Surgical Oncology

TOPLINE:

Omitting axillary lymph node dissection does not increase the risk for recurrence or compromise 5-year overall survival outcomes in patients with early-stage, node-negative breast cancer with sentinel-node metastases undergoing surgery and radiation therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• A growing body of evidence has indicated that patients with one or two positive sentinel nodes undergoing breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy can skip axillary lymph node dissection and achieve similar outcomes compared with patients receiving axillary dissection.
• However, these earlier studies had notable limitations, such as limited statistical power, uncertain nodal radiotherapy target volumes, and minimal data on relevant clinical subgroups.
• To fill the gaps in the literature, the researchers conducted a trial with a large, inclusive cohort of patients with node-negative stage T1-T3 breast cancer who had one or two sentinel-node macrometastases and had undergone a mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery.
• The trial randomized 2540 patients to either completion axillary lymph node dissection (n = 1205) or sentinel-node biopsy only (n = 1335). Nearly 90% of patients received adjuvant radiation therapy, and the majority also received systematic therapy.
• Earlier recurrence-free survival findings and patient-reported outcomes were reported last December. The researchers now reported overall survival findings as well as secondary endpoints of breast cancer-specific survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers reported 191 recurrences or deaths over a median follow-up of 46.8 months; 62 patients (4.6%) in the sentinel-node biopsy–only group died, and 69 patients (5.7%) in the dissection group died.
• The biopsy-only group had an estimated 5-year overall survival of 92.9% compared with 92.0% in the dissection group and an estimated 5-year breast cancer-specific survival of 97.1% vs 96.6% in the dissection group.
• The estimated 5-year recurrence-free survival was 89.7% in the biopsy-only group vs 88.7% in the dissection group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66-1.19).
• This non-inferior difference held across all prespecified patient subgroups, except in patients with estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive disease, in which sentinel biopsy alone appeared to be better (HR, 0.26).

IN PRACTICE:

“This trial provides robust evidence that the omission of completion axillary-lymph-node dissection was safe in patients with clinically node-negative T1, T2, or T3 breast cancer and one or two sentinel-node macrometastases who received adjuvant systemic treatment and radiation therapy according to national guidelines,” the authors concluded.

“It is clear that the role of axillary dissection is rapidly disappearing,” Kandace P. McGuire, MD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “However, axillary staging continues to be vital with regard to decisions about appropriate breast cancer therapy.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Jana de Boniface, MD, PhD, from Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, alongside the accompanying editorial by Dr. McGuire.

LIMITATIONS:

The study limitations include unavailable radiation therapy details for comparison, low male recruitment hindering sex-based analysis, short follow-up for luminal subtype breast cancer, unmet enrollment targets, and higher withdrawal rates in the dissection group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, Nordic Cancer Union, and Swedish Breast Cancer Association. One coauthor reported receiving consultancy fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Omitting axillary lymph node dissection does not increase the risk for recurrence or compromise 5-year overall survival outcomes in patients with early-stage, node-negative breast cancer with sentinel-node metastases undergoing surgery and radiation therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• A growing body of evidence has indicated that patients with one or two positive sentinel nodes undergoing breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy can skip axillary lymph node dissection and achieve similar outcomes compared with patients receiving axillary dissection.
• However, these earlier studies had notable limitations, such as limited statistical power, uncertain nodal radiotherapy target volumes, and minimal data on relevant clinical subgroups.
• To fill the gaps in the literature, the researchers conducted a trial with a large, inclusive cohort of patients with node-negative stage T1-T3 breast cancer who had one or two sentinel-node macrometastases and had undergone a mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery.
• The trial randomized 2540 patients to either completion axillary lymph node dissection (n = 1205) or sentinel-node biopsy only (n = 1335). Nearly 90% of patients received adjuvant radiation therapy, and the majority also received systematic therapy.
• Earlier recurrence-free survival findings and patient-reported outcomes were reported last December. The researchers now reported overall survival findings as well as secondary endpoints of breast cancer-specific survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers reported 191 recurrences or deaths over a median follow-up of 46.8 months; 62 patients (4.6%) in the sentinel-node biopsy–only group died, and 69 patients (5.7%) in the dissection group died.
• The biopsy-only group had an estimated 5-year overall survival of 92.9% compared with 92.0% in the dissection group and an estimated 5-year breast cancer-specific survival of 97.1% vs 96.6% in the dissection group.
• The estimated 5-year recurrence-free survival was 89.7% in the biopsy-only group vs 88.7% in the dissection group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66-1.19).
• This non-inferior difference held across all prespecified patient subgroups, except in patients with estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive disease, in which sentinel biopsy alone appeared to be better (HR, 0.26).

IN PRACTICE:

“This trial provides robust evidence that the omission of completion axillary-lymph-node dissection was safe in patients with clinically node-negative T1, T2, or T3 breast cancer and one or two sentinel-node macrometastases who received adjuvant systemic treatment and radiation therapy according to national guidelines,” the authors concluded.

“It is clear that the role of axillary dissection is rapidly disappearing,” Kandace P. McGuire, MD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “However, axillary staging continues to be vital with regard to decisions about appropriate breast cancer therapy.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Jana de Boniface, MD, PhD, from Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, alongside the accompanying editorial by Dr. McGuire.

LIMITATIONS:

The study limitations include unavailable radiation therapy details for comparison, low male recruitment hindering sex-based analysis, short follow-up for luminal subtype breast cancer, unmet enrollment targets, and higher withdrawal rates in the dissection group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, Nordic Cancer Union, and Swedish Breast Cancer Association. One coauthor reported receiving consultancy fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Omitting axillary lymph node dissection does not increase the risk for recurrence or compromise 5-year overall survival outcomes in patients with early-stage, node-negative breast cancer with sentinel-node metastases undergoing surgery and radiation therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• A growing body of evidence has indicated that patients with one or two positive sentinel nodes undergoing breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy can skip axillary lymph node dissection and achieve similar outcomes compared with patients receiving axillary dissection.
• However, these earlier studies had notable limitations, such as limited statistical power, uncertain nodal radiotherapy target volumes, and minimal data on relevant clinical subgroups.
• To fill the gaps in the literature, the researchers conducted a trial with a large, inclusive cohort of patients with node-negative stage T1-T3 breast cancer who had one or two sentinel-node macrometastases and had undergone a mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery.
• The trial randomized 2540 patients to either completion axillary lymph node dissection (n = 1205) or sentinel-node biopsy only (n = 1335). Nearly 90% of patients received adjuvant radiation therapy, and the majority also received systematic therapy.
• Earlier recurrence-free survival findings and patient-reported outcomes were reported last December. The researchers now reported overall survival findings as well as secondary endpoints of breast cancer-specific survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers reported 191 recurrences or deaths over a median follow-up of 46.8 months; 62 patients (4.6%) in the sentinel-node biopsy–only group died, and 69 patients (5.7%) in the dissection group died.
• The biopsy-only group had an estimated 5-year overall survival of 92.9% compared with 92.0% in the dissection group and an estimated 5-year breast cancer-specific survival of 97.1% vs 96.6% in the dissection group.
• The estimated 5-year recurrence-free survival was 89.7% in the biopsy-only group vs 88.7% in the dissection group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66-1.19).
• This non-inferior difference held across all prespecified patient subgroups, except in patients with estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive disease, in which sentinel biopsy alone appeared to be better (HR, 0.26).

IN PRACTICE:

“This trial provides robust evidence that the omission of completion axillary-lymph-node dissection was safe in patients with clinically node-negative T1, T2, or T3 breast cancer and one or two sentinel-node macrometastases who received adjuvant systemic treatment and radiation therapy according to national guidelines,” the authors concluded.

“It is clear that the role of axillary dissection is rapidly disappearing,” Kandace P. McGuire, MD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “However, axillary staging continues to be vital with regard to decisions about appropriate breast cancer therapy.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Jana de Boniface, MD, PhD, from Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, alongside the accompanying editorial by Dr. McGuire.

LIMITATIONS:

The study limitations include unavailable radiation therapy details for comparison, low male recruitment hindering sex-based analysis, short follow-up for luminal subtype breast cancer, unmet enrollment targets, and higher withdrawal rates in the dissection group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, Nordic Cancer Union, and Swedish Breast Cancer Association. One coauthor reported receiving consultancy fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare reimbursement for common breast cancer surgeries decreased significantly over the past two decades, and the resulting shortage of funds could affect quality of care and access to services, especially for vulnerable patient populations.

These were findings of new research presented by Terry P. Gao, MD, at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting.

Medicare reimbursements often set a benchmark that is followed by private insurers, and the impact of changes on various breast surgeries have not been examined, Dr. Gao, a research resident at Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, said during a press briefing in advance of the meeting.

“This study is important because it is the first to analyze trends in Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgery over a long period,” Dr. Gao said during an interview. The findings highlight a critical issue that could impact access to quality care, especially for vulnerable populations, she said.
 

How Were the Data Analyzed?

Dr. Gao and colleagues reviewed percent changes in reimbursement procedures over a 20-year period and compared them to changes in the consumer price index (CPI) to show the real-life impact of inflation.

The study examined reimbursements based on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from 2003 to 2023 for 10 procedures. The procedures were core needle biopsy, open incisional breast biopsy, open excisional breast biopsy, lumpectomy, lumpectomy with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), simple mastectomy, radical mastectomy, modified radical mastectomy, biopsy/removal of lymph nodes, and sentinel lymph node biopsy.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

“Reimbursements did not keep pace with the price of goods and services,” Dr. Gao said during the press briefing.

After the researchers corrected data for inflation, the overall mean Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgeries decreased by approximately 21%, based in part on the 69% increase in the CPI over the study period, Dr. Gao said. The greatest change was in core needle biopsy, for which reimbursement decreased by 36%.

After inflation adjustment, reimbursement increases were seen for only two procedures, lumpectomy and simple mastectomy, of 0.37% and 3.58%, respectively, but these do not represent meaningful gains, Dr. Gao said.

The researchers also used a model to estimate the real-life impact of decreased reimbursement on clinicians. They subtracted the actual 2023 compensation from expected 2023 compensation based on inflation for a breast cancer case incidence of 297,790 patients who underwent axillary surgery, breast lumpectomy, or simple mastectomy. The calculated potential real-world compensation loss for that year was $107,604,444.
 

What are the Clinical Implications? 

The current study is the first to put specific numbers on the trend in declining breast cancer payments, and the findings should encourage physicians to advocate for equitable policies, Dr. Gao noted during the briefing.

The substantial decrease in inflation-adjusted reimbursement rates was significant, she said during the interview. Although the decrease reflects similar trends seen in other specialties, the magnitude is a potential cause for concern, she said.

Declining reimbursements could disproportionately hurt safety-net hospitals serving vulnerable populations by limiting their ability to invest in better care and potentially worsening existing racial disparities, Dr. Gao told this publication. “Additionally, surgeons may opt out of Medicare networks due to low rates, leading to access issues and longer wait times. Finally, these trends could discourage future generations from specializing in breast cancer surgery.”

The study findings should be considered in the context of the complex and rapidly changing clinical landscape in which breast cancer care is evolving, Mediget Teshome, MD, chief of breast surgery at UCLA Health, said during an interview.

“Surgery remains a critically important aspect to curative treatment,” Dr. Teshome said.

Surgical decision-making tailored to each patient’s goals involves coordination from a multidisciplinary team as well as skill and attention from surgeons, she added.

“This degree of specialization and nuance is not always captured in reimbursement models for breast surgery,” Dr. Teshome emphasized. The policy implications of any changes in Medicare reimbursement will be important given the American Cancer Society reports breast cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women in the United States, and as the second leading cause of cancer death in US women, she noted.
 

What Additional Research Is Needed?

Research is needed to understand how declining reimbursements affect patients’ access to care, treatment choices, and long-term outcomes, Dr. Gao said in the interview. Future studies also are needed to examine provider overhead costs, staffing structures, and profit margins to offer a more comprehensive understanding of financial sustainability.

Dr. Gao and Dr. Teshome had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Medicare reimbursement for common breast cancer surgeries decreased significantly over the past two decades, and the resulting shortage of funds could affect quality of care and access to services, especially for vulnerable patient populations.

These were findings of new research presented by Terry P. Gao, MD, at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting.

Medicare reimbursements often set a benchmark that is followed by private insurers, and the impact of changes on various breast surgeries have not been examined, Dr. Gao, a research resident at Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, said during a press briefing in advance of the meeting.

“This study is important because it is the first to analyze trends in Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgery over a long period,” Dr. Gao said during an interview. The findings highlight a critical issue that could impact access to quality care, especially for vulnerable populations, she said.
 

How Were the Data Analyzed?

Dr. Gao and colleagues reviewed percent changes in reimbursement procedures over a 20-year period and compared them to changes in the consumer price index (CPI) to show the real-life impact of inflation.

The study examined reimbursements based on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from 2003 to 2023 for 10 procedures. The procedures were core needle biopsy, open incisional breast biopsy, open excisional breast biopsy, lumpectomy, lumpectomy with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), simple mastectomy, radical mastectomy, modified radical mastectomy, biopsy/removal of lymph nodes, and sentinel lymph node biopsy.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

“Reimbursements did not keep pace with the price of goods and services,” Dr. Gao said during the press briefing.

After the researchers corrected data for inflation, the overall mean Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgeries decreased by approximately 21%, based in part on the 69% increase in the CPI over the study period, Dr. Gao said. The greatest change was in core needle biopsy, for which reimbursement decreased by 36%.

After inflation adjustment, reimbursement increases were seen for only two procedures, lumpectomy and simple mastectomy, of 0.37% and 3.58%, respectively, but these do not represent meaningful gains, Dr. Gao said.

The researchers also used a model to estimate the real-life impact of decreased reimbursement on clinicians. They subtracted the actual 2023 compensation from expected 2023 compensation based on inflation for a breast cancer case incidence of 297,790 patients who underwent axillary surgery, breast lumpectomy, or simple mastectomy. The calculated potential real-world compensation loss for that year was $107,604,444.
 

What are the Clinical Implications? 

The current study is the first to put specific numbers on the trend in declining breast cancer payments, and the findings should encourage physicians to advocate for equitable policies, Dr. Gao noted during the briefing.

The substantial decrease in inflation-adjusted reimbursement rates was significant, she said during the interview. Although the decrease reflects similar trends seen in other specialties, the magnitude is a potential cause for concern, she said.

Declining reimbursements could disproportionately hurt safety-net hospitals serving vulnerable populations by limiting their ability to invest in better care and potentially worsening existing racial disparities, Dr. Gao told this publication. “Additionally, surgeons may opt out of Medicare networks due to low rates, leading to access issues and longer wait times. Finally, these trends could discourage future generations from specializing in breast cancer surgery.”

The study findings should be considered in the context of the complex and rapidly changing clinical landscape in which breast cancer care is evolving, Mediget Teshome, MD, chief of breast surgery at UCLA Health, said during an interview.

“Surgery remains a critically important aspect to curative treatment,” Dr. Teshome said.

Surgical decision-making tailored to each patient’s goals involves coordination from a multidisciplinary team as well as skill and attention from surgeons, she added.

“This degree of specialization and nuance is not always captured in reimbursement models for breast surgery,” Dr. Teshome emphasized. The policy implications of any changes in Medicare reimbursement will be important given the American Cancer Society reports breast cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women in the United States, and as the second leading cause of cancer death in US women, she noted.
 

What Additional Research Is Needed?

Research is needed to understand how declining reimbursements affect patients’ access to care, treatment choices, and long-term outcomes, Dr. Gao said in the interview. Future studies also are needed to examine provider overhead costs, staffing structures, and profit margins to offer a more comprehensive understanding of financial sustainability.

Dr. Gao and Dr. Teshome had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Medicare reimbursement for common breast cancer surgeries decreased significantly over the past two decades, and the resulting shortage of funds could affect quality of care and access to services, especially for vulnerable patient populations.

These were findings of new research presented by Terry P. Gao, MD, at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting.

Medicare reimbursements often set a benchmark that is followed by private insurers, and the impact of changes on various breast surgeries have not been examined, Dr. Gao, a research resident at Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, said during a press briefing in advance of the meeting.

“This study is important because it is the first to analyze trends in Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgery over a long period,” Dr. Gao said during an interview. The findings highlight a critical issue that could impact access to quality care, especially for vulnerable populations, she said.
 

How Were the Data Analyzed?

Dr. Gao and colleagues reviewed percent changes in reimbursement procedures over a 20-year period and compared them to changes in the consumer price index (CPI) to show the real-life impact of inflation.

The study examined reimbursements based on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from 2003 to 2023 for 10 procedures. The procedures were core needle biopsy, open incisional breast biopsy, open excisional breast biopsy, lumpectomy, lumpectomy with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), simple mastectomy, radical mastectomy, modified radical mastectomy, biopsy/removal of lymph nodes, and sentinel lymph node biopsy.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

“Reimbursements did not keep pace with the price of goods and services,” Dr. Gao said during the press briefing.

After the researchers corrected data for inflation, the overall mean Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgeries decreased by approximately 21%, based in part on the 69% increase in the CPI over the study period, Dr. Gao said. The greatest change was in core needle biopsy, for which reimbursement decreased by 36%.

After inflation adjustment, reimbursement increases were seen for only two procedures, lumpectomy and simple mastectomy, of 0.37% and 3.58%, respectively, but these do not represent meaningful gains, Dr. Gao said.

The researchers also used a model to estimate the real-life impact of decreased reimbursement on clinicians. They subtracted the actual 2023 compensation from expected 2023 compensation based on inflation for a breast cancer case incidence of 297,790 patients who underwent axillary surgery, breast lumpectomy, or simple mastectomy. The calculated potential real-world compensation loss for that year was $107,604,444.
 

What are the Clinical Implications? 

The current study is the first to put specific numbers on the trend in declining breast cancer payments, and the findings should encourage physicians to advocate for equitable policies, Dr. Gao noted during the briefing.

The substantial decrease in inflation-adjusted reimbursement rates was significant, she said during the interview. Although the decrease reflects similar trends seen in other specialties, the magnitude is a potential cause for concern, she said.

Declining reimbursements could disproportionately hurt safety-net hospitals serving vulnerable populations by limiting their ability to invest in better care and potentially worsening existing racial disparities, Dr. Gao told this publication. “Additionally, surgeons may opt out of Medicare networks due to low rates, leading to access issues and longer wait times. Finally, these trends could discourage future generations from specializing in breast cancer surgery.”

The study findings should be considered in the context of the complex and rapidly changing clinical landscape in which breast cancer care is evolving, Mediget Teshome, MD, chief of breast surgery at UCLA Health, said during an interview.

“Surgery remains a critically important aspect to curative treatment,” Dr. Teshome said.

Surgical decision-making tailored to each patient’s goals involves coordination from a multidisciplinary team as well as skill and attention from surgeons, she added.

“This degree of specialization and nuance is not always captured in reimbursement models for breast surgery,” Dr. Teshome emphasized. The policy implications of any changes in Medicare reimbursement will be important given the American Cancer Society reports breast cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women in the United States, and as the second leading cause of cancer death in US women, she noted.
 

What Additional Research Is Needed?

Research is needed to understand how declining reimbursements affect patients’ access to care, treatment choices, and long-term outcomes, Dr. Gao said in the interview. Future studies also are needed to examine provider overhead costs, staffing structures, and profit margins to offer a more comprehensive understanding of financial sustainability.

Dr. Gao and Dr. Teshome had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer appears to be safe and does not compromise survival, compared with open surgery, when patients have completely resected tumors.

This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.

Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.

“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.

The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
 

Growing Use of MIS

Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).

Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
 

Outcomes Compared

Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.

Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.

Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.

Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.

As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).

There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.

The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
 

MIS Use Debatable: CON

Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.

In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.

“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.

Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.

Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.

In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.

Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.

She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.

MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
 

Debate: PRO

Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”

He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.

In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.

Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.

To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.

The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.

Minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer appears to be safe and does not compromise survival, compared with open surgery, when patients have completely resected tumors.

This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.

Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.

“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.

The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
 

Growing Use of MIS

Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).

Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
 

Outcomes Compared

Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.

Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.

Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.

Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.

As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).

There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.

The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
 

MIS Use Debatable: CON

Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.

In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.

“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.

Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.

Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.

In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.

Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.

She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.

MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
 

Debate: PRO

Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”

He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.

In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.

Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.

To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.

The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.

Minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer appears to be safe and does not compromise survival, compared with open surgery, when patients have completely resected tumors.

This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.

Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.

“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.

The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
 

Growing Use of MIS

Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).

Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
 

Outcomes Compared

Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.

Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.

Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.

Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.

As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).

There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.

The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
 

MIS Use Debatable: CON

Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.

In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.

“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.

Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.

Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.

In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.

Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.

She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.

MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
 

Debate: PRO

Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”

He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.

In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.

Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.

To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.

The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.

For early-stage cervical cancer, non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or cone biopsy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy) appears safe with no lasting negative impact on quality of life, according to results of the GOG-278 trial.

In fact, patients’ quality of life was improved after surgery in both groups, and their concerns about cancer recurrence decreased, especially for those undergoing simple hysterectomy, said Allan Covens, MD, in his late-breaking abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. 

“Cone biopsy patients reported less concerns about reproductive fertility after surgery and over time compared to preop assessments,” he added.

Due to screening in developed countries, a large proportion of cervical cancers are discovered at an early stage. Treatment of these cancers with radical surgery is associated with high cure rates but significant adverse effects on quality of life, said Dr. Covens, who is with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

He and his colleagues wanted to see if non-radical surgery could be safely used instead. “Multiple case series have indicated that non-radical surgery is associated with less morbidity and improved quality of life,” he explained. “If this can be proven in a prospective evaluation, it will change future practice.”

GOG-278 was a prospective cohort study of women with stage IA1 (lymph-vascular space invasion+) and IA2-IB1 (≤ 2 cm) carcinoma of the cervix who underwent non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-preserving cone biopsy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Criteria included ≤ 10 mm stromal invasion and negative margins on the final cone biopsy.

The primary objectives were to assess changes in functional outcomes of quality of life (bladder/bowel function, sexual function, cancer worry, and reproductive concerns), using validated instruments. Findings were based on 55 patients who underwent cone biopsy and 113 who underwent simple hysterectomy.

Both simple hysterectomy and cone biopsy were associated with “small” declines in sexual function and bladder/bowel function at 4-6 weeks after surgery, but function “quickly” recovered to baseline by 6 months, Dr. Covens reported.

Twelve patients reported a diagnosis of lymphedema, with a Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire score change of 4 or higher on at least two consecutive evaluations from baseline. This occurred in six cone biopsy and six simple hysterectomy patients.

In a separate presentation, Dr. Covens reported secondary oncologic outcomes from GOG-278, which suggest that non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is safe, with low perioperative morbidity, although longer follow-up is needed.

He also reported 16 pregnancies in 15 patients who had undergone cone biopsies; 12 of these were successful, and there were four early pregnancy losses.
 

‘Impressive’ Data

Study discussant Kristin Bixel, MD, with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, said the data are “impressive” and clearly show that non-radical surgery has “minimal impact on bladder/bowel function, with no long-term differences from baseline.”

She added that the incidence of lymphedema was “honestly significantly lower than what I typically counsel patients about” and wondered if the percentage of patients with lymphedema would increase over time.

Dr. Bixel particularly noted the decrease in cancer worry scores after surgery, as sometimes patients who have less radical procedures fear that this comes with an increased risk for recurrence.

The “growing body of data suggests that less radical surgery is safe and effective for early-stage low-risk cervical cancer and highlights the potential reproductive success,” she concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from NRG Oncology. Dr. Covens had no disclosures. Dr. Bixel has received research funding from the Intuitive Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For early-stage cervical cancer, non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or cone biopsy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy) appears safe with no lasting negative impact on quality of life, according to results of the GOG-278 trial.

In fact, patients’ quality of life was improved after surgery in both groups, and their concerns about cancer recurrence decreased, especially for those undergoing simple hysterectomy, said Allan Covens, MD, in his late-breaking abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. 

“Cone biopsy patients reported less concerns about reproductive fertility after surgery and over time compared to preop assessments,” he added.

Due to screening in developed countries, a large proportion of cervical cancers are discovered at an early stage. Treatment of these cancers with radical surgery is associated with high cure rates but significant adverse effects on quality of life, said Dr. Covens, who is with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

He and his colleagues wanted to see if non-radical surgery could be safely used instead. “Multiple case series have indicated that non-radical surgery is associated with less morbidity and improved quality of life,” he explained. “If this can be proven in a prospective evaluation, it will change future practice.”

GOG-278 was a prospective cohort study of women with stage IA1 (lymph-vascular space invasion+) and IA2-IB1 (≤ 2 cm) carcinoma of the cervix who underwent non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-preserving cone biopsy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Criteria included ≤ 10 mm stromal invasion and negative margins on the final cone biopsy.

The primary objectives were to assess changes in functional outcomes of quality of life (bladder/bowel function, sexual function, cancer worry, and reproductive concerns), using validated instruments. Findings were based on 55 patients who underwent cone biopsy and 113 who underwent simple hysterectomy.

Both simple hysterectomy and cone biopsy were associated with “small” declines in sexual function and bladder/bowel function at 4-6 weeks after surgery, but function “quickly” recovered to baseline by 6 months, Dr. Covens reported.

Twelve patients reported a diagnosis of lymphedema, with a Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire score change of 4 or higher on at least two consecutive evaluations from baseline. This occurred in six cone biopsy and six simple hysterectomy patients.

In a separate presentation, Dr. Covens reported secondary oncologic outcomes from GOG-278, which suggest that non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is safe, with low perioperative morbidity, although longer follow-up is needed.

He also reported 16 pregnancies in 15 patients who had undergone cone biopsies; 12 of these were successful, and there were four early pregnancy losses.
 

‘Impressive’ Data

Study discussant Kristin Bixel, MD, with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, said the data are “impressive” and clearly show that non-radical surgery has “minimal impact on bladder/bowel function, with no long-term differences from baseline.”

She added that the incidence of lymphedema was “honestly significantly lower than what I typically counsel patients about” and wondered if the percentage of patients with lymphedema would increase over time.

Dr. Bixel particularly noted the decrease in cancer worry scores after surgery, as sometimes patients who have less radical procedures fear that this comes with an increased risk for recurrence.

The “growing body of data suggests that less radical surgery is safe and effective for early-stage low-risk cervical cancer and highlights the potential reproductive success,” she concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from NRG Oncology. Dr. Covens had no disclosures. Dr. Bixel has received research funding from the Intuitive Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For early-stage cervical cancer, non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or cone biopsy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy) appears safe with no lasting negative impact on quality of life, according to results of the GOG-278 trial.

In fact, patients’ quality of life was improved after surgery in both groups, and their concerns about cancer recurrence decreased, especially for those undergoing simple hysterectomy, said Allan Covens, MD, in his late-breaking abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. 

“Cone biopsy patients reported less concerns about reproductive fertility after surgery and over time compared to preop assessments,” he added.

Due to screening in developed countries, a large proportion of cervical cancers are discovered at an early stage. Treatment of these cancers with radical surgery is associated with high cure rates but significant adverse effects on quality of life, said Dr. Covens, who is with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

He and his colleagues wanted to see if non-radical surgery could be safely used instead. “Multiple case series have indicated that non-radical surgery is associated with less morbidity and improved quality of life,” he explained. “If this can be proven in a prospective evaluation, it will change future practice.”

GOG-278 was a prospective cohort study of women with stage IA1 (lymph-vascular space invasion+) and IA2-IB1 (≤ 2 cm) carcinoma of the cervix who underwent non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-preserving cone biopsy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Criteria included ≤ 10 mm stromal invasion and negative margins on the final cone biopsy.

The primary objectives were to assess changes in functional outcomes of quality of life (bladder/bowel function, sexual function, cancer worry, and reproductive concerns), using validated instruments. Findings were based on 55 patients who underwent cone biopsy and 113 who underwent simple hysterectomy.

Both simple hysterectomy and cone biopsy were associated with “small” declines in sexual function and bladder/bowel function at 4-6 weeks after surgery, but function “quickly” recovered to baseline by 6 months, Dr. Covens reported.

Twelve patients reported a diagnosis of lymphedema, with a Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire score change of 4 or higher on at least two consecutive evaluations from baseline. This occurred in six cone biopsy and six simple hysterectomy patients.

In a separate presentation, Dr. Covens reported secondary oncologic outcomes from GOG-278, which suggest that non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is safe, with low perioperative morbidity, although longer follow-up is needed.

He also reported 16 pregnancies in 15 patients who had undergone cone biopsies; 12 of these were successful, and there were four early pregnancy losses.
 

‘Impressive’ Data

Study discussant Kristin Bixel, MD, with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, said the data are “impressive” and clearly show that non-radical surgery has “minimal impact on bladder/bowel function, with no long-term differences from baseline.”

She added that the incidence of lymphedema was “honestly significantly lower than what I typically counsel patients about” and wondered if the percentage of patients with lymphedema would increase over time.

Dr. Bixel particularly noted the decrease in cancer worry scores after surgery, as sometimes patients who have less radical procedures fear that this comes with an increased risk for recurrence.

The “growing body of data suggests that less radical surgery is safe and effective for early-stage low-risk cervical cancer and highlights the potential reproductive success,” she concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from NRG Oncology. Dr. Covens had no disclosures. Dr. Bixel has received research funding from the Intuitive Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new drug-device combo aimed at detecting residual cancer in real time during lumpectomy is one step closer to gaining federal approval, but some physicians aren’t convinced the technology is safe — or effective enough — to start using on patients.

A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.

LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.

Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.

“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.

However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.

In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.

“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”

The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.

On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.

“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”

Is the Technology Safe?

Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.

After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.

If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.

In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.

Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.

Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.

“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”

During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.

Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.

David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.

“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.

Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.

She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.

MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.

Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.

“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”

During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.

“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
 

Committee Expresses Support

During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.

Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.

Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.

“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.

“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”

Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.

The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.

If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.

Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.

The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.

A new drug-device combo aimed at detecting residual cancer in real time during lumpectomy is one step closer to gaining federal approval, but some physicians aren’t convinced the technology is safe — or effective enough — to start using on patients.

A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.

LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.

Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.

“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.

However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.

In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.

“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”

The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.

On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.

“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”

Is the Technology Safe?

Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.

After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.

If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.

In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.

Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.

Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.

“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”

During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.

Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.

David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.

“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.

Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.

She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.

MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.

Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.

“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”

During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.

“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
 

Committee Expresses Support

During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.

Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.

Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.

“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.

“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”

Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.

The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.

If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.

Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.

The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.

A new drug-device combo aimed at detecting residual cancer in real time during lumpectomy is one step closer to gaining federal approval, but some physicians aren’t convinced the technology is safe — or effective enough — to start using on patients.

A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.

LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.

Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.

“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.

However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.

In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.

“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”

The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.

On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.

“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”

Is the Technology Safe?

Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.

After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.

If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.

In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.

Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.

Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.

“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”

During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.

Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.

David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.

“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.

Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.

She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.

MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.

Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.

“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”

During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.

“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
 

Committee Expresses Support

During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.

Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.

Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.

“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.

“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”

Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.

The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.

If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.

Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.

The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.

TOPLINE:

Resecting the primary colon tumor before chemotherapy does not improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic colon cancer not amenable to curative therapy, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Chemotherapy is the primary treatment in patients with stage IV  (CRC) and unresectable metastases. It’s unclear whether primary tumor resection before chemotherapy prolongs survival.
• Among 393 patients with stage IV colon cancer and unresectable metastases enrolled in the  and  trials, 187 were randomly allocated to undergo primary tumor resection and 206 to upfront chemotherapy.
• The chemotherapy regimen was left up to the treating physician. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Median follow-up time was 36.7 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median overall survival was 16.7 months with primary tumor resection and 18.6 months with upfront chemotherapy (P = .191).
• Comparable overall survival between the study groups was further confirmed on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.944; P = .65) and across all subgroups.
• Serious adverse events were more common with upfront chemo than surgery (18% vs 10%; P = .027), due mainly to a significantly higher incidence of GI-related events (11% vs 5%; P = .031).
• Overall, 24% of the primary tumor resection group did not receive any chemotherapy.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of our study provide compelling data that upfront primary tumor resection in treatment-naive stage IV CRC not amenable for curative treatment does not prolong [overall survival]. A relatively low incidence of serious adverse events in patients with an intact primary tumor together with a considerable number of patients who did not receive any chemotherapy in the primary tumor resection group provides further arguments against resection of the primary tumor in this group of patients,” the authors of the combined analysis concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Neither study completed their planned patient accrual. Although both trials are nearly identical, differences in the individual study cohorts and trial implementation could have introduced bias. Tumor molecular profiling was not performed.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Resecting the primary colon tumor before chemotherapy does not improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic colon cancer not amenable to curative therapy, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Chemotherapy is the primary treatment in patients with stage IV  (CRC) and unresectable metastases. It’s unclear whether primary tumor resection before chemotherapy prolongs survival.
• Among 393 patients with stage IV colon cancer and unresectable metastases enrolled in the  and  trials, 187 were randomly allocated to undergo primary tumor resection and 206 to upfront chemotherapy.
• The chemotherapy regimen was left up to the treating physician. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Median follow-up time was 36.7 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median overall survival was 16.7 months with primary tumor resection and 18.6 months with upfront chemotherapy (P = .191).
• Comparable overall survival between the study groups was further confirmed on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.944; P = .65) and across all subgroups.
• Serious adverse events were more common with upfront chemo than surgery (18% vs 10%; P = .027), due mainly to a significantly higher incidence of GI-related events (11% vs 5%; P = .031).
• Overall, 24% of the primary tumor resection group did not receive any chemotherapy.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of our study provide compelling data that upfront primary tumor resection in treatment-naive stage IV CRC not amenable for curative treatment does not prolong [overall survival]. A relatively low incidence of serious adverse events in patients with an intact primary tumor together with a considerable number of patients who did not receive any chemotherapy in the primary tumor resection group provides further arguments against resection of the primary tumor in this group of patients,” the authors of the combined analysis concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Neither study completed their planned patient accrual. Although both trials are nearly identical, differences in the individual study cohorts and trial implementation could have introduced bias. Tumor molecular profiling was not performed.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Resecting the primary colon tumor before chemotherapy does not improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic colon cancer not amenable to curative therapy, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Chemotherapy is the primary treatment in patients with stage IV  (CRC) and unresectable metastases. It’s unclear whether primary tumor resection before chemotherapy prolongs survival.
• Among 393 patients with stage IV colon cancer and unresectable metastases enrolled in the  and  trials, 187 were randomly allocated to undergo primary tumor resection and 206 to upfront chemotherapy.
• The chemotherapy regimen was left up to the treating physician. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Median follow-up time was 36.7 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median overall survival was 16.7 months with primary tumor resection and 18.6 months with upfront chemotherapy (P = .191).
• Comparable overall survival between the study groups was further confirmed on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.944; P = .65) and across all subgroups.
• Serious adverse events were more common with upfront chemo than surgery (18% vs 10%; P = .027), due mainly to a significantly higher incidence of GI-related events (11% vs 5%; P = .031).
• Overall, 24% of the primary tumor resection group did not receive any chemotherapy.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of our study provide compelling data that upfront primary tumor resection in treatment-naive stage IV CRC not amenable for curative treatment does not prolong [overall survival]. A relatively low incidence of serious adverse events in patients with an intact primary tumor together with a considerable number of patients who did not receive any chemotherapy in the primary tumor resection group provides further arguments against resection of the primary tumor in this group of patients,” the authors of the combined analysis concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Neither study completed their planned patient accrual. Although both trials are nearly identical, differences in the individual study cohorts and trial implementation could have introduced bias. Tumor molecular profiling was not performed.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer patients with behavioral health disorders are significantly less likely to undergo surgical resections, and more likely to experience poor outcomes when they do have surgery, based on data from a new study of nearly 700,000 individuals.

The reason for this association remains unclear, and highlights the need to address existing behavioral health disorders (BHDs), which can be exacerbated after a patient is diagnosed with cancer, wrote Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues. A cancer diagnosis can cause not only physical stress, but mental, emotional, social, and economic stress that can prompt a new BHD, cause relapse of a previous BHD, or exacerbate a current BHD, the researchers noted.
 

What is Known About BHDs and Cancer?

Although previous studies have shown a possible association between BHDs and increased cancer risk, as well as reduced compliance with care, the effect of BHDs on outcomes in cancer patients undergoing surgical resection has not been examined, wrote Dr. Pawlik and colleagues.

Previous research has focused on the impact of having a preexisting serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on cancer care.

A 2023 literature review of 27 studies published in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences showed that patients with preexisting severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) had greater cancer-related mortality. In that study, the researchers also found that patients with severe mental illness were more likely to have metastatic disease at diagnosis, but less likely to receive optimal treatments, than individuals without SMIs.

Many studies also have focused on patients developing mental health problems (including BHDs) after a cancer diagnosis, but the current study is the first known to examine outcomes in those with BHDs before cancer. 
 

Why Was It Important to Conduct This Study?

“BHDs are a diverse set of mental illnesses that affect an individual’s psychosocial wellbeing, potentially resulting in maladaptive behaviors,” Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. BHDs, which include substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders, are less common than anxiety/depression, but have an estimated prevalence of 1.3%-3.1% among adults in the United States, he said.

What Does the New Study Add?

In the new review by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues, published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Katayama ES. J Am Coll Surg. 2024 Feb 29. doi: 2024. 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000954), BHDs were defined as substance abuse, eating disorders, or sleep disorders, which had not been the focus of previous studies. The researchers reviewed data from 694,836 adult patients with lung, esophageal, gastric, liver, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer between 2018-2021 using the Medicare Standard Analytic files. A total of 46,719 patients (6.7%) had at least one BHD.

Overall, patients with a BHD were significantly less likely than those without a BHD to undergo surgical resection (20.3% vs. 23.4%). Patients with a BHD also had significantly worse long-term postoperative survival than those without BHDs (median 37.1 months vs. 46.6 months) and significantly higher in-hospital costs ($17,432 vs. 16,159, P less than .001 for all).

Among patients who underwent cancer surgery, the odds of any complication were significantly higher for those with a BHD compared to those with no BHD (odds ratio 1.32), as were the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR 1.67) and 90-day readmission (OR 1.57).

Dr. Pawlik said he was surprised by several of the findings, including that 1 in 15 Medicare beneficiaries had a BHD diagnosis, “with male sex and minority racial status, as well as higher social vulnerability, being associated with a higher prevalence of BHD.”

Also, the independent association of having a BHD with 30%-50% higher odds of a complication, prolonged length of stay, and 90-day readmission was higher than Dr. Pawlik had anticipated.
 

Why Do Patients With BHDs Have Fewer Surgeries and Worse Outcomes?

The reasons for this association were likely multifactorial and may reflect the greater burden of medical comorbidity and chronic illness in many patients with BHDs because of maladaptive lifestyles or poor nutrition status, Dr. Pawlik said.

“Patients with BHDs also likely face barriers to accessing care, which was noted particularly among patients with BHDs who lived in socially vulnerable areas,” he said. BHD patients also were more likely to be treated at low-volume rather than high-volume hospitals, “which undoubtedly contributed in part to worse outcomes in this cohort of patients,” he added.
 

What Can Oncologists Do to Help?

The take-home message for clinicians is that BHDs are linked to worse surgical outcomes and higher health care costs in cancer patients, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview.

“Enhanced accessibility to behavioral healthcare, as well as comprehensive policy reform related to mental health services are needed to improve care of patients with BHDs,” he said. “For example, implementing psychiatry compensation programs may encourage practice in vulnerable areas,” he said.

Other strategies include a following a collaborative care model involving mental health professionals working in tandem with primary care and mid-level practitioners and increasing use and establishment of telehealth systems to improve patient access to BHD services, he said.
 

What Are the Limitations?

The study by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues was limited by several factors, including the lack of data on younger patients and the full range of BHDs, as well as underreporting of BHDs and the high copays for mental health care, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that concomitant BHDs are associated with worse cancer outcomes and higher in-hospital costs, and illustrate the need to screen for and target these conditions in cancer patients, the researchers concluded.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The current study involved Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, and more research is needed to investigate the impact of BHDs among younger cancer patients in whom the prevalence may be higher and the impact of BHDs may be different, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. In addition, the analysis of BHDs as a composite of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders (because the numbers were too small to break out data for each disorder, separately) prevented investigation of potential differences and unique challenges faced by distinct subpopulations of BHD patients, he said.

“Future studies should examine the individual impact of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders on access to surgery, as well as the potential different impact that each one of these different BHDs may have on postoperative outcomes,” Dr. Pawlik suggested.

The study was supported by The Ohio State University College of Medicine Roessler Summer Research Scholarship. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Cancer patients with behavioral health disorders are significantly less likely to undergo surgical resections, and more likely to experience poor outcomes when they do have surgery, based on data from a new study of nearly 700,000 individuals.

The reason for this association remains unclear, and highlights the need to address existing behavioral health disorders (BHDs), which can be exacerbated after a patient is diagnosed with cancer, wrote Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues. A cancer diagnosis can cause not only physical stress, but mental, emotional, social, and economic stress that can prompt a new BHD, cause relapse of a previous BHD, or exacerbate a current BHD, the researchers noted.
 

What is Known About BHDs and Cancer?

Although previous studies have shown a possible association between BHDs and increased cancer risk, as well as reduced compliance with care, the effect of BHDs on outcomes in cancer patients undergoing surgical resection has not been examined, wrote Dr. Pawlik and colleagues.

Previous research has focused on the impact of having a preexisting serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on cancer care.

A 2023 literature review of 27 studies published in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences showed that patients with preexisting severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) had greater cancer-related mortality. In that study, the researchers also found that patients with severe mental illness were more likely to have metastatic disease at diagnosis, but less likely to receive optimal treatments, than individuals without SMIs.

Many studies also have focused on patients developing mental health problems (including BHDs) after a cancer diagnosis, but the current study is the first known to examine outcomes in those with BHDs before cancer. 
 

Why Was It Important to Conduct This Study?

“BHDs are a diverse set of mental illnesses that affect an individual’s psychosocial wellbeing, potentially resulting in maladaptive behaviors,” Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. BHDs, which include substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders, are less common than anxiety/depression, but have an estimated prevalence of 1.3%-3.1% among adults in the United States, he said.

What Does the New Study Add?

In the new review by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues, published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Katayama ES. J Am Coll Surg. 2024 Feb 29. doi: 2024. 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000954), BHDs were defined as substance abuse, eating disorders, or sleep disorders, which had not been the focus of previous studies. The researchers reviewed data from 694,836 adult patients with lung, esophageal, gastric, liver, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer between 2018-2021 using the Medicare Standard Analytic files. A total of 46,719 patients (6.7%) had at least one BHD.

Overall, patients with a BHD were significantly less likely than those without a BHD to undergo surgical resection (20.3% vs. 23.4%). Patients with a BHD also had significantly worse long-term postoperative survival than those without BHDs (median 37.1 months vs. 46.6 months) and significantly higher in-hospital costs ($17,432 vs. 16,159, P less than .001 for all).

Among patients who underwent cancer surgery, the odds of any complication were significantly higher for those with a BHD compared to those with no BHD (odds ratio 1.32), as were the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR 1.67) and 90-day readmission (OR 1.57).

Dr. Pawlik said he was surprised by several of the findings, including that 1 in 15 Medicare beneficiaries had a BHD diagnosis, “with male sex and minority racial status, as well as higher social vulnerability, being associated with a higher prevalence of BHD.”

Also, the independent association of having a BHD with 30%-50% higher odds of a complication, prolonged length of stay, and 90-day readmission was higher than Dr. Pawlik had anticipated.
 

Why Do Patients With BHDs Have Fewer Surgeries and Worse Outcomes?

The reasons for this association were likely multifactorial and may reflect the greater burden of medical comorbidity and chronic illness in many patients with BHDs because of maladaptive lifestyles or poor nutrition status, Dr. Pawlik said.

“Patients with BHDs also likely face barriers to accessing care, which was noted particularly among patients with BHDs who lived in socially vulnerable areas,” he said. BHD patients also were more likely to be treated at low-volume rather than high-volume hospitals, “which undoubtedly contributed in part to worse outcomes in this cohort of patients,” he added.
 

What Can Oncologists Do to Help?

The take-home message for clinicians is that BHDs are linked to worse surgical outcomes and higher health care costs in cancer patients, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview.

“Enhanced accessibility to behavioral healthcare, as well as comprehensive policy reform related to mental health services are needed to improve care of patients with BHDs,” he said. “For example, implementing psychiatry compensation programs may encourage practice in vulnerable areas,” he said.

Other strategies include a following a collaborative care model involving mental health professionals working in tandem with primary care and mid-level practitioners and increasing use and establishment of telehealth systems to improve patient access to BHD services, he said.
 

What Are the Limitations?

The study by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues was limited by several factors, including the lack of data on younger patients and the full range of BHDs, as well as underreporting of BHDs and the high copays for mental health care, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that concomitant BHDs are associated with worse cancer outcomes and higher in-hospital costs, and illustrate the need to screen for and target these conditions in cancer patients, the researchers concluded.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The current study involved Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, and more research is needed to investigate the impact of BHDs among younger cancer patients in whom the prevalence may be higher and the impact of BHDs may be different, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. In addition, the analysis of BHDs as a composite of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders (because the numbers were too small to break out data for each disorder, separately) prevented investigation of potential differences and unique challenges faced by distinct subpopulations of BHD patients, he said.

“Future studies should examine the individual impact of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders on access to surgery, as well as the potential different impact that each one of these different BHDs may have on postoperative outcomes,” Dr. Pawlik suggested.

The study was supported by The Ohio State University College of Medicine Roessler Summer Research Scholarship. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Cancer patients with behavioral health disorders are significantly less likely to undergo surgical resections, and more likely to experience poor outcomes when they do have surgery, based on data from a new study of nearly 700,000 individuals.

The reason for this association remains unclear, and highlights the need to address existing behavioral health disorders (BHDs), which can be exacerbated after a patient is diagnosed with cancer, wrote Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues. A cancer diagnosis can cause not only physical stress, but mental, emotional, social, and economic stress that can prompt a new BHD, cause relapse of a previous BHD, or exacerbate a current BHD, the researchers noted.
 

What is Known About BHDs and Cancer?

Although previous studies have shown a possible association between BHDs and increased cancer risk, as well as reduced compliance with care, the effect of BHDs on outcomes in cancer patients undergoing surgical resection has not been examined, wrote Dr. Pawlik and colleagues.

Previous research has focused on the impact of having a preexisting serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on cancer care.

A 2023 literature review of 27 studies published in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences showed that patients with preexisting severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) had greater cancer-related mortality. In that study, the researchers also found that patients with severe mental illness were more likely to have metastatic disease at diagnosis, but less likely to receive optimal treatments, than individuals without SMIs.

Many studies also have focused on patients developing mental health problems (including BHDs) after a cancer diagnosis, but the current study is the first known to examine outcomes in those with BHDs before cancer. 
 

Why Was It Important to Conduct This Study?

“BHDs are a diverse set of mental illnesses that affect an individual’s psychosocial wellbeing, potentially resulting in maladaptive behaviors,” Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. BHDs, which include substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders, are less common than anxiety/depression, but have an estimated prevalence of 1.3%-3.1% among adults in the United States, he said.

What Does the New Study Add?

In the new review by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues, published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Katayama ES. J Am Coll Surg. 2024 Feb 29. doi: 2024. 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000954), BHDs were defined as substance abuse, eating disorders, or sleep disorders, which had not been the focus of previous studies. The researchers reviewed data from 694,836 adult patients with lung, esophageal, gastric, liver, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer between 2018-2021 using the Medicare Standard Analytic files. A total of 46,719 patients (6.7%) had at least one BHD.

Overall, patients with a BHD were significantly less likely than those without a BHD to undergo surgical resection (20.3% vs. 23.4%). Patients with a BHD also had significantly worse long-term postoperative survival than those without BHDs (median 37.1 months vs. 46.6 months) and significantly higher in-hospital costs ($17,432 vs. 16,159, P less than .001 for all).

Among patients who underwent cancer surgery, the odds of any complication were significantly higher for those with a BHD compared to those with no BHD (odds ratio 1.32), as were the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR 1.67) and 90-day readmission (OR 1.57).

Dr. Pawlik said he was surprised by several of the findings, including that 1 in 15 Medicare beneficiaries had a BHD diagnosis, “with male sex and minority racial status, as well as higher social vulnerability, being associated with a higher prevalence of BHD.”

Also, the independent association of having a BHD with 30%-50% higher odds of a complication, prolonged length of stay, and 90-day readmission was higher than Dr. Pawlik had anticipated.
 

Why Do Patients With BHDs Have Fewer Surgeries and Worse Outcomes?

The reasons for this association were likely multifactorial and may reflect the greater burden of medical comorbidity and chronic illness in many patients with BHDs because of maladaptive lifestyles or poor nutrition status, Dr. Pawlik said.

“Patients with BHDs also likely face barriers to accessing care, which was noted particularly among patients with BHDs who lived in socially vulnerable areas,” he said. BHD patients also were more likely to be treated at low-volume rather than high-volume hospitals, “which undoubtedly contributed in part to worse outcomes in this cohort of patients,” he added.
 

What Can Oncologists Do to Help?

The take-home message for clinicians is that BHDs are linked to worse surgical outcomes and higher health care costs in cancer patients, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview.

“Enhanced accessibility to behavioral healthcare, as well as comprehensive policy reform related to mental health services are needed to improve care of patients with BHDs,” he said. “For example, implementing psychiatry compensation programs may encourage practice in vulnerable areas,” he said.

Other strategies include a following a collaborative care model involving mental health professionals working in tandem with primary care and mid-level practitioners and increasing use and establishment of telehealth systems to improve patient access to BHD services, he said.
 

What Are the Limitations?

The study by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues was limited by several factors, including the lack of data on younger patients and the full range of BHDs, as well as underreporting of BHDs and the high copays for mental health care, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that concomitant BHDs are associated with worse cancer outcomes and higher in-hospital costs, and illustrate the need to screen for and target these conditions in cancer patients, the researchers concluded.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The current study involved Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, and more research is needed to investigate the impact of BHDs among younger cancer patients in whom the prevalence may be higher and the impact of BHDs may be different, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. In addition, the analysis of BHDs as a composite of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders (because the numbers were too small to break out data for each disorder, separately) prevented investigation of potential differences and unique challenges faced by distinct subpopulations of BHD patients, he said.

“Future studies should examine the individual impact of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders on access to surgery, as well as the potential different impact that each one of these different BHDs may have on postoperative outcomes,” Dr. Pawlik suggested.

The study was supported by The Ohio State University College of Medicine Roessler Summer Research Scholarship. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Racial disparities in cancer care have been reduced by Medicaid expansion, suggest new nationwide data.

Across the United States, minority patients with cancer often have worse outcomes than White patients, with Black patients more likely to die sooner.

But new data suggest that these racial disparities are lessening. They come from a cross-sectional cohort study of patients with gastrointestinal cancers and show that the gap in mortality rates was reduced in Medicaid expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states.

The results were particularly notable for Black patients, for whom there was a consistent increase in receiving therapy (chemotherapy or surgery) and a decrease in mortality from stomach, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer, the investigators commented.

The study was highlighted at a press briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The findings of this study provide a solid step for closing the gap, showing that the Medicaid expansion opportunity offered by the Affordable Care Act, which allows participating states to improve health care access for disadvantaged populations, results in better cancer outcomes and mitigation of racial disparities in cancer survival,” commented Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO.

The study included 86,052 patients from the National Cancer Database who, from 2009 to 2019, were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer, or stomach cancer. Just over 22,000 patients (25.7%) were Black; the remainder 63,943 (74.3%) were White.

In Medicaid expansion states, there was a greater absolute reduction in 2-year mortality among Black patients with pancreatic cancer of –11.8%, compared with nonexpansion states, at –2.4%, a difference-in-difference (DID) of –9.4%. Additionally, there was an increase in treatment with chemotherapy for patients with stage III-IV pancreatic cancer (4.5% for Black patients and 3.2% for White), compared with patients in nonexpansion states (0.8% for Black patients and 0.4% for White; DID, 3.7% for Black patients and DID, 2.7% for White).

“We found similar results in colorectal cancer, but this effect is primarily observed among the stage IV patients,” commented lead author Naveen Manisundaram, MD, a research fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “Black patients with advanced stage disease experienced a 12.6% reduction in mortality in expansion states.”

Among Black patients with stage IV colorectal cancer, there was an increase in rates of surgery in expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states (DID, 5.7%). However, there was no increase in treatment with chemotherapy (DID, 1%; P = .66).

Mortality rates for Black patients with stomach cancer also decreased. In expansion states, there was a –13% absolute decrease in mortality, compared with a –5.2% decrease in nonexpansion states.

The investigators noted that Medicaid coverage was a key component in access to care through the Affordable Care Act. About two-thirds (66.7%) of Black patients had Medicaid; 33.3% were uninsured. Coverage was similar among White patients; 64.1% had Medicaid and 35.9% were uninsured.

“Our study provides compelling data that show Medicaid expansion was associated with improvement in survival for both Black and White patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Additionally, it suggests that Medicaid expansion is one potential avenue to mitigate existing racial survival disparities among these patients,” Dr. Manisundaram concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported an advisory role with Medicaroid. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche.

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

Racial disparities in cancer care have been reduced by Medicaid expansion, suggest new nationwide data.

Across the United States, minority patients with cancer often have worse outcomes than White patients, with Black patients more likely to die sooner.

But new data suggest that these racial disparities are lessening. They come from a cross-sectional cohort study of patients with gastrointestinal cancers and show that the gap in mortality rates was reduced in Medicaid expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states.

The results were particularly notable for Black patients, for whom there was a consistent increase in receiving therapy (chemotherapy or surgery) and a decrease in mortality from stomach, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer, the investigators commented.

The study was highlighted at a press briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The findings of this study provide a solid step for closing the gap, showing that the Medicaid expansion opportunity offered by the Affordable Care Act, which allows participating states to improve health care access for disadvantaged populations, results in better cancer outcomes and mitigation of racial disparities in cancer survival,” commented Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO.

The study included 86,052 patients from the National Cancer Database who, from 2009 to 2019, were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer, or stomach cancer. Just over 22,000 patients (25.7%) were Black; the remainder 63,943 (74.3%) were White.

In Medicaid expansion states, there was a greater absolute reduction in 2-year mortality among Black patients with pancreatic cancer of –11.8%, compared with nonexpansion states, at –2.4%, a difference-in-difference (DID) of –9.4%. Additionally, there was an increase in treatment with chemotherapy for patients with stage III-IV pancreatic cancer (4.5% for Black patients and 3.2% for White), compared with patients in nonexpansion states (0.8% for Black patients and 0.4% for White; DID, 3.7% for Black patients and DID, 2.7% for White).

“We found similar results in colorectal cancer, but this effect is primarily observed among the stage IV patients,” commented lead author Naveen Manisundaram, MD, a research fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “Black patients with advanced stage disease experienced a 12.6% reduction in mortality in expansion states.”

Among Black patients with stage IV colorectal cancer, there was an increase in rates of surgery in expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states (DID, 5.7%). However, there was no increase in treatment with chemotherapy (DID, 1%; P = .66).

Mortality rates for Black patients with stomach cancer also decreased. In expansion states, there was a –13% absolute decrease in mortality, compared with a –5.2% decrease in nonexpansion states.

The investigators noted that Medicaid coverage was a key component in access to care through the Affordable Care Act. About two-thirds (66.7%) of Black patients had Medicaid; 33.3% were uninsured. Coverage was similar among White patients; 64.1% had Medicaid and 35.9% were uninsured.

“Our study provides compelling data that show Medicaid expansion was associated with improvement in survival for both Black and White patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Additionally, it suggests that Medicaid expansion is one potential avenue to mitigate existing racial survival disparities among these patients,” Dr. Manisundaram concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported an advisory role with Medicaroid. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche.

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

Racial disparities in cancer care have been reduced by Medicaid expansion, suggest new nationwide data.

Across the United States, minority patients with cancer often have worse outcomes than White patients, with Black patients more likely to die sooner.

But new data suggest that these racial disparities are lessening. They come from a cross-sectional cohort study of patients with gastrointestinal cancers and show that the gap in mortality rates was reduced in Medicaid expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states.

The results were particularly notable for Black patients, for whom there was a consistent increase in receiving therapy (chemotherapy or surgery) and a decrease in mortality from stomach, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer, the investigators commented.

The study was highlighted at a press briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The findings of this study provide a solid step for closing the gap, showing that the Medicaid expansion opportunity offered by the Affordable Care Act, which allows participating states to improve health care access for disadvantaged populations, results in better cancer outcomes and mitigation of racial disparities in cancer survival,” commented Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO.

The study included 86,052 patients from the National Cancer Database who, from 2009 to 2019, were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer, or stomach cancer. Just over 22,000 patients (25.7%) were Black; the remainder 63,943 (74.3%) were White.

In Medicaid expansion states, there was a greater absolute reduction in 2-year mortality among Black patients with pancreatic cancer of –11.8%, compared with nonexpansion states, at –2.4%, a difference-in-difference (DID) of –9.4%. Additionally, there was an increase in treatment with chemotherapy for patients with stage III-IV pancreatic cancer (4.5% for Black patients and 3.2% for White), compared with patients in nonexpansion states (0.8% for Black patients and 0.4% for White; DID, 3.7% for Black patients and DID, 2.7% for White).

“We found similar results in colorectal cancer, but this effect is primarily observed among the stage IV patients,” commented lead author Naveen Manisundaram, MD, a research fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “Black patients with advanced stage disease experienced a 12.6% reduction in mortality in expansion states.”

Among Black patients with stage IV colorectal cancer, there was an increase in rates of surgery in expansion states, compared with nonexpansion states (DID, 5.7%). However, there was no increase in treatment with chemotherapy (DID, 1%; P = .66).

Mortality rates for Black patients with stomach cancer also decreased. In expansion states, there was a –13% absolute decrease in mortality, compared with a –5.2% decrease in nonexpansion states.

The investigators noted that Medicaid coverage was a key component in access to care through the Affordable Care Act. About two-thirds (66.7%) of Black patients had Medicaid; 33.3% were uninsured. Coverage was similar among White patients; 64.1% had Medicaid and 35.9% were uninsured.

“Our study provides compelling data that show Medicaid expansion was associated with improvement in survival for both Black and White patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Additionally, it suggests that Medicaid expansion is one potential avenue to mitigate existing racial survival disparities among these patients,” Dr. Manisundaram concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported an advisory role with Medicaroid. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche.

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

CHICAGO – When it comes to preventing pelvic recurrence in low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy is not inferior to radical hysterectomy, according to results from a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial.

“Following adequate and rigorous preoperative assessment, and that’s key – very careful [patient selection] – simple hysterectomies can now be considered the new standard of care for patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer,” said Marie Plante, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. A simple hysterectomy removes the uterus and cervix, while a radical hysterectomy also removes the parametrium and upper vagina.

Cervical cancer incidence has gone down over the past 2 decades as a result of improved screening, and patients tend to be lower in age and are more likely to have low-risk, early-stage disease, according to Dr. Plante. “Although radical surgery is highly effective for the treatment of low-risk disease, women are at risk of suffering survivorship issues related to long-term surgical side effects including compromised bladder, bowel, and sexual function,” said Dr. Plante, who is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Laval University and head of clinical research at l’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, both in Quebec City.

Retrospective studies found that infiltration of the parametrium is quite rare in low-risk cases, “suggesting that less radical surgery may be a safe option associated with decreased morbidity – what we call surgical de-escalation,” said Dr. Plante.

To test that idea more rigorously, the researchers designed the SHAPE trial, which randomized 700 women to a simple hysterectomy or radical hysterectomy. Patients were carefully selected to be low risk, having squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma, stage IA2 or IB2 tumors, fewer than 10 mm of stromal invasion on loop electrosurgical excision procedure or cone biopsy, less than 50% stromal invasion seen in MRI, and a maximum tumor dimension of 20 mm or less. Tumors were grade I-III or not assessable.

Over a median follow-up of 4.5 years, pelvic recurrence was 2.52% in the simple hysterectomy group and 2.17% in the radical hysterectomy group. The difference between the recurrence rate between the two groups was 0.35%, with an upper 95% confidence limit of 2.32%, below the threshold of 4% which had been predetermined as a benchmark for similar outcomes between the two groups. “Therefore, noninferiority of simple hysterectomy to radical hysterectomy could be concluded,” said Dr. Plante.

There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative complications or mortality between the groups.
 

Surgery-related adverse events greater in radical hysterectomy group

There were some differences between the groups with respect to surgery-related adverse events. Within 4 weeks of surgery, there was a greater incidence of any adverse event in the radical hysterectomy group (50.6% vs. 42.6%; P = .04), as well as greater incidences of urinary incontinence (5.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .048) and urinary retention (11.0% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001). In the 4 weeks following surgery, there was a trend toward more surgery-related adverse events in the radical hysterectomy group (60.5% vs. 53.6%; P = .08) and higher incidences of urinary incontinence (11.0% vs. 4.7%; P = .003) and urinary retention (9.9% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001).

“Urinary incontinence and urinary retention are statistically worse in the radical hysterectomy group – both acutely, as well as [during] the following four weeks after surgery, suggesting that the problem persisted over time,” said Dr. Plante.

Dr. Plante also presented the study at a premeeting virtual press conference, during which Kathleen Moore, MD, provided comments on the study. She expressed enthusiasm about the results.

“Amongst those carefully selected tumors, radical hysterectomy can be converted to a simple hysterectomy, including minimally invasive. You still have to do nodes – that’s an important thing to remember – but you can do this without loss of oncologic control. And importantly, with reduction in surgical complications, postop morbidity, specifically neurologic morbidity. The moment this is presented [at the ASCO conference] this will be the new standard of care, and it represents a huge step forward in the care of women with early-stage cervical cancer,” said Dr. Moore, who is a professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City.

Also in the press conference, Dr. Plante emphasized the importance of a thorough understanding of the tumor, including size, imaging, and pathology. “The more conservative one wants to be, the more meticulous, the more careful one has to be to make sure that we’re truly dealing with low-risk patients.”

During the question-and-answer session following her presentation at the ASCO session, a moderator asked Dr. Plante if the presence of lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) should prompt a radical hysterectomy.

Dr. Plante noted that about 13% of both radical and simple hysterectomy groups had LVSI present. “I think the key thing is careful selection, but I’m not sure that we should exclude LVSI [from consideration for simple hysterectomy] de facto,” she said.

Dr. Plante has consulted or advised Merck Serono and has received travel, accommodations, or other expenses from AstraZeneca. Dr. Moore has consulted, advised, and received research funding and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

CHICAGO – When it comes to preventing pelvic recurrence in low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy is not inferior to radical hysterectomy, according to results from a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial.

“Following adequate and rigorous preoperative assessment, and that’s key – very careful [patient selection] – simple hysterectomies can now be considered the new standard of care for patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer,” said Marie Plante, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. A simple hysterectomy removes the uterus and cervix, while a radical hysterectomy also removes the parametrium and upper vagina.

Cervical cancer incidence has gone down over the past 2 decades as a result of improved screening, and patients tend to be lower in age and are more likely to have low-risk, early-stage disease, according to Dr. Plante. “Although radical surgery is highly effective for the treatment of low-risk disease, women are at risk of suffering survivorship issues related to long-term surgical side effects including compromised bladder, bowel, and sexual function,” said Dr. Plante, who is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Laval University and head of clinical research at l’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, both in Quebec City.

Retrospective studies found that infiltration of the parametrium is quite rare in low-risk cases, “suggesting that less radical surgery may be a safe option associated with decreased morbidity – what we call surgical de-escalation,” said Dr. Plante.

To test that idea more rigorously, the researchers designed the SHAPE trial, which randomized 700 women to a simple hysterectomy or radical hysterectomy. Patients were carefully selected to be low risk, having squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma, stage IA2 or IB2 tumors, fewer than 10 mm of stromal invasion on loop electrosurgical excision procedure or cone biopsy, less than 50% stromal invasion seen in MRI, and a maximum tumor dimension of 20 mm or less. Tumors were grade I-III or not assessable.

Over a median follow-up of 4.5 years, pelvic recurrence was 2.52% in the simple hysterectomy group and 2.17% in the radical hysterectomy group. The difference between the recurrence rate between the two groups was 0.35%, with an upper 95% confidence limit of 2.32%, below the threshold of 4% which had been predetermined as a benchmark for similar outcomes between the two groups. “Therefore, noninferiority of simple hysterectomy to radical hysterectomy could be concluded,” said Dr. Plante.

There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative complications or mortality between the groups.
 

Surgery-related adverse events greater in radical hysterectomy group

There were some differences between the groups with respect to surgery-related adverse events. Within 4 weeks of surgery, there was a greater incidence of any adverse event in the radical hysterectomy group (50.6% vs. 42.6%; P = .04), as well as greater incidences of urinary incontinence (5.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .048) and urinary retention (11.0% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001). In the 4 weeks following surgery, there was a trend toward more surgery-related adverse events in the radical hysterectomy group (60.5% vs. 53.6%; P = .08) and higher incidences of urinary incontinence (11.0% vs. 4.7%; P = .003) and urinary retention (9.9% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001).

“Urinary incontinence and urinary retention are statistically worse in the radical hysterectomy group – both acutely, as well as [during] the following four weeks after surgery, suggesting that the problem persisted over time,” said Dr. Plante.

Dr. Plante also presented the study at a premeeting virtual press conference, during which Kathleen Moore, MD, provided comments on the study. She expressed enthusiasm about the results.

“Amongst those carefully selected tumors, radical hysterectomy can be converted to a simple hysterectomy, including minimally invasive. You still have to do nodes – that’s an important thing to remember – but you can do this without loss of oncologic control. And importantly, with reduction in surgical complications, postop morbidity, specifically neurologic morbidity. The moment this is presented [at the ASCO conference] this will be the new standard of care, and it represents a huge step forward in the care of women with early-stage cervical cancer,” said Dr. Moore, who is a professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City.

Also in the press conference, Dr. Plante emphasized the importance of a thorough understanding of the tumor, including size, imaging, and pathology. “The more conservative one wants to be, the more meticulous, the more careful one has to be to make sure that we’re truly dealing with low-risk patients.”

During the question-and-answer session following her presentation at the ASCO session, a moderator asked Dr. Plante if the presence of lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) should prompt a radical hysterectomy.

Dr. Plante noted that about 13% of both radical and simple hysterectomy groups had LVSI present. “I think the key thing is careful selection, but I’m not sure that we should exclude LVSI [from consideration for simple hysterectomy] de facto,” she said.

Dr. Plante has consulted or advised Merck Serono and has received travel, accommodations, or other expenses from AstraZeneca. Dr. Moore has consulted, advised, and received research funding and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

CHICAGO – When it comes to preventing pelvic recurrence in low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy is not inferior to radical hysterectomy, according to results from a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial.

“Following adequate and rigorous preoperative assessment, and that’s key – very careful [patient selection] – simple hysterectomies can now be considered the new standard of care for patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer,” said Marie Plante, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. A simple hysterectomy removes the uterus and cervix, while a radical hysterectomy also removes the parametrium and upper vagina.

Cervical cancer incidence has gone down over the past 2 decades as a result of improved screening, and patients tend to be lower in age and are more likely to have low-risk, early-stage disease, according to Dr. Plante. “Although radical surgery is highly effective for the treatment of low-risk disease, women are at risk of suffering survivorship issues related to long-term surgical side effects including compromised bladder, bowel, and sexual function,” said Dr. Plante, who is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Laval University and head of clinical research at l’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, both in Quebec City.

Retrospective studies found that infiltration of the parametrium is quite rare in low-risk cases, “suggesting that less radical surgery may be a safe option associated with decreased morbidity – what we call surgical de-escalation,” said Dr. Plante.

To test that idea more rigorously, the researchers designed the SHAPE trial, which randomized 700 women to a simple hysterectomy or radical hysterectomy. Patients were carefully selected to be low risk, having squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma, stage IA2 or IB2 tumors, fewer than 10 mm of stromal invasion on loop electrosurgical excision procedure or cone biopsy, less than 50% stromal invasion seen in MRI, and a maximum tumor dimension of 20 mm or less. Tumors were grade I-III or not assessable.

Over a median follow-up of 4.5 years, pelvic recurrence was 2.52% in the simple hysterectomy group and 2.17% in the radical hysterectomy group. The difference between the recurrence rate between the two groups was 0.35%, with an upper 95% confidence limit of 2.32%, below the threshold of 4% which had been predetermined as a benchmark for similar outcomes between the two groups. “Therefore, noninferiority of simple hysterectomy to radical hysterectomy could be concluded,” said Dr. Plante.

There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative complications or mortality between the groups.
 

Surgery-related adverse events greater in radical hysterectomy group

There were some differences between the groups with respect to surgery-related adverse events. Within 4 weeks of surgery, there was a greater incidence of any adverse event in the radical hysterectomy group (50.6% vs. 42.6%; P = .04), as well as greater incidences of urinary incontinence (5.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .048) and urinary retention (11.0% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001). In the 4 weeks following surgery, there was a trend toward more surgery-related adverse events in the radical hysterectomy group (60.5% vs. 53.6%; P = .08) and higher incidences of urinary incontinence (11.0% vs. 4.7%; P = .003) and urinary retention (9.9% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001).

“Urinary incontinence and urinary retention are statistically worse in the radical hysterectomy group – both acutely, as well as [during] the following four weeks after surgery, suggesting that the problem persisted over time,” said Dr. Plante.

Dr. Plante also presented the study at a premeeting virtual press conference, during which Kathleen Moore, MD, provided comments on the study. She expressed enthusiasm about the results.

“Amongst those carefully selected tumors, radical hysterectomy can be converted to a simple hysterectomy, including minimally invasive. You still have to do nodes – that’s an important thing to remember – but you can do this without loss of oncologic control. And importantly, with reduction in surgical complications, postop morbidity, specifically neurologic morbidity. The moment this is presented [at the ASCO conference] this will be the new standard of care, and it represents a huge step forward in the care of women with early-stage cervical cancer,” said Dr. Moore, who is a professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City.

Also in the press conference, Dr. Plante emphasized the importance of a thorough understanding of the tumor, including size, imaging, and pathology. “The more conservative one wants to be, the more meticulous, the more careful one has to be to make sure that we’re truly dealing with low-risk patients.”

During the question-and-answer session following her presentation at the ASCO session, a moderator asked Dr. Plante if the presence of lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) should prompt a radical hysterectomy.

Dr. Plante noted that about 13% of both radical and simple hysterectomy groups had LVSI present. “I think the key thing is careful selection, but I’m not sure that we should exclude LVSI [from consideration for simple hysterectomy] de facto,” she said.

Dr. Plante has consulted or advised Merck Serono and has received travel, accommodations, or other expenses from AstraZeneca. Dr. Moore has consulted, advised, and received research funding and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.