Myelodysplastic Syndrome

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.

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

TOPLINE: 

“Optimizing vaccination status should be considered a key element in the care of patients with cancer,” according to the authors of newly released American of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines. Optimizing vaccination status includes ensuring patients and household members receive recommended vaccines and adjusting this strategy depending on patients’ underlying immune status and their anticancer therapy.

METHODOLOGY: 

• “Infections are the second most common cause of noncancer-related mortality within the first year after a cancer diagnosis,” highlighting the need for oncologists to help ensure patients are up to date on key vaccines, an ASCO panel of experts wrote. 
• The expert panel reviewed the existing evidence and made recommendations to guide vaccination of adults with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies, including those who received hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), chimeric antigen T-cell (CAR T-cell) therapy and B-cell-depleting therapy, as well as guide vaccination of their household contacts. 
• The panel reviewed 102 publications, including 24 systematic reviews, 14 randomized controlled trials, and 64 nonrandomized studies. 
• Vaccines evaluated included those for COVID-19, influenza, hepatitis A and B, respiratory syncytial virus, Tdap, human papillomavirus, inactivated polio, and rabies. 
• The authors noted that patients’ underlying immune status and their cancer therapy could affect vaccination and revaccination strategies compared with recommendations for a general adult population without cancer. 

TAKEAWAY:

• The first step is to determine patients’ vaccination status and ensure adults newly diagnosed with cancer (as well as their household contacts) are up to date on seasonal and age or risk-based vaccines before starting their cancer treatment. If there are gaps, patients would ideally receive their vaccinations 2-4 weeks before their cancer treatment begins; however, non-live vaccines can be given during or after treatment. 
• The authors recommended complete revaccination of patients 6-12 months following HSCT to restore vaccine-induced immunity. The caveats: COVID-19, influenza, and pneumococcal vaccines can be given as early as 3 months after transplant, and patients should receive live and live attenuated vaccines only in the absence of active GVHD or immunosuppression and only ≥ 2 years following HSCT. 
• After CAR T-cell therapy directed against B-cell antigens (CD19/BCMA), patients should not receive influenza and COVID-19 vaccines sooner than 3 months after completing therapy and nonlive vaccines should not be given before 6 months. 
• After B-cell depleting therapy, revaccinate patients for COVID-19 only and no sooner than 6 months after completing treatment. Long-term survivors of hematologic cancer with or without active disease or those with long-standing B-cell dysfunction or hypogammaglobulinemia from therapy or B-cell lineage malignancies should receive the recommended nonlive vaccines. 
• Adults with solid and hematologic cancers traveling to an area of risk should follow the CDC standard recommendations for the destination. Hepatitis A, intramuscular typhoid vaccine, inactivated polio, hepatitis B, rabies, meningococcal, and nonlive Japanese encephalitis vaccines are safe. 

IN PRACTICE:

“Enhancing vaccine uptake against preventable illnesses will help the community and improve the quality of care for patients with cancer,” the authors said. “Clinicians play a critical role in helping the patient and caregiver to understand the potential benefits and risks of recommended vaccination[s]. In addition, clinicians should provide authoritative resources, such as fact-based vaccine informational handouts and Internet sites, to help patients and caregivers learn more about the topic.”

SOURCE:

Mini Kamboj, MD, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and Elise Kohn, MD, with the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, served as cochairs for the expert panel. The guideline was published March 18 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The evidence for some vaccines in cancer patients continues to evolve, particularly for new vaccines like COVID-19 vaccines.

DISCLOSURES:

This research had no commercial funding. Disclosures for the guideline panel are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

“Optimizing vaccination status should be considered a key element in the care of patients with cancer,” according to the authors of newly released American of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines. Optimizing vaccination status includes ensuring patients and household members receive recommended vaccines and adjusting this strategy depending on patients’ underlying immune status and their anticancer therapy.

METHODOLOGY: 

• “Infections are the second most common cause of noncancer-related mortality within the first year after a cancer diagnosis,” highlighting the need for oncologists to help ensure patients are up to date on key vaccines, an ASCO panel of experts wrote. 
• The expert panel reviewed the existing evidence and made recommendations to guide vaccination of adults with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies, including those who received hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), chimeric antigen T-cell (CAR T-cell) therapy and B-cell-depleting therapy, as well as guide vaccination of their household contacts. 
• The panel reviewed 102 publications, including 24 systematic reviews, 14 randomized controlled trials, and 64 nonrandomized studies. 
• Vaccines evaluated included those for COVID-19, influenza, hepatitis A and B, respiratory syncytial virus, Tdap, human papillomavirus, inactivated polio, and rabies. 
• The authors noted that patients’ underlying immune status and their cancer therapy could affect vaccination and revaccination strategies compared with recommendations for a general adult population without cancer. 

TAKEAWAY:

• The first step is to determine patients’ vaccination status and ensure adults newly diagnosed with cancer (as well as their household contacts) are up to date on seasonal and age or risk-based vaccines before starting their cancer treatment. If there are gaps, patients would ideally receive their vaccinations 2-4 weeks before their cancer treatment begins; however, non-live vaccines can be given during or after treatment. 
• The authors recommended complete revaccination of patients 6-12 months following HSCT to restore vaccine-induced immunity. The caveats: COVID-19, influenza, and pneumococcal vaccines can be given as early as 3 months after transplant, and patients should receive live and live attenuated vaccines only in the absence of active GVHD or immunosuppression and only ≥ 2 years following HSCT. 
• After CAR T-cell therapy directed against B-cell antigens (CD19/BCMA), patients should not receive influenza and COVID-19 vaccines sooner than 3 months after completing therapy and nonlive vaccines should not be given before 6 months. 
• After B-cell depleting therapy, revaccinate patients for COVID-19 only and no sooner than 6 months after completing treatment. Long-term survivors of hematologic cancer with or without active disease or those with long-standing B-cell dysfunction or hypogammaglobulinemia from therapy or B-cell lineage malignancies should receive the recommended nonlive vaccines. 
• Adults with solid and hematologic cancers traveling to an area of risk should follow the CDC standard recommendations for the destination. Hepatitis A, intramuscular typhoid vaccine, inactivated polio, hepatitis B, rabies, meningococcal, and nonlive Japanese encephalitis vaccines are safe. 

IN PRACTICE:

“Enhancing vaccine uptake against preventable illnesses will help the community and improve the quality of care for patients with cancer,” the authors said. “Clinicians play a critical role in helping the patient and caregiver to understand the potential benefits and risks of recommended vaccination[s]. In addition, clinicians should provide authoritative resources, such as fact-based vaccine informational handouts and Internet sites, to help patients and caregivers learn more about the topic.”

SOURCE:

Mini Kamboj, MD, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and Elise Kohn, MD, with the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, served as cochairs for the expert panel. The guideline was published March 18 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The evidence for some vaccines in cancer patients continues to evolve, particularly for new vaccines like COVID-19 vaccines.

DISCLOSURES:

This research had no commercial funding. Disclosures for the guideline panel are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

“Optimizing vaccination status should be considered a key element in the care of patients with cancer,” according to the authors of newly released American of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines. Optimizing vaccination status includes ensuring patients and household members receive recommended vaccines and adjusting this strategy depending on patients’ underlying immune status and their anticancer therapy.

METHODOLOGY: 

• “Infections are the second most common cause of noncancer-related mortality within the first year after a cancer diagnosis,” highlighting the need for oncologists to help ensure patients are up to date on key vaccines, an ASCO panel of experts wrote. 
• The expert panel reviewed the existing evidence and made recommendations to guide vaccination of adults with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies, including those who received hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), chimeric antigen T-cell (CAR T-cell) therapy and B-cell-depleting therapy, as well as guide vaccination of their household contacts. 
• The panel reviewed 102 publications, including 24 systematic reviews, 14 randomized controlled trials, and 64 nonrandomized studies. 
• Vaccines evaluated included those for COVID-19, influenza, hepatitis A and B, respiratory syncytial virus, Tdap, human papillomavirus, inactivated polio, and rabies. 
• The authors noted that patients’ underlying immune status and their cancer therapy could affect vaccination and revaccination strategies compared with recommendations for a general adult population without cancer. 

TAKEAWAY:

• The first step is to determine patients’ vaccination status and ensure adults newly diagnosed with cancer (as well as their household contacts) are up to date on seasonal and age or risk-based vaccines before starting their cancer treatment. If there are gaps, patients would ideally receive their vaccinations 2-4 weeks before their cancer treatment begins; however, non-live vaccines can be given during or after treatment. 
• The authors recommended complete revaccination of patients 6-12 months following HSCT to restore vaccine-induced immunity. The caveats: COVID-19, influenza, and pneumococcal vaccines can be given as early as 3 months after transplant, and patients should receive live and live attenuated vaccines only in the absence of active GVHD or immunosuppression and only ≥ 2 years following HSCT. 
• After CAR T-cell therapy directed against B-cell antigens (CD19/BCMA), patients should not receive influenza and COVID-19 vaccines sooner than 3 months after completing therapy and nonlive vaccines should not be given before 6 months. 
• After B-cell depleting therapy, revaccinate patients for COVID-19 only and no sooner than 6 months after completing treatment. Long-term survivors of hematologic cancer with or without active disease or those with long-standing B-cell dysfunction or hypogammaglobulinemia from therapy or B-cell lineage malignancies should receive the recommended nonlive vaccines. 
• Adults with solid and hematologic cancers traveling to an area of risk should follow the CDC standard recommendations for the destination. Hepatitis A, intramuscular typhoid vaccine, inactivated polio, hepatitis B, rabies, meningococcal, and nonlive Japanese encephalitis vaccines are safe. 

IN PRACTICE:

“Enhancing vaccine uptake against preventable illnesses will help the community and improve the quality of care for patients with cancer,” the authors said. “Clinicians play a critical role in helping the patient and caregiver to understand the potential benefits and risks of recommended vaccination[s]. In addition, clinicians should provide authoritative resources, such as fact-based vaccine informational handouts and Internet sites, to help patients and caregivers learn more about the topic.”

SOURCE:

Mini Kamboj, MD, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and Elise Kohn, MD, with the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, served as cochairs for the expert panel. The guideline was published March 18 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The evidence for some vaccines in cancer patients continues to evolve, particularly for new vaccines like COVID-19 vaccines.

DISCLOSURES:

This research had no commercial funding. Disclosures for the guideline panel are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While it is increasingly apparent that clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) is associated with conditions that can dramatically affect an individual’s risk for both malignant and cardiovascular diseases, and even death, it has not been clear what to do about it.

Now, researchers at the cutting edge of both oncologic and cardiovascular research are not only defining the prognosis of CHIP with greater granularity but are also finding clues to mitigate the risks.

“It’s a very, very rapidly moving area,” said Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, Director, Center for Cardiometabolic Disease Prevention, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, adding that, in many respects, “it’s a totally new area.”
 

CHIP Defined

CHIP was first recognized in the 1990s, when Martin F. Fey, MD, and colleagues from University and Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland, found X-linked inactivation in older women and suggested it was the result of acquired clonality later referred to as being of “indeterminate potential,” although that added syntax is currently a matter of debate.

Further work showed that, while somatic gene mutations occur spontaneously and are an unavoidable consequence of aging, their impact can vary widely.

The majority are “functionally silent,” while others may affect genes crucial to tissue self-renewal and differentiation, Lukasz Gondek, MD, PhD, assistant professor, Johns Hopkins Cellular and Molecular Medicine Program, Baltimore, and colleagues, noted in a recent review.

This results in the outgrowth of affected cells, known as clonal expansion, further dubbed clonal hematopoiesis when it occurs in hematopoietic tissue.

“Even though there’s clonal expansion, there’s no one CHIP,” Dr. Gondek said. “There are different flavors, and it depends on the genes that are mutated in the hematopoietic cells.”

He continued: “The older we get, the more mutations we acquire, and the probability that this mutation will hit the gene that’s responsible for expansion of the clone is higher.”

“That’s why CHIP is very uncommon in people under the age of 40, but it becomes more common in the fifth, sixth, and seventh decade of life and beyond.”

Indeed, it occurs in 10% to 15% of people aged 65 years or older, and in at least 30% of individuals by 80 years of age. In contrast, just 1% of those aged less than 50 years have the condition.

The most commonly affected genes, in around 80% of patients with CHIP, are the epigenetic regulators DNMT3A, TET2, and ASXL1; the DNA damage repair genes PPM1D and TP53; the regulatory tyrosine kinase JAK2; and the messenger RNA spliceosome components SF3B1 and SRSF2.

These mutations can have “two potential consequences,” explained Lachelle D. Weeks, MD, PhD, a hematologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

“One is that there’s a risk of blood cancer development,” as several of the mutations are known drivers of leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS).

Although the majority of individuals who acquire clonal hematopoiesis with age will never develop MDS, it nevertheless confers an 11- to 13-fold increased risk or an absolute risk of approximately 0.5%-1.0% per year.

Dr. Weeks continued that “the other side of it, though, is that those cells that have these mutations can also accelerate the risk of developing nonmalignant diseases like cardiovascular disease.”

This, Dr. Gondek explained, is because the mutations will be retained when the stem cells become monocytes or macrophages and, by either silencing or activating individual genes, they can make the cells more pro-inflammatory.

The result is that CHIP is associated with a marked increased risk for arteriosclerotic events such as stroke, myocardial infarction, decompensated heart failure, and cardiogenic shock, and worse outcomes after these events.

Researchers have shown that CHIP-related somatic mutations are associated with a twofold increased risk for coronary heart disease, a more than 2.5-fold increased risk for ischemic stroke, and a fourfold greater risk for myocardial infarction. A study from earlier this year found that CHIP also increases the risk for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction more than twofold.

There is even evidence to suggest that CHIP is associated with more severe acute kidney injury (AKI) and greater post-AKI kidney fibrosis.

The consequence is that individuals with CHIP face a 40% increased risk for all-cause mortality over 8 years.
 

No CHIP Test Yet

All of which has led for some to call for CHIP testing.

However, there are currently no screening programs for CHIP and no plans to introduce any. “So most CHIP is actually being diagnosed incidentally, when patients get genetic testing for some other indication,” said Dr. Weeks.

“The patients that we see in our CHIP clinic at Dana-Farber have genetic testing because they have low blood counts,” she continued, “and somebody’s trying to figure out: Do you have MDS?”

Other patients have genetic testing due to a family history of other cancers, “and so they’re getting hereditary cancer panels to determine if they have Lynch syndrome, or other hereditary syndromes,” which are picking up gene mutations associated with CHIP.

In other cases, study protocols are identifying CHIP “in various research contexts, and then as a follow-up, some of those patients end up with our clinic,” added Dr. Weeks.

Due to the associated risks for CHIP, “obviously everyone wants to know whether they are at risk for hematologic malignancy, or not,” said Dr. Gondek. To those ends, Dr. Weeks and colleagues developed the clonal hematopoiesis risk score (CHRS).

Published by NEJM Evidence in 2023, the score takes a range of predictive variables, such as age, number of mutations and their degree of associated risk, the variant allele fraction, and a series of blood indices to define patients as low-, intermediate-, or high-risk.

“A little over half” of high-risk individuals “will develop a blood cancer” such as MDS or acute myeloid leukemia (AML)” over the next 10 years, Weeks explained, while “for your intermediate risk folks, in that same time period, 7%-8% of them will develop a blood cancer.”

In low-risk individuals, the 10-year risk for MDS or AML is just 1%.

Dr. Weeks noted the “caveat that there are environmental factors or patient-specific issues that might increase your risk that are not considered in the calculator,” such the presence of hereditary cancer syndromes, “or if you’re getting chemotherapy for other cancers.”

From a cardiology point of view, Dr. Ballantyne said that, above all, “cardiologists need to be aware that some of these people are at increased risk for cardiovascular events.” This prompted a team including Dr. Weeks and Dr. Ballantyne to study whether the CHRS can also predict cardiovascular risk.

They found that people designated low-risk on the score faced an 8% increased risk for all-cause mortality vs individuals without CHIP during a median follow-up of 7 years. This rose to a 12% increase in intermediate-risk individuals.

And those deemed high-risk had a 2.5-fold increased risk for early mortality and a threefold higher risk for cardiovascular death.

Dr. Weeks noted: “We have not done a dedicated study to define a cardiovascular disease-specific calculator for CHIP,” but in the meantime, the CHRS is a “very reasonable way to estimate what someone’s risk of progression or adverse events is for cardiovascular disease.”

For clinicians, however, the key question becomes: What can be done to mitigate the risks, particularly in high-risk individuals?

For malignant conditions, the approach is to monitor patients, although “we and other centers are in the process of developing various interventional clinical trials to test various agents on their ability to improve blood counts, as well as to mitigate the risk of progression to overt blood cancer,” said Dr. Weeks.
 

Treat CHIP Like Lipoprotein(a)?

As for cardiovascular risk, Dr. Ballantyne believes that, because CHIP is an unmodifiable risk factor, an example to follow could be lipoprotein(a) (LP[a]).

“We don’t have a therapy specifically to target LP(a) yet, but we do know that the things that benefit in general,” he said, such as “taking a statin, lowering blood pressure into the optimal zone, diet ,and exercise.”

“What we do in our clinic, and what others have been doing,” Dr. Weeks added, “is for every patient who comes in and is diagnosed with CHIP, we are referring them to preventative cardiology for very aggressive preventative management.”

Finally, both Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Weeks agree that there are many potential innovations on the horizon.

“It’s pretty exciting in terms of beginning to understand some of the links between aging, cardiovascular disease, and cancer that we had not been thinking about,” Dr. Ballantyne said.

On the malignant side, Dr. Weeks is already working on a prospective study to determine how the risks associated with CHIP evolve when patients undergo chemotherapy and radiation for other cancers.

“That will be really exciting and will help us to develop a specific calculator in that context,” she said, adding that a cardiovascular-specific calculator “is also coming down the line.”

Dr. Weeks declared relationships with Abbvie, Vertex, and Sobi. Dr. Ballantyne declared a relationship with Ten Sixteen Bio, and funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While it is increasingly apparent that clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) is associated with conditions that can dramatically affect an individual’s risk for both malignant and cardiovascular diseases, and even death, it has not been clear what to do about it.

Now, researchers at the cutting edge of both oncologic and cardiovascular research are not only defining the prognosis of CHIP with greater granularity but are also finding clues to mitigate the risks.

“It’s a very, very rapidly moving area,” said Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, Director, Center for Cardiometabolic Disease Prevention, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, adding that, in many respects, “it’s a totally new area.”
 

CHIP Defined

CHIP was first recognized in the 1990s, when Martin F. Fey, MD, and colleagues from University and Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland, found X-linked inactivation in older women and suggested it was the result of acquired clonality later referred to as being of “indeterminate potential,” although that added syntax is currently a matter of debate.

Further work showed that, while somatic gene mutations occur spontaneously and are an unavoidable consequence of aging, their impact can vary widely.

The majority are “functionally silent,” while others may affect genes crucial to tissue self-renewal and differentiation, Lukasz Gondek, MD, PhD, assistant professor, Johns Hopkins Cellular and Molecular Medicine Program, Baltimore, and colleagues, noted in a recent review.

This results in the outgrowth of affected cells, known as clonal expansion, further dubbed clonal hematopoiesis when it occurs in hematopoietic tissue.

“Even though there’s clonal expansion, there’s no one CHIP,” Dr. Gondek said. “There are different flavors, and it depends on the genes that are mutated in the hematopoietic cells.”

He continued: “The older we get, the more mutations we acquire, and the probability that this mutation will hit the gene that’s responsible for expansion of the clone is higher.”

“That’s why CHIP is very uncommon in people under the age of 40, but it becomes more common in the fifth, sixth, and seventh decade of life and beyond.”

Indeed, it occurs in 10% to 15% of people aged 65 years or older, and in at least 30% of individuals by 80 years of age. In contrast, just 1% of those aged less than 50 years have the condition.

The most commonly affected genes, in around 80% of patients with CHIP, are the epigenetic regulators DNMT3A, TET2, and ASXL1; the DNA damage repair genes PPM1D and TP53; the regulatory tyrosine kinase JAK2; and the messenger RNA spliceosome components SF3B1 and SRSF2.

These mutations can have “two potential consequences,” explained Lachelle D. Weeks, MD, PhD, a hematologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

“One is that there’s a risk of blood cancer development,” as several of the mutations are known drivers of leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS).

Although the majority of individuals who acquire clonal hematopoiesis with age will never develop MDS, it nevertheless confers an 11- to 13-fold increased risk or an absolute risk of approximately 0.5%-1.0% per year.

Dr. Weeks continued that “the other side of it, though, is that those cells that have these mutations can also accelerate the risk of developing nonmalignant diseases like cardiovascular disease.”

This, Dr. Gondek explained, is because the mutations will be retained when the stem cells become monocytes or macrophages and, by either silencing or activating individual genes, they can make the cells more pro-inflammatory.

The result is that CHIP is associated with a marked increased risk for arteriosclerotic events such as stroke, myocardial infarction, decompensated heart failure, and cardiogenic shock, and worse outcomes after these events.

Researchers have shown that CHIP-related somatic mutations are associated with a twofold increased risk for coronary heart disease, a more than 2.5-fold increased risk for ischemic stroke, and a fourfold greater risk for myocardial infarction. A study from earlier this year found that CHIP also increases the risk for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction more than twofold.

There is even evidence to suggest that CHIP is associated with more severe acute kidney injury (AKI) and greater post-AKI kidney fibrosis.

The consequence is that individuals with CHIP face a 40% increased risk for all-cause mortality over 8 years.
 

No CHIP Test Yet

All of which has led for some to call for CHIP testing.

However, there are currently no screening programs for CHIP and no plans to introduce any. “So most CHIP is actually being diagnosed incidentally, when patients get genetic testing for some other indication,” said Dr. Weeks.

“The patients that we see in our CHIP clinic at Dana-Farber have genetic testing because they have low blood counts,” she continued, “and somebody’s trying to figure out: Do you have MDS?”

Other patients have genetic testing due to a family history of other cancers, “and so they’re getting hereditary cancer panels to determine if they have Lynch syndrome, or other hereditary syndromes,” which are picking up gene mutations associated with CHIP.

In other cases, study protocols are identifying CHIP “in various research contexts, and then as a follow-up, some of those patients end up with our clinic,” added Dr. Weeks.

Due to the associated risks for CHIP, “obviously everyone wants to know whether they are at risk for hematologic malignancy, or not,” said Dr. Gondek. To those ends, Dr. Weeks and colleagues developed the clonal hematopoiesis risk score (CHRS).

Published by NEJM Evidence in 2023, the score takes a range of predictive variables, such as age, number of mutations and their degree of associated risk, the variant allele fraction, and a series of blood indices to define patients as low-, intermediate-, or high-risk.

“A little over half” of high-risk individuals “will develop a blood cancer” such as MDS or acute myeloid leukemia (AML)” over the next 10 years, Weeks explained, while “for your intermediate risk folks, in that same time period, 7%-8% of them will develop a blood cancer.”

In low-risk individuals, the 10-year risk for MDS or AML is just 1%.

Dr. Weeks noted the “caveat that there are environmental factors or patient-specific issues that might increase your risk that are not considered in the calculator,” such the presence of hereditary cancer syndromes, “or if you’re getting chemotherapy for other cancers.”

From a cardiology point of view, Dr. Ballantyne said that, above all, “cardiologists need to be aware that some of these people are at increased risk for cardiovascular events.” This prompted a team including Dr. Weeks and Dr. Ballantyne to study whether the CHRS can also predict cardiovascular risk.

They found that people designated low-risk on the score faced an 8% increased risk for all-cause mortality vs individuals without CHIP during a median follow-up of 7 years. This rose to a 12% increase in intermediate-risk individuals.

And those deemed high-risk had a 2.5-fold increased risk for early mortality and a threefold higher risk for cardiovascular death.

Dr. Weeks noted: “We have not done a dedicated study to define a cardiovascular disease-specific calculator for CHIP,” but in the meantime, the CHRS is a “very reasonable way to estimate what someone’s risk of progression or adverse events is for cardiovascular disease.”

For clinicians, however, the key question becomes: What can be done to mitigate the risks, particularly in high-risk individuals?

For malignant conditions, the approach is to monitor patients, although “we and other centers are in the process of developing various interventional clinical trials to test various agents on their ability to improve blood counts, as well as to mitigate the risk of progression to overt blood cancer,” said Dr. Weeks.
 

Treat CHIP Like Lipoprotein(a)?

As for cardiovascular risk, Dr. Ballantyne believes that, because CHIP is an unmodifiable risk factor, an example to follow could be lipoprotein(a) (LP[a]).

“We don’t have a therapy specifically to target LP(a) yet, but we do know that the things that benefit in general,” he said, such as “taking a statin, lowering blood pressure into the optimal zone, diet ,and exercise.”

“What we do in our clinic, and what others have been doing,” Dr. Weeks added, “is for every patient who comes in and is diagnosed with CHIP, we are referring them to preventative cardiology for very aggressive preventative management.”

Finally, both Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Weeks agree that there are many potential innovations on the horizon.

“It’s pretty exciting in terms of beginning to understand some of the links between aging, cardiovascular disease, and cancer that we had not been thinking about,” Dr. Ballantyne said.

On the malignant side, Dr. Weeks is already working on a prospective study to determine how the risks associated with CHIP evolve when patients undergo chemotherapy and radiation for other cancers.

“That will be really exciting and will help us to develop a specific calculator in that context,” she said, adding that a cardiovascular-specific calculator “is also coming down the line.”

Dr. Weeks declared relationships with Abbvie, Vertex, and Sobi. Dr. Ballantyne declared a relationship with Ten Sixteen Bio, and funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While it is increasingly apparent that clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) is associated with conditions that can dramatically affect an individual’s risk for both malignant and cardiovascular diseases, and even death, it has not been clear what to do about it.

Now, researchers at the cutting edge of both oncologic and cardiovascular research are not only defining the prognosis of CHIP with greater granularity but are also finding clues to mitigate the risks.

“It’s a very, very rapidly moving area,” said Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, Director, Center for Cardiometabolic Disease Prevention, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, adding that, in many respects, “it’s a totally new area.”
 

CHIP Defined

CHIP was first recognized in the 1990s, when Martin F. Fey, MD, and colleagues from University and Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland, found X-linked inactivation in older women and suggested it was the result of acquired clonality later referred to as being of “indeterminate potential,” although that added syntax is currently a matter of debate.

Further work showed that, while somatic gene mutations occur spontaneously and are an unavoidable consequence of aging, their impact can vary widely.

The majority are “functionally silent,” while others may affect genes crucial to tissue self-renewal and differentiation, Lukasz Gondek, MD, PhD, assistant professor, Johns Hopkins Cellular and Molecular Medicine Program, Baltimore, and colleagues, noted in a recent review.

This results in the outgrowth of affected cells, known as clonal expansion, further dubbed clonal hematopoiesis when it occurs in hematopoietic tissue.

“Even though there’s clonal expansion, there’s no one CHIP,” Dr. Gondek said. “There are different flavors, and it depends on the genes that are mutated in the hematopoietic cells.”

He continued: “The older we get, the more mutations we acquire, and the probability that this mutation will hit the gene that’s responsible for expansion of the clone is higher.”

“That’s why CHIP is very uncommon in people under the age of 40, but it becomes more common in the fifth, sixth, and seventh decade of life and beyond.”

Indeed, it occurs in 10% to 15% of people aged 65 years or older, and in at least 30% of individuals by 80 years of age. In contrast, just 1% of those aged less than 50 years have the condition.

The most commonly affected genes, in around 80% of patients with CHIP, are the epigenetic regulators DNMT3A, TET2, and ASXL1; the DNA damage repair genes PPM1D and TP53; the regulatory tyrosine kinase JAK2; and the messenger RNA spliceosome components SF3B1 and SRSF2.

These mutations can have “two potential consequences,” explained Lachelle D. Weeks, MD, PhD, a hematologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

“One is that there’s a risk of blood cancer development,” as several of the mutations are known drivers of leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS).

Although the majority of individuals who acquire clonal hematopoiesis with age will never develop MDS, it nevertheless confers an 11- to 13-fold increased risk or an absolute risk of approximately 0.5%-1.0% per year.

Dr. Weeks continued that “the other side of it, though, is that those cells that have these mutations can also accelerate the risk of developing nonmalignant diseases like cardiovascular disease.”

This, Dr. Gondek explained, is because the mutations will be retained when the stem cells become monocytes or macrophages and, by either silencing or activating individual genes, they can make the cells more pro-inflammatory.

The result is that CHIP is associated with a marked increased risk for arteriosclerotic events such as stroke, myocardial infarction, decompensated heart failure, and cardiogenic shock, and worse outcomes after these events.

Researchers have shown that CHIP-related somatic mutations are associated with a twofold increased risk for coronary heart disease, a more than 2.5-fold increased risk for ischemic stroke, and a fourfold greater risk for myocardial infarction. A study from earlier this year found that CHIP also increases the risk for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction more than twofold.

There is even evidence to suggest that CHIP is associated with more severe acute kidney injury (AKI) and greater post-AKI kidney fibrosis.

The consequence is that individuals with CHIP face a 40% increased risk for all-cause mortality over 8 years.
 

No CHIP Test Yet

All of which has led for some to call for CHIP testing.

However, there are currently no screening programs for CHIP and no plans to introduce any. “So most CHIP is actually being diagnosed incidentally, when patients get genetic testing for some other indication,” said Dr. Weeks.

“The patients that we see in our CHIP clinic at Dana-Farber have genetic testing because they have low blood counts,” she continued, “and somebody’s trying to figure out: Do you have MDS?”

Other patients have genetic testing due to a family history of other cancers, “and so they’re getting hereditary cancer panels to determine if they have Lynch syndrome, or other hereditary syndromes,” which are picking up gene mutations associated with CHIP.

In other cases, study protocols are identifying CHIP “in various research contexts, and then as a follow-up, some of those patients end up with our clinic,” added Dr. Weeks.

Due to the associated risks for CHIP, “obviously everyone wants to know whether they are at risk for hematologic malignancy, or not,” said Dr. Gondek. To those ends, Dr. Weeks and colleagues developed the clonal hematopoiesis risk score (CHRS).

Published by NEJM Evidence in 2023, the score takes a range of predictive variables, such as age, number of mutations and their degree of associated risk, the variant allele fraction, and a series of blood indices to define patients as low-, intermediate-, or high-risk.

“A little over half” of high-risk individuals “will develop a blood cancer” such as MDS or acute myeloid leukemia (AML)” over the next 10 years, Weeks explained, while “for your intermediate risk folks, in that same time period, 7%-8% of them will develop a blood cancer.”

In low-risk individuals, the 10-year risk for MDS or AML is just 1%.

Dr. Weeks noted the “caveat that there are environmental factors or patient-specific issues that might increase your risk that are not considered in the calculator,” such the presence of hereditary cancer syndromes, “or if you’re getting chemotherapy for other cancers.”

From a cardiology point of view, Dr. Ballantyne said that, above all, “cardiologists need to be aware that some of these people are at increased risk for cardiovascular events.” This prompted a team including Dr. Weeks and Dr. Ballantyne to study whether the CHRS can also predict cardiovascular risk.

They found that people designated low-risk on the score faced an 8% increased risk for all-cause mortality vs individuals without CHIP during a median follow-up of 7 years. This rose to a 12% increase in intermediate-risk individuals.

And those deemed high-risk had a 2.5-fold increased risk for early mortality and a threefold higher risk for cardiovascular death.

Dr. Weeks noted: “We have not done a dedicated study to define a cardiovascular disease-specific calculator for CHIP,” but in the meantime, the CHRS is a “very reasonable way to estimate what someone’s risk of progression or adverse events is for cardiovascular disease.”

For clinicians, however, the key question becomes: What can be done to mitigate the risks, particularly in high-risk individuals?

For malignant conditions, the approach is to monitor patients, although “we and other centers are in the process of developing various interventional clinical trials to test various agents on their ability to improve blood counts, as well as to mitigate the risk of progression to overt blood cancer,” said Dr. Weeks.
 

Treat CHIP Like Lipoprotein(a)?

As for cardiovascular risk, Dr. Ballantyne believes that, because CHIP is an unmodifiable risk factor, an example to follow could be lipoprotein(a) (LP[a]).

“We don’t have a therapy specifically to target LP(a) yet, but we do know that the things that benefit in general,” he said, such as “taking a statin, lowering blood pressure into the optimal zone, diet ,and exercise.”

“What we do in our clinic, and what others have been doing,” Dr. Weeks added, “is for every patient who comes in and is diagnosed with CHIP, we are referring them to preventative cardiology for very aggressive preventative management.”

Finally, both Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Weeks agree that there are many potential innovations on the horizon.

“It’s pretty exciting in terms of beginning to understand some of the links between aging, cardiovascular disease, and cancer that we had not been thinking about,” Dr. Ballantyne said.

On the malignant side, Dr. Weeks is already working on a prospective study to determine how the risks associated with CHIP evolve when patients undergo chemotherapy and radiation for other cancers.

“That will be really exciting and will help us to develop a specific calculator in that context,” she said, adding that a cardiovascular-specific calculator “is also coming down the line.”

Dr. Weeks declared relationships with Abbvie, Vertex, and Sobi. Dr. Ballantyne declared a relationship with Ten Sixteen Bio, and funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A group of 16 Democratic legislators on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has demanded in a letter that the drugmaker Pfizer present details on how the company is responding to shortages of the generic chemotherapy drugs carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate.

In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.

A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”

What is the basis for concern?

All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.

What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?

The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.

What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?

By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”

Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?

Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”

The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.

What is being demanded of Pfizer?

Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.

A group of 16 Democratic legislators on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has demanded in a letter that the drugmaker Pfizer present details on how the company is responding to shortages of the generic chemotherapy drugs carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate.

In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.

A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”

What is the basis for concern?

All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.

What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?

The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.

What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?

By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”

Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?

Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”

The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.

What is being demanded of Pfizer?

Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.

A group of 16 Democratic legislators on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has demanded in a letter that the drugmaker Pfizer present details on how the company is responding to shortages of the generic chemotherapy drugs carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate.

In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.

A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”

What is the basis for concern?

All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.

What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?

The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.

What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?

By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”

Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?

Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”

The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.

What is being demanded of Pfizer?

Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.

Talk about bloodlines: In the Brodsky family, the field of hematology tied father to son. Now a grandson is heading into the “family business.” This extraordinary legacy ties the late Isadore Brodsky, a pioneering hematologist, to his son Robert A. Brodsky, current president of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), and grandson Max Brodsky, now a second-year hematology fellow.

In interviews, Robert and Max Brodsky spoke about the appeal of hematology and the threads that unite them with family members who came before. The elder Brodsky also talked about the work that’s made him the proudest during his year-long presidency at ASH.

166208_photo_web.JPG

Robert A. Brodsky is professor of medicine and director of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He is stepping down as ASH president at its annual meeting in San Diego, December 9-12. Here are excerpts from our conversation:

Q: What drew your dad into medicine?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: He was going through his medical training at the University of Pennsylvania, then the Vietnam War came, and he served at the National Institutes of Health in what they referred to as the Yellow Berets. He got very interested in retroviruses and viruses that lead to cancer, which was a foreign idea at the time. This led him into hematology, stem cells, and myeloproliferative disorders.

He had a very successful career in hematology and just loved it. He performed the first bone marrow transplant in the tristate area of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey.

Q: What did he like about hematology specifically?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: It’s a fascinating field, probably the most scientific area of medicine. It’s so easy to access blood and bone marrow. You can grow it, you can look at it, you can see it. It’s hard to do that with a lung, heart, kidney, or brain. Even back then, they could translate some of the science. What really drew him to hematology — and me, for that matter — was looking at a blood smear or bone marrow and being able to make a diagnosis. The other thing is the personal aspect. Hematologists tend to like the long-term relationships that they develop with their patients over the years.

Q: What were the biggest transformations in hematology during his career?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: Bone marrow transplant had the biggest impact, and it’s an area he really pioneered. He was very much involved in some of the early bone marrow transplants and was very close with Dr. George W. Santos, who was at Johns Hopkins and one of the big pioneers in that area as well. To be able to take marrow from related donors, get it to grow without the patient rejecting it, and cure a disease, was really huge. When he started doing this, patients had no other option. To see patients be cured was incredibly satisfying to him.

Q: How did you end up following your father into hematology?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: My brother Jeff, who’s a surgeon and older than me, knew he was going into medicine — probably about 3 hours after he was born. I came to it late. I was a political science major as an undergrad and really trying to figure out what I wanted to do. In my sophomore year, I decided I wanted to give this a shot. My dad worked very hard, long hours, but you could tell he loved what he did. And he was never absent, always involved in our lives and still made time for everyone. At some level, that must have had an influence on me.

Q: What has changed in hematology over your 30-plus years in medicine?

A: When I look back at when I was a fellow, it’s just mind-boggling how many lethal or life-threatening diseases are now pretty easy to treat. I studied disorders like aplastic anemia, which was very fatal. Without treatment, patients would die within a year. Now, over 95% are cured. Another classic examples is chronic myeloid leukemia disorder. Back when I was a fellow, the median survival for CML was maybe 4 to 6 years. Now, Kareem Abdul Jabbar has had this[for about 15 years]. Also a lot of hematologic malignancies are being cured with immunotherapy approaches. We’ve figured out the pathophysiology of a lot of diseases, and there are incredible genetic diagnostic assays.

Q: What was your father’s relationship with ASH?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: The first ASH meeting was 1958 in Atlantic City, New Jersey. There were 300 hematologists there, and my dad was one of them. We’re going to have over 30,000 people in San Diego, which is a record, and another 5,000 or 6,000 virtually.

Q: As ASH president, what are your biggest accomplishments when it comes to addressing the shortage of hematologists and other issues?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH is investing $19 million to develop fellowships with a focus on hematology.* This is going to put lots of new hematologists into the workforce over the next 5 to 10 years. We’ve also been working on the Maintenance of Certification [MOC] process to make it less onerous on physicians. It’s really a bad process, and it’s not just ASH [that’s complaining], it’s all of medicine. We’re hearing this from GI, endocrine, renal and the general internists.

[In a September 2023 letter to the American Board of Internal Medicine’s president and chief officer, Dr. Brodsky wrote that “ASH continues to support the importance of lifelong learning for hematologists via a program that is evidence-based, relevant to one’s practice, and transparent; however, these three basic requirements are not met by the current ABIM MOC program.” ASH is calling for a new and reformed MOC program.]

Q: What convinced ASH to expand its journals by adding Blood Neoplasia and Blood Vessels, Thrombosis & Hemostasis?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH has two flagship journals right now, Blood and Blood Advances, and they’re both very competitive, high-impact journals. It turns out there’s not enough room to publish all the new science, and they end up rejecting the majority of the submissions that come to them. We decided to keep these journals in the ASH family because there’s some fantastic clinical trials and science that would be going elsewhere.

Dr. Brodsky’s sons both have medical degrees: Brett Brodsky, DO, is a resident at Virginia Commonwealth University who plans to become a sports medicine specialist, and Max Brodsky, MD, is a second-year fellow in hematology at Johns Hopkins University.

In an interview, Max Brodsky, MD, talked about the roots of his family’s dedication to caring for others.

Q: What drew you to hematology?

Dr. Max Brodsky: I’ve watched both my dad and my grandfather be leaders in the field as both physicians and scientists, and that was very inspirational for me to see. And I went to a medical school [Drexel University College of Medicine] that my dad went to and where my grandfather was on faculty. That was like walking in their footsteps in a major way.

Q: What do you hope to focus on as a hematologist?

Dr. Max Brodsky: I’m still working through that, but I am really interested in thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Patients used to not be able to survive their initial episodes, but now we have good treatments and are able to follow them as outpatients. With this whole cohort of patients that are surviving, we’re seeing that they have more health problems — more heart disease, more strokes and kidney disease. There’s a whole growing field exploring how to treat these patients for their lifespan.

Q: How do you deal with the reality that more of your patients will die than in some other medical fields?

Dr. Max Brodsky: It is challenging, but I also see those moments as opportunities to support patients and families. I’m good at connecting to patients and families who are in scary situations. I’ve always had that skill of putting people at ease, making people feel calm, knowing that they can trust me, and I have their best interests in mind.

Q: Why do you think your family is so committed to medicine?

Dr. Max Brodsky: We’re Jewish, and looking to help the world is one of the main core values of Judaism. The Torah expects us to make this world better.  Actually, my great-grandfather Max, whom I’m named after, used to dig tunnels to help people escape Ukraine and get to freedom. He was always looking to help others as well. My great-grandmother was shot crossing the border escaping from Ukraine, and he carried her the whole way to the boat. They lived in very poor West Philadelphia and poured everything into my grandfather. He became a great doctor, and his sons and his grandchildren are in medicine today.

*Correction, 12/11: A previous version of this story misstated the amount of ASH’s $19 million investment in developing fellowships with a focus on hematology.

Talk about bloodlines: In the Brodsky family, the field of hematology tied father to son. Now a grandson is heading into the “family business.” This extraordinary legacy ties the late Isadore Brodsky, a pioneering hematologist, to his son Robert A. Brodsky, current president of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), and grandson Max Brodsky, now a second-year hematology fellow.

In interviews, Robert and Max Brodsky spoke about the appeal of hematology and the threads that unite them with family members who came before. The elder Brodsky also talked about the work that’s made him the proudest during his year-long presidency at ASH.

166208_photo_web.JPG

Robert A. Brodsky is professor of medicine and director of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He is stepping down as ASH president at its annual meeting in San Diego, December 9-12. Here are excerpts from our conversation:

Q: What drew your dad into medicine?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: He was going through his medical training at the University of Pennsylvania, then the Vietnam War came, and he served at the National Institutes of Health in what they referred to as the Yellow Berets. He got very interested in retroviruses and viruses that lead to cancer, which was a foreign idea at the time. This led him into hematology, stem cells, and myeloproliferative disorders.

He had a very successful career in hematology and just loved it. He performed the first bone marrow transplant in the tristate area of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey.

Q: What did he like about hematology specifically?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: It’s a fascinating field, probably the most scientific area of medicine. It’s so easy to access blood and bone marrow. You can grow it, you can look at it, you can see it. It’s hard to do that with a lung, heart, kidney, or brain. Even back then, they could translate some of the science. What really drew him to hematology — and me, for that matter — was looking at a blood smear or bone marrow and being able to make a diagnosis. The other thing is the personal aspect. Hematologists tend to like the long-term relationships that they develop with their patients over the years.

Q: What were the biggest transformations in hematology during his career?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: Bone marrow transplant had the biggest impact, and it’s an area he really pioneered. He was very much involved in some of the early bone marrow transplants and was very close with Dr. George W. Santos, who was at Johns Hopkins and one of the big pioneers in that area as well. To be able to take marrow from related donors, get it to grow without the patient rejecting it, and cure a disease, was really huge. When he started doing this, patients had no other option. To see patients be cured was incredibly satisfying to him.

Q: How did you end up following your father into hematology?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: My brother Jeff, who’s a surgeon and older than me, knew he was going into medicine — probably about 3 hours after he was born. I came to it late. I was a political science major as an undergrad and really trying to figure out what I wanted to do. In my sophomore year, I decided I wanted to give this a shot. My dad worked very hard, long hours, but you could tell he loved what he did. And he was never absent, always involved in our lives and still made time for everyone. At some level, that must have had an influence on me.

Q: What has changed in hematology over your 30-plus years in medicine?

A: When I look back at when I was a fellow, it’s just mind-boggling how many lethal or life-threatening diseases are now pretty easy to treat. I studied disorders like aplastic anemia, which was very fatal. Without treatment, patients would die within a year. Now, over 95% are cured. Another classic examples is chronic myeloid leukemia disorder. Back when I was a fellow, the median survival for CML was maybe 4 to 6 years. Now, Kareem Abdul Jabbar has had this[for about 15 years]. Also a lot of hematologic malignancies are being cured with immunotherapy approaches. We’ve figured out the pathophysiology of a lot of diseases, and there are incredible genetic diagnostic assays.

Q: What was your father’s relationship with ASH?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: The first ASH meeting was 1958 in Atlantic City, New Jersey. There were 300 hematologists there, and my dad was one of them. We’re going to have over 30,000 people in San Diego, which is a record, and another 5,000 or 6,000 virtually.

Q: As ASH president, what are your biggest accomplishments when it comes to addressing the shortage of hematologists and other issues?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH is investing $19 million to develop fellowships with a focus on hematology.* This is going to put lots of new hematologists into the workforce over the next 5 to 10 years. We’ve also been working on the Maintenance of Certification [MOC] process to make it less onerous on physicians. It’s really a bad process, and it’s not just ASH [that’s complaining], it’s all of medicine. We’re hearing this from GI, endocrine, renal and the general internists.

[In a September 2023 letter to the American Board of Internal Medicine’s president and chief officer, Dr. Brodsky wrote that “ASH continues to support the importance of lifelong learning for hematologists via a program that is evidence-based, relevant to one’s practice, and transparent; however, these three basic requirements are not met by the current ABIM MOC program.” ASH is calling for a new and reformed MOC program.]

Q: What convinced ASH to expand its journals by adding Blood Neoplasia and Blood Vessels, Thrombosis & Hemostasis?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH has two flagship journals right now, Blood and Blood Advances, and they’re both very competitive, high-impact journals. It turns out there’s not enough room to publish all the new science, and they end up rejecting the majority of the submissions that come to them. We decided to keep these journals in the ASH family because there’s some fantastic clinical trials and science that would be going elsewhere.

Dr. Brodsky’s sons both have medical degrees: Brett Brodsky, DO, is a resident at Virginia Commonwealth University who plans to become a sports medicine specialist, and Max Brodsky, MD, is a second-year fellow in hematology at Johns Hopkins University.

In an interview, Max Brodsky, MD, talked about the roots of his family’s dedication to caring for others.

Q: What drew you to hematology?

Dr. Max Brodsky: I’ve watched both my dad and my grandfather be leaders in the field as both physicians and scientists, and that was very inspirational for me to see. And I went to a medical school [Drexel University College of Medicine] that my dad went to and where my grandfather was on faculty. That was like walking in their footsteps in a major way.

Q: What do you hope to focus on as a hematologist?

Dr. Max Brodsky: I’m still working through that, but I am really interested in thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Patients used to not be able to survive their initial episodes, but now we have good treatments and are able to follow them as outpatients. With this whole cohort of patients that are surviving, we’re seeing that they have more health problems — more heart disease, more strokes and kidney disease. There’s a whole growing field exploring how to treat these patients for their lifespan.

Q: How do you deal with the reality that more of your patients will die than in some other medical fields?

Dr. Max Brodsky: It is challenging, but I also see those moments as opportunities to support patients and families. I’m good at connecting to patients and families who are in scary situations. I’ve always had that skill of putting people at ease, making people feel calm, knowing that they can trust me, and I have their best interests in mind.

Q: Why do you think your family is so committed to medicine?

Dr. Max Brodsky: We’re Jewish, and looking to help the world is one of the main core values of Judaism. The Torah expects us to make this world better.  Actually, my great-grandfather Max, whom I’m named after, used to dig tunnels to help people escape Ukraine and get to freedom. He was always looking to help others as well. My great-grandmother was shot crossing the border escaping from Ukraine, and he carried her the whole way to the boat. They lived in very poor West Philadelphia and poured everything into my grandfather. He became a great doctor, and his sons and his grandchildren are in medicine today.

*Correction, 12/11: A previous version of this story misstated the amount of ASH’s $19 million investment in developing fellowships with a focus on hematology.

Talk about bloodlines: In the Brodsky family, the field of hematology tied father to son. Now a grandson is heading into the “family business.” This extraordinary legacy ties the late Isadore Brodsky, a pioneering hematologist, to his son Robert A. Brodsky, current president of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), and grandson Max Brodsky, now a second-year hematology fellow.

In interviews, Robert and Max Brodsky spoke about the appeal of hematology and the threads that unite them with family members who came before. The elder Brodsky also talked about the work that’s made him the proudest during his year-long presidency at ASH.

166208_photo_web.JPG

Robert A. Brodsky is professor of medicine and director of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He is stepping down as ASH president at its annual meeting in San Diego, December 9-12. Here are excerpts from our conversation:

Q: What drew your dad into medicine?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: He was going through his medical training at the University of Pennsylvania, then the Vietnam War came, and he served at the National Institutes of Health in what they referred to as the Yellow Berets. He got very interested in retroviruses and viruses that lead to cancer, which was a foreign idea at the time. This led him into hematology, stem cells, and myeloproliferative disorders.

He had a very successful career in hematology and just loved it. He performed the first bone marrow transplant in the tristate area of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey.

Q: What did he like about hematology specifically?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: It’s a fascinating field, probably the most scientific area of medicine. It’s so easy to access blood and bone marrow. You can grow it, you can look at it, you can see it. It’s hard to do that with a lung, heart, kidney, or brain. Even back then, they could translate some of the science. What really drew him to hematology — and me, for that matter — was looking at a blood smear or bone marrow and being able to make a diagnosis. The other thing is the personal aspect. Hematologists tend to like the long-term relationships that they develop with their patients over the years.

Q: What were the biggest transformations in hematology during his career?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: Bone marrow transplant had the biggest impact, and it’s an area he really pioneered. He was very much involved in some of the early bone marrow transplants and was very close with Dr. George W. Santos, who was at Johns Hopkins and one of the big pioneers in that area as well. To be able to take marrow from related donors, get it to grow without the patient rejecting it, and cure a disease, was really huge. When he started doing this, patients had no other option. To see patients be cured was incredibly satisfying to him.

Q: How did you end up following your father into hematology?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: My brother Jeff, who’s a surgeon and older than me, knew he was going into medicine — probably about 3 hours after he was born. I came to it late. I was a political science major as an undergrad and really trying to figure out what I wanted to do. In my sophomore year, I decided I wanted to give this a shot. My dad worked very hard, long hours, but you could tell he loved what he did. And he was never absent, always involved in our lives and still made time for everyone. At some level, that must have had an influence on me.

Q: What has changed in hematology over your 30-plus years in medicine?

A: When I look back at when I was a fellow, it’s just mind-boggling how many lethal or life-threatening diseases are now pretty easy to treat. I studied disorders like aplastic anemia, which was very fatal. Without treatment, patients would die within a year. Now, over 95% are cured. Another classic examples is chronic myeloid leukemia disorder. Back when I was a fellow, the median survival for CML was maybe 4 to 6 years. Now, Kareem Abdul Jabbar has had this[for about 15 years]. Also a lot of hematologic malignancies are being cured with immunotherapy approaches. We’ve figured out the pathophysiology of a lot of diseases, and there are incredible genetic diagnostic assays.

Q: What was your father’s relationship with ASH?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: The first ASH meeting was 1958 in Atlantic City, New Jersey. There were 300 hematologists there, and my dad was one of them. We’re going to have over 30,000 people in San Diego, which is a record, and another 5,000 or 6,000 virtually.

Q: As ASH president, what are your biggest accomplishments when it comes to addressing the shortage of hematologists and other issues?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH is investing $19 million to develop fellowships with a focus on hematology.* This is going to put lots of new hematologists into the workforce over the next 5 to 10 years. We’ve also been working on the Maintenance of Certification [MOC] process to make it less onerous on physicians. It’s really a bad process, and it’s not just ASH [that’s complaining], it’s all of medicine. We’re hearing this from GI, endocrine, renal and the general internists.

[In a September 2023 letter to the American Board of Internal Medicine’s president and chief officer, Dr. Brodsky wrote that “ASH continues to support the importance of lifelong learning for hematologists via a program that is evidence-based, relevant to one’s practice, and transparent; however, these three basic requirements are not met by the current ABIM MOC program.” ASH is calling for a new and reformed MOC program.]

Q: What convinced ASH to expand its journals by adding Blood Neoplasia and Blood Vessels, Thrombosis & Hemostasis?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH has two flagship journals right now, Blood and Blood Advances, and they’re both very competitive, high-impact journals. It turns out there’s not enough room to publish all the new science, and they end up rejecting the majority of the submissions that come to them. We decided to keep these journals in the ASH family because there’s some fantastic clinical trials and science that would be going elsewhere.

Dr. Brodsky’s sons both have medical degrees: Brett Brodsky, DO, is a resident at Virginia Commonwealth University who plans to become a sports medicine specialist, and Max Brodsky, MD, is a second-year fellow in hematology at Johns Hopkins University.

In an interview, Max Brodsky, MD, talked about the roots of his family’s dedication to caring for others.

Q: What drew you to hematology?

Dr. Max Brodsky: I’ve watched both my dad and my grandfather be leaders in the field as both physicians and scientists, and that was very inspirational for me to see. And I went to a medical school [Drexel University College of Medicine] that my dad went to and where my grandfather was on faculty. That was like walking in their footsteps in a major way.

Q: What do you hope to focus on as a hematologist?

Dr. Max Brodsky: I’m still working through that, but I am really interested in thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Patients used to not be able to survive their initial episodes, but now we have good treatments and are able to follow them as outpatients. With this whole cohort of patients that are surviving, we’re seeing that they have more health problems — more heart disease, more strokes and kidney disease. There’s a whole growing field exploring how to treat these patients for their lifespan.

Q: How do you deal with the reality that more of your patients will die than in some other medical fields?

Dr. Max Brodsky: It is challenging, but I also see those moments as opportunities to support patients and families. I’m good at connecting to patients and families who are in scary situations. I’ve always had that skill of putting people at ease, making people feel calm, knowing that they can trust me, and I have their best interests in mind.

Q: Why do you think your family is so committed to medicine?

Dr. Max Brodsky: We’re Jewish, and looking to help the world is one of the main core values of Judaism. The Torah expects us to make this world better.  Actually, my great-grandfather Max, whom I’m named after, used to dig tunnels to help people escape Ukraine and get to freedom. He was always looking to help others as well. My great-grandmother was shot crossing the border escaping from Ukraine, and he carried her the whole way to the boat. They lived in very poor West Philadelphia and poured everything into my grandfather. He became a great doctor, and his sons and his grandchildren are in medicine today.

*Correction, 12/11: A previous version of this story misstated the amount of ASH’s $19 million investment in developing fellowships with a focus on hematology.

Health equity, sickle cell disease (SCD), and the thoughtful use of artificial intelligence (AI) and social media are among the key themes to be presented at the Dec. 9-12 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) in San Diego, association leaders told reporters in a media preview session.

Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and secretary of ASH, added that insight into actual patient experiences also will be a major theme at ASH 2023.

“There is a huge growth in research on outcomes and focusing on using real-world data and how important that is,” Dr. Dunbar said. “Academic research and hematology is really focusing on patient-reported outcomes and how care is delivered in a real-world setting – actually looking at what matters to patients. Are they alive in a certain number of years? And how are they feeling?”

As an example, Dr. Dunbar pointed to an abstract that examined clinical databases in Canada and found that real-world outcomes in multiple myeloma treatments were much worse than those in the original clinical trials for the therapies. Patients reached relapse 44% faster and their overall survival was 75% worse.

In the media briefing, ASH chair of communications Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, noted that patients in these types of clinical trials “are just these pristine specimens of human beings except for the cancer that’s being treated.”

Dr. Dunbar agreed, noting that “patients who are able to enroll in clinical trials are more likely to be able to show up at the treatment center at the right time and for every dose, have transportation, and afford drugs to prevent side effects. They might stay on the drug for longer, or they have nurses who are always encouraging them of how to make it through a toxicity.”

Hematologists and patients should consider randomized controlled trials to be “the best possible outcome, and perhaps adjust their thinking if an individual patient is older, sicker, or less able to follow a regimen exactly,” she said.

Another highlighted study linked worse outcomes in African-Americans with pediatric acute myeloid leukemia to genetic traits that are more common in that population. The traits “likely explain at least in part the worst outcomes in Black patients in prior studies and on some regimens,” Dr. Dunbar said.

She added that the findings emphasize how testing for genetic variants and biomarkers that impact outcomes should be performed “instead of assuming that a certain dose should be given simply based on perceived or reported race or ethnicity.”

ASH President Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, highlighted an abstract that reported on the use of AI as a clinical decision support tool to differentiate two easily confused conditions — prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis and essential thrombocythemia.

AI “is a tool that’s going to help pathologists make more accurate and faster diagnoses,” he said. He also spotlighted an abstract about the use of “social media listening” to understand the experiences of patients with SCD and their caregivers. “There can be a lot of misuse and waste of time with social media, but they used this in a way to try and gain insight as to what’s really important to the patients and the caregiver.”

Also, in regard to SCD, Dr. Dunbar pointed to a study that reports on outcomes in patients who received lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel) gene therapy for up to 60 months. Both this treatment and a CRISPR-based therapy called exa-cel  “appear to result in comparable very impressive efficacy in terms of pain crises and organ dysfunction,” she said. “The hurdle is going to be figuring out how to deliver what will be very expensive and complicated therapies — but likely curative — therapies to patients.”

Another study to be presented at ASH — coauthored by Dr. Brodsky — shows promising results from reduced-intensity haploidentical bone marrow transplantation in adults with severe SCD. Results were similar to those seen with bone marrow from matched siblings, Dr. Sekeres said.

He added that more clarity is needed about new treatment options for SCD, perhaps through a “randomized trial where patients upfront get a haploidentical bone marrow transplant or fully matched bone marrow transplant. Then other patients are randomized to some of these other, newer technology therapies, and we follow them over time. We’re looking not only for overall survival but complications of the therapy itself and how many patients relapse from the treatment.”

Health equity, sickle cell disease (SCD), and the thoughtful use of artificial intelligence (AI) and social media are among the key themes to be presented at the Dec. 9-12 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) in San Diego, association leaders told reporters in a media preview session.

Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and secretary of ASH, added that insight into actual patient experiences also will be a major theme at ASH 2023.

“There is a huge growth in research on outcomes and focusing on using real-world data and how important that is,” Dr. Dunbar said. “Academic research and hematology is really focusing on patient-reported outcomes and how care is delivered in a real-world setting – actually looking at what matters to patients. Are they alive in a certain number of years? And how are they feeling?”

As an example, Dr. Dunbar pointed to an abstract that examined clinical databases in Canada and found that real-world outcomes in multiple myeloma treatments were much worse than those in the original clinical trials for the therapies. Patients reached relapse 44% faster and their overall survival was 75% worse.

In the media briefing, ASH chair of communications Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, noted that patients in these types of clinical trials “are just these pristine specimens of human beings except for the cancer that’s being treated.”

Dr. Dunbar agreed, noting that “patients who are able to enroll in clinical trials are more likely to be able to show up at the treatment center at the right time and for every dose, have transportation, and afford drugs to prevent side effects. They might stay on the drug for longer, or they have nurses who are always encouraging them of how to make it through a toxicity.”

Hematologists and patients should consider randomized controlled trials to be “the best possible outcome, and perhaps adjust their thinking if an individual patient is older, sicker, or less able to follow a regimen exactly,” she said.

Another highlighted study linked worse outcomes in African-Americans with pediatric acute myeloid leukemia to genetic traits that are more common in that population. The traits “likely explain at least in part the worst outcomes in Black patients in prior studies and on some regimens,” Dr. Dunbar said.

She added that the findings emphasize how testing for genetic variants and biomarkers that impact outcomes should be performed “instead of assuming that a certain dose should be given simply based on perceived or reported race or ethnicity.”

ASH President Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, highlighted an abstract that reported on the use of AI as a clinical decision support tool to differentiate two easily confused conditions — prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis and essential thrombocythemia.

AI “is a tool that’s going to help pathologists make more accurate and faster diagnoses,” he said. He also spotlighted an abstract about the use of “social media listening” to understand the experiences of patients with SCD and their caregivers. “There can be a lot of misuse and waste of time with social media, but they used this in a way to try and gain insight as to what’s really important to the patients and the caregiver.”

Also, in regard to SCD, Dr. Dunbar pointed to a study that reports on outcomes in patients who received lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel) gene therapy for up to 60 months. Both this treatment and a CRISPR-based therapy called exa-cel  “appear to result in comparable very impressive efficacy in terms of pain crises and organ dysfunction,” she said. “The hurdle is going to be figuring out how to deliver what will be very expensive and complicated therapies — but likely curative — therapies to patients.”

Another study to be presented at ASH — coauthored by Dr. Brodsky — shows promising results from reduced-intensity haploidentical bone marrow transplantation in adults with severe SCD. Results were similar to those seen with bone marrow from matched siblings, Dr. Sekeres said.

He added that more clarity is needed about new treatment options for SCD, perhaps through a “randomized trial where patients upfront get a haploidentical bone marrow transplant or fully matched bone marrow transplant. Then other patients are randomized to some of these other, newer technology therapies, and we follow them over time. We’re looking not only for overall survival but complications of the therapy itself and how many patients relapse from the treatment.”

Health equity, sickle cell disease (SCD), and the thoughtful use of artificial intelligence (AI) and social media are among the key themes to be presented at the Dec. 9-12 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) in San Diego, association leaders told reporters in a media preview session.

Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and secretary of ASH, added that insight into actual patient experiences also will be a major theme at ASH 2023.

“There is a huge growth in research on outcomes and focusing on using real-world data and how important that is,” Dr. Dunbar said. “Academic research and hematology is really focusing on patient-reported outcomes and how care is delivered in a real-world setting – actually looking at what matters to patients. Are they alive in a certain number of years? And how are they feeling?”

As an example, Dr. Dunbar pointed to an abstract that examined clinical databases in Canada and found that real-world outcomes in multiple myeloma treatments were much worse than those in the original clinical trials for the therapies. Patients reached relapse 44% faster and their overall survival was 75% worse.

In the media briefing, ASH chair of communications Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, noted that patients in these types of clinical trials “are just these pristine specimens of human beings except for the cancer that’s being treated.”

Dr. Dunbar agreed, noting that “patients who are able to enroll in clinical trials are more likely to be able to show up at the treatment center at the right time and for every dose, have transportation, and afford drugs to prevent side effects. They might stay on the drug for longer, or they have nurses who are always encouraging them of how to make it through a toxicity.”

Hematologists and patients should consider randomized controlled trials to be “the best possible outcome, and perhaps adjust their thinking if an individual patient is older, sicker, or less able to follow a regimen exactly,” she said.

Another highlighted study linked worse outcomes in African-Americans with pediatric acute myeloid leukemia to genetic traits that are more common in that population. The traits “likely explain at least in part the worst outcomes in Black patients in prior studies and on some regimens,” Dr. Dunbar said.

She added that the findings emphasize how testing for genetic variants and biomarkers that impact outcomes should be performed “instead of assuming that a certain dose should be given simply based on perceived or reported race or ethnicity.”

ASH President Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, highlighted an abstract that reported on the use of AI as a clinical decision support tool to differentiate two easily confused conditions — prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis and essential thrombocythemia.

AI “is a tool that’s going to help pathologists make more accurate and faster diagnoses,” he said. He also spotlighted an abstract about the use of “social media listening” to understand the experiences of patients with SCD and their caregivers. “There can be a lot of misuse and waste of time with social media, but they used this in a way to try and gain insight as to what’s really important to the patients and the caregiver.”

Also, in regard to SCD, Dr. Dunbar pointed to a study that reports on outcomes in patients who received lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel) gene therapy for up to 60 months. Both this treatment and a CRISPR-based therapy called exa-cel  “appear to result in comparable very impressive efficacy in terms of pain crises and organ dysfunction,” she said. “The hurdle is going to be figuring out how to deliver what will be very expensive and complicated therapies — but likely curative — therapies to patients.”

Another study to be presented at ASH — coauthored by Dr. Brodsky — shows promising results from reduced-intensity haploidentical bone marrow transplantation in adults with severe SCD. Results were similar to those seen with bone marrow from matched siblings, Dr. Sekeres said.

He added that more clarity is needed about new treatment options for SCD, perhaps through a “randomized trial where patients upfront get a haploidentical bone marrow transplant or fully matched bone marrow transplant. Then other patients are randomized to some of these other, newer technology therapies, and we follow them over time. We’re looking not only for overall survival but complications of the therapy itself and how many patients relapse from the treatment.”

The Food and Drug Administration approved a new colony-stimulating factor, efbemalenograstim alfa (Ryzneuta, Evive Biotech), to decrease the incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia, in adults with nonmyeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anticancer drugs.

Efbemalenograstim joins other agents already on the U.S. market, including pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), that aim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

The approval of efbemalenograstim was based on two randomized trials. The first included 122 women with either metastatic or nonmetastatic breast cancer who were receiving doxorubicin and docetaxel. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either one subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or placebo on the second day of their first chemotherapy cycle. All patients received efbemalenograstim on the second day of cycles two through four.

The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the first cycle was 1.4 days with efbemalenograstim versus 4.3 days with placebo. Only 4.8% of patients who received efbemalenograstim experienced chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, compared with 25.6% who received the placebo.

The new agent went up against pegfilgrastim in the second trial, which included 393 women who received docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as treatment for nonmetastatic breast cancer. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a single subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or pegfilgrastim on the second day of each cycle.

During the first cycle, patients in both arms of the trial experienced a mean of 0.2 days of grade 4 neutropenia.

The most common side effects associated with efbemalenograstim were nausea, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Similar to pegfilgrastim’s label, efbemalenograstim’s label warns of possible splenic rupture, respiratory distress syndrome, sickle cell crisis, and other serious adverse events.

The FDA recommends a dose of 20 mg subcutaneous once per chemotherapy cycle.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a new colony-stimulating factor, efbemalenograstim alfa (Ryzneuta, Evive Biotech), to decrease the incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia, in adults with nonmyeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anticancer drugs.

Efbemalenograstim joins other agents already on the U.S. market, including pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), that aim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

The approval of efbemalenograstim was based on two randomized trials. The first included 122 women with either metastatic or nonmetastatic breast cancer who were receiving doxorubicin and docetaxel. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either one subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or placebo on the second day of their first chemotherapy cycle. All patients received efbemalenograstim on the second day of cycles two through four.

The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the first cycle was 1.4 days with efbemalenograstim versus 4.3 days with placebo. Only 4.8% of patients who received efbemalenograstim experienced chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, compared with 25.6% who received the placebo.

The new agent went up against pegfilgrastim in the second trial, which included 393 women who received docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as treatment for nonmetastatic breast cancer. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a single subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or pegfilgrastim on the second day of each cycle.

During the first cycle, patients in both arms of the trial experienced a mean of 0.2 days of grade 4 neutropenia.

The most common side effects associated with efbemalenograstim were nausea, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Similar to pegfilgrastim’s label, efbemalenograstim’s label warns of possible splenic rupture, respiratory distress syndrome, sickle cell crisis, and other serious adverse events.

The FDA recommends a dose of 20 mg subcutaneous once per chemotherapy cycle.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a new colony-stimulating factor, efbemalenograstim alfa (Ryzneuta, Evive Biotech), to decrease the incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia, in adults with nonmyeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anticancer drugs.

Efbemalenograstim joins other agents already on the U.S. market, including pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), that aim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

The approval of efbemalenograstim was based on two randomized trials. The first included 122 women with either metastatic or nonmetastatic breast cancer who were receiving doxorubicin and docetaxel. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either one subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or placebo on the second day of their first chemotherapy cycle. All patients received efbemalenograstim on the second day of cycles two through four.

The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the first cycle was 1.4 days with efbemalenograstim versus 4.3 days with placebo. Only 4.8% of patients who received efbemalenograstim experienced chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, compared with 25.6% who received the placebo.

The new agent went up against pegfilgrastim in the second trial, which included 393 women who received docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as treatment for nonmetastatic breast cancer. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a single subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or pegfilgrastim on the second day of each cycle.

During the first cycle, patients in both arms of the trial experienced a mean of 0.2 days of grade 4 neutropenia.

The most common side effects associated with efbemalenograstim were nausea, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Similar to pegfilgrastim’s label, efbemalenograstim’s label warns of possible splenic rupture, respiratory distress syndrome, sickle cell crisis, and other serious adverse events.

The FDA recommends a dose of 20 mg subcutaneous once per chemotherapy cycle.

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