MDedge Hematology and Oncology

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For individuals aged 45-49 years at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in screening colonoscopies is 28%, which is comparable with rates seen in those aged 50-54 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• The rising incidence of CRC in younger populations prompted most guidelines to recommend screening to start at age 45. The impact of lowering the screening age on adenoma and sessile serrated lesion detection rates remains unclear, however.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies; all studies were retrospective except one.
• Patients aged 45-49 years undergoing colonoscopy for any indication were included, with a separate analysis of patients in that age group at average CRC risk undergoing screening colonoscopies.
• The primary outcome was the overall detection rates of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions for colonoscopies performed for any indication.

TAKEAWAY:

• Across 15 studies, 41,709 adenomas were detected in 150,436 colonoscopies performed for any indication, resulting in a pooled overall ADR of 23.1%.
• Across six studies, 1162 sessile serrated lesions were reported in 11,457 colonoscopies performed for any indication, with a pooled detection rate of 6.3%.
• Across seven studies, the pooled ADR in screening colonoscopies performed on individuals with average CRC risk was 28.2%, which is comparable with that of 50- to 54-year-old individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy. There was not enough data to calculate the sessile serrated lesion detection rate in average-risk patients.
• The ADR was higher in the United States and Canada (26.1%) compared with studies from Asia (16.9%).

IN PRACTICE:

“The comparable detection rates of precancerous lesions in this age group to those 50 to 54 years old support starting CRC screening at 45 years of age,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Mohamed Abdallah, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The inclusion of retrospective studies has an inherent bias. The heterogeneity between studies may limit the generalizability of the findings. Some studies that reported detection rates included individuals at both average and high risk for CRC, so they could not be used to evaluate ADRs in individuals with an average risk for CRC. Data duplication could not be ruled out.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For individuals aged 45-49 years at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in screening colonoscopies is 28%, which is comparable with rates seen in those aged 50-54 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• The rising incidence of CRC in younger populations prompted most guidelines to recommend screening to start at age 45. The impact of lowering the screening age on adenoma and sessile serrated lesion detection rates remains unclear, however.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies; all studies were retrospective except one.
• Patients aged 45-49 years undergoing colonoscopy for any indication were included, with a separate analysis of patients in that age group at average CRC risk undergoing screening colonoscopies.
• The primary outcome was the overall detection rates of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions for colonoscopies performed for any indication.

TAKEAWAY:

• Across 15 studies, 41,709 adenomas were detected in 150,436 colonoscopies performed for any indication, resulting in a pooled overall ADR of 23.1%.
• Across six studies, 1162 sessile serrated lesions were reported in 11,457 colonoscopies performed for any indication, with a pooled detection rate of 6.3%.
• Across seven studies, the pooled ADR in screening colonoscopies performed on individuals with average CRC risk was 28.2%, which is comparable with that of 50- to 54-year-old individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy. There was not enough data to calculate the sessile serrated lesion detection rate in average-risk patients.
• The ADR was higher in the United States and Canada (26.1%) compared with studies from Asia (16.9%).

IN PRACTICE:

“The comparable detection rates of precancerous lesions in this age group to those 50 to 54 years old support starting CRC screening at 45 years of age,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Mohamed Abdallah, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The inclusion of retrospective studies has an inherent bias. The heterogeneity between studies may limit the generalizability of the findings. Some studies that reported detection rates included individuals at both average and high risk for CRC, so they could not be used to evaluate ADRs in individuals with an average risk for CRC. Data duplication could not be ruled out.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For individuals aged 45-49 years at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in screening colonoscopies is 28%, which is comparable with rates seen in those aged 50-54 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• The rising incidence of CRC in younger populations prompted most guidelines to recommend screening to start at age 45. The impact of lowering the screening age on adenoma and sessile serrated lesion detection rates remains unclear, however.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies; all studies were retrospective except one.
• Patients aged 45-49 years undergoing colonoscopy for any indication were included, with a separate analysis of patients in that age group at average CRC risk undergoing screening colonoscopies.
• The primary outcome was the overall detection rates of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions for colonoscopies performed for any indication.

TAKEAWAY:

• Across 15 studies, 41,709 adenomas were detected in 150,436 colonoscopies performed for any indication, resulting in a pooled overall ADR of 23.1%.
• Across six studies, 1162 sessile serrated lesions were reported in 11,457 colonoscopies performed for any indication, with a pooled detection rate of 6.3%.
• Across seven studies, the pooled ADR in screening colonoscopies performed on individuals with average CRC risk was 28.2%, which is comparable with that of 50- to 54-year-old individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy. There was not enough data to calculate the sessile serrated lesion detection rate in average-risk patients.
• The ADR was higher in the United States and Canada (26.1%) compared with studies from Asia (16.9%).

IN PRACTICE:

“The comparable detection rates of precancerous lesions in this age group to those 50 to 54 years old support starting CRC screening at 45 years of age,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Mohamed Abdallah, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The inclusion of retrospective studies has an inherent bias. The heterogeneity between studies may limit the generalizability of the findings. Some studies that reported detection rates included individuals at both average and high risk for CRC, so they could not be used to evaluate ADRs in individuals with an average risk for CRC. Data duplication could not be ruled out.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

No significant association was found between the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and thyroid cancer over nearly 4 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• A cohort study using data from nationwide registers in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden between 2007 and 2021 included 145,410 patients who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 291,667 propensity score-matched patients initiating dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors as active comparators.
• Additional analysis included 111,744 who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 148,179 patients initiating sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.
• Overall, mean follow-up time was 3.9 years, with 25% followed for more than 6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The most common individual GLP-1 RAs were liraglutide (57.3%) and semaglutide (32.9%).
• During follow-up, there were 76 incident thyroid cancer cases among GLP-1 RA users and 184 cases in DPP4 inhibitor users, giving incidence rates per 10,000 of 1.33 and 1.46, respectively, a nonsignificant difference (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.66-1.31).
• Papillary thyroid cancer was the most common thyroid cancer subtype, followed by follicular and medullary, with no significant increases in risk with GLP-1 RAs by cancer type, although the numbers were small.
• In the SGLT2 inhibitor comparison, there was also no significantly increased thyroid cancer risk for GLP-1 RAs (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.65-2.05).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the upper limit of the confidence interval, the findings are incompatible with more than a 31% increased relative risk of thyroid cancer. In absolute terms, this translates to no more than 0.36 excess cases per 10 000 person-years, a figure that should be interpreted against the background incidence of 1.46 per 10,000 person-years among the comparator group in the study populations.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Björn Pasternak, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and colleagues. It was published online on April 10, 2024, in The BMJ.

LIMITATIONS:

Relatively short follow-up for cancer risk. Risk by individual GLP-1 RA not analyzed. Small event numbers. Observational, with potential for residual confounding and time-release bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Pasternak was supported by a consolidator investigator grant from Karolinska Institutet. Some of the coauthors had industry disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

No significant association was found between the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and thyroid cancer over nearly 4 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• A cohort study using data from nationwide registers in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden between 2007 and 2021 included 145,410 patients who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 291,667 propensity score-matched patients initiating dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors as active comparators.
• Additional analysis included 111,744 who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 148,179 patients initiating sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.
• Overall, mean follow-up time was 3.9 years, with 25% followed for more than 6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The most common individual GLP-1 RAs were liraglutide (57.3%) and semaglutide (32.9%).
• During follow-up, there were 76 incident thyroid cancer cases among GLP-1 RA users and 184 cases in DPP4 inhibitor users, giving incidence rates per 10,000 of 1.33 and 1.46, respectively, a nonsignificant difference (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.66-1.31).
• Papillary thyroid cancer was the most common thyroid cancer subtype, followed by follicular and medullary, with no significant increases in risk with GLP-1 RAs by cancer type, although the numbers were small.
• In the SGLT2 inhibitor comparison, there was also no significantly increased thyroid cancer risk for GLP-1 RAs (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.65-2.05).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the upper limit of the confidence interval, the findings are incompatible with more than a 31% increased relative risk of thyroid cancer. In absolute terms, this translates to no more than 0.36 excess cases per 10 000 person-years, a figure that should be interpreted against the background incidence of 1.46 per 10,000 person-years among the comparator group in the study populations.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Björn Pasternak, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and colleagues. It was published online on April 10, 2024, in The BMJ.

LIMITATIONS:

Relatively short follow-up for cancer risk. Risk by individual GLP-1 RA not analyzed. Small event numbers. Observational, with potential for residual confounding and time-release bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Pasternak was supported by a consolidator investigator grant from Karolinska Institutet. Some of the coauthors had industry disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

No significant association was found between the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and thyroid cancer over nearly 4 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• A cohort study using data from nationwide registers in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden between 2007 and 2021 included 145,410 patients who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 291,667 propensity score-matched patients initiating dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors as active comparators.
• Additional analysis included 111,744 who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 148,179 patients initiating sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.
• Overall, mean follow-up time was 3.9 years, with 25% followed for more than 6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The most common individual GLP-1 RAs were liraglutide (57.3%) and semaglutide (32.9%).
• During follow-up, there were 76 incident thyroid cancer cases among GLP-1 RA users and 184 cases in DPP4 inhibitor users, giving incidence rates per 10,000 of 1.33 and 1.46, respectively, a nonsignificant difference (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.66-1.31).
• Papillary thyroid cancer was the most common thyroid cancer subtype, followed by follicular and medullary, with no significant increases in risk with GLP-1 RAs by cancer type, although the numbers were small.
• In the SGLT2 inhibitor comparison, there was also no significantly increased thyroid cancer risk for GLP-1 RAs (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.65-2.05).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the upper limit of the confidence interval, the findings are incompatible with more than a 31% increased relative risk of thyroid cancer. In absolute terms, this translates to no more than 0.36 excess cases per 10 000 person-years, a figure that should be interpreted against the background incidence of 1.46 per 10,000 person-years among the comparator group in the study populations.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Björn Pasternak, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and colleagues. It was published online on April 10, 2024, in The BMJ.

LIMITATIONS:

Relatively short follow-up for cancer risk. Risk by individual GLP-1 RA not analyzed. Small event numbers. Observational, with potential for residual confounding and time-release bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Pasternak was supported by a consolidator investigator grant from Karolinska Institutet. Some of the coauthors had industry disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Multitarget stool-based tests are showing promise for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk individuals and could edge out the current standard fecal immunochemical test (FIT).

These new tests aren’t radical departures from the standard FIT. Like the standard test, the multitarget FIT uses antibodies to test for hemoglobin in stool samples. But these multitarget approaches take the standard FIT a step further by testing for additional DNA, RNA, or protein biomarkers associated with CRC to help improve early detection.

Currently, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends two FIT tests — standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA — as well as a third noninvasive CRC screening test, guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT). gFOBT detects heme, a component of hemoglobin, through a chemical reaction.

But both standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA come with caveats. Compared to the standard test, FIT-DNA tends to be better at detecting traces of blood in the stool, and thus can uncover more instances of CRC or other advanced lesions. The flipside is that the DNA test also often leads to more false-positive findings.

In fact, the American College of Physicians does not recommend stool FIT-DNA for screening, citing issues such as cost — more than $600 per test vs about $30 for standard FIT — and the greater likelihood of false-positives compared with both standard FIT and gFOBT.

Given these trade-offs with current noninvasive screening options, developing a FIT option that can improve early detection of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions without increasing false-positives could make a big difference in outcomes. 

Three new noninvasive multitarget tests under investigation — an updated DNA-based test, Cologuard 2.0 (Exact Sciences; Madison, WI); an RNA-based test, ColoSense (Geneoscopy; St Louis, MO); and a protein-based test from CRCbioscreen (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) — may be able to do just that. 
 

Cologuard 2.0: Multitarget Stool DNA-Based Test

An updated version of the stool FIT-DNA is currently under development. Dubbed Next Generation Cologuard, or Cologuard 2.0, this multitarget test detects three novel methylated DNA markers along with fecal hemoglobin.

In a recent trial comparing Cologuard 2.0 vs standard FIT, 20,176 participants aged 40 years or older were screened with Cologuard 2.0 as well as standard FIT before they all also received a colonoscopy. The researchers compared findings with Cologuard 2.0 and standard FIT, which used a positivity cutoff ≥ 20 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. 

The researchers then assessed Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity (a gauge of how well it detects disease that is truly present) and specificity (a measure of how well a test indicates the absence of disease when no disease is present) compared with standard FIT and the original Cologuard test.

Overall, Cologuard 2.0 demonstrated better sensitivity for CRC than did standard FIT (93.9% vs 67.3%, respectively) and for advanced precancerous lesions (43.4% vs 23.3%). The next-generation test, for instance, identified 92 of 98 participants with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC diagnoses vs 66 cases using standard FIT.

Compared with the original Cologuard, Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity improved slightly for CRC, from 92% to 93.9%,; for advanced precancerous lesions, from 42% to 43.4%; and for high-grade dysplasia, from 69% to 75%. Specificity also improved with the latest version, from 87% to 90.6%. 

However, Cologuard 2.0’s specificity for advanced neoplasia was worse than that of standard FIT (90.6% vs 94.8%, respectively), which would increase the likelihood of false-positive findings.

Despite its lower specificity compared with standard FIT, Cologuard 2.0 has several advantages. The test can identify more people with CRC and advanced precancerous lesions than the standard test and can lead to fewer false-positives than the original Cologuard test.

Cologuard maker Exact Sciences has submitted trial data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval.
 

Multitarget Stool RNA-Based Test

ColoSense, an RNA-based stool test, looks for eight RNA biomarkers associated with CRC. 

The company says that RNA-based testing has an advantage over DNA biomarker assays, such as the currently marketed Cologuard test, because it isn›t subject to the age-related changes in DNA methylation that can throw off the results from DNA assays. 

Like Cologuard 2.0, Geneoscopy’s Colosense test is under review by the FDA.

The data Geneoscopy submitted to the FDA came from the CRC-PREVENT trial, which included 8920 participants who were screened with both ColoSense and standard FIT before all had a colonoscopy. The participants ranged in age from 45 to 90 years, with 22% between 45 and 50 years old, a population recently added to the USPSTF screening recommendations. 

ColoSense showed higher sensitivity than standard FIT for the presence of CRC (94% vs 78%, respectively) and advanced adenomas (46% vs 29%). In the group aged 45-50 years, the RNA-based test had a sensitivity of 100% for CRC, correctly identifying all five people with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas.

However, ColoSense was less specific than standard FIT compared with negative colonoscopy findings (88% vs 96%, respectively) and negative findings for advanced lesions or CRC (85.5% vs 94.9%); thus, it was more likely to lead to false-positive results.

Overall, the investigators said ColoSense is comparable to Cologuard — its chief market rival — in terms of sensitivity for CRC and advanced adenomas but has higher sensitivity for colorectal neoplasia in people aged 50 years or younger.
 

Multitarget Protein-Based Test

The multitarget protein-based FIT uses antibodies to test for two additional proteins: calprotectin, an inflammatory marker associated with CRC, and serpin family F member 2, a protease inhibitor thought to be upregulated in colon cancer. 

A 2021 study of 1284 patients found that the sensitivity of the multitarget protein-based test was 42.9% for advanced neoplasias compared with 37.3% with standard FIT. Its specificity was similar to that of standard FIT, at 96.6% for advanced neoplasias. 

In a more recent report published in The Lancet Oncology, the team modeled three scenarios comparing the two FIT tests. These scenarios used different cutoff values for a test to be positive for CRC or an advanced lesion.

Overall, the analysis included stool samples from 13,187 patients aged 55-75 years who were in the Netherlands’ national CRC screening program. Stool samples were evaluated with both the multitarget test and the standard FIT, using a positivity cutoff ≥ 47 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. Colonoscopy data were available for only 1270 participants. 

In scenario 1, the multitarget test had a lower threshold for a positive test and consequently identified more precancerous lesions than the standard FIT (828 vs 354, respectively). The multitarget FIT identified a few more CRC cases: Of 29 colonoscopy-confirmed CRC cases, the multitarget FIT identified 26 vs 23 with standard FIT. 

But the multitarget FIT also had more than double the number of false-positives than the standard FIT (347 vs 161, respectively).

Perhaps the most telling comparison occurred in scenario 2, with both tests set at the same low positivity threshold to minimize false-positives.

As expected, the two tests had similar positivity rates for advanced lesions, with the multitarget test correctly identifying 22 of 29 people with CRC, one fewer than the standard test. The protein-based test identified slightly more people with advanced lesions (156 vs 136 with the standard test), leading to a higher sensitivity for advanced lesions. 

Most notably, the protein-based test resulted in fewer false-positives than did the standard test (295 vs 311, respectively) , resulting in a slightly higher specificity.

In this scenario, “a single screening round might not have the biggest impact on cancer incidence and mortality,” the authors said, but the higher detection rate would still accumulate over 20 years of testing. The authors estimated that, under this scenario, substituting the multitarget FIT for the standard test in the Netherlands’ CRC screening program could reduce CRC incidence by 5% and CRC mortality by 4%.

Gerrit Meijer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, and colleagues recently launched a company called CRCbioscreen to commercialize this multitarget FIT for large-scale programs. The company›s priority is to develop and validate a clinical-grade test to sell to federal governments with national screening programs, such as those throughout Europe, Australia, and Asia, Dr. Meijer told this news organization. Dr. Meijer expects this process will take about 4 years.

The test will be developed for the US market, but with no nationwide screening program in the United States, future availability will depend on interest from providers and institutions, noted Dr. Meijer, who is also chief scientific officer at CRCbioscreen.

Overall, these three new multitarget stool-based CRC screening tests could help catch more cancers and advanced precancerous lesions. And, if the tests have a high enough specificity, a negative test result could also allow people to forgo screening colonoscopy. 

Still, people with a positive FIT finding would require follow-up colonoscopy, but about 10% of patients decline colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT, Mark A. Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Murray, Utah, told this news organization last year. That means that even if precancerous lesions and CRC are being caught earlier, treatment can’t be started unless people follow through with colonoscopy.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Multitarget stool-based tests are showing promise for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk individuals and could edge out the current standard fecal immunochemical test (FIT).

These new tests aren’t radical departures from the standard FIT. Like the standard test, the multitarget FIT uses antibodies to test for hemoglobin in stool samples. But these multitarget approaches take the standard FIT a step further by testing for additional DNA, RNA, or protein biomarkers associated with CRC to help improve early detection.

Currently, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends two FIT tests — standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA — as well as a third noninvasive CRC screening test, guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT). gFOBT detects heme, a component of hemoglobin, through a chemical reaction.

But both standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA come with caveats. Compared to the standard test, FIT-DNA tends to be better at detecting traces of blood in the stool, and thus can uncover more instances of CRC or other advanced lesions. The flipside is that the DNA test also often leads to more false-positive findings.

In fact, the American College of Physicians does not recommend stool FIT-DNA for screening, citing issues such as cost — more than $600 per test vs about $30 for standard FIT — and the greater likelihood of false-positives compared with both standard FIT and gFOBT.

Given these trade-offs with current noninvasive screening options, developing a FIT option that can improve early detection of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions without increasing false-positives could make a big difference in outcomes. 

Three new noninvasive multitarget tests under investigation — an updated DNA-based test, Cologuard 2.0 (Exact Sciences; Madison, WI); an RNA-based test, ColoSense (Geneoscopy; St Louis, MO); and a protein-based test from CRCbioscreen (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) — may be able to do just that. 
 

Cologuard 2.0: Multitarget Stool DNA-Based Test

An updated version of the stool FIT-DNA is currently under development. Dubbed Next Generation Cologuard, or Cologuard 2.0, this multitarget test detects three novel methylated DNA markers along with fecal hemoglobin.

In a recent trial comparing Cologuard 2.0 vs standard FIT, 20,176 participants aged 40 years or older were screened with Cologuard 2.0 as well as standard FIT before they all also received a colonoscopy. The researchers compared findings with Cologuard 2.0 and standard FIT, which used a positivity cutoff ≥ 20 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. 

The researchers then assessed Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity (a gauge of how well it detects disease that is truly present) and specificity (a measure of how well a test indicates the absence of disease when no disease is present) compared with standard FIT and the original Cologuard test.

Overall, Cologuard 2.0 demonstrated better sensitivity for CRC than did standard FIT (93.9% vs 67.3%, respectively) and for advanced precancerous lesions (43.4% vs 23.3%). The next-generation test, for instance, identified 92 of 98 participants with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC diagnoses vs 66 cases using standard FIT.

Compared with the original Cologuard, Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity improved slightly for CRC, from 92% to 93.9%,; for advanced precancerous lesions, from 42% to 43.4%; and for high-grade dysplasia, from 69% to 75%. Specificity also improved with the latest version, from 87% to 90.6%. 

However, Cologuard 2.0’s specificity for advanced neoplasia was worse than that of standard FIT (90.6% vs 94.8%, respectively), which would increase the likelihood of false-positive findings.

Despite its lower specificity compared with standard FIT, Cologuard 2.0 has several advantages. The test can identify more people with CRC and advanced precancerous lesions than the standard test and can lead to fewer false-positives than the original Cologuard test.

Cologuard maker Exact Sciences has submitted trial data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval.
 

Multitarget Stool RNA-Based Test

ColoSense, an RNA-based stool test, looks for eight RNA biomarkers associated with CRC. 

The company says that RNA-based testing has an advantage over DNA biomarker assays, such as the currently marketed Cologuard test, because it isn›t subject to the age-related changes in DNA methylation that can throw off the results from DNA assays. 

Like Cologuard 2.0, Geneoscopy’s Colosense test is under review by the FDA.

The data Geneoscopy submitted to the FDA came from the CRC-PREVENT trial, which included 8920 participants who were screened with both ColoSense and standard FIT before all had a colonoscopy. The participants ranged in age from 45 to 90 years, with 22% between 45 and 50 years old, a population recently added to the USPSTF screening recommendations. 

ColoSense showed higher sensitivity than standard FIT for the presence of CRC (94% vs 78%, respectively) and advanced adenomas (46% vs 29%). In the group aged 45-50 years, the RNA-based test had a sensitivity of 100% for CRC, correctly identifying all five people with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas.

However, ColoSense was less specific than standard FIT compared with negative colonoscopy findings (88% vs 96%, respectively) and negative findings for advanced lesions or CRC (85.5% vs 94.9%); thus, it was more likely to lead to false-positive results.

Overall, the investigators said ColoSense is comparable to Cologuard — its chief market rival — in terms of sensitivity for CRC and advanced adenomas but has higher sensitivity for colorectal neoplasia in people aged 50 years or younger.
 

Multitarget Protein-Based Test

The multitarget protein-based FIT uses antibodies to test for two additional proteins: calprotectin, an inflammatory marker associated with CRC, and serpin family F member 2, a protease inhibitor thought to be upregulated in colon cancer. 

A 2021 study of 1284 patients found that the sensitivity of the multitarget protein-based test was 42.9% for advanced neoplasias compared with 37.3% with standard FIT. Its specificity was similar to that of standard FIT, at 96.6% for advanced neoplasias. 

In a more recent report published in The Lancet Oncology, the team modeled three scenarios comparing the two FIT tests. These scenarios used different cutoff values for a test to be positive for CRC or an advanced lesion.

Overall, the analysis included stool samples from 13,187 patients aged 55-75 years who were in the Netherlands’ national CRC screening program. Stool samples were evaluated with both the multitarget test and the standard FIT, using a positivity cutoff ≥ 47 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. Colonoscopy data were available for only 1270 participants. 

In scenario 1, the multitarget test had a lower threshold for a positive test and consequently identified more precancerous lesions than the standard FIT (828 vs 354, respectively). The multitarget FIT identified a few more CRC cases: Of 29 colonoscopy-confirmed CRC cases, the multitarget FIT identified 26 vs 23 with standard FIT. 

But the multitarget FIT also had more than double the number of false-positives than the standard FIT (347 vs 161, respectively).

Perhaps the most telling comparison occurred in scenario 2, with both tests set at the same low positivity threshold to minimize false-positives.

As expected, the two tests had similar positivity rates for advanced lesions, with the multitarget test correctly identifying 22 of 29 people with CRC, one fewer than the standard test. The protein-based test identified slightly more people with advanced lesions (156 vs 136 with the standard test), leading to a higher sensitivity for advanced lesions. 

Most notably, the protein-based test resulted in fewer false-positives than did the standard test (295 vs 311, respectively) , resulting in a slightly higher specificity.

In this scenario, “a single screening round might not have the biggest impact on cancer incidence and mortality,” the authors said, but the higher detection rate would still accumulate over 20 years of testing. The authors estimated that, under this scenario, substituting the multitarget FIT for the standard test in the Netherlands’ CRC screening program could reduce CRC incidence by 5% and CRC mortality by 4%.

Gerrit Meijer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, and colleagues recently launched a company called CRCbioscreen to commercialize this multitarget FIT for large-scale programs. The company›s priority is to develop and validate a clinical-grade test to sell to federal governments with national screening programs, such as those throughout Europe, Australia, and Asia, Dr. Meijer told this news organization. Dr. Meijer expects this process will take about 4 years.

The test will be developed for the US market, but with no nationwide screening program in the United States, future availability will depend on interest from providers and institutions, noted Dr. Meijer, who is also chief scientific officer at CRCbioscreen.

Overall, these three new multitarget stool-based CRC screening tests could help catch more cancers and advanced precancerous lesions. And, if the tests have a high enough specificity, a negative test result could also allow people to forgo screening colonoscopy. 

Still, people with a positive FIT finding would require follow-up colonoscopy, but about 10% of patients decline colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT, Mark A. Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Murray, Utah, told this news organization last year. That means that even if precancerous lesions and CRC are being caught earlier, treatment can’t be started unless people follow through with colonoscopy.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Multitarget stool-based tests are showing promise for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk individuals and could edge out the current standard fecal immunochemical test (FIT).

These new tests aren’t radical departures from the standard FIT. Like the standard test, the multitarget FIT uses antibodies to test for hemoglobin in stool samples. But these multitarget approaches take the standard FIT a step further by testing for additional DNA, RNA, or protein biomarkers associated with CRC to help improve early detection.

Currently, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends two FIT tests — standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA — as well as a third noninvasive CRC screening test, guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT). gFOBT detects heme, a component of hemoglobin, through a chemical reaction.

But both standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA come with caveats. Compared to the standard test, FIT-DNA tends to be better at detecting traces of blood in the stool, and thus can uncover more instances of CRC or other advanced lesions. The flipside is that the DNA test also often leads to more false-positive findings.

In fact, the American College of Physicians does not recommend stool FIT-DNA for screening, citing issues such as cost — more than $600 per test vs about $30 for standard FIT — and the greater likelihood of false-positives compared with both standard FIT and gFOBT.

Given these trade-offs with current noninvasive screening options, developing a FIT option that can improve early detection of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions without increasing false-positives could make a big difference in outcomes. 

Three new noninvasive multitarget tests under investigation — an updated DNA-based test, Cologuard 2.0 (Exact Sciences; Madison, WI); an RNA-based test, ColoSense (Geneoscopy; St Louis, MO); and a protein-based test from CRCbioscreen (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) — may be able to do just that. 
 

Cologuard 2.0: Multitarget Stool DNA-Based Test

An updated version of the stool FIT-DNA is currently under development. Dubbed Next Generation Cologuard, or Cologuard 2.0, this multitarget test detects three novel methylated DNA markers along with fecal hemoglobin.

In a recent trial comparing Cologuard 2.0 vs standard FIT, 20,176 participants aged 40 years or older were screened with Cologuard 2.0 as well as standard FIT before they all also received a colonoscopy. The researchers compared findings with Cologuard 2.0 and standard FIT, which used a positivity cutoff ≥ 20 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. 

The researchers then assessed Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity (a gauge of how well it detects disease that is truly present) and specificity (a measure of how well a test indicates the absence of disease when no disease is present) compared with standard FIT and the original Cologuard test.

Overall, Cologuard 2.0 demonstrated better sensitivity for CRC than did standard FIT (93.9% vs 67.3%, respectively) and for advanced precancerous lesions (43.4% vs 23.3%). The next-generation test, for instance, identified 92 of 98 participants with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC diagnoses vs 66 cases using standard FIT.

Compared with the original Cologuard, Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity improved slightly for CRC, from 92% to 93.9%,; for advanced precancerous lesions, from 42% to 43.4%; and for high-grade dysplasia, from 69% to 75%. Specificity also improved with the latest version, from 87% to 90.6%. 

However, Cologuard 2.0’s specificity for advanced neoplasia was worse than that of standard FIT (90.6% vs 94.8%, respectively), which would increase the likelihood of false-positive findings.

Despite its lower specificity compared with standard FIT, Cologuard 2.0 has several advantages. The test can identify more people with CRC and advanced precancerous lesions than the standard test and can lead to fewer false-positives than the original Cologuard test.

Cologuard maker Exact Sciences has submitted trial data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval.
 

Multitarget Stool RNA-Based Test

ColoSense, an RNA-based stool test, looks for eight RNA biomarkers associated with CRC. 

The company says that RNA-based testing has an advantage over DNA biomarker assays, such as the currently marketed Cologuard test, because it isn›t subject to the age-related changes in DNA methylation that can throw off the results from DNA assays. 

Like Cologuard 2.0, Geneoscopy’s Colosense test is under review by the FDA.

The data Geneoscopy submitted to the FDA came from the CRC-PREVENT trial, which included 8920 participants who were screened with both ColoSense and standard FIT before all had a colonoscopy. The participants ranged in age from 45 to 90 years, with 22% between 45 and 50 years old, a population recently added to the USPSTF screening recommendations. 

ColoSense showed higher sensitivity than standard FIT for the presence of CRC (94% vs 78%, respectively) and advanced adenomas (46% vs 29%). In the group aged 45-50 years, the RNA-based test had a sensitivity of 100% for CRC, correctly identifying all five people with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas.

However, ColoSense was less specific than standard FIT compared with negative colonoscopy findings (88% vs 96%, respectively) and negative findings for advanced lesions or CRC (85.5% vs 94.9%); thus, it was more likely to lead to false-positive results.

Overall, the investigators said ColoSense is comparable to Cologuard — its chief market rival — in terms of sensitivity for CRC and advanced adenomas but has higher sensitivity for colorectal neoplasia in people aged 50 years or younger.
 

Multitarget Protein-Based Test

The multitarget protein-based FIT uses antibodies to test for two additional proteins: calprotectin, an inflammatory marker associated with CRC, and serpin family F member 2, a protease inhibitor thought to be upregulated in colon cancer. 

A 2021 study of 1284 patients found that the sensitivity of the multitarget protein-based test was 42.9% for advanced neoplasias compared with 37.3% with standard FIT. Its specificity was similar to that of standard FIT, at 96.6% for advanced neoplasias. 

In a more recent report published in The Lancet Oncology, the team modeled three scenarios comparing the two FIT tests. These scenarios used different cutoff values for a test to be positive for CRC or an advanced lesion.

Overall, the analysis included stool samples from 13,187 patients aged 55-75 years who were in the Netherlands’ national CRC screening program. Stool samples were evaluated with both the multitarget test and the standard FIT, using a positivity cutoff ≥ 47 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. Colonoscopy data were available for only 1270 participants. 

In scenario 1, the multitarget test had a lower threshold for a positive test and consequently identified more precancerous lesions than the standard FIT (828 vs 354, respectively). The multitarget FIT identified a few more CRC cases: Of 29 colonoscopy-confirmed CRC cases, the multitarget FIT identified 26 vs 23 with standard FIT. 

But the multitarget FIT also had more than double the number of false-positives than the standard FIT (347 vs 161, respectively).

Perhaps the most telling comparison occurred in scenario 2, with both tests set at the same low positivity threshold to minimize false-positives.

As expected, the two tests had similar positivity rates for advanced lesions, with the multitarget test correctly identifying 22 of 29 people with CRC, one fewer than the standard test. The protein-based test identified slightly more people with advanced lesions (156 vs 136 with the standard test), leading to a higher sensitivity for advanced lesions. 

Most notably, the protein-based test resulted in fewer false-positives than did the standard test (295 vs 311, respectively) , resulting in a slightly higher specificity.

In this scenario, “a single screening round might not have the biggest impact on cancer incidence and mortality,” the authors said, but the higher detection rate would still accumulate over 20 years of testing. The authors estimated that, under this scenario, substituting the multitarget FIT for the standard test in the Netherlands’ CRC screening program could reduce CRC incidence by 5% and CRC mortality by 4%.

Gerrit Meijer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, and colleagues recently launched a company called CRCbioscreen to commercialize this multitarget FIT for large-scale programs. The company›s priority is to develop and validate a clinical-grade test to sell to federal governments with national screening programs, such as those throughout Europe, Australia, and Asia, Dr. Meijer told this news organization. Dr. Meijer expects this process will take about 4 years.

The test will be developed for the US market, but with no nationwide screening program in the United States, future availability will depend on interest from providers and institutions, noted Dr. Meijer, who is also chief scientific officer at CRCbioscreen.

Overall, these three new multitarget stool-based CRC screening tests could help catch more cancers and advanced precancerous lesions. And, if the tests have a high enough specificity, a negative test result could also allow people to forgo screening colonoscopy. 

Still, people with a positive FIT finding would require follow-up colonoscopy, but about 10% of patients decline colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT, Mark A. Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Murray, Utah, told this news organization last year. That means that even if precancerous lesions and CRC are being caught earlier, treatment can’t be started unless people follow through with colonoscopy.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In recent years, innovative use of bispecific antibodies and CAR T-cell therapy has ushered in an era when many patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) — who once had prognoses of 6 months or less — now survive for multiple years with the malignancy, and some are cured.

The comparative benefits and limitations of these two treatments for r/r ALL were a topic for discussion at the Great Debates & Updates Hematological Malignancies conference, held April 5-6 in New York City.

“Every single patient with ALL should benefit from bispecific antibodies before getting CAR-T cells, and I want to make the case that everybody should get CAR T as well. But they should get blinatumomab before they get CAR T,” said Elias Jabbour, MD, of the MD Anderson Cancer Center at The University of Texas in Houston, whose presentation focused on the merits of bispecific antibodies.

Jabbour_Elias_TX_web.jpg

His argument was based on data indicating that patients have better chances of long-term remission with the use of bispecific antibodies when they are administered in an earlier round of salvage treatment — and the fact that patients who are not cured with these drugs can still achieve a lower disease burden and perform better on CAR T-cell therapy than those who don’t receive the drugs.

“When blinatumomab is used as a consolidation during the first salvage treatment and spaces out transplantation, 3-year overall survival increases in the relapse setting, deepening responses and reducing the rate of VOD (veno-occlusive disease). The safety and efficacy of CAR T depends on a disease burden. If you have a minimal residual disease (MRD), you have a safer outcome and a better outcome in the long run,” Dr. Jabbour explained.

This point of view is supported by data from the treatment of patients r/r ALL with low intensity chemotherapy + inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa; Pfizer) +/- blinatumomab (Blincyto; Amgen), knows as Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina. Trial members achieved a median overall survival (OS) rate of 17 months, a 3-year survival rate of 42%, and an overall MRD negativity rate of 85%.

Dr. Jabbour noted that blinatumomab has its limitations. Generally, this treatment is administered intravenously every few weeks and can be cumbersome for patients who must travel to an infusion center. However, data from a phase 1b trial of single agent subcutaneous blinatumomab for advanced ALL has demonstrated that this formulation can be effective and can lead to MRD negativity, possibly paving the way for easier administration of the drug.

Aditi Shastri, MD, a leukemia specialist at New York’s Montefiore Medical Center who attended the debate, agreed that the data presented did support Dr. Jabbour’s contention that subcutaneous blinatumomab could make treatment available to even more people with r/r ALL. “It’s easier to administer than the blina pump and could act as a bridge to curative therapies like AlloHSCT,” she said.

Jae Park, MD, a leukemia and cellular therapy specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, argued that CAR T is the most potent therapy for r/r ALL. Dr. Park agreed that inotuzumab and blinatumomab have yielded tremendous progress in the treatment of patients with r/r ALL, but he noted that bispecific antibodies lack some of the advantages of CAR T.

Dr. Park said that the biggest difference between the two therapies is that CAR T requires but a single infusion of a living drug. Patients do need to stay close to treatment centers to receive treatment for toxicities, but after about 28 days, they can go home and be monitored from a distance. Furthermore, patients may start by receiving 1 million T-cells, but those cells exponentially expand 100,000- to 1,000,000-fold, meaning that the T-cells to treat cancer have the potential to persist for months and sometimes years.

Furthermore, results from ZUMA-3 Trial of the CD19-targeting CAR T-Cell therapy brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus; Kite Pharma) suggest that CAR T outperforms Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina in patients with r/r ALL. Participants in the trial showed an overall response rate around 80%, a 71% complete response rate, and a median OS of 25.4 months. Patients who achieved a complete response had an even better median OS of 47 months. Although this was not a head-to-head trial with Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina, if the plateau of long-term survivors continues, “this drug could be set apart from treatment with monoclonal antibodies,” Dr. Park said.

However, brexucabtagene autoleucel is not a cure or even an option for all patients. Some patients are too frail to get the drug, and they risk experiencing cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Data from the FELIX study suggest that the CAR T-cell treatment Obe-cel could offer a safety profile that reduces the risk of serious side effects while remaining effective at treating r/r ALL. Obe-cel showed efficacy very similar to that of brexucabtagene autoleucel, with a 70%-80% response rate, and only 2% of patients experienced CRS.

Dr. Park noted that the next frontier in CAR T-cell therapy is figuring out which patients will respond well to CAR T and which are going to need more treatment after CAR T. However, he noted that evidence suggests patients with low MRD are likely to do best on CAR T and that bispecific antibodies can help patients get to what might be the best chance at a cure for r/r ALL, namely CAR-T.

The moderator of the debate, Jessica Altman, MD, professor of medicine, hematology oncology division, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, noted: “My take home is that antibody therapy and CAR-T will be sequenced and used together.” She noted that blinatumomab is moving into the front line of therapy, as in the E1910 trials, and how this treatment allows for study and use of CAR T earlier in the care of patients “when there may be less toxicity and higher response.”

Jabbour concluded on a similar note, adding that the “cure for this disease will happen in our lifetime. We will shorten therapy by doing immunotherapy upfront followed by CAR T consolidation and no more transplantation. I don’t think antibodies immunotherapies or CAR T need be competitive, they can be used in a complimentary fashion.”

Jabbour reported no financial disclosures. Park disclosed ties with Allogene, Artiva Biotherapeutics, Amgen, Affyimmune, BeBiopharma, Beigene, Bright Pharmaceuticals, Autolus, Caribou Biosciences, Galapagos, Kite, Medpace, Minerva Biotechnologies, Pfizer, Servier, Sobi, and Takeda. Neither Altman nor Shastri reported any disclosures.
 

In recent years, innovative use of bispecific antibodies and CAR T-cell therapy has ushered in an era when many patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) — who once had prognoses of 6 months or less — now survive for multiple years with the malignancy, and some are cured.

The comparative benefits and limitations of these two treatments for r/r ALL were a topic for discussion at the Great Debates & Updates Hematological Malignancies conference, held April 5-6 in New York City.

“Every single patient with ALL should benefit from bispecific antibodies before getting CAR-T cells, and I want to make the case that everybody should get CAR T as well. But they should get blinatumomab before they get CAR T,” said Elias Jabbour, MD, of the MD Anderson Cancer Center at The University of Texas in Houston, whose presentation focused on the merits of bispecific antibodies.

Jabbour_Elias_TX_web.jpg

His argument was based on data indicating that patients have better chances of long-term remission with the use of bispecific antibodies when they are administered in an earlier round of salvage treatment — and the fact that patients who are not cured with these drugs can still achieve a lower disease burden and perform better on CAR T-cell therapy than those who don’t receive the drugs.

“When blinatumomab is used as a consolidation during the first salvage treatment and spaces out transplantation, 3-year overall survival increases in the relapse setting, deepening responses and reducing the rate of VOD (veno-occlusive disease). The safety and efficacy of CAR T depends on a disease burden. If you have a minimal residual disease (MRD), you have a safer outcome and a better outcome in the long run,” Dr. Jabbour explained.

This point of view is supported by data from the treatment of patients r/r ALL with low intensity chemotherapy + inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa; Pfizer) +/- blinatumomab (Blincyto; Amgen), knows as Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina. Trial members achieved a median overall survival (OS) rate of 17 months, a 3-year survival rate of 42%, and an overall MRD negativity rate of 85%.

Dr. Jabbour noted that blinatumomab has its limitations. Generally, this treatment is administered intravenously every few weeks and can be cumbersome for patients who must travel to an infusion center. However, data from a phase 1b trial of single agent subcutaneous blinatumomab for advanced ALL has demonstrated that this formulation can be effective and can lead to MRD negativity, possibly paving the way for easier administration of the drug.

Aditi Shastri, MD, a leukemia specialist at New York’s Montefiore Medical Center who attended the debate, agreed that the data presented did support Dr. Jabbour’s contention that subcutaneous blinatumomab could make treatment available to even more people with r/r ALL. “It’s easier to administer than the blina pump and could act as a bridge to curative therapies like AlloHSCT,” she said.

Jae Park, MD, a leukemia and cellular therapy specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, argued that CAR T is the most potent therapy for r/r ALL. Dr. Park agreed that inotuzumab and blinatumomab have yielded tremendous progress in the treatment of patients with r/r ALL, but he noted that bispecific antibodies lack some of the advantages of CAR T.

Dr. Park said that the biggest difference between the two therapies is that CAR T requires but a single infusion of a living drug. Patients do need to stay close to treatment centers to receive treatment for toxicities, but after about 28 days, they can go home and be monitored from a distance. Furthermore, patients may start by receiving 1 million T-cells, but those cells exponentially expand 100,000- to 1,000,000-fold, meaning that the T-cells to treat cancer have the potential to persist for months and sometimes years.

Furthermore, results from ZUMA-3 Trial of the CD19-targeting CAR T-Cell therapy brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus; Kite Pharma) suggest that CAR T outperforms Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina in patients with r/r ALL. Participants in the trial showed an overall response rate around 80%, a 71% complete response rate, and a median OS of 25.4 months. Patients who achieved a complete response had an even better median OS of 47 months. Although this was not a head-to-head trial with Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina, if the plateau of long-term survivors continues, “this drug could be set apart from treatment with monoclonal antibodies,” Dr. Park said.

However, brexucabtagene autoleucel is not a cure or even an option for all patients. Some patients are too frail to get the drug, and they risk experiencing cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Data from the FELIX study suggest that the CAR T-cell treatment Obe-cel could offer a safety profile that reduces the risk of serious side effects while remaining effective at treating r/r ALL. Obe-cel showed efficacy very similar to that of brexucabtagene autoleucel, with a 70%-80% response rate, and only 2% of patients experienced CRS.

Dr. Park noted that the next frontier in CAR T-cell therapy is figuring out which patients will respond well to CAR T and which are going to need more treatment after CAR T. However, he noted that evidence suggests patients with low MRD are likely to do best on CAR T and that bispecific antibodies can help patients get to what might be the best chance at a cure for r/r ALL, namely CAR-T.

The moderator of the debate, Jessica Altman, MD, professor of medicine, hematology oncology division, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, noted: “My take home is that antibody therapy and CAR-T will be sequenced and used together.” She noted that blinatumomab is moving into the front line of therapy, as in the E1910 trials, and how this treatment allows for study and use of CAR T earlier in the care of patients “when there may be less toxicity and higher response.”

Jabbour concluded on a similar note, adding that the “cure for this disease will happen in our lifetime. We will shorten therapy by doing immunotherapy upfront followed by CAR T consolidation and no more transplantation. I don’t think antibodies immunotherapies or CAR T need be competitive, they can be used in a complimentary fashion.”

Jabbour reported no financial disclosures. Park disclosed ties with Allogene, Artiva Biotherapeutics, Amgen, Affyimmune, BeBiopharma, Beigene, Bright Pharmaceuticals, Autolus, Caribou Biosciences, Galapagos, Kite, Medpace, Minerva Biotechnologies, Pfizer, Servier, Sobi, and Takeda. Neither Altman nor Shastri reported any disclosures.
 

In recent years, innovative use of bispecific antibodies and CAR T-cell therapy has ushered in an era when many patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) — who once had prognoses of 6 months or less — now survive for multiple years with the malignancy, and some are cured.

The comparative benefits and limitations of these two treatments for r/r ALL were a topic for discussion at the Great Debates & Updates Hematological Malignancies conference, held April 5-6 in New York City.

“Every single patient with ALL should benefit from bispecific antibodies before getting CAR-T cells, and I want to make the case that everybody should get CAR T as well. But they should get blinatumomab before they get CAR T,” said Elias Jabbour, MD, of the MD Anderson Cancer Center at The University of Texas in Houston, whose presentation focused on the merits of bispecific antibodies.

Jabbour_Elias_TX_web.jpg

His argument was based on data indicating that patients have better chances of long-term remission with the use of bispecific antibodies when they are administered in an earlier round of salvage treatment — and the fact that patients who are not cured with these drugs can still achieve a lower disease burden and perform better on CAR T-cell therapy than those who don’t receive the drugs.

“When blinatumomab is used as a consolidation during the first salvage treatment and spaces out transplantation, 3-year overall survival increases in the relapse setting, deepening responses and reducing the rate of VOD (veno-occlusive disease). The safety and efficacy of CAR T depends on a disease burden. If you have a minimal residual disease (MRD), you have a safer outcome and a better outcome in the long run,” Dr. Jabbour explained.

This point of view is supported by data from the treatment of patients r/r ALL with low intensity chemotherapy + inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa; Pfizer) +/- blinatumomab (Blincyto; Amgen), knows as Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina. Trial members achieved a median overall survival (OS) rate of 17 months, a 3-year survival rate of 42%, and an overall MRD negativity rate of 85%.

Dr. Jabbour noted that blinatumomab has its limitations. Generally, this treatment is administered intravenously every few weeks and can be cumbersome for patients who must travel to an infusion center. However, data from a phase 1b trial of single agent subcutaneous blinatumomab for advanced ALL has demonstrated that this formulation can be effective and can lead to MRD negativity, possibly paving the way for easier administration of the drug.

Aditi Shastri, MD, a leukemia specialist at New York’s Montefiore Medical Center who attended the debate, agreed that the data presented did support Dr. Jabbour’s contention that subcutaneous blinatumomab could make treatment available to even more people with r/r ALL. “It’s easier to administer than the blina pump and could act as a bridge to curative therapies like AlloHSCT,” she said.

Jae Park, MD, a leukemia and cellular therapy specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, argued that CAR T is the most potent therapy for r/r ALL. Dr. Park agreed that inotuzumab and blinatumomab have yielded tremendous progress in the treatment of patients with r/r ALL, but he noted that bispecific antibodies lack some of the advantages of CAR T.

Dr. Park said that the biggest difference between the two therapies is that CAR T requires but a single infusion of a living drug. Patients do need to stay close to treatment centers to receive treatment for toxicities, but after about 28 days, they can go home and be monitored from a distance. Furthermore, patients may start by receiving 1 million T-cells, but those cells exponentially expand 100,000- to 1,000,000-fold, meaning that the T-cells to treat cancer have the potential to persist for months and sometimes years.

Furthermore, results from ZUMA-3 Trial of the CD19-targeting CAR T-Cell therapy brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus; Kite Pharma) suggest that CAR T outperforms Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina in patients with r/r ALL. Participants in the trial showed an overall response rate around 80%, a 71% complete response rate, and a median OS of 25.4 months. Patients who achieved a complete response had an even better median OS of 47 months. Although this was not a head-to-head trial with Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina, if the plateau of long-term survivors continues, “this drug could be set apart from treatment with monoclonal antibodies,” Dr. Park said.

However, brexucabtagene autoleucel is not a cure or even an option for all patients. Some patients are too frail to get the drug, and they risk experiencing cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Data from the FELIX study suggest that the CAR T-cell treatment Obe-cel could offer a safety profile that reduces the risk of serious side effects while remaining effective at treating r/r ALL. Obe-cel showed efficacy very similar to that of brexucabtagene autoleucel, with a 70%-80% response rate, and only 2% of patients experienced CRS.

Dr. Park noted that the next frontier in CAR T-cell therapy is figuring out which patients will respond well to CAR T and which are going to need more treatment after CAR T. However, he noted that evidence suggests patients with low MRD are likely to do best on CAR T and that bispecific antibodies can help patients get to what might be the best chance at a cure for r/r ALL, namely CAR-T.

The moderator of the debate, Jessica Altman, MD, professor of medicine, hematology oncology division, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, noted: “My take home is that antibody therapy and CAR-T will be sequenced and used together.” She noted that blinatumomab is moving into the front line of therapy, as in the E1910 trials, and how this treatment allows for study and use of CAR T earlier in the care of patients “when there may be less toxicity and higher response.”

Jabbour concluded on a similar note, adding that the “cure for this disease will happen in our lifetime. We will shorten therapy by doing immunotherapy upfront followed by CAR T consolidation and no more transplantation. I don’t think antibodies immunotherapies or CAR T need be competitive, they can be used in a complimentary fashion.”

Jabbour reported no financial disclosures. Park disclosed ties with Allogene, Artiva Biotherapeutics, Amgen, Affyimmune, BeBiopharma, Beigene, Bright Pharmaceuticals, Autolus, Caribou Biosciences, Galapagos, Kite, Medpace, Minerva Biotechnologies, Pfizer, Servier, Sobi, and Takeda. Neither Altman nor Shastri reported any disclosures.
 

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — The number of solid organ transplant survivors is on the rise, a dermatologist told colleagues, and they face unique challenges from higher risks for skin cancer and skin infections because of their suppressed immune systems.

“There are over 450,000 people with a solid organ transplant living in the United States. If you do the math, that works out to about 40 organ transplant recipients for every dermatologist, so there’s a lot of them out there for us to take care of,” Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD). “If we expand that umbrella to include all types of immunosuppression, that’s over 4 million adults in the US.”

Dr. Christensen encouraged dermatologists to be aware of the varying risks for immunosuppressive drugs and best screening practices for these patients, and to take advantage of a validated skin cancer risk assessment tool for transplant patients.

During his presentation, he highlighted five classes of immunosuppressive drugs and their associated skin cancer risks:

• Calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus or cyclosporine), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk. They may also cause gingival hyperplasia and sebaceous hyperplasia.
• Antimetabolites (mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine), which cause moderate to severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk.
• Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (sirolimus or everolimus), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a moderate skin cancer risk. They also impair wound healing.
• Corticosteroids (prednisone), which cause mild to severe immune suppression and pose a minimal skin cancer risk.
• A decoy receptor protein (belatacept), which causes severe immune suppression and poses a mild skin cancer risk.

“Most of our solid-organ transplant recipients will be on both a calcineurin inhibitor and an antimetabolite,” Dr. Christensen said. “In addition to the skin cancer risk associated with immunosuppression, there is an additive risk” that is a direct effect of these medications on the skin. “That means our transplant recipients have a severely and disproportionate increase in skin cancer,” he noted.

Up to half of solid-organ transplant recipients will develop skin cancer, Dr. Christensen said. These patients have a sixfold to 10-fold increased risk for basal cell carcinoma (BCC), a 35- to 65-fold increased risk for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), a twofold to sevenfold increased risk for melanoma, and a 16- to 100-fold increased risk for Merkel cell carcinoma.

Transplant recipients with SCC, he said, have a twofold to threefold higher risk for metastasis (4%-8% nodal metastasis) and twofold to fivefold higher risk for death (2%-7% mortality) from SCC.

As for other kinds of immunosuppression, HIV positivity, treatment with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine (for inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis), and antitumor necrosis factor agents (for psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, and rheumatoid arthritis) have been linked in studies to a higher risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer.

Dr. Christensen also highlighted graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). “It does look like there is a disproportionate and increased risk of SCC of the oropharynx and of the skin in patients who have chronic GVHD. This is probably due to a combination of both the immunosuppressive medications that are required but also from chronic and ongoing inflammation in the skin.”

[embed:render:related:node:263749]

Chronic GVHD has been linked to a 5.3-fold increase in the risk for SCC and a twofold increase in the risk for BCC, he added.

Moreover, new medications for treating GVHD have been linked to an increased risk for SCC, including a 3.2-fold increased risk for SCC associated with ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2 inhibitor, in a study of patients with polycythemia vera and myelofibrosis; and a case report of SCC in a patient treated with belumosudil, a rho-associated coiled-coil-containing protein kinase-2 kinase inhibitor, for chronic GVHD. Risk for SCC appears to increase based on duration of use with voriconazole, an antifungal, which, he said, is a potent photosynthesizer.

Dr. Christensen also noted the higher risk for infections in immunocompromised patients and added that these patients can develop inflammatory disease despite immunosuppression:

Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Dermatophytes are the most common skin pathogens in these patients. There’s a significantly increased risk for reactivation of herpes simplex, varicella-zoster viruses, and cytomegalovirus. Opportunistic and disseminated fungal infections, such as mycobacteria, Candida, histoplasma, cryptococcus, aspergillus, and mucormycosis, can also appear.

More than 80% of transplant recipients develop molluscum and verruca vulgaris/human papillomavirus infection. They may also develop noninfectious inflammatory dermatoses.

Risk Calculator

What can dermatologists do to help transplant patients? Dr. Christensen highlighted the Skin and UV Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator, which predicts skin cancer risk based on points given for race, gender, skin cancer history, age at transplant, and site of transplant.

The tool, validated in a 2023 study of transplant recipients in Europe, is available online and as an app. It makes recommendations to users about when patients should have initial skin screening exams. Those with the most risk — 45% at 5 years — should be screened within 6 months. “We can use [the tool] to triage these cases when we first meet them and get them plugged into the appropriate care,” Dr. Christensen said.

He recommended seeing high-risk patients at least annually. Patients with a prior SCC and a heavy burden of actinic keratosis should be followed more frequently, he said.

In regard to SCC, he highlighted a 2024 study of solid organ transplant recipients that found the risk for a second SCC after a first SCC was 74%, the risk for a third SCC after a second SCC was 83%, and the risk for another SCC after five SCCs was 92%.

Dr. Christensen disclosed relationships with Canfield Scientific Inc. (consulting), Inhibitor Therapeutics (advisory board), and Sol-Gel Technologies Ltd. (grants/research funding).

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

SAN DIEGO — The number of solid organ transplant survivors is on the rise, a dermatologist told colleagues, and they face unique challenges from higher risks for skin cancer and skin infections because of their suppressed immune systems.

“There are over 450,000 people with a solid organ transplant living in the United States. If you do the math, that works out to about 40 organ transplant recipients for every dermatologist, so there’s a lot of them out there for us to take care of,” Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD). “If we expand that umbrella to include all types of immunosuppression, that’s over 4 million adults in the US.”

Dr. Christensen encouraged dermatologists to be aware of the varying risks for immunosuppressive drugs and best screening practices for these patients, and to take advantage of a validated skin cancer risk assessment tool for transplant patients.

During his presentation, he highlighted five classes of immunosuppressive drugs and their associated skin cancer risks:

• Calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus or cyclosporine), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk. They may also cause gingival hyperplasia and sebaceous hyperplasia.
• Antimetabolites (mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine), which cause moderate to severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk.
• Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (sirolimus or everolimus), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a moderate skin cancer risk. They also impair wound healing.
• Corticosteroids (prednisone), which cause mild to severe immune suppression and pose a minimal skin cancer risk.
• A decoy receptor protein (belatacept), which causes severe immune suppression and poses a mild skin cancer risk.

“Most of our solid-organ transplant recipients will be on both a calcineurin inhibitor and an antimetabolite,” Dr. Christensen said. “In addition to the skin cancer risk associated with immunosuppression, there is an additive risk” that is a direct effect of these medications on the skin. “That means our transplant recipients have a severely and disproportionate increase in skin cancer,” he noted.

Up to half of solid-organ transplant recipients will develop skin cancer, Dr. Christensen said. These patients have a sixfold to 10-fold increased risk for basal cell carcinoma (BCC), a 35- to 65-fold increased risk for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), a twofold to sevenfold increased risk for melanoma, and a 16- to 100-fold increased risk for Merkel cell carcinoma.

Transplant recipients with SCC, he said, have a twofold to threefold higher risk for metastasis (4%-8% nodal metastasis) and twofold to fivefold higher risk for death (2%-7% mortality) from SCC.

As for other kinds of immunosuppression, HIV positivity, treatment with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine (for inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis), and antitumor necrosis factor agents (for psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, and rheumatoid arthritis) have been linked in studies to a higher risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer.

Dr. Christensen also highlighted graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). “It does look like there is a disproportionate and increased risk of SCC of the oropharynx and of the skin in patients who have chronic GVHD. This is probably due to a combination of both the immunosuppressive medications that are required but also from chronic and ongoing inflammation in the skin.”

[embed:render:related:node:263749]

Chronic GVHD has been linked to a 5.3-fold increase in the risk for SCC and a twofold increase in the risk for BCC, he added.

Moreover, new medications for treating GVHD have been linked to an increased risk for SCC, including a 3.2-fold increased risk for SCC associated with ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2 inhibitor, in a study of patients with polycythemia vera and myelofibrosis; and a case report of SCC in a patient treated with belumosudil, a rho-associated coiled-coil-containing protein kinase-2 kinase inhibitor, for chronic GVHD. Risk for SCC appears to increase based on duration of use with voriconazole, an antifungal, which, he said, is a potent photosynthesizer.

Dr. Christensen also noted the higher risk for infections in immunocompromised patients and added that these patients can develop inflammatory disease despite immunosuppression:

Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Dermatophytes are the most common skin pathogens in these patients. There’s a significantly increased risk for reactivation of herpes simplex, varicella-zoster viruses, and cytomegalovirus. Opportunistic and disseminated fungal infections, such as mycobacteria, Candida, histoplasma, cryptococcus, aspergillus, and mucormycosis, can also appear.

More than 80% of transplant recipients develop molluscum and verruca vulgaris/human papillomavirus infection. They may also develop noninfectious inflammatory dermatoses.

Risk Calculator

What can dermatologists do to help transplant patients? Dr. Christensen highlighted the Skin and UV Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator, which predicts skin cancer risk based on points given for race, gender, skin cancer history, age at transplant, and site of transplant.

The tool, validated in a 2023 study of transplant recipients in Europe, is available online and as an app. It makes recommendations to users about when patients should have initial skin screening exams. Those with the most risk — 45% at 5 years — should be screened within 6 months. “We can use [the tool] to triage these cases when we first meet them and get them plugged into the appropriate care,” Dr. Christensen said.

He recommended seeing high-risk patients at least annually. Patients with a prior SCC and a heavy burden of actinic keratosis should be followed more frequently, he said.

In regard to SCC, he highlighted a 2024 study of solid organ transplant recipients that found the risk for a second SCC after a first SCC was 74%, the risk for a third SCC after a second SCC was 83%, and the risk for another SCC after five SCCs was 92%.

Dr. Christensen disclosed relationships with Canfield Scientific Inc. (consulting), Inhibitor Therapeutics (advisory board), and Sol-Gel Technologies Ltd. (grants/research funding).

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

SAN DIEGO — The number of solid organ transplant survivors is on the rise, a dermatologist told colleagues, and they face unique challenges from higher risks for skin cancer and skin infections because of their suppressed immune systems.

“There are over 450,000 people with a solid organ transplant living in the United States. If you do the math, that works out to about 40 organ transplant recipients for every dermatologist, so there’s a lot of them out there for us to take care of,” Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD). “If we expand that umbrella to include all types of immunosuppression, that’s over 4 million adults in the US.”

Dr. Christensen encouraged dermatologists to be aware of the varying risks for immunosuppressive drugs and best screening practices for these patients, and to take advantage of a validated skin cancer risk assessment tool for transplant patients.

During his presentation, he highlighted five classes of immunosuppressive drugs and their associated skin cancer risks:

• Calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus or cyclosporine), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk. They may also cause gingival hyperplasia and sebaceous hyperplasia.
• Antimetabolites (mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine), which cause moderate to severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk.
• Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (sirolimus or everolimus), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a moderate skin cancer risk. They also impair wound healing.
• Corticosteroids (prednisone), which cause mild to severe immune suppression and pose a minimal skin cancer risk.
• A decoy receptor protein (belatacept), which causes severe immune suppression and poses a mild skin cancer risk.

“Most of our solid-organ transplant recipients will be on both a calcineurin inhibitor and an antimetabolite,” Dr. Christensen said. “In addition to the skin cancer risk associated with immunosuppression, there is an additive risk” that is a direct effect of these medications on the skin. “That means our transplant recipients have a severely and disproportionate increase in skin cancer,” he noted.

Up to half of solid-organ transplant recipients will develop skin cancer, Dr. Christensen said. These patients have a sixfold to 10-fold increased risk for basal cell carcinoma (BCC), a 35- to 65-fold increased risk for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), a twofold to sevenfold increased risk for melanoma, and a 16- to 100-fold increased risk for Merkel cell carcinoma.

Transplant recipients with SCC, he said, have a twofold to threefold higher risk for metastasis (4%-8% nodal metastasis) and twofold to fivefold higher risk for death (2%-7% mortality) from SCC.

As for other kinds of immunosuppression, HIV positivity, treatment with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine (for inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis), and antitumor necrosis factor agents (for psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, and rheumatoid arthritis) have been linked in studies to a higher risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer.

Dr. Christensen also highlighted graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). “It does look like there is a disproportionate and increased risk of SCC of the oropharynx and of the skin in patients who have chronic GVHD. This is probably due to a combination of both the immunosuppressive medications that are required but also from chronic and ongoing inflammation in the skin.”

[embed:render:related:node:263749]

Chronic GVHD has been linked to a 5.3-fold increase in the risk for SCC and a twofold increase in the risk for BCC, he added.

Moreover, new medications for treating GVHD have been linked to an increased risk for SCC, including a 3.2-fold increased risk for SCC associated with ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2 inhibitor, in a study of patients with polycythemia vera and myelofibrosis; and a case report of SCC in a patient treated with belumosudil, a rho-associated coiled-coil-containing protein kinase-2 kinase inhibitor, for chronic GVHD. Risk for SCC appears to increase based on duration of use with voriconazole, an antifungal, which, he said, is a potent photosynthesizer.

Dr. Christensen also noted the higher risk for infections in immunocompromised patients and added that these patients can develop inflammatory disease despite immunosuppression:

Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Dermatophytes are the most common skin pathogens in these patients. There’s a significantly increased risk for reactivation of herpes simplex, varicella-zoster viruses, and cytomegalovirus. Opportunistic and disseminated fungal infections, such as mycobacteria, Candida, histoplasma, cryptococcus, aspergillus, and mucormycosis, can also appear.

More than 80% of transplant recipients develop molluscum and verruca vulgaris/human papillomavirus infection. They may also develop noninfectious inflammatory dermatoses.

Risk Calculator

What can dermatologists do to help transplant patients? Dr. Christensen highlighted the Skin and UV Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator, which predicts skin cancer risk based on points given for race, gender, skin cancer history, age at transplant, and site of transplant.

The tool, validated in a 2023 study of transplant recipients in Europe, is available online and as an app. It makes recommendations to users about when patients should have initial skin screening exams. Those with the most risk — 45% at 5 years — should be screened within 6 months. “We can use [the tool] to triage these cases when we first meet them and get them plugged into the appropriate care,” Dr. Christensen said.

He recommended seeing high-risk patients at least annually. Patients with a prior SCC and a heavy burden of actinic keratosis should be followed more frequently, he said.

In regard to SCC, he highlighted a 2024 study of solid organ transplant recipients that found the risk for a second SCC after a first SCC was 74%, the risk for a third SCC after a second SCC was 83%, and the risk for another SCC after five SCCs was 92%.

Dr. Christensen disclosed relationships with Canfield Scientific Inc. (consulting), Inhibitor Therapeutics (advisory board), and Sol-Gel Technologies Ltd. (grants/research funding).

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

SAN DIEGO — Monitoring a patient’s circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can provide valuable insights on early response to targeted therapies among patients with HER2-positive cancers.

This was the main finding of new data presented by study author Razelle Kurzrock, MD, at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

“We found that on-treatment ctDNA can detect progression before standard-of-care response assessments. These data suggest that monitoring ctDNA can provide clinicians with important prognostic information that may guide treatment decisions,” Dr. Kurzrock, professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said during her presentation.

Kurzrock_Razelle_WISC_web.jpg

Commenting on the clinical implications of these findings during an interview, she said the results suggest that ctDNA dynamics provide an early window into predicting response to targeted therapies in patients with HER2-altered cancers, confirming previous findings of the predictive value of ctDNA in other cancer types.

“Such monitoring may be useful in clinical trials and eventually in practice,” she added.
 

Need for new methods to predict early tumor response

Limitations of standard radiographic tumor assessments present challenges in determining clinical response, particularly for patients receiving targeted therapies.

During her talk, Dr. Kurzrock explained that although targeted therapies are effective for patients with specific molecular alterations, standard imaging assessments fail to uncover molecular-level changes within tumors, limiting the ability of clinicians to accurately assess a patient’s response to targeted therapies.

“In addition to limitations with imaging, patients and physicians want to know as soon as possible whether or not the agents are effective, especially if there are side effects,” Dr. Kurzrock during an interview. She added that monitoring early response may be especially important across tumor types, as HER2 therapies are increasingly being considered in the pan-cancer setting.

Commenting on the potential use of this method in other cancer types with HER2 alterations, Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, MS, noted that since the study relied on a tumor-informed assay, it would be applicable across diverse tumor types.

“It is less about tissue type but more about that particular patient’s tumor at that instant in time for which a unique barcode is created,” said Dr. Kasi, a medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the study.

In an interview, he added that the shedding and biology would affect the assay’s performance for some tissue types.
 

Design of patient-specific ctDNA assays

In this retrospective study, the researchers examined ctDNA dynamics in 58 patients with various HER2-positive tumor types, including breast, colorectal, and other solid malignancies harboring HER2 alterations. All the patients received combination HER2-targeted therapy with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in the phase 2 basket trial My Pathway (NCT02091141).

By leveraging comprehensive genomic profiling of each patient’s tumor, the researchers designed personalized ctDNA assays, tracking 2-16 tumor-specific genetic variants in the patients’ blood samples. FoundationOne Tracker was used to detect and quantify ctDNA at baseline and the third cycle of therapy (cycle 3 day 1, or C3D1).

During an interview, Dr. Kurzrock explained that FoundationOne Tracker is a personalized ctDNA monitoring assay that allows for the detection of ctDNA in plasma, enabling ongoing liquid-based monitoring and highly sensitive quantification of ctDNA levels as mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.

Among the 52 patients for whom personalized ctDNA assays were successfully designed, 48 (92.3%) had ctDNA data available at baseline, with a median of 100.7 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma. Most patients (89.6%) were deemed ctDNA-positive, with a median of 119.5 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.
 

Changes in ctDNA levels predict patient survival

The researchers found that patients who experienced a greater than 90% decline in ctDNA levels by the third treatment cycle had significantly longer overall survival (OS) than those with less than 90% ctDNA decline or any increase. According to data presented by Dr. Kurzrock, the median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 9.4 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = .007). These findings held true when the analysis was limited to the 14 patients with colorectal cancer, in which median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 10.2 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = 0.04).

Notably, the prognostic significance of ctDNA changes remained even among patients exhibiting radiographic stable disease, underscoring the limitations of relying solely on anatomic tumor measurements and highlighting the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments. In the subset of patients with radiographic stable disease, those with a greater than 90% ctDNA decline had significantly longer OS than those with less ctDNA reduction (not reached versus 9.4 months; P = .01).

“When used as a complement to imaging, tissue-informed ctDNA monitoring with FoundationOne Tracker can provide more accuracy than imaging alone,” Dr. Kurzrock noted in an interview.

Dr. Kasi echoed Dr. Kurzrock’s enthusiasm regarding the clinical usefulness of these findings, saying, “Not only can you see very early on in whom the ctDNA is going down and clearing, but you can also tell apart within the group who has ‘stable disease’ as to who is deriving more benefit.”

The researchers also observed that increases in on-treatment ctDNA levels often preceded radiographic evidence of disease progression by a median of 1.3 months. These findings highlight the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments, allowing us to detect treatment response and disease progression earlier than what is possible with imaging alone, Dr. Kurzrock explained during her talk. “This early warning signal could allow clinicians to intervene and modify treatment strategies before overt clinical deterioration,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Kasi highlighted that this high sensitivity and specificity and the short half-life of the tumor-informed ctDNA assay make this liquid biopsy of great clinical value. “The short half-life of a few hours means that if you do an intervention to treat cancer with HER2-directed therapy, you can very quickly assess response to therapy way earlier than traditional radiographic methods.”

Dr. Kasi cautioned, however, that this assay would not capture whether new mutations or HER2 loss occurred at the time of resistance. “A repeat tissue biopsy or a next-generation sequencing-based plasma-only assay would be required for that,” he said.
 

Implementation of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials

Dr. Kurzrock acknowledged that further research is needed to validate these results in larger, prospective cohorts before FoundationOne Tracker is adopted in the clinic. She noted, however, that this retrospective analysis, along with results from previous studies, provides a rationale for the use of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials.

“In some centers like ours, ctDNA monitoring is already part of our standard of care since not only does it help from a physician standpoint to have a more accurate and early assessment of response, but patients also appreciate the information gained from ctDNA dynamics,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that when radiographic findings are equivocal, ctDNA monitoring is an additional tool in their toolbox to help guide care.

He noted, however, that the cost is a challenge for implementing ctDNA monitoring as a complementary tool for real-time treatment response monitoring. “For serial monitoring, helping to reduce costs would be important in the long run,” he said in an interview. He added that obtaining sufficient tissue for testing using a tumor-informed assay can present a logistical challenge, at least for the first test. “You need sufficient tissue to make the barcode that you then follow along,” he explained.

“Developing guidelines through systematic studies about testing cadence would also be important. This would help establish whether ctDNA monitoring is helpful,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that in some situations, biological variables affect the shedding and detection of ctDNA beyond the assay — in those cases, ctDNA monitoring may not be helpful. “Like any test, it is not meant for every patient or clinical question,” Dr. Kasi concluded.

Dr. Kurzrock and Dr. Kasi reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — Monitoring a patient’s circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can provide valuable insights on early response to targeted therapies among patients with HER2-positive cancers.

This was the main finding of new data presented by study author Razelle Kurzrock, MD, at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

“We found that on-treatment ctDNA can detect progression before standard-of-care response assessments. These data suggest that monitoring ctDNA can provide clinicians with important prognostic information that may guide treatment decisions,” Dr. Kurzrock, professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said during her presentation.

Kurzrock_Razelle_WISC_web.jpg

Commenting on the clinical implications of these findings during an interview, she said the results suggest that ctDNA dynamics provide an early window into predicting response to targeted therapies in patients with HER2-altered cancers, confirming previous findings of the predictive value of ctDNA in other cancer types.

“Such monitoring may be useful in clinical trials and eventually in practice,” she added.
 

Need for new methods to predict early tumor response

Limitations of standard radiographic tumor assessments present challenges in determining clinical response, particularly for patients receiving targeted therapies.

During her talk, Dr. Kurzrock explained that although targeted therapies are effective for patients with specific molecular alterations, standard imaging assessments fail to uncover molecular-level changes within tumors, limiting the ability of clinicians to accurately assess a patient’s response to targeted therapies.

“In addition to limitations with imaging, patients and physicians want to know as soon as possible whether or not the agents are effective, especially if there are side effects,” Dr. Kurzrock during an interview. She added that monitoring early response may be especially important across tumor types, as HER2 therapies are increasingly being considered in the pan-cancer setting.

Commenting on the potential use of this method in other cancer types with HER2 alterations, Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, MS, noted that since the study relied on a tumor-informed assay, it would be applicable across diverse tumor types.

“It is less about tissue type but more about that particular patient’s tumor at that instant in time for which a unique barcode is created,” said Dr. Kasi, a medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the study.

In an interview, he added that the shedding and biology would affect the assay’s performance for some tissue types.
 

Design of patient-specific ctDNA assays

In this retrospective study, the researchers examined ctDNA dynamics in 58 patients with various HER2-positive tumor types, including breast, colorectal, and other solid malignancies harboring HER2 alterations. All the patients received combination HER2-targeted therapy with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in the phase 2 basket trial My Pathway (NCT02091141).

By leveraging comprehensive genomic profiling of each patient’s tumor, the researchers designed personalized ctDNA assays, tracking 2-16 tumor-specific genetic variants in the patients’ blood samples. FoundationOne Tracker was used to detect and quantify ctDNA at baseline and the third cycle of therapy (cycle 3 day 1, or C3D1).

During an interview, Dr. Kurzrock explained that FoundationOne Tracker is a personalized ctDNA monitoring assay that allows for the detection of ctDNA in plasma, enabling ongoing liquid-based monitoring and highly sensitive quantification of ctDNA levels as mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.

Among the 52 patients for whom personalized ctDNA assays were successfully designed, 48 (92.3%) had ctDNA data available at baseline, with a median of 100.7 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma. Most patients (89.6%) were deemed ctDNA-positive, with a median of 119.5 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.
 

Changes in ctDNA levels predict patient survival

The researchers found that patients who experienced a greater than 90% decline in ctDNA levels by the third treatment cycle had significantly longer overall survival (OS) than those with less than 90% ctDNA decline or any increase. According to data presented by Dr. Kurzrock, the median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 9.4 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = .007). These findings held true when the analysis was limited to the 14 patients with colorectal cancer, in which median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 10.2 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = 0.04).

Notably, the prognostic significance of ctDNA changes remained even among patients exhibiting radiographic stable disease, underscoring the limitations of relying solely on anatomic tumor measurements and highlighting the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments. In the subset of patients with radiographic stable disease, those with a greater than 90% ctDNA decline had significantly longer OS than those with less ctDNA reduction (not reached versus 9.4 months; P = .01).

“When used as a complement to imaging, tissue-informed ctDNA monitoring with FoundationOne Tracker can provide more accuracy than imaging alone,” Dr. Kurzrock noted in an interview.

Dr. Kasi echoed Dr. Kurzrock’s enthusiasm regarding the clinical usefulness of these findings, saying, “Not only can you see very early on in whom the ctDNA is going down and clearing, but you can also tell apart within the group who has ‘stable disease’ as to who is deriving more benefit.”

The researchers also observed that increases in on-treatment ctDNA levels often preceded radiographic evidence of disease progression by a median of 1.3 months. These findings highlight the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments, allowing us to detect treatment response and disease progression earlier than what is possible with imaging alone, Dr. Kurzrock explained during her talk. “This early warning signal could allow clinicians to intervene and modify treatment strategies before overt clinical deterioration,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Kasi highlighted that this high sensitivity and specificity and the short half-life of the tumor-informed ctDNA assay make this liquid biopsy of great clinical value. “The short half-life of a few hours means that if you do an intervention to treat cancer with HER2-directed therapy, you can very quickly assess response to therapy way earlier than traditional radiographic methods.”

Dr. Kasi cautioned, however, that this assay would not capture whether new mutations or HER2 loss occurred at the time of resistance. “A repeat tissue biopsy or a next-generation sequencing-based plasma-only assay would be required for that,” he said.
 

Implementation of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials

Dr. Kurzrock acknowledged that further research is needed to validate these results in larger, prospective cohorts before FoundationOne Tracker is adopted in the clinic. She noted, however, that this retrospective analysis, along with results from previous studies, provides a rationale for the use of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials.

“In some centers like ours, ctDNA monitoring is already part of our standard of care since not only does it help from a physician standpoint to have a more accurate and early assessment of response, but patients also appreciate the information gained from ctDNA dynamics,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that when radiographic findings are equivocal, ctDNA monitoring is an additional tool in their toolbox to help guide care.

He noted, however, that the cost is a challenge for implementing ctDNA monitoring as a complementary tool for real-time treatment response monitoring. “For serial monitoring, helping to reduce costs would be important in the long run,” he said in an interview. He added that obtaining sufficient tissue for testing using a tumor-informed assay can present a logistical challenge, at least for the first test. “You need sufficient tissue to make the barcode that you then follow along,” he explained.

“Developing guidelines through systematic studies about testing cadence would also be important. This would help establish whether ctDNA monitoring is helpful,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that in some situations, biological variables affect the shedding and detection of ctDNA beyond the assay — in those cases, ctDNA monitoring may not be helpful. “Like any test, it is not meant for every patient or clinical question,” Dr. Kasi concluded.

Dr. Kurzrock and Dr. Kasi reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — Monitoring a patient’s circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can provide valuable insights on early response to targeted therapies among patients with HER2-positive cancers.

This was the main finding of new data presented by study author Razelle Kurzrock, MD, at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

“We found that on-treatment ctDNA can detect progression before standard-of-care response assessments. These data suggest that monitoring ctDNA can provide clinicians with important prognostic information that may guide treatment decisions,” Dr. Kurzrock, professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said during her presentation.

Kurzrock_Razelle_WISC_web.jpg

Commenting on the clinical implications of these findings during an interview, she said the results suggest that ctDNA dynamics provide an early window into predicting response to targeted therapies in patients with HER2-altered cancers, confirming previous findings of the predictive value of ctDNA in other cancer types.

“Such monitoring may be useful in clinical trials and eventually in practice,” she added.
 

Need for new methods to predict early tumor response

Limitations of standard radiographic tumor assessments present challenges in determining clinical response, particularly for patients receiving targeted therapies.

During her talk, Dr. Kurzrock explained that although targeted therapies are effective for patients with specific molecular alterations, standard imaging assessments fail to uncover molecular-level changes within tumors, limiting the ability of clinicians to accurately assess a patient’s response to targeted therapies.

“In addition to limitations with imaging, patients and physicians want to know as soon as possible whether or not the agents are effective, especially if there are side effects,” Dr. Kurzrock during an interview. She added that monitoring early response may be especially important across tumor types, as HER2 therapies are increasingly being considered in the pan-cancer setting.

Commenting on the potential use of this method in other cancer types with HER2 alterations, Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, MS, noted that since the study relied on a tumor-informed assay, it would be applicable across diverse tumor types.

“It is less about tissue type but more about that particular patient’s tumor at that instant in time for which a unique barcode is created,” said Dr. Kasi, a medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the study.

In an interview, he added that the shedding and biology would affect the assay’s performance for some tissue types.
 

Design of patient-specific ctDNA assays

In this retrospective study, the researchers examined ctDNA dynamics in 58 patients with various HER2-positive tumor types, including breast, colorectal, and other solid malignancies harboring HER2 alterations. All the patients received combination HER2-targeted therapy with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in the phase 2 basket trial My Pathway (NCT02091141).

By leveraging comprehensive genomic profiling of each patient’s tumor, the researchers designed personalized ctDNA assays, tracking 2-16 tumor-specific genetic variants in the patients’ blood samples. FoundationOne Tracker was used to detect and quantify ctDNA at baseline and the third cycle of therapy (cycle 3 day 1, or C3D1).

During an interview, Dr. Kurzrock explained that FoundationOne Tracker is a personalized ctDNA monitoring assay that allows for the detection of ctDNA in plasma, enabling ongoing liquid-based monitoring and highly sensitive quantification of ctDNA levels as mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.

Among the 52 patients for whom personalized ctDNA assays were successfully designed, 48 (92.3%) had ctDNA data available at baseline, with a median of 100.7 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma. Most patients (89.6%) were deemed ctDNA-positive, with a median of 119.5 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.
 

Changes in ctDNA levels predict patient survival

The researchers found that patients who experienced a greater than 90% decline in ctDNA levels by the third treatment cycle had significantly longer overall survival (OS) than those with less than 90% ctDNA decline or any increase. According to data presented by Dr. Kurzrock, the median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 9.4 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = .007). These findings held true when the analysis was limited to the 14 patients with colorectal cancer, in which median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 10.2 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = 0.04).

Notably, the prognostic significance of ctDNA changes remained even among patients exhibiting radiographic stable disease, underscoring the limitations of relying solely on anatomic tumor measurements and highlighting the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments. In the subset of patients with radiographic stable disease, those with a greater than 90% ctDNA decline had significantly longer OS than those with less ctDNA reduction (not reached versus 9.4 months; P = .01).

“When used as a complement to imaging, tissue-informed ctDNA monitoring with FoundationOne Tracker can provide more accuracy than imaging alone,” Dr. Kurzrock noted in an interview.

Dr. Kasi echoed Dr. Kurzrock’s enthusiasm regarding the clinical usefulness of these findings, saying, “Not only can you see very early on in whom the ctDNA is going down and clearing, but you can also tell apart within the group who has ‘stable disease’ as to who is deriving more benefit.”

The researchers also observed that increases in on-treatment ctDNA levels often preceded radiographic evidence of disease progression by a median of 1.3 months. These findings highlight the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments, allowing us to detect treatment response and disease progression earlier than what is possible with imaging alone, Dr. Kurzrock explained during her talk. “This early warning signal could allow clinicians to intervene and modify treatment strategies before overt clinical deterioration,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Kasi highlighted that this high sensitivity and specificity and the short half-life of the tumor-informed ctDNA assay make this liquid biopsy of great clinical value. “The short half-life of a few hours means that if you do an intervention to treat cancer with HER2-directed therapy, you can very quickly assess response to therapy way earlier than traditional radiographic methods.”

Dr. Kasi cautioned, however, that this assay would not capture whether new mutations or HER2 loss occurred at the time of resistance. “A repeat tissue biopsy or a next-generation sequencing-based plasma-only assay would be required for that,” he said.
 

Implementation of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials

Dr. Kurzrock acknowledged that further research is needed to validate these results in larger, prospective cohorts before FoundationOne Tracker is adopted in the clinic. She noted, however, that this retrospective analysis, along with results from previous studies, provides a rationale for the use of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials.

“In some centers like ours, ctDNA monitoring is already part of our standard of care since not only does it help from a physician standpoint to have a more accurate and early assessment of response, but patients also appreciate the information gained from ctDNA dynamics,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that when radiographic findings are equivocal, ctDNA monitoring is an additional tool in their toolbox to help guide care.

He noted, however, that the cost is a challenge for implementing ctDNA monitoring as a complementary tool for real-time treatment response monitoring. “For serial monitoring, helping to reduce costs would be important in the long run,” he said in an interview. He added that obtaining sufficient tissue for testing using a tumor-informed assay can present a logistical challenge, at least for the first test. “You need sufficient tissue to make the barcode that you then follow along,” he explained.

“Developing guidelines through systematic studies about testing cadence would also be important. This would help establish whether ctDNA monitoring is helpful,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that in some situations, biological variables affect the shedding and detection of ctDNA beyond the assay — in those cases, ctDNA monitoring may not be helpful. “Like any test, it is not meant for every patient or clinical question,” Dr. Kasi concluded.

Dr. Kurzrock and Dr. Kasi reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — A liquid biopsy assay that combines a microRNA signature and a well-known biomarker for pancreatic cancer has demonstrated an accuracy of 97% for detecting stage I/II pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, the most common type of pancreatic cancer.

It is quite encouraging to know we have a blood test that could potentially find this disease early, said Ajay Goel, PhD, a molecular diagnostics specialist at City of Hope in Duarte, California, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

Dr. Goel and colleagues developed a signature for pancreatic cancer based on microRNAs identified in the exomes shed from pancreatic cancers and cell-free DNA markers found in the blood of patients with the disease.

Their initial assay tested blood samples for this signature in a training cohort of 252 people in Japan, approximately 60% of whom had pancreatic cancer. The rest were healthy controls. The assay was then tested in validation cohorts of 400 subjects, half with pancreatic cancer and half controls, in China and South Korea.

In both the initial and validation tests, the microRNA assay had an accuracy of about 90% for stage I/II pancreatic cancer, already far better than commercially available assays.

In an additional validation cohort in the United States with 139 patients with pancreatic cancer and 193 controls at six centers across the country, the researchers found that adding carbohydrate antigen 19-9 — a well-known marker of pancreatic cancer — to the assay boosted the test’s accuracy to 97%.

The test performed the same whether the tumor was in the head or tail of the pancreas.

“We are very excited about this data,” said Dr. Goel.

The technology was recently licensed to Pharus Diagnostics for commercial development, which will likely include a prospective screening trial, he told this news organization.

Because pancreatic cancer is fairly uncommon, Dr. Goel did not anticipate the test being used for general screening but rather for screening high-risk patients such as those with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, a family history of pancreatic cancer, or predisposing genetic mutations.

“It should be a very inexpensive test; it doesn’t cost us much to do in the lab,” he added.

Study moderator Ryan Corcoran, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal (GI) oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, saw the potential.

“As a GI oncologist, I know how lethal and hard to treat pancreatic cancer is,” he said. A test that could reliably detect pancreatic cancer early, with an acceptable false-positive rate, would be extremely useful.

“The cure rate is many, many times higher,” if we detect it before it has a chance to spread, he explained.

In the meantime, Dr. Goel said there’s more work to be done.

Almost 4,000 subjects have been enrolled in ongoing validation efforts, and efforts are underway to use the test to screen thousands of banked blood samples from the PLCO, a prospective cancer screening trial in healthy subjects.

The researchers also want to see if the test can distinguish benign pancreatic cysts from ones that turn cancerous.

The idea is to find the earliest possible signs of this disease to see if we can find it not “at the moment of clinical diagnosis, but possibly 6 months, 1 year, 2 years earlier” than with radiologic imaging, Dr. Goel said.

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute and others. Dr. Goel is a consultant for Pharus Diagnostics and Cellomics. Dr. Corcoran is a consultant for, has grants from, and/or holds stock in numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Revolution Medicines.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A liquid biopsy assay that combines a microRNA signature and a well-known biomarker for pancreatic cancer has demonstrated an accuracy of 97% for detecting stage I/II pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, the most common type of pancreatic cancer.

It is quite encouraging to know we have a blood test that could potentially find this disease early, said Ajay Goel, PhD, a molecular diagnostics specialist at City of Hope in Duarte, California, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

Dr. Goel and colleagues developed a signature for pancreatic cancer based on microRNAs identified in the exomes shed from pancreatic cancers and cell-free DNA markers found in the blood of patients with the disease.

Their initial assay tested blood samples for this signature in a training cohort of 252 people in Japan, approximately 60% of whom had pancreatic cancer. The rest were healthy controls. The assay was then tested in validation cohorts of 400 subjects, half with pancreatic cancer and half controls, in China and South Korea.

In both the initial and validation tests, the microRNA assay had an accuracy of about 90% for stage I/II pancreatic cancer, already far better than commercially available assays.

In an additional validation cohort in the United States with 139 patients with pancreatic cancer and 193 controls at six centers across the country, the researchers found that adding carbohydrate antigen 19-9 — a well-known marker of pancreatic cancer — to the assay boosted the test’s accuracy to 97%.

The test performed the same whether the tumor was in the head or tail of the pancreas.

“We are very excited about this data,” said Dr. Goel.

The technology was recently licensed to Pharus Diagnostics for commercial development, which will likely include a prospective screening trial, he told this news organization.

Because pancreatic cancer is fairly uncommon, Dr. Goel did not anticipate the test being used for general screening but rather for screening high-risk patients such as those with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, a family history of pancreatic cancer, or predisposing genetic mutations.

“It should be a very inexpensive test; it doesn’t cost us much to do in the lab,” he added.

Study moderator Ryan Corcoran, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal (GI) oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, saw the potential.

“As a GI oncologist, I know how lethal and hard to treat pancreatic cancer is,” he said. A test that could reliably detect pancreatic cancer early, with an acceptable false-positive rate, would be extremely useful.

“The cure rate is many, many times higher,” if we detect it before it has a chance to spread, he explained.

In the meantime, Dr. Goel said there’s more work to be done.

Almost 4,000 subjects have been enrolled in ongoing validation efforts, and efforts are underway to use the test to screen thousands of banked blood samples from the PLCO, a prospective cancer screening trial in healthy subjects.

The researchers also want to see if the test can distinguish benign pancreatic cysts from ones that turn cancerous.

The idea is to find the earliest possible signs of this disease to see if we can find it not “at the moment of clinical diagnosis, but possibly 6 months, 1 year, 2 years earlier” than with radiologic imaging, Dr. Goel said.

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute and others. Dr. Goel is a consultant for Pharus Diagnostics and Cellomics. Dr. Corcoran is a consultant for, has grants from, and/or holds stock in numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Revolution Medicines.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A liquid biopsy assay that combines a microRNA signature and a well-known biomarker for pancreatic cancer has demonstrated an accuracy of 97% for detecting stage I/II pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, the most common type of pancreatic cancer.

It is quite encouraging to know we have a blood test that could potentially find this disease early, said Ajay Goel, PhD, a molecular diagnostics specialist at City of Hope in Duarte, California, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

Dr. Goel and colleagues developed a signature for pancreatic cancer based on microRNAs identified in the exomes shed from pancreatic cancers and cell-free DNA markers found in the blood of patients with the disease.

Their initial assay tested blood samples for this signature in a training cohort of 252 people in Japan, approximately 60% of whom had pancreatic cancer. The rest were healthy controls. The assay was then tested in validation cohorts of 400 subjects, half with pancreatic cancer and half controls, in China and South Korea.

In both the initial and validation tests, the microRNA assay had an accuracy of about 90% for stage I/II pancreatic cancer, already far better than commercially available assays.

In an additional validation cohort in the United States with 139 patients with pancreatic cancer and 193 controls at six centers across the country, the researchers found that adding carbohydrate antigen 19-9 — a well-known marker of pancreatic cancer — to the assay boosted the test’s accuracy to 97%.

The test performed the same whether the tumor was in the head or tail of the pancreas.

“We are very excited about this data,” said Dr. Goel.

The technology was recently licensed to Pharus Diagnostics for commercial development, which will likely include a prospective screening trial, he told this news organization.

Because pancreatic cancer is fairly uncommon, Dr. Goel did not anticipate the test being used for general screening but rather for screening high-risk patients such as those with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, a family history of pancreatic cancer, or predisposing genetic mutations.

“It should be a very inexpensive test; it doesn’t cost us much to do in the lab,” he added.

Study moderator Ryan Corcoran, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal (GI) oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, saw the potential.

“As a GI oncologist, I know how lethal and hard to treat pancreatic cancer is,” he said. A test that could reliably detect pancreatic cancer early, with an acceptable false-positive rate, would be extremely useful.

“The cure rate is many, many times higher,” if we detect it before it has a chance to spread, he explained.

In the meantime, Dr. Goel said there’s more work to be done.

Almost 4,000 subjects have been enrolled in ongoing validation efforts, and efforts are underway to use the test to screen thousands of banked blood samples from the PLCO, a prospective cancer screening trial in healthy subjects.

The researchers also want to see if the test can distinguish benign pancreatic cysts from ones that turn cancerous.

The idea is to find the earliest possible signs of this disease to see if we can find it not “at the moment of clinical diagnosis, but possibly 6 months, 1 year, 2 years earlier” than with radiologic imaging, Dr. Goel said.

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute and others. Dr. Goel is a consultant for Pharus Diagnostics and Cellomics. Dr. Corcoran is a consultant for, has grants from, and/or holds stock in numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Revolution Medicines.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A novel multicancer early detection (MCED) blood test has demonstrated promising real-world results in detecting new cancers, including several cases of early-stage disease.

This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.

The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.

The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.

“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”

“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.

This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
 

Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing

Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.

During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.

She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
 

Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers

The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.

“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.

She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.

“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
 

Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers

Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.

“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.

During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.

“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
 

MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup

The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.

“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”

He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.

“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.

Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — A novel multicancer early detection (MCED) blood test has demonstrated promising real-world results in detecting new cancers, including several cases of early-stage disease.

This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.

The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.

The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.

“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”

“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.

This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
 

Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing

Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.

During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.

She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
 

Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers

The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.

“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.

She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.

“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
 

Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers

Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.

“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.

During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.

“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
 

MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup

The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.

“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”

He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.

“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.

Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — A novel multicancer early detection (MCED) blood test has demonstrated promising real-world results in detecting new cancers, including several cases of early-stage disease.

This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.

The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.

The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.

“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”

“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.

This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
 

Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing

Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.

During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.

She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
 

Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers

The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.

“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.

She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.

“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
 

Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers

Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.

“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.

During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.

“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
 

MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup

The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.

“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”

He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.

“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.

Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.