Finasteride has been found to reduce the risk of low-grade prostate cancer but to have no impact on overall survival. The long-term adverse and beneficial consequences of finasteride have not been ...examined.
We used a linkage between data from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) and Medicare claims. Patients were examined by randomized study arm (finasteride vs placebo for 7 years) for long-term consequences of the intervention, including cardiac, endocrine, and sexual dysfunction, depression, diabetes, and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)-related events. To examine time to events, we used cumulative incidence and Cox regression, adjusting for covariates. All statistical tests were two-sided.
A total of 13 935 of 18 880 participants (73.8%) in the PCPT were linked to Medicare claims, with median Medicare follow-up assessment time of 16 years from trial registration. There were no differences between finasteride and placebo participants with respect to important baseline factors or amount of Medicare follow-up assessment time. Finasteride patients had a 10% higher risk of new claims for depression (hazard ratio HR = 1.10, 95% confidence interval CI = 1.01 to 1.19, P = .04) and a 6% lower risk of procedures for BPH-related events (primarily lower urinary tract symptoms; HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.89 to 1.00, P = .03). No other differences were found in rates of long-term consequences of intervention in the two study arms.
Finasteride use is associated with reduced need for procedures for relief of BPH-related events and a modest increase in depression. Overall, there is little need to worry about long-term noncancer consequences of finasteride use in those who use it for treatment of symptomatic BPH, hair growth, or prevention of cancer.
Advances in cancer treatments have led to nearly 17 million survivors in the US today. Cardiovascular complications attributed to cancer treatments are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in ...cancer survivors. In response, NCI and NHLBI held 2 workshops and issued funding opportunities to strengthen research on cardiotoxicity. A representative portfolio of NIH grants categorizing basic, interventional, and observational projects is presented. Compared with anthracyclines, research on radiation therapy and newer treatments is underrepresented. Multidisciplinary collaborative research that considers the cardiotoxicity stage and optimizes the balance between cardiovascular risk and cancer-treatment benefit might support continued improvements in cancer outcomes.
The patient‐reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO‐CTCAE) complements capture of symptomatic adverse events (AEs) by clinicians. Previous trials have ...typically used a limited subset of relevant symptomatic AEs to reduce patient burden. We aimed to determine the feasibility of administering all 80 AEs included in the PRO‐CTCAE library by approaching consecutive patients enrolled in a large academic phase I program at three points in time. Here, we report a preplanned analysis after enrolling the first 20 patients. All items were answered on 51 of 56 potential visits (adherence 91%). Three (5%) additional PRO‐CTCAE assessments were partially completed, and two (4%) were missed because of conflicting appointments. No patient withdrew consent or chose not to complete the assessments once enrolled on study. Future trials of experimental drugs that incorporate the PRO‐CTCAE should consider using this unselected approach to identify adverse events more completely.
Evidence shows that subjective toxicities are underreported in patients with cancer and that collection of this information directly from patients can improve the reliability and precision of symptomatic adverse events detection. This study reported the feasibility of using the complete set of subjective symptoms from PRO‐CTCAE library developed by the National Cancer Institute in patients on phase I clinical trials.
Sorafenib inhibits Raf kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor. Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody targeted against VEGF. We hypothesized that the complementary inhibition of ...VEGF signaling would have synergistic therapeutic effects.
Patients had advanced solid tumors, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1, and good end-organ function. A phase I dose-escalation trial of sorafenib and bevacizumab was initiated at below-recommended single-agent doses because of possible overlapping toxicity: sorafenib 200 mg orally twice daily and bevacizumab intravenously at 5 mg/kg (dose level DL 1) or 10 mg/kg (DL2) every 2 weeks. Additional patients were enrolled at the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD).
Thirty-nine patients were treated. DL1 was the MTD and administered in cohort 2 (N = 27). Dose-limiting toxicity in DL2 was grade 3 proteinuria and thrombocytopenia. Adverse events included hypertension, hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea, transaminitis, and fatigue. Partial responses (PRs) were seen in six (43%) of 13 patients with ovarian cancer (response duration range, 4 to 22+ months) and one of three patients with renal cell cancer (response duration, 14 months). PR or disease stabilization >or= 4 months (median, 6 months; range, 4 to 22+ months) was seen in 22 (59%) of 37 assessable patients. The majority (74%) required sorafenib dose reduction to 200 mg/d at a median of four cycles (range, one to 12 cycles).
Combination therapy with sorafenib and bevacizumab has promising clinical activity, especially in patients with ovarian cancer. The rapidity and frequency of sorafenib dose reductions indicates that sorafenib at 200 mg twice daily with bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks may not be tolerable long term, and alternate sorafenib dosing schedules should be explored.
The Division of Cancer Prevention in the NCI sponsored a Roundtable with primary care providers (PCP) to determine barriers for integrating cancer prevention within primary care and discuss potential ...opportunities to overcome these barriers. The goals were to: (i) assess the cancer risk assessment tools available to PCPs; (ii) gather information on use of cancer prevention resources; and (iii) understand the needs of PCPs to facilitate the implementation of cancer prevention interventions beyond routine screening and interventions. The Roundtable discussion focused on challenges and potential research opportunities related to: (i) cancer risk assessment and management of high-risk individuals; (ii) cancer prevention interventions for risk reduction; (iii) electronic health records/electronic medical records; and (iv) patient engagement and information dissemination. Time constraints and inconsistent/evolving clinical guidelines are major barriers to effective implementation of cancer prevention within primary care. Social determinants of health are important factors that influence patients' adoption of recommended preventive interventions. Research is needed to determine the best means for implementation of cancer prevention across various communities and clinical settings. Additional studies are needed to develop tools that can help providers collect clinical data that can enable them to assess patients' cancer risk and implement appropriate preventive interventions.
A mortality benefit from screening for ovarian cancer has never been demonstrated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the screening outcomes for different histologic subtypes of ovarian cancers.
...Women in the screening arm of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Screening Trial underwent CA-125 and transvaginal ultrasound annually for 3–5 years. We compared screening test characteristics (including overdiagnosis) and outcomes by tumour type (type II versus other) and study arm (screening versus usual care).
Of 78,215 women randomised, 496 women were diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Of the tumours that were characterised (n = 413; 83%), 74% (n = 305) were type II versus 26% other (n = 108). Among screened patients, 70% of tumours were type II compared to 78% in usual care (p = 0.09). Within the screening arm, 29% of type II tumours were screen detected compared to 54% of the others (p < 0.01). The sensitivity of screening was 65% for type II tumours versus 86% for other types (p = 0.02). 15% of type II screen-detected tumours were stage I/II, compared to 81% of other tumours (p < 0.01). The overdiagnosis rate was lower for type II compared to other tumours (28.2% versus 72.2%; p < 0.01). Ovarian cancer–specific survival was worse for type II tumours compared to others (p < 0.01). Survival was similar for type II (p = 0.74) or other types (p = 0.32) regardless of study arm.
Test characteristics of screening for ovarian cancer differed for type II tumours compared to other ovarian tumours. Type II tumours were less likely to be screen diagnosed, early stage at diagnosis or overdiagnosed.
•Test characteristics of screening for ovarian cancer with CA-125 and ultrasound differed for the detection of type II tumours.•Screening led to overdiagnosis of less aggressive tumours.•Survival from ovarian cancer was similar in screened an unscreened patients when stratified by tumour type.
Acceptability and uptake of cancer preventive interventions is associated with physician recommendation, which is dependent on physician familiarity with available preventive options. The goal of ...this study is to evaluate cancer prevention perceptions, understanding of breast and ovarian cancer risk factors, and prescribing behaviors of primary care physicians.
We conducted cross-sectional. Web-based survey of 750 primary care physicians (250 each for obstetrics/gynecology, internal medicine, and family medicine) in the United States. Survey respondents were recruited from an opt-in health care provider panel.
Perception of importance and the practice of recommending general and cancer-specific preventive screenings and interventions significantly differed by provider type. These perceptions and behaviors reflected the demographics of the population that the primary care physicians see within their respective practices. The majority of respondents recognized genetic/hereditary risk factors for breast or ovarian cancer, while epidemiologic or clinical risk factors were less frequently recognized. Prescribing behaviors were related to familiarity with the interventions, with physicians indicating that they more frequently reinforced a specialist's recommendation rather than prescribed a preventive intervention.
Cancer prevention perceptions, recognition of cancer risk factors, and prescribing behaviors differ among practice types and were related to familiarity with preventive options. Cancer prevention education and risk assessment resources should be more widely available to primary care physicians.
Tremendous progress in treatment and outcomes has been achieved across the whole range of haematological malignancies in the past two decades. Although cure rates for aggressive malignancies have ...increased, nowhere has progress been more impactful than in the management of typically incurable forms of haematological cancer. Population-based data have shown that 5-year survival for patients with chronic myelogenous and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, indolent B-cell lymphomas, and multiple myeloma has improved markedly. This improvement is a result of substantial changes in disease management strategies in these malignancies. Several haematological malignancies are now chronic diseases that are treated with continuously administered therapies that have unique side-effects over time. In this Commission, an international panel of clinicians, clinical investigators, methodologists, regulators, and patient advocates representing a broad range of academic and clinical cancer expertise examine adverse events in haematological malignancies. The issues pertaining to assessment of adverse events examined here are relevant to a range of malignancies and have been, to date, underexplored in the context of haematology. The aim of this Commission is to improve toxicity assessment in clinical trials in haematological malignancies by critically examining the current process of adverse event assessment, highlighting the need to incorporate patient-reported outcomes, addressing issues unique to stem-cell transplantation and survivorship, appraising challenges in regulatory approval, and evaluating toxicity in real-world patients. We have identified a range of priority issues in these areas and defined potential solutions to challenges associated with adverse event assessment in the current treatment landscape of haematological malignancies.
•Survey to assess processing protocols of gynecologic surgical pathology specimens•Majority of pathology labs perform SEE-Fim on risk-reducing specimens.•Most labs perform SEE-Fim on benign specimens ...if first sections are suspicious.•Results suggest detailed processing of fallopian tubes pathology specimens.
Many high-grade serous carcinomas initiate in fallopian tubes as serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC), a microscopic lesion identified with specimen processing according to the Sectioning and Extensive Examination of the Fimbria protocol (SEE-Fim). Given that the tubal origin of these cancers was recently recognized, we conducted a survey of pathology practices to assess processing protocols that are applied to gynecologic surgical pathology specimens in clinical contexts in which finding STIC might have different implications.
We distributed a survey electronically to the American Society for Clinical Pathology list-serve to determine practice patterns and compared results between practice types by chi-square (χ2) tests for categorical variables. Free text comments were qualitatively reviewed.
Survey responses were received from 159 laboratories (72 academic, 87 non-academic), which reported diverse specimen volumes and percentage of gynecologic samples. Overall, 74.1% of laboratories reported performing SEE-Fim for risk-reducing surgical specimens (82.5% academic versus 65.7% non-academic, p < 0.05). In specimens from surgery for benign indications in which initial microscopic sections showed an unanticipated suspicious finding, 75.9% of laboratories reported using SEE-Fim to process the remainder of the specimen (94.8% academic versus 76.4% non-academic, p < 0.01), and 84.6% submitted the entire fimbriae.
Changes in the theories of pathogenesis of high-grade serous carcinoma have led to implementation of pathology specimen processing protocols that include detailed analysis of the fallopian tubes. These results have implications for interpreting trends in cancer incidence data and considering the feasibility of developing a bank of gynecologic tissues containing STIC or early cancer precursors.
PDF
