical activity — aerobic exercise, specifically — and cancer incidence. That means the evidence comes with all the limitations observational studies entail, such as how they collect information on participants’ exercise habits — which, Dr. Jones noted, is typically done via “monster questionnaires” that gauge physical activity in broad strokes.

Pooling all those findings into a meta-analysis is tricky, Dr. Jones added, because individual studies vary in important ways — from follow-up periods to how they quantify exercise and track cancer incidence.

In a study published in February in Cancer Cell, Dr. Jones and his colleagues attempted to address some of those issues by leveraging data from the PLCO screening trial.

The PLCO was a prospective study of over 60,000 US adults that compared the effects of annual screening vs usual care on cancer mortality. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included an assessment of “vigorous” exercise. Based on that, Dr. Jones and his colleagues classified 55% as “exercisers” — meaning they reported 2 or more hours of vigorous exercise per week. The remaining 45%, who were in the 0 to 1 hour per week range, were deemed non-exercisers.

Over a median of 18 years, nearly 16,000 first-time invasive cancers were diagnosed, and some interesting differences between exercisers and non-exercisers emerged. The active group had lower risks for three cancers: Head and neck, with a 26% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), lung (a 20% lower risk), and breast (an 11% lower risk).

What was striking, however, was the lack of connection between exercise and many cancers cited in the guidelines, including colon, gastric, bladder, endometrial, and renal cancers.

Perhaps even more surprising — exercisers had higher risks for prostate cancer (12%) and melanoma (20%). This finding, Dr. Jones said, is in line with a previous pooled analysis of data from 12 US and European prospective cohorts. In this study, the most physically active participants (90th percentile) had higher risks for melanoma and prostate cancer, compared with the least active group (10th percentile).

The melanoma findings do make sense, Dr. Jones said, given that highly active people may spend a lot of time in the sun. “My advice,” Dr. Jones said, “is, if you’re exercising outside, wear sunscreen.” The prostate cancer findings, however, are more puzzling and warrant further research, he noted.

But the bottom line is that the relationship between exercise and cancer types is mixed and far from nailed down.

How Big Is the Effect?

Even if exercise reduces the risk for only certain cancers, that’s still important, particularly when those links appear strongest for common cancer types, such as breast and colon.

But how much of a difference can exercise make?

Based on the evidence, it may only be a modest one. A 2019 systematic review by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee provided a rough estimate: Across hundreds of epidemiological studies, people with the highest physical activity levels had a 10%-20% lower risk for the cancers cited in the 2018 exercise guidelines compared with people who were least active.

These figures, however, are probably an underestimate, said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a member of the advisory committee and professor of epidemiology, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

“This is what we usually see when a factor is not measured very well,” said Dr. McTiernan, explaining that the individual studies differed in their categories of “highest” and “lowest” physical activity, such that one study’s “highest” could be another’s mid-range.

“In other words, the effects of physical activity are likely larger” than the review found, Dr. McTiernan said.

The next logical question is whether a bigger exercise “dose” — more time or higher intensity — would have a greater impact on cancer risk. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to clarify that by pooling data on over 750,000 participants from nine prospective cohorts.

Overall, people meeting government recommendations for exercise — equivalent to about 2.5-5 hours of weekly moderate activity, such as a brisk walk, or about 1.25-2.5 hours of more vigorous activities, like running — had lower risks for seven of 15 cancer types studied compared with less active people.

For cancers with positive findings, being on the higher end of the recommended 2.5- to 5-hour weekly range was better. Risk reductions for breast cancer, for instance, were 6% at 2.5 hours of physical activity per week and 10% at 5 hours per week. Similar trends emerged for other cancer types, including colon (8%-14%), endometrial (10%-18%), liver cancer (18%-27%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women (11%-18%).

But there may be an exercise sweet spot that maximizes the cancer risk benefit.

Among people who surpassed the recommendations — exercising for more time or more intensely — the risk reduction benefit did not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. For certain cancer types, such as colon and endometrial, the benefits of more vigorous exercise “eroded at higher levels of activity,” the authors said.

The issue here is that most studies have not dug deeply into aerobic exercise habits. Often, studies present participants with a list of activities — walking, biking, and running — and ask them to estimate how often and for what duration they do each.

Plus, “we’ve usually lumped moderate and vigorous activities together,” Dr. Rees-Punia said, which means there’s a lack of “granular data” to say whether certain intensities or frequencies of exercise are optimal and for whom.

Why Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk

Exercise habits do not, of course, exist in a vacuum. Highly active people, Dr. Ligibel said, tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, leaner, and have generally healthier lifestyles than sedentary people.

Body weight is a big confounder as well. However, Dr. Rees-Punia noted, it’s also probably a reason that exercise is linked to lower cancer risks, particularly by preventing weight gain. Still, studies have found that the association between exercise and many cancers remains significant after adjusting for body mass index.

The why remains unclear, though some studies offer clues.

“There’s been some really interesting mechanistic research, suggesting that exercise may help inhibit tumor growth or upregulate the immune system,” Dr. Ligibel said.

That includes not only lab research but small intervention studies. While these studies have largely involved people who already have cancer, some have also focused on healthy individuals.

A 2019 study from Dr. Ligibel and her colleagues, which randomly assigned 49 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer to start either an exercise program or mind-body practices ahead of surgery, found exercisers, who had been active for about a month at the time of surgery, showed signs of immune system upregulation in their tumors, while the control group did not.

Among healthy postmenopausal women, a meta-analysis of six clinical trials from Dr. McTiernan and her colleagues found that exercise plus calorie reduction can reduce levels of breast cancer-related endogenous hormones, more so than calorie-cutting alone. And a 2023 study found that high-intensity exercise boosted the ranks of certain immune cells and reduced inflammation in the colon among people at high risk for colon and endometrial cancers due to Lynch syndrome.

Defining an Exercise ‘Prescription’

Despite the gaps and uncertainties in the research, government guidelines as well as those from the American Cancer Society and other medical groups are in lockstep in their exercise recommendations: Adults should strive for 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (like brisk walking), 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity (like running), or some combination each week.

The guidelines also encourage strength training twice a week — advice that’s based on research tying those activity levels to lower risks for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.

But there’s no “best” exercise prescription for lowering cancer risk specifically. Most epidemiological studies have examined only aerobic activity, Dr. Rees-Punia said, and there’s very little known about whether strength conditioning or other moderate heart rate-elevating activities, such as daily household chores, may reduce the risk for cancer.

Given the lack of nuance in the literature, it’s hard to say what intensities, types, or amounts of exercise are best for each individual.

Going forward, device-based measurements of physical activity could “help us sort out the effects of different intensities of exercise and possibly types,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

But overall, Dr. McTiernan said, the data do show that the risks for several cancers are lower at the widely recommended activity levels.

“The bottom-line advice is still to exercise at least 150 minutes per week at a moderate-intensity level or greater,” Dr. McTiernan said.

Or put another way, moving beats being sedentary. It’s probably wise for everyone to sit less, noted Dr. Rees-Punia, for overall health and based on evidence tying sedentary time to the risks for certain cancers, including colon, endometrial, and lung.

There’s a practical element to consider in all of this: What physical activities will people actually do on the regular? In the big epidemiological studies, Dr. McTiernan noted, middle-aged and older adults most often report walking, suggesting that’s the preferred, or most accessible activity, for many.

“You can only benefit from the physical activity you’ll actually do,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

Dr. Ligibel echoed that sentiment, saying she encourages patients to think about physical activity as a process: “You need to find things you like to do and work them into your daily life, in a sustainable way.

“People often talk about exercise being medicine,” Dr. Ligibel said. “But I think you could take that too far. If we get too prescriptive about it, that could take the joy away.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Exercise is medicine” has become something of a mantra, with good reason. There’s no doubt that regular physical activity has a broad range of health benefits. Exercise can improve circulation, help control weight, reduce stress, and boost mood — take your pick.

Lower cancer risk is also on the list — with exercise promoted as a risk-cutting strategy in government guidelines and in recommendations from professional groups such as the American Cancer Society.

Despite confidently worded recommendations, the relationship between exercise and cancer risk is much less certain than the guidelines would suggest. The bulk of the data hangs on less rigorous, observational studies that have linked physical activity to lower risks for certain cancers, but plenty of questions remain.

What are the cancer types where exercise makes a difference? How significant is that impact? And what, exactly, defines a physical activity pattern powerful enough to move the needle on cancer risk?

Here’s an overview of the state of the evidence.

Exercise and Cancer Types: A Mixed Bag

When it comes to cancer prevention strategies, guidelines uniformly endorse less couch time and more movement. But a deeper look at the science reveals a complex and often poorly understood connection between exercise and cancer risk.

For certain cancer types, the benefits of exercise on cancer risk seem fairly well established.

The latest edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published in 2018, cites “strong evidence” that regular exercise might curb the risks for breast and colon cancers as well as bladder, endometrial, esophageal, kidney, and gastric cancers. These guidelines also point to “moderate”-strength evidence of a protective association with lung cancer.

The evidence of a protective effect, however, is strongest for breast and colon cancers, said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, senior physician in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, . “But,” she pointed out, “that may be because they’re some of the most common cancers, and it’s been easier to detect an association.”

Guidelines from the American Cancer Society, published in 2020, align with the 2018 recommendations. 

“We believe there’s strong evidence to suggest at least eight different types of cancer are associated with physical activity,” said Erika Rees-Punia, PhD, MPH, senior principal scientist, epidemiology and behavioral research at the American Cancer Society.

That view is not universal, however. Current recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, for example, are more circumspect, citing only three cancers with good evidence of a protective effect from exercise: Breast (postmenopausal), colon, and endometrial.

“We definitely can’t say exercise reduces the risk of all cancers,” said Lee Jones, PhD, head of the Exercise Oncology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “The data suggest it’s just not that simple.”

And it’s challenging to put all the evidence together, Dr. Jones added.

The physical activity guidelines are based on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses of data from observational studies that examined the relationship between physical activity — aerobic exercise, specifically — and cancer incidence. That means the evidence comes with all the limitations observational studies entail, such as how they collect information on participants’ exercise habits — which, Dr. Jones noted, is typically done via “monster questionnaires” that gauge physical activity in broad strokes.

Pooling all those findings into a meta-analysis is tricky, Dr. Jones added, because individual studies vary in important ways — from follow-up periods to how they quantify exercise and track cancer incidence.

In a study published in February in Cancer Cell, Dr. Jones and his colleagues attempted to address some of those issues by leveraging data from the PLCO screening trial.

The PLCO was a prospective study of over 60,000 US adults that compared the effects of annual screening vs usual care on cancer mortality. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included an assessment of “vigorous” exercise. Based on that, Dr. Jones and his colleagues classified 55% as “exercisers” — meaning they reported 2 or more hours of vigorous exercise per week. The remaining 45%, who were in the 0 to 1 hour per week range, were deemed non-exercisers.

Over a median of 18 years, nearly 16,000 first-time invasive cancers were diagnosed, and some interesting differences between exercisers and non-exercisers emerged. The active group had lower risks for three cancers: Head and neck, with a 26% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), lung (a 20% lower risk), and breast (an 11% lower risk).

What was striking, however, was the lack of connection between exercise and many cancers cited in the guidelines, including colon, gastric, bladder, endometrial, and renal cancers.

Perhaps even more surprising — exercisers had higher risks for prostate cancer (12%) and melanoma (20%). This finding, Dr. Jones said, is in line with a previous pooled analysis of data from 12 US and European prospective cohorts. In this study, the most physically active participants (90th percentile) had higher risks for melanoma and prostate cancer, compared with the least active group (10th percentile).

The melanoma findings do make sense, Dr. Jones said, given that highly active people may spend a lot of time in the sun. “My advice,” Dr. Jones said, “is, if you’re exercising outside, wear sunscreen.” The prostate cancer findings, however, are more puzzling and warrant further research, he noted.

But the bottom line is that the relationship between exercise and cancer types is mixed and far from nailed down.

How Big Is the Effect?

Even if exercise reduces the risk for only certain cancers, that’s still important, particularly when those links appear strongest for common cancer types, such as breast and colon.

But how much of a difference can exercise make?

Based on the evidence, it may only be a modest one. A 2019 systematic review by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee provided a rough estimate: Across hundreds of epidemiological studies, people with the highest physical activity levels had a 10%-20% lower risk for the cancers cited in the 2018 exercise guidelines compared with people who were least active.

These figures, however, are probably an underestimate, said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a member of the advisory committee and professor of epidemiology, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

“This is what we usually see when a factor is not measured very well,” said Dr. McTiernan, explaining that the individual studies differed in their categories of “highest” and “lowest” physical activity, such that one study’s “highest” could be another’s mid-range.

“In other words, the effects of physical activity are likely larger” than the review found, Dr. McTiernan said.

The next logical question is whether a bigger exercise “dose” — more time or higher intensity — would have a greater impact on cancer risk. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to clarify that by pooling data on over 750,000 participants from nine prospective cohorts.

Overall, people meeting government recommendations for exercise — equivalent to about 2.5-5 hours of weekly moderate activity, such as a brisk walk, or about 1.25-2.5 hours of more vigorous activities, like running — had lower risks for seven of 15 cancer types studied compared with less active people.

For cancers with positive findings, being on the higher end of the recommended 2.5- to 5-hour weekly range was better. Risk reductions for breast cancer, for instance, were 6% at 2.5 hours of physical activity per week and 10% at 5 hours per week. Similar trends emerged for other cancer types, including colon (8%-14%), endometrial (10%-18%), liver cancer (18%-27%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women (11%-18%).

But there may be an exercise sweet spot that maximizes the cancer risk benefit.

Among people who surpassed the recommendations — exercising for more time or more intensely — the risk reduction benefit did not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. For certain cancer types, such as colon and endometrial, the benefits of more vigorous exercise “eroded at higher levels of activity,” the authors said.

The issue here is that most studies have not dug deeply into aerobic exercise habits. Often, studies present participants with a list of activities — walking, biking, and running — and ask them to estimate how often and for what duration they do each.

Plus, “we’ve usually lumped moderate and vigorous activities together,” Dr. Rees-Punia said, which means there’s a lack of “granular data” to say whether certain intensities or frequencies of exercise are optimal and for whom.

Why Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk

Exercise habits do not, of course, exist in a vacuum. Highly active people, Dr. Ligibel said, tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, leaner, and have generally healthier lifestyles than sedentary people.

Body weight is a big confounder as well. However, Dr. Rees-Punia noted, it’s also probably a reason that exercise is linked to lower cancer risks, particularly by preventing weight gain. Still, studies have found that the association between exercise and many cancers remains significant after adjusting for body mass index.

The why remains unclear, though some studies offer clues.

“There’s been some really interesting mechanistic research, suggesting that exercise may help inhibit tumor growth or upregulate the immune system,” Dr. Ligibel said.

That includes not only lab research but small intervention studies. While these studies have largely involved people who already have cancer, some have also focused on healthy individuals.

A 2019 study from Dr. Ligibel and her colleagues, which randomly assigned 49 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer to start either an exercise program or mind-body practices ahead of surgery, found exercisers, who had been active for about a month at the time of surgery, showed signs of immune system upregulation in their tumors, while the control group did not.

Among healthy postmenopausal women, a meta-analysis of six clinical trials from Dr. McTiernan and her colleagues found that exercise plus calorie reduction can reduce levels of breast cancer-related endogenous hormones, more so than calorie-cutting alone. And a 2023 study found that high-intensity exercise boosted the ranks of certain immune cells and reduced inflammation in the colon among people at high risk for colon and endometrial cancers due to Lynch syndrome.

Defining an Exercise ‘Prescription’

Despite the gaps and uncertainties in the research, government guidelines as well as those from the American Cancer Society and other medical groups are in lockstep in their exercise recommendations: Adults should strive for 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (like brisk walking), 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity (like running), or some combination each week.

The guidelines also encourage strength training twice a week — advice that’s based on research tying those activity levels to lower risks for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.

But there’s no “best” exercise prescription for lowering cancer risk specifically. Most epidemiological studies have examined only aerobic activity, Dr. Rees-Punia said, and there’s very little known about whether strength conditioning or other moderate heart rate-elevating activities, such as daily household chores, may reduce the risk for cancer.

Given the lack of nuance in the literature, it’s hard to say what intensities, types, or amounts of exercise are best for each individual.

Going forward, device-based measurements of physical activity could “help us sort out the effects of different intensities of exercise and possibly types,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

But overall, Dr. McTiernan said, the data do show that the risks for several cancers are lower at the widely recommended activity levels.

“The bottom-line advice is still to exercise at least 150 minutes per week at a moderate-intensity level or greater,” Dr. McTiernan said.

Or put another way, moving beats being sedentary. It’s probably wise for everyone to sit less, noted Dr. Rees-Punia, for overall health and based on evidence tying sedentary time to the risks for certain cancers, including colon, endometrial, and lung.

There’s a practical element to consider in all of this: What physical activities will people actually do on the regular? In the big epidemiological studies, Dr. McTiernan noted, middle-aged and older adults most often report walking, suggesting that’s the preferred, or most accessible activity, for many.

“You can only benefit from the physical activity you’ll actually do,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

Dr. Ligibel echoed that sentiment, saying she encourages patients to think about physical activity as a process: “You need to find things you like to do and work them into your daily life, in a sustainable way.

“People often talk about exercise being medicine,” Dr. Ligibel said. “But I think you could take that too far. If we get too prescriptive about it, that could take the joy away.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Exercise is medicine” has become something of a mantra, with good reason. There’s no doubt that regular physical activity has a broad range of health benefits. Exercise can improve circulation, help control weight, reduce stress, and boost mood — take your pick.

Lower cancer risk is also on the list — with exercise promoted as a risk-cutting strategy in government guidelines and in recommendations from professional groups such as the American Cancer Society.

Despite confidently worded recommendations, the relationship between exercise and cancer risk is much less certain than the guidelines would suggest. The bulk of the data hangs on less rigorous, observational studies that have linked physical activity to lower risks for certain cancers, but plenty of questions remain.

What are the cancer types where exercise makes a difference? How significant is that impact? And what, exactly, defines a physical activity pattern powerful enough to move the needle on cancer risk?

Here’s an overview of the state of the evidence.

Exercise and Cancer Types: A Mixed Bag

When it comes to cancer prevention strategies, guidelines uniformly endorse less couch time and more movement. But a deeper look at the science reveals a complex and often poorly understood connection between exercise and cancer risk.

For certain cancer types, the benefits of exercise on cancer risk seem fairly well established.

The latest edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published in 2018, cites “strong evidence” that regular exercise might curb the risks for breast and colon cancers as well as bladder, endometrial, esophageal, kidney, and gastric cancers. These guidelines also point to “moderate”-strength evidence of a protective association with lung cancer.

The evidence of a protective effect, however, is strongest for breast and colon cancers, said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, senior physician in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, . “But,” she pointed out, “that may be because they’re some of the most common cancers, and it’s been easier to detect an association.”

Guidelines from the American Cancer Society, published in 2020, align with the 2018 recommendations. 

“We believe there’s strong evidence to suggest at least eight different types of cancer are associated with physical activity,” said Erika Rees-Punia, PhD, MPH, senior principal scientist, epidemiology and behavioral research at the American Cancer Society.

That view is not universal, however. Current recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, for example, are more circumspect, citing only three cancers with good evidence of a protective effect from exercise: Breast (postmenopausal), colon, and endometrial.

“We definitely can’t say exercise reduces the risk of all cancers,” said Lee Jones, PhD, head of the Exercise Oncology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “The data suggest it’s just not that simple.”

And it’s challenging to put all the evidence together, Dr. Jones added.

The physical activity guidelines are based on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses of data from observational studies that examined the relationship between physical activity — aerobic exercise, specifically — and cancer incidence. That means the evidence comes with all the limitations observational studies entail, such as how they collect information on participants’ exercise habits — which, Dr. Jones noted, is typically done via “monster questionnaires” that gauge physical activity in broad strokes.

Pooling all those findings into a meta-analysis is tricky, Dr. Jones added, because individual studies vary in important ways — from follow-up periods to how they quantify exercise and track cancer incidence.

In a study published in February in Cancer Cell, Dr. Jones and his colleagues attempted to address some of those issues by leveraging data from the PLCO screening trial.

The PLCO was a prospective study of over 60,000 US adults that compared the effects of annual screening vs usual care on cancer mortality. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included an assessment of “vigorous” exercise. Based on that, Dr. Jones and his colleagues classified 55% as “exercisers” — meaning they reported 2 or more hours of vigorous exercise per week. The remaining 45%, who were in the 0 to 1 hour per week range, were deemed non-exercisers.

Over a median of 18 years, nearly 16,000 first-time invasive cancers were diagnosed, and some interesting differences between exercisers and non-exercisers emerged. The active group had lower risks for three cancers: Head and neck, with a 26% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), lung (a 20% lower risk), and breast (an 11% lower risk).

What was striking, however, was the lack of connection between exercise and many cancers cited in the guidelines, including colon, gastric, bladder, endometrial, and renal cancers.

Perhaps even more surprising — exercisers had higher risks for prostate cancer (12%) and melanoma (20%). This finding, Dr. Jones said, is in line with a previous pooled analysis of data from 12 US and European prospective cohorts. In this study, the most physically active participants (90th percentile) had higher risks for melanoma and prostate cancer, compared with the least active group (10th percentile).

The melanoma findings do make sense, Dr. Jones said, given that highly active people may spend a lot of time in the sun. “My advice,” Dr. Jones said, “is, if you’re exercising outside, wear sunscreen.” The prostate cancer findings, however, are more puzzling and warrant further research, he noted.

But the bottom line is that the relationship between exercise and cancer types is mixed and far from nailed down.

How Big Is the Effect?

Even if exercise reduces the risk for only certain cancers, that’s still important, particularly when those links appear strongest for common cancer types, such as breast and colon.

But how much of a difference can exercise make?

Based on the evidence, it may only be a modest one. A 2019 systematic review by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee provided a rough estimate: Across hundreds of epidemiological studies, people with the highest physical activity levels had a 10%-20% lower risk for the cancers cited in the 2018 exercise guidelines compared with people who were least active.

These figures, however, are probably an underestimate, said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a member of the advisory committee and professor of epidemiology, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

“This is what we usually see when a factor is not measured very well,” said Dr. McTiernan, explaining that the individual studies differed in their categories of “highest” and “lowest” physical activity, such that one study’s “highest” could be another’s mid-range.

“In other words, the effects of physical activity are likely larger” than the review found, Dr. McTiernan said.

The next logical question is whether a bigger exercise “dose” — more time or higher intensity — would have a greater impact on cancer risk. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to clarify that by pooling data on over 750,000 participants from nine prospective cohorts.

Overall, people meeting government recommendations for exercise — equivalent to about 2.5-5 hours of weekly moderate activity, such as a brisk walk, or about 1.25-2.5 hours of more vigorous activities, like running — had lower risks for seven of 15 cancer types studied compared with less active people.

For cancers with positive findings, being on the higher end of the recommended 2.5- to 5-hour weekly range was better. Risk reductions for breast cancer, for instance, were 6% at 2.5 hours of physical activity per week and 10% at 5 hours per week. Similar trends emerged for other cancer types, including colon (8%-14%), endometrial (10%-18%), liver cancer (18%-27%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women (11%-18%).

But there may be an exercise sweet spot that maximizes the cancer risk benefit.

Among people who surpassed the recommendations — exercising for more time or more intensely — the risk reduction benefit did not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. For certain cancer types, such as colon and endometrial, the benefits of more vigorous exercise “eroded at higher levels of activity,” the authors said.

The issue here is that most studies have not dug deeply into aerobic exercise habits. Often, studies present participants with a list of activities — walking, biking, and running — and ask them to estimate how often and for what duration they do each.

Plus, “we’ve usually lumped moderate and vigorous activities together,” Dr. Rees-Punia said, which means there’s a lack of “granular data” to say whether certain intensities or frequencies of exercise are optimal and for whom.

Why Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk

Exercise habits do not, of course, exist in a vacuum. Highly active people, Dr. Ligibel said, tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, leaner, and have generally healthier lifestyles than sedentary people.

Body weight is a big confounder as well. However, Dr. Rees-Punia noted, it’s also probably a reason that exercise is linked to lower cancer risks, particularly by preventing weight gain. Still, studies have found that the association between exercise and many cancers remains significant after adjusting for body mass index.

The why remains unclear, though some studies offer clues.

“There’s been some really interesting mechanistic research, suggesting that exercise may help inhibit tumor growth or upregulate the immune system,” Dr. Ligibel said.

That includes not only lab research but small intervention studies. While these studies have largely involved people who already have cancer, some have also focused on healthy individuals.

A 2019 study from Dr. Ligibel and her colleagues, which randomly assigned 49 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer to start either an exercise program or mind-body practices ahead of surgery, found exercisers, who had been active for about a month at the time of surgery, showed signs of immune system upregulation in their tumors, while the control group did not.

Among healthy postmenopausal women, a meta-analysis of six clinical trials from Dr. McTiernan and her colleagues found that exercise plus calorie reduction can reduce levels of breast cancer-related endogenous hormones, more so than calorie-cutting alone. And a 2023 study found that high-intensity exercise boosted the ranks of certain immune cells and reduced inflammation in the colon among people at high risk for colon and endometrial cancers due to Lynch syndrome.

Defining an Exercise ‘Prescription’

Despite the gaps and uncertainties in the research, government guidelines as well as those from the American Cancer Society and other medical groups are in lockstep in their exercise recommendations: Adults should strive for 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (like brisk walking), 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity (like running), or some combination each week.

The guidelines also encourage strength training twice a week — advice that’s based on research tying those activity levels to lower risks for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.

But there’s no “best” exercise prescription for lowering cancer risk specifically. Most epidemiological studies have examined only aerobic activity, Dr. Rees-Punia said, and there’s very little known about whether strength conditioning or other moderate heart rate-elevating activities, such as daily household chores, may reduce the risk for cancer.

Given the lack of nuance in the literature, it’s hard to say what intensities, types, or amounts of exercise are best for each individual.

Going forward, device-based measurements of physical activity could “help us sort out the effects of different intensities of exercise and possibly types,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

But overall, Dr. McTiernan said, the data do show that the risks for several cancers are lower at the widely recommended activity levels.

“The bottom-line advice is still to exercise at least 150 minutes per week at a moderate-intensity level or greater,” Dr. McTiernan said.

Or put another way, moving beats being sedentary. It’s probably wise for everyone to sit less, noted Dr. Rees-Punia, for overall health and based on evidence tying sedentary time to the risks for certain cancers, including colon, endometrial, and lung.

There’s a practical element to consider in all of this: What physical activities will people actually do on the regular? In the big epidemiological studies, Dr. McTiernan noted, middle-aged and older adults most often report walking, suggesting that’s the preferred, or most accessible activity, for many.

“You can only benefit from the physical activity you’ll actually do,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

Dr. Ligibel echoed that sentiment, saying she encourages patients to think about physical activity as a process: “You need to find things you like to do and work them into your daily life, in a sustainable way.

“People often talk about exercise being medicine,” Dr. Ligibel said. “But I think you could take that too far. If we get too prescriptive about it, that could take the joy away.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bone-modifying agents — most notably denosumab — are often prescribed to prevent skeletal-related complications in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, but the drugs are not recommended for this indication and can lead to severe toxicities.

How much does Medicare spend each year on non-recommended bone therapy?

The answer, according to a new analysis in JCO Oncology Practice, is more than $44 million, with about $43 million coming from denosumab alone.

Overall, this study found that “the Medicare program pays tens of millions of dollars each year” for bone-modifying agents in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, “which is not effective and may cause side effects,” lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and colleagues concluded.

“These findings suggest reducing bone agent overuse could be a rare healthcare ‘win-win.’ Lower costs AND improved patient outcomes,” tweeted Dr. Mitchell. “If I were a payer, I’d be paying attention!”
 

In Prostate Cancer, Bone-Modifying Drug Indications Vary

Bone-modifying drugs are indicated for some patients with prostate cancer.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has endorsed guidelines that recommend the use of denosumab in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer at high risk for fracture while taking androgen deprivation therapy.

Among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, guidelines also recommend zoledronic acid or denosumab for preventing or delaying skeletal-related events, such as pathologic fractures and spinal cord compression.

For patients with metastatic castration-sensitive disease, however, the bone-modifying agents show no benefit in preventing skeletal-related events and are not recommended for that indication.

In this population, “treatment with bone agents results only in avoidable toxicity and financial cost,” Dr. Mitchell tweeted. In its higher-dose formulation, denosumab comes with a price tag of approximately $40,000 per year in the United States.

An earlier study from Dr. Mitchell and colleagues revealed that the use of bone-modifying drugs to prevent skeletal events in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer is common.

To better understand the costs associated with this inappropriate use, the researchers reviewed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program Medicare data from 2011 to 2015. The team identified the frequency and number of doses of zoledronic acid and denosumab prescribed against recommendations in the metastatic castration-sensitive setting, making sure to distinguish between the use of denosumab to prevent osteoporotic fractures (appropriate use) and to prevent skeletal-related events (non-recommended use).

The team found that, among 2627 patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, 42% received at least one dose of denosumab and 18% received at least one dose of zoledronic acid.

The authors also found that unnecessary use of these drugs increased over time — with a little over 17% of patients receiving zoledronic acid between 2007 and 2009 and just over 28% receiving either denosumab (20.3%) or zoledronic acid (8.4%) from 2012 to 2015.

The annual costs to Medicare from non-recommended prescribing came to $44,105,041 for both agents, with the costs associated with denosumab representing the lion’s share at $43,303,078.

Non-recommended use of these agents also came with adverse events, such as femur fracture and hypocalcemia, which cost an estimated $758,450 to treat annually — $682,865 for denosumab and $75,585 for zoledronic acid.

The study focused on the Medicare-age population, which means the estimates are conservative. “Denosumab overuse for younger patients with castration-sensitive prostate cancer would add substantially to this total,” the authors wrote.

“This study contributes new evidence of overuse in the metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer setting, which I must admit reflects my clinical experience in seeing patients for second opinions who are treated in the community,” said Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, of the Division of Hematology and Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, who wasn’t involved in the research. “While there are some circumstances in which one would consider using a bone-modifying agent in the metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer setting, most [of these] men don’t need them upfront.”
 

Why Is the Overuse Happening?

One reason for the inappropriate use of bone-modifying drugs could be confusion surrounding the recommendations because the drugs are recommended for some patients with prostate cancer.

Michael R. Laurent, MD, PhD, of Imelda Hospital, Bonheiden, Belgium, explained that the use of bone-modifying drugs is, paradoxically, often overlooked in settings where they are recommended — when patients have an elevated risk for osteoporosis or fracture.

“Guidelines are quite unequivocal in their recommendations to prevent osteoporosis in mostly older men who receive androgen deprivation therapy,” but “I think there is significant undertreatment” in these patients, Dr. Laurent told this news organization.

However, the recommendation for patients at risk for osteoporosis or bone fracture calls for less intense regimens, which may include lower-dose denosumab, administered once every 6 months, zoledronic acid, given yearly, or another lower potency agent, such as oral alendronate weekly, explained Philip J. Saylor, MD, an attending physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Meanwhile, “monthly high-intensity therapy to prevent skeletal events should be reserved specifically for bone metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer for more than just cost reasons,” Dr. Saylor said.

When it comes to the higher dose, monthly therapy in castration-sensitive prostate cancer, “we have no evidence that it is beneficial,” he said, adding that “when the prostate cancer itself is well controlled by hormonal therapy, there just aren’t very many pathologic fractures or other bone complications.”

Alongside possible confusion over the recommendations, many physicians also likely don’t know how much denosumab costs.

“In our recent physician interview study, we did find that most physicians were very much unaware of the cost of this drug, or the cost difference between denosumab and zoledronic acid, so I do think that lack of cost awareness is a factor,” Dr. Mitchell said.

Part of the reason may be how Medicare covers these agents. Typically, Medicare would not cover non-recommended indications, but “in this case, Medicare coverage is broader and includes both the guideline-recommended and non-recommended uses,” Dr. Mitchell explained.

However, the authors also identified a more cynical reason for non-recommended prescribing — promotional payments from drug makers to physicians.

In another recent paper, Dr. Mitchell said he found about “30% of doctors treating prostate cancer had received payments from Amgen for Xgeva [denosumab] promotion during the last year.”

These payments appeared to influence non-recommended prescribing: Among patients whose doctor had not received payments, 31.4% received non-recommended denosumab, which increased to nearly 50% of patients among doctors who had received payments.

Dr. Mitchell suggested a few ways to help curb inappropriate prescribing.

Medicare could, for instance, change its coverage policy to include only the recommended uses of these agents, Dr. Mitchell said.

More physician education would be another solution. “I think that physician education would be one ‘bottom-up’ approach that could work,” Dr. Mitchell added.

Dr. Mitchell, Dr. Takvorian, and Dr. Saylor had no disclosures to report. Dr. Laurent has received lecture and consultancy fees from Alexion, AM Pharma, Amgen, Galapagos, Kyowa Kirin, Menarini, Orifarm, Pharmanovia, Takeda, UCB, and Will Pharma.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bone-modifying agents — most notably denosumab — are often prescribed to prevent skeletal-related complications in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, but the drugs are not recommended for this indication and can lead to severe toxicities.

How much does Medicare spend each year on non-recommended bone therapy?

The answer, according to a new analysis in JCO Oncology Practice, is more than $44 million, with about $43 million coming from denosumab alone.

Overall, this study found that “the Medicare program pays tens of millions of dollars each year” for bone-modifying agents in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, “which is not effective and may cause side effects,” lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and colleagues concluded.

“These findings suggest reducing bone agent overuse could be a rare healthcare ‘win-win.’ Lower costs AND improved patient outcomes,” tweeted Dr. Mitchell. “If I were a payer, I’d be paying attention!”
 

In Prostate Cancer, Bone-Modifying Drug Indications Vary

Bone-modifying drugs are indicated for some patients with prostate cancer.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has endorsed guidelines that recommend the use of denosumab in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer at high risk for fracture while taking androgen deprivation therapy.

Among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, guidelines also recommend zoledronic acid or denosumab for preventing or delaying skeletal-related events, such as pathologic fractures and spinal cord compression.

For patients with metastatic castration-sensitive disease, however, the bone-modifying agents show no benefit in preventing skeletal-related events and are not recommended for that indication.

In this population, “treatment with bone agents results only in avoidable toxicity and financial cost,” Dr. Mitchell tweeted. In its higher-dose formulation, denosumab comes with a price tag of approximately $40,000 per year in the United States.

An earlier study from Dr. Mitchell and colleagues revealed that the use of bone-modifying drugs to prevent skeletal events in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer is common.

To better understand the costs associated with this inappropriate use, the researchers reviewed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program Medicare data from 2011 to 2015. The team identified the frequency and number of doses of zoledronic acid and denosumab prescribed against recommendations in the metastatic castration-sensitive setting, making sure to distinguish between the use of denosumab to prevent osteoporotic fractures (appropriate use) and to prevent skeletal-related events (non-recommended use).

The team found that, among 2627 patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, 42% received at least one dose of denosumab and 18% received at least one dose of zoledronic acid.

The authors also found that unnecessary use of these drugs increased over time — with a little over 17% of patients receiving zoledronic acid between 2007 and 2009 and just over 28% receiving either denosumab (20.3%) or zoledronic acid (8.4%) from 2012 to 2015.

The annual costs to Medicare from non-recommended prescribing came to $44,105,041 for both agents, with the costs associated with denosumab representing the lion’s share at $43,303,078.

Non-recommended use of these agents also came with adverse events, such as femur fracture and hypocalcemia, which cost an estimated $758,450 to treat annually — $682,865 for denosumab and $75,585 for zoledronic acid.

The study focused on the Medicare-age population, which means the estimates are conservative. “Denosumab overuse for younger patients with castration-sensitive prostate cancer would add substantially to this total,” the authors wrote.

“This study contributes new evidence of overuse in the metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer setting, which I must admit reflects my clinical experience in seeing patients for second opinions who are treated in the community,” said Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, of the Division of Hematology and Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, who wasn’t involved in the research. “While there are some circumstances in which one would consider using a bone-modifying agent in the metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer setting, most [of these] men don’t need them upfront.”
 

Why Is the Overuse Happening?

One reason for the inappropriate use of bone-modifying drugs could be confusion surrounding the recommendations because the drugs are recommended for some patients with prostate cancer.

Michael R. Laurent, MD, PhD, of Imelda Hospital, Bonheiden, Belgium, explained that the use of bone-modifying drugs is, paradoxically, often overlooked in settings where they are recommended — when patients have an elevated risk for osteoporosis or fracture.

“Guidelines are quite unequivocal in their recommendations to prevent osteoporosis in mostly older men who receive androgen deprivation therapy,” but “I think there is significant undertreatment” in these patients, Dr. Laurent told this news organization.

However, the recommendation for patients at risk for osteoporosis or bone fracture calls for less intense regimens, which may include lower-dose denosumab, administered once every 6 months, zoledronic acid, given yearly, or another lower potency agent, such as oral alendronate weekly, explained Philip J. Saylor, MD, an attending physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Meanwhile, “monthly high-intensity therapy to prevent skeletal events should be reserved specifically for bone metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer for more than just cost reasons,” Dr. Saylor said.

When it comes to the higher dose, monthly therapy in castration-sensitive prostate cancer, “we have no evidence that it is beneficial,” he said, adding that “when the prostate cancer itself is well controlled by hormonal therapy, there just aren’t very many pathologic fractures or other bone complications.”

Alongside possible confusion over the recommendations, many physicians also likely don’t know how much denosumab costs.

“In our recent physician interview study, we did find that most physicians were very much unaware of the cost of this drug, or the cost difference between denosumab and zoledronic acid, so I do think that lack of cost awareness is a factor,” Dr. Mitchell said.

Part of the reason may be how Medicare covers these agents. Typically, Medicare would not cover non-recommended indications, but “in this case, Medicare coverage is broader and includes both the guideline-recommended and non-recommended uses,” Dr. Mitchell explained.

However, the authors also identified a more cynical reason for non-recommended prescribing — promotional payments from drug makers to physicians.

In another recent paper, Dr. Mitchell said he found about “30% of doctors treating prostate cancer had received payments from Amgen for Xgeva [denosumab] promotion during the last year.”

These payments appeared to influence non-recommended prescribing: Among patients whose doctor had not received payments, 31.4% received non-recommended denosumab, which increased to nearly 50% of patients among doctors who had received payments.

Dr. Mitchell suggested a few ways to help curb inappropriate prescribing.

Medicare could, for instance, change its coverage policy to include only the recommended uses of these agents, Dr. Mitchell said.

More physician education would be another solution. “I think that physician education would be one ‘bottom-up’ approach that could work,” Dr. Mitchell added.

Dr. Mitchell, Dr. Takvorian, and Dr. Saylor had no disclosures to report. Dr. Laurent has received lecture and consultancy fees from Alexion, AM Pharma, Amgen, Galapagos, Kyowa Kirin, Menarini, Orifarm, Pharmanovia, Takeda, UCB, and Will Pharma.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bone-modifying agents — most notably denosumab — are often prescribed to prevent skeletal-related complications in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, but the drugs are not recommended for this indication and can lead to severe toxicities.

How much does Medicare spend each year on non-recommended bone therapy?

The answer, according to a new analysis in JCO Oncology Practice, is more than $44 million, with about $43 million coming from denosumab alone.

Overall, this study found that “the Medicare program pays tens of millions of dollars each year” for bone-modifying agents in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, “which is not effective and may cause side effects,” lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and colleagues concluded.

“These findings suggest reducing bone agent overuse could be a rare healthcare ‘win-win.’ Lower costs AND improved patient outcomes,” tweeted Dr. Mitchell. “If I were a payer, I’d be paying attention!”
 

In Prostate Cancer, Bone-Modifying Drug Indications Vary

Bone-modifying drugs are indicated for some patients with prostate cancer.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has endorsed guidelines that recommend the use of denosumab in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer at high risk for fracture while taking androgen deprivation therapy.

Among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, guidelines also recommend zoledronic acid or denosumab for preventing or delaying skeletal-related events, such as pathologic fractures and spinal cord compression.

For patients with metastatic castration-sensitive disease, however, the bone-modifying agents show no benefit in preventing skeletal-related events and are not recommended for that indication.

In this population, “treatment with bone agents results only in avoidable toxicity and financial cost,” Dr. Mitchell tweeted. In its higher-dose formulation, denosumab comes with a price tag of approximately $40,000 per year in the United States.

An earlier study from Dr. Mitchell and colleagues revealed that the use of bone-modifying drugs to prevent skeletal events in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer is common.

To better understand the costs associated with this inappropriate use, the researchers reviewed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program Medicare data from 2011 to 2015. The team identified the frequency and number of doses of zoledronic acid and denosumab prescribed against recommendations in the metastatic castration-sensitive setting, making sure to distinguish between the use of denosumab to prevent osteoporotic fractures (appropriate use) and to prevent skeletal-related events (non-recommended use).

The team found that, among 2627 patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, 42% received at least one dose of denosumab and 18% received at least one dose of zoledronic acid.

The authors also found that unnecessary use of these drugs increased over time — with a little over 17% of patients receiving zoledronic acid between 2007 and 2009 and just over 28% receiving either denosumab (20.3%) or zoledronic acid (8.4%) from 2012 to 2015.

The annual costs to Medicare from non-recommended prescribing came to $44,105,041 for both agents, with the costs associated with denosumab representing the lion’s share at $43,303,078.

Non-recommended use of these agents also came with adverse events, such as femur fracture and hypocalcemia, which cost an estimated $758,450 to treat annually — $682,865 for denosumab and $75,585 for zoledronic acid.

The study focused on the Medicare-age population, which means the estimates are conservative. “Denosumab overuse for younger patients with castration-sensitive prostate cancer would add substantially to this total,” the authors wrote.

“This study contributes new evidence of overuse in the metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer setting, which I must admit reflects my clinical experience in seeing patients for second opinions who are treated in the community,” said Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, of the Division of Hematology and Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, who wasn’t involved in the research. “While there are some circumstances in which one would consider using a bone-modifying agent in the metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer setting, most [of these] men don’t need them upfront.”
 

Why Is the Overuse Happening?

One reason for the inappropriate use of bone-modifying drugs could be confusion surrounding the recommendations because the drugs are recommended for some patients with prostate cancer.

Michael R. Laurent, MD, PhD, of Imelda Hospital, Bonheiden, Belgium, explained that the use of bone-modifying drugs is, paradoxically, often overlooked in settings where they are recommended — when patients have an elevated risk for osteoporosis or fracture.

“Guidelines are quite unequivocal in their recommendations to prevent osteoporosis in mostly older men who receive androgen deprivation therapy,” but “I think there is significant undertreatment” in these patients, Dr. Laurent told this news organization.

However, the recommendation for patients at risk for osteoporosis or bone fracture calls for less intense regimens, which may include lower-dose denosumab, administered once every 6 months, zoledronic acid, given yearly, or another lower potency agent, such as oral alendronate weekly, explained Philip J. Saylor, MD, an attending physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Meanwhile, “monthly high-intensity therapy to prevent skeletal events should be reserved specifically for bone metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer for more than just cost reasons,” Dr. Saylor said.

When it comes to the higher dose, monthly therapy in castration-sensitive prostate cancer, “we have no evidence that it is beneficial,” he said, adding that “when the prostate cancer itself is well controlled by hormonal therapy, there just aren’t very many pathologic fractures or other bone complications.”

Alongside possible confusion over the recommendations, many physicians also likely don’t know how much denosumab costs.

“In our recent physician interview study, we did find that most physicians were very much unaware of the cost of this drug, or the cost difference between denosumab and zoledronic acid, so I do think that lack of cost awareness is a factor,” Dr. Mitchell said.

Part of the reason may be how Medicare covers these agents. Typically, Medicare would not cover non-recommended indications, but “in this case, Medicare coverage is broader and includes both the guideline-recommended and non-recommended uses,” Dr. Mitchell explained.

However, the authors also identified a more cynical reason for non-recommended prescribing — promotional payments from drug makers to physicians.

In another recent paper, Dr. Mitchell said he found about “30% of doctors treating prostate cancer had received payments from Amgen for Xgeva [denosumab] promotion during the last year.”

These payments appeared to influence non-recommended prescribing: Among patients whose doctor had not received payments, 31.4% received non-recommended denosumab, which increased to nearly 50% of patients among doctors who had received payments.

Dr. Mitchell suggested a few ways to help curb inappropriate prescribing.

Medicare could, for instance, change its coverage policy to include only the recommended uses of these agents, Dr. Mitchell said.

More physician education would be another solution. “I think that physician education would be one ‘bottom-up’ approach that could work,” Dr. Mitchell added.

Dr. Mitchell, Dr. Takvorian, and Dr. Saylor had no disclosures to report. Dr. Laurent has received lecture and consultancy fees from Alexion, AM Pharma, Amgen, Galapagos, Kyowa Kirin, Menarini, Orifarm, Pharmanovia, Takeda, UCB, and Will Pharma.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The explosion of interest in glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), such as semaglutide and tirzepatide, has raised questions about what therapeutic effects this class of medication might have beyond their current indications for type 2 diabetes and obesity. 

Recent clinical trials have recently identified benefits from GLP-1 agents for the heart, liver, and kidneys, but the current evidence base is murkier regarding how the drugs may affect male fertility. 

Experts say the connection between GLP-1 RAs and improved male fertility makes sense biologically. For starters, overweight and obesity are strongly associated with male infertility in several overlapping ways. Obesity can disrupt hormones linked to fertility, increase the risk for defective sperm, adversely affect semen quality, and even make sexual intercourse more difficult due to obesity’s link to erectile dysfunction. As a result, GLP-1 RAs should at least in theory boost male fertility in men who take the drugs to lose weight. 

But animal studies and a handful of small trials and observational data point to the potential for GLP-1 RAs to improve male fertility in other ways.

A recent narrative review on GLP-1 RAs and male reproductive health, published in the journal Medicina in December 2023, surveyed the potential of the drugs for male infertility and offered reason for optimism. 

Hossein Sadeghi-Nejad, MD, director of urology at NYU Langone Health, New York, and a coauthor of the article, said that one reason he and his colleagues conducted their analysis was the known association between weight loss and an increase in testosterone.

“Most of the animal studies that are out there show that this class of drugs does affect testosterone levels,” Dr. Sadeghi-Nejad said; they wanted to better understand what other evidence showed about GLP-1 agonists and other fertility factors. 
 

Link Between Obesity and Fertility

The recent paper first reviews the well-established link between obesity and poorer fertility outcomes. 

“Certainly, obesity poses a significant societal problem with substantial impacts on both overall health and economic aspects,” senior author Ranjith Ramasamy, MD, associate professor of urology and director of the reproductive urology Fellowship program at the University of Miami’s Miller School of Medicine, told this news organization. “The escalating global obesity rates raise concerns, especially in the field of male infertility, where excessive body fat induces intrinsic hormonal changes leading to alterations, eventually, in semen parameters.”

The authors noted that obesity has been linked in the research to worse assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes and to subfecundity, taking more than 12 months to achieve pregnancy. They also referenced a systematic review that found men with obesity were more likely to have lower sperm counts and less viable sperm.

“From our standpoint, I think the key point was to raise awareness about the fact that obesity, because of the aromatization of testosterone to estradiol [from excess adipose tissue], will affect the hormonal axis and the availability of testosterone and, therefore, indirectly affects spermatogenesis,” Dr. Sadeghi-Nejad said. 

Obesity is also linked to lower levels of inhibin B, which stimulates testosterone secretion in Sertoli cells, which, when combined with the proinflammatory state of obesity, “results in a less favorable environment for sperm production,” he said. Finally, the link between obesity and poorer sexual function further inhibits fertility potential, he added. 

Until recently, the primary treatments for obesity in men experiencing fertility problems have been lifestyle modifications or surgical interventions. But the recent approval of GLP-1 RA drugs for obesity present an additional option depending on how these drugs affect other fertility parameters. 
 

Direct or Indirect Effects?

Most of the available evidence on GLP-RAs and sperm parameters comes from preclinical research. One of the few clinical trials, published last year in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, investigated the effects of liraglutide in men with metabolic hypogonadism, a body mass index between (BMI) 30 and 40, and severe erectile dysfunction. 

Among the 110 men enrolled in the study, only the 35 participants who said that they were not seeking fatherhood received liraglutide. After 4 months of treatment, these men had significantly improved semen concentration, motility, and morphology than did those wanting to conceive who received conventional fertility treatment. Erectile dysfunction was also more improved in the liraglutide group, according to the researchers. 

Though this study demonstrated the potential for liraglutide to treat metabolic hypogonadism, the men in that group also had greater weight loss and BMI reduction than the other participants. The review cited several other studies — albeit small ones — in which weight loss was associated with improvements in sperm parameters, including one randomized controlled trial in which one group lost weight with liraglutide and the other with lifestyle modifications; both groups showed increases in the concentration and number of sperm. 

One of the key questions requiring further research, then, is whether GLP-1 agents have direct effects on male fertility independent of a reduction in obesity. The randomized controlled trials comparing liraglutide and lifestyle modifications failed to find additional effects on semen in the men taking liraglutide; however, the study had only 56 participants, and results from liraglutide cannot be generalized to potential effects of semaglutide or tirzepatide, Dr. Sadeghi-Nejad said.

“Determining the relative contributions of weight loss versus direct drug actions on fertility outcomes remains challenging without robust data,” Dr. Ramasamy said. “While acknowledged that diet and physical activity positively impact fertility, confirming the synergistic role of GLP-1 receptor agonists requires evidence from well-designed randomized clinical trials.” 

Rodent studies suggest that GLP-1 RAs may independently affect testicular function because GLP-1 receptors exist in Sertoli and Leydig cells of the testes. In one study, for example, obese mice who received the GLP-1 agonist exenatide for 8 weeks had “improved sperm motility, DNA integrity, and decreased expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines,” the authors of the review reported. But the precise mechanisms aren’t well understood. 

“We know that there are GLP-1 receptors in the reproductive tract, but the extent of the downstream effect of stimulating those receptors, I don’t think we know well,” said John P. Lindsey II, MD, MEng, assistant professor of urology at University of California San Francisco Health. 

Other hormonal effects of GLP-1 agonists, such as stimulating insulin production and better regulating blood glucose levels, are better understood, said Raevti Bole, MD, a urologist at Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio, but still other effects of the drugs may not yet be identified.

“I think the really big unknown is whether these types of drugs have effects that are not hormonal on male fertility and what those effects are, and how those affect sperm,” Dr. Bole said. “For example, we know that these drugs slow gastric emptying. Is it possible that slow gastric emptying affects some of the nutrients that you absorb, and that could affect fertility?” Similarly, she said, it’s not clear whether GLP-1 agonists would have any effects on the thyroid that could then affect fertility. 
 

Effects on Offspring

Another open question about GLP-1 RAs and male fertility is their potential effects on the offspring, said Sriram Machineni, MBBS, associate professor of endocrinology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. The clinical trials involving the drugs for treating type 2 diabetes and obesity required both men and women to use contraception. If sperm contributing to a pregnancy are exposed to a GLP-1 agent, “we don’t know what the consequences could be,” Dr. Machineni said. “Just increasing the fertility of the man is not enough. We need to make sure it’s safe long-term for the fetus.”

Dr. Bole also pointed out the need for understanding potential effects in the fetus.

“We know that there are epigenetic changes that can happen to sperm that are influenced by the lifestyle and the physical health and environment of the parent,” Dr. Bole said. “So how could these drugs potentially affect those epigenetic changes that then potentially are passed on to the offspring? We don’t know that.” 

An ideal source for that data would be a cohort registry of people who are taking the medication and then cause a pregnancy. “They have a registry for pregnant women,” Dr. Machineni said, “but we need something similar for men.”

Dr. Sadeghi-Nejad said that he and his coauthors are working on developing a registry for men who take GLP-1 RAs that would enable long-term tracking of multiple andrologic outcomes, including fertility and sexual dysfunction. Such a registry could theoretically be useful in tracking pregnancy and offspring outcomes as well. 
 

Too Soon for Prescribing

Additional options for treating fertility in men with obesity would be welcome. Current treatments include the selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) clomiphene citrate and the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole. But these have their drawbacks, Dr. Sadeghi-Nejad pointed out; in the overweight population in particular, they “are not necessarily ideal,” he said.

“Although both are viable treatments for enhancing hormonal balance and semen parameters, clomiphene citrate has rare but documented side effects, including thromboembolism, gastrointestinal distress and occasional weight gain in men,” Dr. Sadeghi-Nejad and his colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, despite clomiphene citrate’s association with significant increases in sperm concentration, it is not universally effective, with a meta-analysis indicating a significant increase in sperm concentration in approximately 60% of men.” 

For men who have obesity and oligospermia but normal levels of testosterone and estradiol, “conventional pharmaceutical approaches like clomiphene may not be suitable,” the authors wrote. 

Still, GLP-1 RAs may have a role to play for this population. 

“I think it is within the wheelhouse of a reproductive urologist to consider those types of medications,” Dr. Lindsey said. For example, for a patient who has overweight or obesity, “does it make sense to think about doing clomiphene therapy, which we often do for someone who has low testosterone, in conjunction [with a GLP-1 agonist]? Maybe there’s a kind of an additive effect of having both on board.”

Dr. Ramasamy similarly noted that GLP-1 agonists cannot replace SERMs but may work “synergistically” with them.

“Despite the established popularity of GLP-1 receptor agonists, there may be some reluctance among urologists and fertility specialists to prescribe them, with some others advocating for their use to enhance semen parameters,” Dr. Ramasamy said. “However, robust scientific evidence is still lacking, necessitating caution and a wait for more substantial data.”

Even if GLP-1 RAs prove to have therapeutic benefit for fertility, considerations such as availability and cost may affect prescribing. 

“We do currently have safe and effective drugs that we use for male fertility, and those are generally nowhere near as expensive,” Dr. Bole said. “When we start talking about another drug that we can add, we have to think about the efficacy and the potential side effect but also, is this affordable for patients?” 

Eventually, once more evidence become available, all of the urologists who spoke with this news organization said that they expect discussion about the possible therapeutic utility of GLP-1 agonists to make its way into clinical guidelines.

“Obesity is such a huge impediment for fertility in the modern environment,” Dr. Machineni said. “We will have to clarify the use of these agents, so I think this will be a part of the guidelines some point, but I think we need more information.”

The research was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the American Cancer Society. The review authors and other quoted physicians reported no disclosures. Dr. Machineni has consulted for Novo Nordisk and Lilly and has conducted clinical trials with semaglutide and tirzepatide for those companies. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The explosion of interest in glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), such as semaglutide and tirzepatide, has raised questions about what therapeutic effects this class of medication might have beyond their current indications for type 2 diabetes and obesity. 

Recent clinical trials have recently identified benefits from GLP-1 agents for the heart, liver, and kidneys, but the current evidence base is murkier regarding how the drugs may affect male fertility. 

Experts say the connection between GLP-1 RAs and improved male fertility makes sense biologically. For starters, overweight and obesity are strongly associated with male infertility in several overlapping ways. Obesity can disrupt hormones linked to fertility, increase the risk for defective sperm, adversely affect semen quality, and even make sexual intercourse more difficult due to obesity’s link to erectile dysfunction. As a result, GLP-1 RAs should at least in theory boost male fertility in men who take the drugs to lose weight. 

But animal studies and a handful of small trials and observational data point to the potential for GLP-1 RAs to improve male fertility in other ways.

A recent narrative review on GLP-1 RAs and male reproductive health, published in the journal Medicina in December 2023, surveyed the potential of the drugs for male infertility and offered reason for optimism. 

Hossein Sadeghi-Nejad, MD, director of urology at NYU Langone Health, New York, and a coauthor of the article, said that one reason he and his colleagues conducted their analysis was the known association between weight loss and an increase in testosterone.

“Most of the animal studies that are out there show that this class of drugs does affect testosterone levels,” Dr. Sadeghi-Nejad said; they wanted to better understand what other evidence showed about GLP-1 agonists and other fertility factors. 
 

Link Between Obesity and Fertility

The recent paper first reviews the well-established link between obesity and poorer fertility outcomes. 

“Certainly, obesity poses a significant societal problem with substantial impacts on both overall health and economic aspects,” senior author Ranjith Ramasamy, MD, associate professor of urology and director of the reproductive urology Fellowship program at the University of Miami’s Miller School of Medicine, told this news organization. “The escalating global obesity rates raise concerns, especially in the field of male infertility, where excessive body fat induces intrinsic hormonal changes leading to alterations, eventually, in semen parameters.”

The authors noted that obesity has been linked in the research to worse assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes and to subfecundity, taking more than 12 months to achieve pregnancy. They also referenced a systematic review that found men with obesity were more likely to have lower sperm counts and less viable sperm.

“From our standpoint, I think the key point was to raise awareness about the fact that obesity, because of the aromatization of testosterone to estradiol [from excess adipose tissue], will affect the hormonal axis and the availability of testosterone and, therefore, indirectly affects spermatogenesis,” Dr. Sadeghi-Nejad said. 

Obesity is also linked to lower levels of inhibin B, which stimulates testosterone secretion in Sertoli cells, which, when combined with the proinflammatory state of obesity, “results in a less favorable environment for sperm production,” he said. Finally, the link between obesity and poorer sexual function further inhibits fertility potential, he added. 

Until recently, the primary treatments for obesity in men experiencing fertility problems have been lifestyle modifications or surgical interventions. But the recent approval of GLP-1 RA drugs for obesity present an additional option depending on how these drugs affect other fertility parameters. 
 

Direct or Indirect Effects?

Most of the available evidence on GLP-RAs and sperm parameters comes from preclinical research. One of the few clinical trials, published last year in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, investigated the effects of liraglutide in men with metabolic hypogonadism, a body mass index between (BMI) 30 and 40, and severe erectile dysfunction. 

Among the 110 men enrolled in the study, only the 35 participants who said that they were not seeking fatherhood received liraglutide. After 4 months of treatment, these men had significantly improved semen concentration, motility, and morphology than did those wanting to conceive who received conventional fertility treatment. Erectile dysfunction was also more improved in the liraglutide group, according to the researchers. 

Though this study demonstrated the potential for liraglutide to treat metabolic hypogonadism, the men in that group also had greater weight loss and BMI reduction than the other participants. The review cited several other studies — albeit small ones — in which weight loss was associated with improvements in sperm parameters, including one randomized controlled trial in which one group lost weight with liraglutide and the other with lifestyle modifications; both groups showed increases in the concentration and number of sperm. 

One of the key questions requiring further research, then, is whether GLP-1 agents have direct effects on male fertility independent of a reduction in obesity. The randomized controlled trials comparing liraglutide and lifestyle modifications failed to find additional effects on semen in the men taking liraglutide; however, the study had only 56 participants, and results from liraglutide cannot be generalized to potential effects of semaglutide or tirzepatide, Dr. Sadeghi-Nejad said.

“Determining the relative contributions of weight loss versus direct drug actions on fertility outcomes remains challenging without robust data,” Dr. Ramasamy said. “While acknowledged that diet and physical activity positively impact fertility, confirming the synergistic role of GLP-1 receptor agonists requires evidence from well-designed randomized clinical trials.” 

Rodent studies suggest that GLP-1 RAs may independently affect testicular function because GLP-1 receptors exist in Sertoli and Leydig cells of the testes. In one study, for example, obese mice who received the GLP-1 agonist exenatide for 8 weeks had “improved sperm motility, DNA integrity, and decreased expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines,” the authors of the review reported. But the precise mechanisms aren’t well understood. 

“We know that there are GLP-1 receptors in the reproductive tract, but the extent of the downstream effect of stimulating those receptors, I don’t think we know well,” said John P. Lindsey II, MD, MEng, assistant professor of urology at University of California San Francisco Health. 

Other hormonal effects of GLP-1 agonists, such as stimulating insulin production and better regulating blood glucose levels, are better understood, said Raevti Bole, MD, a urologist at Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio, but still other effects of the drugs may not yet be identified.

“I think the really big unknown is whether these types of drugs have effects that are not hormonal on male fertility and what those effects are, and how those affect sperm,” Dr. Bole said. “For example, we know that these drugs slow gastric emptying. Is it possible that slow gastric emptying affects some of the nutrients that you absorb, and that could affect fertility?” Similarly, she said, it’s not clear whether GLP-1 agonists would have any effects on the thyroid that could then affect fertility. 
 

Effects on Offspring

Another open question about GLP-1 RAs and male fertility is their potential effects on the offspring, said Sriram Machineni, MBBS, associate professor of endocrinology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. The clinical trials involving the drugs for treating type 2 diabetes and obesity required both men and women to use contraception. If sperm contributing to a pregnancy are exposed to a GLP-1 agent, “we don’t know what the consequences could be,” Dr. Machineni said. “Just increasing the fertility of the man is not enough. We need to make sure it’s safe long-term for the fetus.”

Dr. Bole also pointed out the need for understanding potential effects in the fetus.

“We know that there are epigenetic changes that can happen to sperm that are influenced by the lifestyle and the physical health and environment of the parent,” Dr. Bole said. “So how could these drugs potentially affect those epigenetic changes that then potentially are passed on to the offspring? We don’t know that.” 

An ideal source for that data would be a cohort registry of people who are taking the medication and then cause a pregnancy. “They have a registry for pregnant women,” Dr. Machineni said, “but we need something similar for men.”

Dr. Sadeghi-Nejad said that he and his coauthors are working on developing a registry for men who take GLP-1 RAs that would enable long-term tracking of multiple andrologic outcomes, including fertility and sexual dysfunction. Such a registry could theoretically be useful in tracking pregnancy and offspring outcomes as well. 
 

Too Soon for Prescribing

Additional options for treating fertility in men with obesity would be welcome. Current treatments include the selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) clomiphene citrate and the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole. But these have their drawbacks, Dr. Sadeghi-Nejad pointed out; in the overweight population in particular, they “are not necessarily ideal,” he said.

“Although both are viable treatments for enhancing hormonal balance and semen parameters, clomiphene citrate has rare but documented side effects, including thromboembolism, gastrointestinal distress and occasional weight gain in men,” Dr. Sadeghi-Nejad and his colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, despite clomiphene citrate’s association with significant increases in sperm concentration, it is not universally effective, with a meta-analysis indicating a significant increase in sperm concentration in approximately 60% of men.” 

For men who have obesity and oligospermia but normal levels of testosterone and estradiol, “conventional pharmaceutical approaches like clomiphene may not be suitable,” the authors wrote. 

Still, GLP-1 RAs may have a role to play for this population. 

“I think it is within the wheelhouse of a reproductive urologist to consider those types of medications,” Dr. Lindsey said. For example, for a patient who has overweight or obesity, “does it make sense to think about doing clomiphene therapy, which we often do for someone who has low testosterone, in conjunction [with a GLP-1 agonist]? Maybe there’s a kind of an additive effect of having both on board.”

Dr. Ramasamy similarly noted that GLP-1 agonists cannot replace SERMs but may work “synergistically” with them.

“Despite the established popularity of GLP-1 receptor agonists, there may be some reluctance among urologists and fertility specialists to prescribe them, with some others advocating for their use to enhance semen parameters,” Dr. Ramasamy said. “However, robust scientific evidence is still lacking, necessitating caution and a wait for more substantial data.”

Even if GLP-1 RAs prove to have therapeutic benefit for fertility, considerations such as availability and cost may affect prescribing. 

“We do currently have safe and effective drugs that we use for male fertility, and those are generally nowhere near as expensive,” Dr. Bole said. “When we start talking about another drug that we can add, we have to think about the efficacy and the potential side effect but also, is this affordable for patients?” 

Eventually, once more evidence become available, all of the urologists who spoke with this news organization said that they expect discussion about the possible therapeutic utility of GLP-1 agonists to make its way into clinical guidelines.

“Obesity is such a huge impediment for fertility in the modern environment,” Dr. Machineni said. “We will have to clarify the use of these agents, so I think this will be a part of the guidelines some point, but I think we need more information.”

The research was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the American Cancer Society. The review authors and other quoted physicians reported no disclosures. Dr. Machineni has consulted for Novo Nordisk and Lilly and has conducted clinical trials with semaglutide and tirzepatide for those companies. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The explosion of interest in glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), such as semaglutide and tirzepatide, has raised questions about what therapeutic effects this class of medication might have beyond their current indications for type 2 diabetes and obesity. 

Recent clinical trials have recently identified benefits from GLP-1 agents for the heart, liver, and kidneys, but the current evidence base is murkier regarding how the drugs may affect male fertility. 

Experts say the connection between GLP-1 RAs and improved male fertility makes sense biologically. For starters, overweight and obesity are strongly associated with male infertility in several overlapping ways. Obesity can disrupt hormones linked to fertility, increase the risk for defective sperm, adversely affect semen quality, and even make sexual intercourse more difficult due to obesity’s link to erectile dysfunction. As a result, GLP-1 RAs should at least in theory boost male fertility in men who take the drugs to lose weight. 

But animal studies and a handful of small trials and observational data point to the potential for GLP-1 RAs to improve male fertility in other ways.

A recent narrative review on GLP-1 RAs and male reproductive health, published in the journal Medicina in December 2023, surveyed the potential of the drugs for male infertility and offered reason for optimism. 

Hossein Sadeghi-Nejad, MD, director of urology at NYU Langone Health, New York, and a coauthor of the article, said that one reason he and his colleagues conducted their analysis was the known association between weight loss and an increase in testosterone.

“Most of the animal studies that are out there show that this class of drugs does affect testosterone levels,” Dr. Sadeghi-Nejad said; they wanted to better understand what other evidence showed about GLP-1 agonists and other fertility factors. 
 

Link Between Obesity and Fertility

The recent paper first reviews the well-established link between obesity and poorer fertility outcomes. 

“Certainly, obesity poses a significant societal problem with substantial impacts on both overall health and economic aspects,” senior author Ranjith Ramasamy, MD, associate professor of urology and director of the reproductive urology Fellowship program at the University of Miami’s Miller School of Medicine, told this news organization. “The escalating global obesity rates raise concerns, especially in the field of male infertility, where excessive body fat induces intrinsic hormonal changes leading to alterations, eventually, in semen parameters.”

The authors noted that obesity has been linked in the research to worse assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes and to subfecundity, taking more than 12 months to achieve pregnancy. They also referenced a systematic review that found men with obesity were more likely to have lower sperm counts and less viable sperm.

“From our standpoint, I think the key point was to raise awareness about the fact that obesity, because of the aromatization of testosterone to estradiol [from excess adipose tissue], will affect the hormonal axis and the availability of testosterone and, therefore, indirectly affects spermatogenesis,” Dr. Sadeghi-Nejad said. 

Obesity is also linked to lower levels of inhibin B, which stimulates testosterone secretion in Sertoli cells, which, when combined with the proinflammatory state of obesity, “results in a less favorable environment for sperm production,” he said. Finally, the link between obesity and poorer sexual function further inhibits fertility potential, he added. 

Until recently, the primary treatments for obesity in men experiencing fertility problems have been lifestyle modifications or surgical interventions. But the recent approval of GLP-1 RA drugs for obesity present an additional option depending on how these drugs affect other fertility parameters. 
 

Direct or Indirect Effects?

Most of the available evidence on GLP-RAs and sperm parameters comes from preclinical research. One of the few clinical trials, published last year in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, investigated the effects of liraglutide in men with metabolic hypogonadism, a body mass index between (BMI) 30 and 40, and severe erectile dysfunction. 

Among the 110 men enrolled in the study, only the 35 participants who said that they were not seeking fatherhood received liraglutide. After 4 months of treatment, these men had significantly improved semen concentration, motility, and morphology than did those wanting to conceive who received conventional fertility treatment. Erectile dysfunction was also more improved in the liraglutide group, according to the researchers. 

Though this study demonstrated the potential for liraglutide to treat metabolic hypogonadism, the men in that group also had greater weight loss and BMI reduction than the other participants. The review cited several other studies — albeit small ones — in which weight loss was associated with improvements in sperm parameters, including one randomized controlled trial in which one group lost weight with liraglutide and the other with lifestyle modifications; both groups showed increases in the concentration and number of sperm. 

One of the key questions requiring further research, then, is whether GLP-1 agents have direct effects on male fertility independent of a reduction in obesity. The randomized controlled trials comparing liraglutide and lifestyle modifications failed to find additional effects on semen in the men taking liraglutide; however, the study had only 56 participants, and results from liraglutide cannot be generalized to potential effects of semaglutide or tirzepatide, Dr. Sadeghi-Nejad said.

“Determining the relative contributions of weight loss versus direct drug actions on fertility outcomes remains challenging without robust data,” Dr. Ramasamy said. “While acknowledged that diet and physical activity positively impact fertility, confirming the synergistic role of GLP-1 receptor agonists requires evidence from well-designed randomized clinical trials.” 

Rodent studies suggest that GLP-1 RAs may independently affect testicular function because GLP-1 receptors exist in Sertoli and Leydig cells of the testes. In one study, for example, obese mice who received the GLP-1 agonist exenatide for 8 weeks had “improved sperm motility, DNA integrity, and decreased expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines,” the authors of the review reported. But the precise mechanisms aren’t well understood. 

“We know that there are GLP-1 receptors in the reproductive tract, but the extent of the downstream effect of stimulating those receptors, I don’t think we know well,” said John P. Lindsey II, MD, MEng, assistant professor of urology at University of California San Francisco Health. 

Other hormonal effects of GLP-1 agonists, such as stimulating insulin production and better regulating blood glucose levels, are better understood, said Raevti Bole, MD, a urologist at Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio, but still other effects of the drugs may not yet be identified.

“I think the really big unknown is whether these types of drugs have effects that are not hormonal on male fertility and what those effects are, and how those affect sperm,” Dr. Bole said. “For example, we know that these drugs slow gastric emptying. Is it possible that slow gastric emptying affects some of the nutrients that you absorb, and that could affect fertility?” Similarly, she said, it’s not clear whether GLP-1 agonists would have any effects on the thyroid that could then affect fertility. 
 

Effects on Offspring

Another open question about GLP-1 RAs and male fertility is their potential effects on the offspring, said Sriram Machineni, MBBS, associate professor of endocrinology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. The clinical trials involving the drugs for treating type 2 diabetes and obesity required both men and women to use contraception. If sperm contributing to a pregnancy are exposed to a GLP-1 agent, “we don’t know what the consequences could be,” Dr. Machineni said. “Just increasing the fertility of the man is not enough. We need to make sure it’s safe long-term for the fetus.”

Dr. Bole also pointed out the need for understanding potential effects in the fetus.

“We know that there are epigenetic changes that can happen to sperm that are influenced by the lifestyle and the physical health and environment of the parent,” Dr. Bole said. “So how could these drugs potentially affect those epigenetic changes that then potentially are passed on to the offspring? We don’t know that.” 

An ideal source for that data would be a cohort registry of people who are taking the medication and then cause a pregnancy. “They have a registry for pregnant women,” Dr. Machineni said, “but we need something similar for men.”

Dr. Sadeghi-Nejad said that he and his coauthors are working on developing a registry for men who take GLP-1 RAs that would enable long-term tracking of multiple andrologic outcomes, including fertility and sexual dysfunction. Such a registry could theoretically be useful in tracking pregnancy and offspring outcomes as well. 
 

Too Soon for Prescribing

Additional options for treating fertility in men with obesity would be welcome. Current treatments include the selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) clomiphene citrate and the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole. But these have their drawbacks, Dr. Sadeghi-Nejad pointed out; in the overweight population in particular, they “are not necessarily ideal,” he said.

“Although both are viable treatments for enhancing hormonal balance and semen parameters, clomiphene citrate has rare but documented side effects, including thromboembolism, gastrointestinal distress and occasional weight gain in men,” Dr. Sadeghi-Nejad and his colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, despite clomiphene citrate’s association with significant increases in sperm concentration, it is not universally effective, with a meta-analysis indicating a significant increase in sperm concentration in approximately 60% of men.” 

For men who have obesity and oligospermia but normal levels of testosterone and estradiol, “conventional pharmaceutical approaches like clomiphene may not be suitable,” the authors wrote. 

Still, GLP-1 RAs may have a role to play for this population. 

“I think it is within the wheelhouse of a reproductive urologist to consider those types of medications,” Dr. Lindsey said. For example, for a patient who has overweight or obesity, “does it make sense to think about doing clomiphene therapy, which we often do for someone who has low testosterone, in conjunction [with a GLP-1 agonist]? Maybe there’s a kind of an additive effect of having both on board.”

Dr. Ramasamy similarly noted that GLP-1 agonists cannot replace SERMs but may work “synergistically” with them.

“Despite the established popularity of GLP-1 receptor agonists, there may be some reluctance among urologists and fertility specialists to prescribe them, with some others advocating for their use to enhance semen parameters,” Dr. Ramasamy said. “However, robust scientific evidence is still lacking, necessitating caution and a wait for more substantial data.”

Even if GLP-1 RAs prove to have therapeutic benefit for fertility, considerations such as availability and cost may affect prescribing. 

“We do currently have safe and effective drugs that we use for male fertility, and those are generally nowhere near as expensive,” Dr. Bole said. “When we start talking about another drug that we can add, we have to think about the efficacy and the potential side effect but also, is this affordable for patients?” 

Eventually, once more evidence become available, all of the urologists who spoke with this news organization said that they expect discussion about the possible therapeutic utility of GLP-1 agonists to make its way into clinical guidelines.

“Obesity is such a huge impediment for fertility in the modern environment,” Dr. Machineni said. “We will have to clarify the use of these agents, so I think this will be a part of the guidelines some point, but I think we need more information.”

The research was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the American Cancer Society. The review authors and other quoted physicians reported no disclosures. Dr. Machineni has consulted for Novo Nordisk and Lilly and has conducted clinical trials with semaglutide and tirzepatide for those companies. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Food emulsifiers are among the most widespread food additives. A large cohort study highlighted an association between the consumption of certain emulsifiers and an increased risk for certain cancers, particularly breast and prostate cancer.

Ultraprocessed foods constitute a significant part of our diet, representing approximately 30% of energy intake in France.

Large epidemiologic studies have already linked diets rich in ultraprocessed products to an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, and mortality. Possible explanations for this association include the presence of additives, particularly emulsifiers. These additives are intended to improve the texture and shelf life of foods.

Recent experimental studies have shown that emulsifiers alter the gut microbiota and may lead to low-grade inflammation. Dysbiosis and chronic inflammation not only increase the risk for inflammatory bowel diseases but are also implicated in the etiology of several other chronic pathologies and certain extraintestinal cancers.

The NutriNet-Santé study provided extensive information on the dietary habits of > 100,000 French participants. A new analysis was conducted, examining the possible link between the presence of emulsifiers in the diet and cancer occurrence. Data from 92,000 participants (78.8% women) were utilized. They covered an average follow-up of 6.7 years, during which 2604 cancer cases were diagnosed, including 750 breast cancers, 322 prostate cancers, and 207 colorectal cancers.

In this cohort, the risk for cancer increased with a higher presence in the diet of products containing certain emulsifiers widely used in industrial food in Europe: Carrageenans (E407), mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471), pectins (E440), and sodium carbonate (E500).

Notably, the highest consumption of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471) was associated with a 15% increase in the risk for all types of cancer, a 24% increase in breast cancer risk, and a 46% increase in prostate cancer risk. The highest consumption of carrageenans (E407) was associated with a 28% increase in breast cancer risk.

In an analysis by menopausal status, the risk for breast cancer before menopause was associated with high consumption of diphosphates (E450; 45% increase), pectins (E440; 55% increase), and sodium bicarbonate (E500; 48% increase). No link was found between emulsifier consumption and colorectal cancer risk. While some associations were observed for other emulsifiers, they did not persist in sensitivity analyses.

The European Food Safety Agency recently evaluated the risks of emulsifiers, however, and found no safety issues or need to limit daily consumption of several of them, notably E471.

It is certain that cancer is multifactorial, and a single factor (here, exposure to emulsifiers) will not significantly increase the risk. However, while not essential to human health, emulsifiers are widely prevalent in the global market. Therefore, if causality is established, the increased risk could translate into a significant number of preventable cancers at the population level. Confirmation of this causal link will need to be obtained through experimental and epidemiological studies.

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

Food emulsifiers are among the most widespread food additives. A large cohort study highlighted an association between the consumption of certain emulsifiers and an increased risk for certain cancers, particularly breast and prostate cancer.

Ultraprocessed foods constitute a significant part of our diet, representing approximately 30% of energy intake in France.

Large epidemiologic studies have already linked diets rich in ultraprocessed products to an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, and mortality. Possible explanations for this association include the presence of additives, particularly emulsifiers. These additives are intended to improve the texture and shelf life of foods.

Recent experimental studies have shown that emulsifiers alter the gut microbiota and may lead to low-grade inflammation. Dysbiosis and chronic inflammation not only increase the risk for inflammatory bowel diseases but are also implicated in the etiology of several other chronic pathologies and certain extraintestinal cancers.

The NutriNet-Santé study provided extensive information on the dietary habits of > 100,000 French participants. A new analysis was conducted, examining the possible link between the presence of emulsifiers in the diet and cancer occurrence. Data from 92,000 participants (78.8% women) were utilized. They covered an average follow-up of 6.7 years, during which 2604 cancer cases were diagnosed, including 750 breast cancers, 322 prostate cancers, and 207 colorectal cancers.

In this cohort, the risk for cancer increased with a higher presence in the diet of products containing certain emulsifiers widely used in industrial food in Europe: Carrageenans (E407), mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471), pectins (E440), and sodium carbonate (E500).

Notably, the highest consumption of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471) was associated with a 15% increase in the risk for all types of cancer, a 24% increase in breast cancer risk, and a 46% increase in prostate cancer risk. The highest consumption of carrageenans (E407) was associated with a 28% increase in breast cancer risk.

In an analysis by menopausal status, the risk for breast cancer before menopause was associated with high consumption of diphosphates (E450; 45% increase), pectins (E440; 55% increase), and sodium bicarbonate (E500; 48% increase). No link was found between emulsifier consumption and colorectal cancer risk. While some associations were observed for other emulsifiers, they did not persist in sensitivity analyses.

The European Food Safety Agency recently evaluated the risks of emulsifiers, however, and found no safety issues or need to limit daily consumption of several of them, notably E471.

It is certain that cancer is multifactorial, and a single factor (here, exposure to emulsifiers) will not significantly increase the risk. However, while not essential to human health, emulsifiers are widely prevalent in the global market. Therefore, if causality is established, the increased risk could translate into a significant number of preventable cancers at the population level. Confirmation of this causal link will need to be obtained through experimental and epidemiological studies.

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

Food emulsifiers are among the most widespread food additives. A large cohort study highlighted an association between the consumption of certain emulsifiers and an increased risk for certain cancers, particularly breast and prostate cancer.

Ultraprocessed foods constitute a significant part of our diet, representing approximately 30% of energy intake in France.

Large epidemiologic studies have already linked diets rich in ultraprocessed products to an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, and mortality. Possible explanations for this association include the presence of additives, particularly emulsifiers. These additives are intended to improve the texture and shelf life of foods.

Recent experimental studies have shown that emulsifiers alter the gut microbiota and may lead to low-grade inflammation. Dysbiosis and chronic inflammation not only increase the risk for inflammatory bowel diseases but are also implicated in the etiology of several other chronic pathologies and certain extraintestinal cancers.

The NutriNet-Santé study provided extensive information on the dietary habits of > 100,000 French participants. A new analysis was conducted, examining the possible link between the presence of emulsifiers in the diet and cancer occurrence. Data from 92,000 participants (78.8% women) were utilized. They covered an average follow-up of 6.7 years, during which 2604 cancer cases were diagnosed, including 750 breast cancers, 322 prostate cancers, and 207 colorectal cancers.

In this cohort, the risk for cancer increased with a higher presence in the diet of products containing certain emulsifiers widely used in industrial food in Europe: Carrageenans (E407), mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471), pectins (E440), and sodium carbonate (E500).

Notably, the highest consumption of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471) was associated with a 15% increase in the risk for all types of cancer, a 24% increase in breast cancer risk, and a 46% increase in prostate cancer risk. The highest consumption of carrageenans (E407) was associated with a 28% increase in breast cancer risk.

In an analysis by menopausal status, the risk for breast cancer before menopause was associated with high consumption of diphosphates (E450; 45% increase), pectins (E440; 55% increase), and sodium bicarbonate (E500; 48% increase). No link was found between emulsifier consumption and colorectal cancer risk. While some associations were observed for other emulsifiers, they did not persist in sensitivity analyses.

The European Food Safety Agency recently evaluated the risks of emulsifiers, however, and found no safety issues or need to limit daily consumption of several of them, notably E471.

It is certain that cancer is multifactorial, and a single factor (here, exposure to emulsifiers) will not significantly increase the risk. However, while not essential to human health, emulsifiers are widely prevalent in the global market. Therefore, if causality is established, the increased risk could translate into a significant number of preventable cancers at the population level. Confirmation of this causal link will need to be obtained through experimental and epidemiological studies.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: I’m Dr Rachel Rubin, urologist and sexual medicine specialist in the Washington, DC, area. This is Sex Matters, and I’m here today with my friend and colleague, Dr. Matt Ziegelmann, who is the sexual medicine expert at the Mayo Clinic and who does all things men’s health, including penile curvature, testosterone, and sexual function.

Let’s start with penile curvature. Many men come in very distressed. They felt a lump in their penis and go straight to their primary care physician. What do we do in that situation?

Matthew J. Ziegelmann, MD: Penile curvature (often due to Peyronie’s disease) is actually incredibly common; as many as 10% of men have this condition. We need to normalize it and let men know that this is something we see often, and we have treatments for it. One of the biggest concerns these men have is cancer, but I have yet to see this as an indicator of cancer.

Penile curvature has a significant impact on affected men — their relationships, psychological well-being, sexual functioning, and overall health. We can provide treatment if they are interested. A small subset of men are born with natural penile curvature, which is different from Peyronie’s disease. Natural curvature can still affect their mental health, and we have treatment options.

Rubin: What happens when a patient is referred to urology? We want to tell our patients what to expect. What’s in our toolbox to help patients with penile curvature?

Dr. Ziegelmann: Many patient resources are available. For example, the Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA) has a patient-facing website on sexual health with lots of information about Peyronie’s disease and other aspects of sexual health.

Patients who are bothered by their penile curvature can be referred to us to find out about treatment options, or even just to get reassurance. It might be as simple as a conversation and a physical exam — that’s all we need to make the diagnosis. We can provide reassurance and get an idea of how bothered they are by this condition without doing anything invasive.

If they are considering definitive treatment, we would need to do more invasive testing. Sometimes we have the patient bring in photos of their erection to help establish the change they see in the shape of their penis.

Dr. Rubin: What about the patient who asks, “Doc, did I do this to myself? Did I break my penis? What do I do?”

Dr. Ziegelmann: That’s a common question — “How the heck did this happen?” No, you didn’t do this to yourself. We still have much to understand about why this happens to some men. Our approach is to acknowledge what we do and don’t know, and partner with the patient to discuss treatment.

Dr. Rubin: It’s very important to support your patient’s mental health, because this can be really devastating. So, what are the treatment options from conservative to invasive? What do you recommend for patients?

Dr. Ziegelmann: It can be as simple as observation if the patient is just seeking reassurance that it’s not cancer. This is a benign condition, but for men who are more bothered by their curvature, we’ll talk about options. We have oral medications that help improved the rigidity of the penis. Many men are also suffering from inadequate functioning. We can use devices called traction or vacuum to stretch the area of the penis that’s curved. We can use injections of medications, including FDA-approved agents that are injected into the penis in the outpatient setting. For men who are either later in the treatment protocol or want to resolve the problem right away, we can offer surgical intervention. We have a host of options, and a very individualized approach and a shared decision-making model. It’s not a one-size-fits-all problem.

Dr. Rubin: The real takeaway is that there is a lot of hope for this condition. Many doctors care deeply about these issues and are ready to partner with specialists to figure out the right treatment strategy. The SMSNA is a great place to find a provider like Dr Ziegelmann or myself, or any of our incredible colleagues throughout North America and the world. Thank you for joining us today. 

Dr. Rubin is Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Private practice, North Bethesda, Maryland. She disclosed ties with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: I’m Dr Rachel Rubin, urologist and sexual medicine specialist in the Washington, DC, area. This is Sex Matters, and I’m here today with my friend and colleague, Dr. Matt Ziegelmann, who is the sexual medicine expert at the Mayo Clinic and who does all things men’s health, including penile curvature, testosterone, and sexual function.

Let’s start with penile curvature. Many men come in very distressed. They felt a lump in their penis and go straight to their primary care physician. What do we do in that situation?

Matthew J. Ziegelmann, MD: Penile curvature (often due to Peyronie’s disease) is actually incredibly common; as many as 10% of men have this condition. We need to normalize it and let men know that this is something we see often, and we have treatments for it. One of the biggest concerns these men have is cancer, but I have yet to see this as an indicator of cancer.

Penile curvature has a significant impact on affected men — their relationships, psychological well-being, sexual functioning, and overall health. We can provide treatment if they are interested. A small subset of men are born with natural penile curvature, which is different from Peyronie’s disease. Natural curvature can still affect their mental health, and we have treatment options.

Rubin: What happens when a patient is referred to urology? We want to tell our patients what to expect. What’s in our toolbox to help patients with penile curvature?

Dr. Ziegelmann: Many patient resources are available. For example, the Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA) has a patient-facing website on sexual health with lots of information about Peyronie’s disease and other aspects of sexual health.

Patients who are bothered by their penile curvature can be referred to us to find out about treatment options, or even just to get reassurance. It might be as simple as a conversation and a physical exam — that’s all we need to make the diagnosis. We can provide reassurance and get an idea of how bothered they are by this condition without doing anything invasive.

If they are considering definitive treatment, we would need to do more invasive testing. Sometimes we have the patient bring in photos of their erection to help establish the change they see in the shape of their penis.

Dr. Rubin: What about the patient who asks, “Doc, did I do this to myself? Did I break my penis? What do I do?”

Dr. Ziegelmann: That’s a common question — “How the heck did this happen?” No, you didn’t do this to yourself. We still have much to understand about why this happens to some men. Our approach is to acknowledge what we do and don’t know, and partner with the patient to discuss treatment.

Dr. Rubin: It’s very important to support your patient’s mental health, because this can be really devastating. So, what are the treatment options from conservative to invasive? What do you recommend for patients?

Dr. Ziegelmann: It can be as simple as observation if the patient is just seeking reassurance that it’s not cancer. This is a benign condition, but for men who are more bothered by their curvature, we’ll talk about options. We have oral medications that help improved the rigidity of the penis. Many men are also suffering from inadequate functioning. We can use devices called traction or vacuum to stretch the area of the penis that’s curved. We can use injections of medications, including FDA-approved agents that are injected into the penis in the outpatient setting. For men who are either later in the treatment protocol or want to resolve the problem right away, we can offer surgical intervention. We have a host of options, and a very individualized approach and a shared decision-making model. It’s not a one-size-fits-all problem.

Dr. Rubin: The real takeaway is that there is a lot of hope for this condition. Many doctors care deeply about these issues and are ready to partner with specialists to figure out the right treatment strategy. The SMSNA is a great place to find a provider like Dr Ziegelmann or myself, or any of our incredible colleagues throughout North America and the world. Thank you for joining us today. 

Dr. Rubin is Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Private practice, North Bethesda, Maryland. She disclosed ties with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: I’m Dr Rachel Rubin, urologist and sexual medicine specialist in the Washington, DC, area. This is Sex Matters, and I’m here today with my friend and colleague, Dr. Matt Ziegelmann, who is the sexual medicine expert at the Mayo Clinic and who does all things men’s health, including penile curvature, testosterone, and sexual function.

Let’s start with penile curvature. Many men come in very distressed. They felt a lump in their penis and go straight to their primary care physician. What do we do in that situation?

Matthew J. Ziegelmann, MD: Penile curvature (often due to Peyronie’s disease) is actually incredibly common; as many as 10% of men have this condition. We need to normalize it and let men know that this is something we see often, and we have treatments for it. One of the biggest concerns these men have is cancer, but I have yet to see this as an indicator of cancer.

Penile curvature has a significant impact on affected men — their relationships, psychological well-being, sexual functioning, and overall health. We can provide treatment if they are interested. A small subset of men are born with natural penile curvature, which is different from Peyronie’s disease. Natural curvature can still affect their mental health, and we have treatment options.

Rubin: What happens when a patient is referred to urology? We want to tell our patients what to expect. What’s in our toolbox to help patients with penile curvature?

Dr. Ziegelmann: Many patient resources are available. For example, the Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA) has a patient-facing website on sexual health with lots of information about Peyronie’s disease and other aspects of sexual health.

Patients who are bothered by their penile curvature can be referred to us to find out about treatment options, or even just to get reassurance. It might be as simple as a conversation and a physical exam — that’s all we need to make the diagnosis. We can provide reassurance and get an idea of how bothered they are by this condition without doing anything invasive.

If they are considering definitive treatment, we would need to do more invasive testing. Sometimes we have the patient bring in photos of their erection to help establish the change they see in the shape of their penis.

Dr. Rubin: What about the patient who asks, “Doc, did I do this to myself? Did I break my penis? What do I do?”

Dr. Ziegelmann: That’s a common question — “How the heck did this happen?” No, you didn’t do this to yourself. We still have much to understand about why this happens to some men. Our approach is to acknowledge what we do and don’t know, and partner with the patient to discuss treatment.

Dr. Rubin: It’s very important to support your patient’s mental health, because this can be really devastating. So, what are the treatment options from conservative to invasive? What do you recommend for patients?

Dr. Ziegelmann: It can be as simple as observation if the patient is just seeking reassurance that it’s not cancer. This is a benign condition, but for men who are more bothered by their curvature, we’ll talk about options. We have oral medications that help improved the rigidity of the penis. Many men are also suffering from inadequate functioning. We can use devices called traction or vacuum to stretch the area of the penis that’s curved. We can use injections of medications, including FDA-approved agents that are injected into the penis in the outpatient setting. For men who are either later in the treatment protocol or want to resolve the problem right away, we can offer surgical intervention. We have a host of options, and a very individualized approach and a shared decision-making model. It’s not a one-size-fits-all problem.

Dr. Rubin: The real takeaway is that there is a lot of hope for this condition. Many doctors care deeply about these issues and are ready to partner with specialists to figure out the right treatment strategy. The SMSNA is a great place to find a provider like Dr Ziegelmann or myself, or any of our incredible colleagues throughout North America and the world. Thank you for joining us today. 

Dr. Rubin is Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Private practice, North Bethesda, Maryland. She disclosed ties with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The American Cancer Society has just published its cancer statistics for 2024. This is an annual report, the latest version of which has some alarming news for gastroenterologists. Usually, we think of being “number one” as a positive thing, but that’s not the case this year when it comes to the projections for colorectal cancer.

But first, let’s discuss the report’s overall findings. Broadly speaking, the news is quite good in that there’s been an aversion of over 4 million deaths since 1991. That decline over the past four decades is due to reductions in smoking, earlier detection, and improved screening and treatments for localized or metastatic disease. But these gains are now threatened by some offsets that we’re seeing, with increasing rates of six of the top 10 cancers in the past several years.
 

Increasing Rates of Gastrointestinal Cancers

The incidence rate of pancreas cancer has increased from 0.6% to 1% annually.

Pancreas cancer has a 5-year relative survival rate of 13%, which ranks as one of the three worst rates for cancers. This cancer represents a real screening challenge for us, as it typically presents asymptomatically.

Women have experienced a 2%-3% annual increase in incidence rates for liver cancer.

I suspect that this is due to cases of fibrotic liver disease resulting from viral hepatitis and metabolic liver diseases with nonalcoholic fatty liver and advanced fibrosis (F3 and F4). These cases may be carried over from before, thereby contributing to the increasing incremental cancer risk.

We can’t overlook the need for risk reduction here and should focus on applying regular screening efforts in our female patients. However, it’s also true that we require better liver cancer screening tests to accomplish that goal.
 

In Those Under 50, CRC the Leading Cause of Cancer Death in Men, Second in Women

I really want to focus on the news around colorectal cancer.

To put this in perspective, in the late 1990s, colorectal cancer was the fourth leading cause of death in men and women. The current report extrapolated 2024 projections using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database ending in 2020, which was necessary given the incremental time it takes to develop cancers. The SEER database suggests that in 2024, colorectal cancer in those younger than 50 years of age will become the number-one leading cause of cancer death in men and number-two in women. The increasing incidence of colorectal cancer in younger people is probably the result of a number of epidemiologic and other reasons.

The current report offers evidence of racial disparities in cancer mortality rates in general, which are twofold higher in Black people compared with White people, particularly for gastric cancer. There is also an evident disparity in Native Americans, who have higher rates of gastric and liver cancer. This is a reminder of the increasing need for equity to address racial disparities across these populations.

But returning to colon cancer, it’s a marked change to go from being the fourth-leading cause of cancer death in those younger than 50 years of age to being number one for men and number two for women.

Being “number one” is supposed to make you famous. This “number one,” however, should in fact be infamous. It’s a travesty, because colorectal cancer is a potentially preventable disease.

As we move into March, which happens to be Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, hopefully this fires up some of the conversations you have with your younger at-risk population, who may be reticent or resistant to colorectal cancer screening.

We have to do better at getting this message out to that population at large. “Number one” is not where we want to be for this potentially preventable problem.
 

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The American Cancer Society has just published its cancer statistics for 2024. This is an annual report, the latest version of which has some alarming news for gastroenterologists. Usually, we think of being “number one” as a positive thing, but that’s not the case this year when it comes to the projections for colorectal cancer.

But first, let’s discuss the report’s overall findings. Broadly speaking, the news is quite good in that there’s been an aversion of over 4 million deaths since 1991. That decline over the past four decades is due to reductions in smoking, earlier detection, and improved screening and treatments for localized or metastatic disease. But these gains are now threatened by some offsets that we’re seeing, with increasing rates of six of the top 10 cancers in the past several years.
 

Increasing Rates of Gastrointestinal Cancers

The incidence rate of pancreas cancer has increased from 0.6% to 1% annually.

Pancreas cancer has a 5-year relative survival rate of 13%, which ranks as one of the three worst rates for cancers. This cancer represents a real screening challenge for us, as it typically presents asymptomatically.

Women have experienced a 2%-3% annual increase in incidence rates for liver cancer.

I suspect that this is due to cases of fibrotic liver disease resulting from viral hepatitis and metabolic liver diseases with nonalcoholic fatty liver and advanced fibrosis (F3 and F4). These cases may be carried over from before, thereby contributing to the increasing incremental cancer risk.

We can’t overlook the need for risk reduction here and should focus on applying regular screening efforts in our female patients. However, it’s also true that we require better liver cancer screening tests to accomplish that goal.
 

In Those Under 50, CRC the Leading Cause of Cancer Death in Men, Second in Women

I really want to focus on the news around colorectal cancer.

To put this in perspective, in the late 1990s, colorectal cancer was the fourth leading cause of death in men and women. The current report extrapolated 2024 projections using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database ending in 2020, which was necessary given the incremental time it takes to develop cancers. The SEER database suggests that in 2024, colorectal cancer in those younger than 50 years of age will become the number-one leading cause of cancer death in men and number-two in women. The increasing incidence of colorectal cancer in younger people is probably the result of a number of epidemiologic and other reasons.

The current report offers evidence of racial disparities in cancer mortality rates in general, which are twofold higher in Black people compared with White people, particularly for gastric cancer. There is also an evident disparity in Native Americans, who have higher rates of gastric and liver cancer. This is a reminder of the increasing need for equity to address racial disparities across these populations.

But returning to colon cancer, it’s a marked change to go from being the fourth-leading cause of cancer death in those younger than 50 years of age to being number one for men and number two for women.

Being “number one” is supposed to make you famous. This “number one,” however, should in fact be infamous. It’s a travesty, because colorectal cancer is a potentially preventable disease.

As we move into March, which happens to be Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, hopefully this fires up some of the conversations you have with your younger at-risk population, who may be reticent or resistant to colorectal cancer screening.

We have to do better at getting this message out to that population at large. “Number one” is not where we want to be for this potentially preventable problem.
 

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The American Cancer Society has just published its cancer statistics for 2024. This is an annual report, the latest version of which has some alarming news for gastroenterologists. Usually, we think of being “number one” as a positive thing, but that’s not the case this year when it comes to the projections for colorectal cancer.

But first, let’s discuss the report’s overall findings. Broadly speaking, the news is quite good in that there’s been an aversion of over 4 million deaths since 1991. That decline over the past four decades is due to reductions in smoking, earlier detection, and improved screening and treatments for localized or metastatic disease. But these gains are now threatened by some offsets that we’re seeing, with increasing rates of six of the top 10 cancers in the past several years.
 

Increasing Rates of Gastrointestinal Cancers

The incidence rate of pancreas cancer has increased from 0.6% to 1% annually.

Pancreas cancer has a 5-year relative survival rate of 13%, which ranks as one of the three worst rates for cancers. This cancer represents a real screening challenge for us, as it typically presents asymptomatically.

Women have experienced a 2%-3% annual increase in incidence rates for liver cancer.

I suspect that this is due to cases of fibrotic liver disease resulting from viral hepatitis and metabolic liver diseases with nonalcoholic fatty liver and advanced fibrosis (F3 and F4). These cases may be carried over from before, thereby contributing to the increasing incremental cancer risk.

We can’t overlook the need for risk reduction here and should focus on applying regular screening efforts in our female patients. However, it’s also true that we require better liver cancer screening tests to accomplish that goal.
 

In Those Under 50, CRC the Leading Cause of Cancer Death in Men, Second in Women

I really want to focus on the news around colorectal cancer.

To put this in perspective, in the late 1990s, colorectal cancer was the fourth leading cause of death in men and women. The current report extrapolated 2024 projections using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database ending in 2020, which was necessary given the incremental time it takes to develop cancers. The SEER database suggests that in 2024, colorectal cancer in those younger than 50 years of age will become the number-one leading cause of cancer death in men and number-two in women. The increasing incidence of colorectal cancer in younger people is probably the result of a number of epidemiologic and other reasons.

The current report offers evidence of racial disparities in cancer mortality rates in general, which are twofold higher in Black people compared with White people, particularly for gastric cancer. There is also an evident disparity in Native Americans, who have higher rates of gastric and liver cancer. This is a reminder of the increasing need for equity to address racial disparities across these populations.

But returning to colon cancer, it’s a marked change to go from being the fourth-leading cause of cancer death in those younger than 50 years of age to being number one for men and number two for women.

Being “number one” is supposed to make you famous. This “number one,” however, should in fact be infamous. It’s a travesty, because colorectal cancer is a potentially preventable disease.

As we move into March, which happens to be Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, hopefully this fires up some of the conversations you have with your younger at-risk population, who may be reticent or resistant to colorectal cancer screening.

We have to do better at getting this message out to that population at large. “Number one” is not where we want to be for this potentially preventable problem.
 

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.

Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.

Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.

Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.

“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
 

How RadNet’s AI Program Works

Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.

Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:

• A. Almost entirely fatty
• B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
• C. Heterogeneously dense
• D. Extremely dense

Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.

For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.

“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.

Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.

The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.

The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.

“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”

About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
 

Is Mammography Ready for AI?

RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.

“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”

At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.

“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”

Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.

However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.

“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”

Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.

An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.

The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.

Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.

Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.

“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
 

What Do the Experts Recommend?

Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.

The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.

“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.

Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.

“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.

No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.

One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.

If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.

“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
 

Who Will Pay for AI?

When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.

“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”

In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.

While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.

“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.

Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.

Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.

Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.

Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.

Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.

“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
 

How RadNet’s AI Program Works

Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.

Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:

• A. Almost entirely fatty
• B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
• C. Heterogeneously dense
• D. Extremely dense

Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.

For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.

“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.

Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.

The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.

The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.

“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”

About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
 

Is Mammography Ready for AI?

RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.

“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”

At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.

“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”

Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.

However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.

“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”

Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.

An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.

The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.

Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.

Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.

“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
 

What Do the Experts Recommend?

Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.

The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.

“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.

Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.

“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.

No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.

One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.

If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.

“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
 

Who Will Pay for AI?

When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.

“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”

In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.

While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.

“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.

Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.

Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.

Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.

Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.

Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.

“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
 

How RadNet’s AI Program Works

Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.

Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:

• A. Almost entirely fatty
• B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
• C. Heterogeneously dense
• D. Extremely dense

Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.

For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.

“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.

Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.

The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.

The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.

“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”

About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
 

Is Mammography Ready for AI?

RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.

“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”

At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.

“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”

Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.

However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.

“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”

Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.

An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.

The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.

Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.

Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.

“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
 

What Do the Experts Recommend?

Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.

The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.

“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.

Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.

“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.

No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.

One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.

If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.

“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
 

Who Will Pay for AI?

When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.

“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”

In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.

While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.

“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.

Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.

TOPLINE:

Upon reviewing repeated prostate cancer screenings, researchers observed the absence of suspicious MRI findings in over 86% of men who had prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 3 ng/mL or higher during their second screening.

METHODOLOGY:

• New initiatives are focusing on organizing prostate cancer screening using MRI to reduce overdiagnosis, as current evidence does not support the effectiveness of a single PSA test, with guidelines now recommending repeated testing every 1-4 years.
• In the STHLM3-MRI trial, men, aged 50-74 years, living in Stockholm County, Sweden, were invited to participate in prostate cancer screening and randomly assigned to traditional screening with systematic  or an MRI-based strategy.
• Blood samples were analyzed for PSA levels and Stockholm3 risk score; men with elevated risk underwent targeted MRI and biopsy procedures.
• In this follow-up analysis, 2,078 men with PSA levels of 1.5 ng/mL or higher and a Stockholm3 risk score less than 0.11 were re-invited for screening 2-3 years after their initial screening.
• The primary outcome was clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score of 3 + 4 or greater). A Gleason score of 6 was detected in 0.7% of patients, and a score of 4 + 3 or greater was detected in 19 (1.3%) men.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 1,500 men (median age of 67 years) who underwent a blood test, the median PSA level was 2.8 ng/mL and 26.0% changed risk classification groups (PSA levels < 3 vs 3 ng/mL).
• Out of 667 men with PSA levels of 3 ng/mL or higher, 617 (92.5%) had an MRI. Of the 617, 51 (7.6%) had equivocal lesions (a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of 3) and 33 (4.9%) had suspicious lesions.
• Of the 1,500 rescreened men, clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 48 men (3.2%); this corresponds to 59.2% of the biopsied men.
• Out of 383 men who had previously received a negative MRI result, only 10 (2.6%) exhibited a lesion with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of 4 or higher.

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying editorial, Ola Bratt, MD, PhD, noted that the “most important finding was the very high proportion of nonsuspicious repeat MRI scans,” but also emphasizes the necessity of observing a decrease in overall prostate cancer incidence before asserting that the current cancer diagnostics effectively reduce overdiagnosis.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Tobias Nordström, MD, PhD, from Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, was published on February 7, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Long-term outcomes like prostate cancer mortality were not evaluated. Information on cancer detection in men with a negative MRI result at rescreening was not available. Authors noted that a subset of individuals may still be at risk despite lower PSA levels.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Karolinska Institute, Prostatacancerförbundet, Region Stockholm, and Åke Wibergs Stiftelse. The authors reported financial relationships outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Upon reviewing repeated prostate cancer screenings, researchers observed the absence of suspicious MRI findings in over 86% of men who had prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 3 ng/mL or higher during their second screening.

METHODOLOGY:

• New initiatives are focusing on organizing prostate cancer screening using MRI to reduce overdiagnosis, as current evidence does not support the effectiveness of a single PSA test, with guidelines now recommending repeated testing every 1-4 years.
• In the STHLM3-MRI trial, men, aged 50-74 years, living in Stockholm County, Sweden, were invited to participate in prostate cancer screening and randomly assigned to traditional screening with systematic  or an MRI-based strategy.
• Blood samples were analyzed for PSA levels and Stockholm3 risk score; men with elevated risk underwent targeted MRI and biopsy procedures.
• In this follow-up analysis, 2,078 men with PSA levels of 1.5 ng/mL or higher and a Stockholm3 risk score less than 0.11 were re-invited for screening 2-3 years after their initial screening.
• The primary outcome was clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score of 3 + 4 or greater). A Gleason score of 6 was detected in 0.7% of patients, and a score of 4 + 3 or greater was detected in 19 (1.3%) men.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 1,500 men (median age of 67 years) who underwent a blood test, the median PSA level was 2.8 ng/mL and 26.0% changed risk classification groups (PSA levels < 3 vs 3 ng/mL).
• Out of 667 men with PSA levels of 3 ng/mL or higher, 617 (92.5%) had an MRI. Of the 617, 51 (7.6%) had equivocal lesions (a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of 3) and 33 (4.9%) had suspicious lesions.
• Of the 1,500 rescreened men, clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 48 men (3.2%); this corresponds to 59.2% of the biopsied men.
• Out of 383 men who had previously received a negative MRI result, only 10 (2.6%) exhibited a lesion with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of 4 or higher.

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying editorial, Ola Bratt, MD, PhD, noted that the “most important finding was the very high proportion of nonsuspicious repeat MRI scans,” but also emphasizes the necessity of observing a decrease in overall prostate cancer incidence before asserting that the current cancer diagnostics effectively reduce overdiagnosis.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Tobias Nordström, MD, PhD, from Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, was published on February 7, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Long-term outcomes like prostate cancer mortality were not evaluated. Information on cancer detection in men with a negative MRI result at rescreening was not available. Authors noted that a subset of individuals may still be at risk despite lower PSA levels.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Karolinska Institute, Prostatacancerförbundet, Region Stockholm, and Åke Wibergs Stiftelse. The authors reported financial relationships outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Upon reviewing repeated prostate cancer screenings, researchers observed the absence of suspicious MRI findings in over 86% of men who had prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 3 ng/mL or higher during their second screening.

METHODOLOGY:

• New initiatives are focusing on organizing prostate cancer screening using MRI to reduce overdiagnosis, as current evidence does not support the effectiveness of a single PSA test, with guidelines now recommending repeated testing every 1-4 years.
• In the STHLM3-MRI trial, men, aged 50-74 years, living in Stockholm County, Sweden, were invited to participate in prostate cancer screening and randomly assigned to traditional screening with systematic  or an MRI-based strategy.
• Blood samples were analyzed for PSA levels and Stockholm3 risk score; men with elevated risk underwent targeted MRI and biopsy procedures.
• In this follow-up analysis, 2,078 men with PSA levels of 1.5 ng/mL or higher and a Stockholm3 risk score less than 0.11 were re-invited for screening 2-3 years after their initial screening.
• The primary outcome was clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score of 3 + 4 or greater). A Gleason score of 6 was detected in 0.7% of patients, and a score of 4 + 3 or greater was detected in 19 (1.3%) men.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 1,500 men (median age of 67 years) who underwent a blood test, the median PSA level was 2.8 ng/mL and 26.0% changed risk classification groups (PSA levels < 3 vs 3 ng/mL).
• Out of 667 men with PSA levels of 3 ng/mL or higher, 617 (92.5%) had an MRI. Of the 617, 51 (7.6%) had equivocal lesions (a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of 3) and 33 (4.9%) had suspicious lesions.
• Of the 1,500 rescreened men, clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 48 men (3.2%); this corresponds to 59.2% of the biopsied men.
• Out of 383 men who had previously received a negative MRI result, only 10 (2.6%) exhibited a lesion with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of 4 or higher.

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying editorial, Ola Bratt, MD, PhD, noted that the “most important finding was the very high proportion of nonsuspicious repeat MRI scans,” but also emphasizes the necessity of observing a decrease in overall prostate cancer incidence before asserting that the current cancer diagnostics effectively reduce overdiagnosis.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Tobias Nordström, MD, PhD, from Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, was published on February 7, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Long-term outcomes like prostate cancer mortality were not evaluated. Information on cancer detection in men with a negative MRI result at rescreening was not available. Authors noted that a subset of individuals may still be at risk despite lower PSA levels.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Karolinska Institute, Prostatacancerförbundet, Region Stockholm, and Åke Wibergs Stiftelse. The authors reported financial relationships outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.