Novel SM-88 Therapy Has Potential Efficacy in Metastatic Breast Cancer

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:

Dr. Giuseppe Del Priore, MD, MPH Chief Medical Officer of Tyme Inc. 

Dr. Del Priore

Dr. Giuseppe Del Priore, MD, MPH
Chief Medical Officer of Tyme Inc.

MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?

Response: Metastatic breast cancer, sometimes also called “stage IV” or “advanced breast cancer,” is the most extensive stage of breast cancer. It is an invasive cancer that has spread to other parts of the body, most often bones, lungs, liver, and brain. The current standard of care for metastatic breast cancer is systemic drug therapies, such as hormone therapy, chemotherapy, targeted drugs or a combination of these.  Because they reach every cell in the body, they have side effects that can worsen the patient’s quality of life. Existing treatments cannot cure metastatic breast cancer and are palliative in intent. This presents a great unmet need and challenge in treating patients with metastatic breast cancer.

SM-88 is a novel relatively non-toxic combination therapy that harnesses cancer’s unique cell metabolism and oxidative stress to selectively drive cancer cell death. Earlier studies with SM-88 therapy demonstrated its potential efficacy in breast and other metastatic cancers. In this current report, we assessed the efficacy of SM-88 in patients with metastatic breast cancer from the first in human “Phase 1” and compassionate use programs from 2012 to 2017. Data demonstrated the potential efficacy of SM-88 in metastatic breast cancer with favorable safety and quality of life profiles. In addition, there were no indications of cross-resistance based on hormone profile, previous treatments or metastatic site. This is an extremely important finding since most cancer deaths are due to resistance to subsequent therapies.  As predicted by the SM-88 mechanism of action, we could not detect this problem with SM-88 use.

Continue reading

What Surveillance Testing Should Be Done After Melanoma Diagnosis?

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:

This image depicts the gross appearance of a cutaneous pigmented lesion, which had been diagnosed as superficial spreading malignant melanoma (SSMM). Note the roughened edges of this mole, and its heterogeneous, mottled, multicolored appearance, which are all characteristics that should evoke suspicions about its classification.

This image depicts the gross appearance of a cutaneous pigmented lesion, which had been diagnosed as superficial spreading malignant melanoma (SSMM). Note the roughened edges of this mole, and its heterogeneous, mottled, multicolored appearance, which are all characteristics that should evoke suspicions about its classification.
CDC Image

Dr. Diwakar Davar, MD
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Division of Hematology/Oncology
University of Pittsburgh 

MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?

Response: The optimal surveillance strategy to detect recurrence in cutaneous melanoma remains elusive. Risk of recurrence increases with higher stage, and is especially high for patients with stage IIIC disease. Although consensus guidelines agree on surveillance imaging for high-risk (stage IIB-IIIC) MEL, there is no consensus regarding optimal frequency/modality in these patients. NCCN guidelines suggest chest radiography (CXR) at 6- to 12-month intervals for stage IA-IIA melanoma  patients; although this is controversial. There exists a great deal of practice variation in the surveillance of these patients. Continue reading

Plitidepsin Evaluated for Refractory Multiple Myeloma

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
PharmaMarDr. Javier Gómez García
Senior Manager. Biostatistics and Data Management
PharmaMar
Madrid Area, Spain

MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?

Response: Multiple myeloma accounts for approximately 1 percent of all cancers and slightly more than 10 percent of all hematologic malignancies. At present, more than 80,000 new cases are reported worldwide each year, and the disease prevalence is increasing.

Plitidepsin is a synthetic cyclic depsipeptide isolated from the marine tunicate Aplidium albicans targeting the proto-oncogene eEF1A2, which is over-expressed in multiple myeloma cells.

In ADMYRE trial 255 relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients with at least three but not more than six prior regimens, including at least bortezomib and lenalidomide/thalidomide, were randomized at 2:1 ratio to receive plitidepsin 5 mg/m2 D1 and 15 plus DXM 40 mg D1, 8, 15 and 22 (P+DXM), or DXM 40 mg D1,8,15 and 22 (DXM) every four weeks.

P+DXM met the primary endpoint, progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an Independent Review Committee, showing a 35% risk reduction in the probability of progression or death. Indeed, a 20% risk reduction in the probability of death was also observed in spite of the fact that 44% of patients from control arm (DXM) switched to P+DXM arm after progression. Therefore, survival in the control arm might have been extended by the effect of plitidepsin, increasing the post progression survival and overestimating the survival observed in the control arm and consequently underestimating the actual difference between treatment arms.

Several methods were used to assess the impact of crossover and the robustness of the results even when penalizations were applied; PharmaMar believes that strong evidence in terms of survival benefit in favour of P+DXM has been established.  Continue reading

Lung Cancer Risk Drops Almost 40% Within 5 Years of Quitting Smoking

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Hilary Tindle, MD, MPH

“Used Cigarette Butts” by Indi Samarajiva is licensed under CC BY 2.0Associate Professor of Medicine and theWilliam Anderson Spickard, Jr., MD Chair in Medicine
Founding Director of ViTAL, the Vanderbilt Center for Tobacco, Addiction and Lifestyle
Division of Internal Medicine & Public Health and Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center (VICC)

MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?

Response: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer related death for men and women ,and cigarette smoking is responsible for almost 9 of our every 10 lung cancers in the US. Lung cancer screening can reduce the risk of death from lung cancer by about 20% or even higher if screening is combined with quitting smoking.

We know that lung cancer risk is lower in people who quit smoking, compared to those who continue to smoke, but it was not clear how quickly this risk drops after quitting. Most prior studies on this subject assessed smoking status (current, former, never) at relatively few timepoints. By asking about smoking more frequently (every couple of years), we can get a better picture of a person’s true exposure to cigarette smoke and take into account periods where someone may have smoked more, less, or even quit altogether. Some people may start and stop multiple times over their lifetime.

Another question was exactly how long the risk of lung cancer stays elevated after quitting smoking. Again, by asking about smoking multiple times over someone’s lifetime, we get a better picture of how long they were truly smoke free.

MedicalResearch.com: What are the main findings?

  •  We analyzed data from the Framingham Heart Study Original and Offspring cohorts (almost 9000 people total) to study the risk of lung cancer after quitting smoking, and to determine if the risk of lung cancer ever goes back to that of someone who has never smoked (termed a “never smoker”). Study participants were followed for a median of almost 30 years, and were asked about smoking every 2-4 years.
  • We focused on heavier smokers, who had smoked more than 21 pack-years. (A “pack-year” is a way to quantify how much someone has been exposed to cigarette smoke. Pack years are the product of years of smoking times the amount smoked. For example, someone who smoked 1 pack of cigarettes per day for 20 years would have 20 pack years. Another person who smoked 2 packs per day for 10 years would also have 20 pack years.) As expected, the risks of lung cancer were highest among current smokers, followed by former smokers, followed by never smokers.
  • Compared to never smokers, former smokers had higher lung cancer risk: about 12 times higher within 10 years since quitting (YSQ), about 7 times higher from 10-15 YSQ, about 6 times higher from 15-25 YSQ, and over 3 times higher even after 25 YSQ.
  • Compared to current smokers, former smokers had lower lung cancer risk: 39% lower within 5 YSQ, which continued to drop over time.
  • Among all former smokers, about 4 in 10 lung cancers occurred after more than 15 YSQ, which is beyond the window of eligibility for current screening guidelines.

In the future, after additional study, guidelines may decide to extend the window of lung cancer screening beyond 15 YSQ. However, additional modeling studies are likely needed before making that determination. For now, anyone who qualifies for lung cancer screening based on age, pack years, and years since quitting, should have it.

MedicalResearch.com: What should readers take away from your report?

Response: If you currently smoke cigarettes, now is a great time to quit. The results of this study show that lung cancer risk drops almost 40% within 5 years since quitting, compared to people who continue to smoke.

If you already quit smoking, congratulations on taking that major step.

Whether you currently smoke, or if you quit smoking within the last 15 years, talk to your doctor to see if you are eligible for lung cancer screening. 

MedicalResearch.com: What recommendations do you have for future research as a result of this work?

 Response: We would like to see additional research from different groups to determine if the current lung cancer screening guidelines should potentially be altered to include those who quit more than 15 years ago. Again, this is a decision may require additional study, including an understanding of why some former smokers remain at elevated risk of lung cancer. Perhaps studying genetic variation could shed some light on this question.  

MedicalResearch.com: Is there anything else you would like to add?

Response: Yes, we would like to thank the NIH and particularly the NHLBI for supporting the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) and studies like it, and also to all the participants in the FHS for giving their information for decades, to the benefit of all Americans and the world. We consider studies such as the FHS to be “national treasures” in that they provide critical information for doctors and researchers to improve healthcare. The FHS is most often thought of as a cardiovascular dataset, but it also captures information on cancer. In the case of the current study, we re-analyzed information that was already collected, which is one of the efficient and low cost methods of conducting research. 

Citation:

 Hilary A Tindle, Meredith Stevenson Duncan, Robert A Greevy, Ramachandran S Vasan, Suman Kundu, Pierre P Massion, Matthew S Freiberg. Lifetime Smoking History and Risk of Lung Cancer: Results From the Framingham Heart Study. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2018; DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djy041

 

The information on MedicalResearch.com is provided for educational purposes only, and is in no way intended to diagnose, cure, or treat any medical or other condition. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health and ask your doctor any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. In addition to all other limitations and disclaimers in this agreement, service provider and its third party providers disclaim any liability or loss in connection with the content provided on this website.

 

Everolimus Plus Exemestane vs Monotherapy for ER+ HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:

Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD CHU Sart Tilman Liege and Liege University Liege, Belgium

Dr. Jerusalem

Dr. Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD
CHU Sart Tilman Liege and Liege University
Liege, Belgium

MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?

Response: BOLERO-6 was conducted to fulfill postapproval regulatory commitments to the FDA and EMA to estimate treatment benefit with EVE + EXE vs EVE alone or CAP for ER+, HER2− ABC that had progressed on an NSAI. Everolimus plus exemestane has not previously been compared with everolimus alone or capecitabine in a randomized setting.Data describing everolimus alone are limited to a single phase 2 study of just 19 patients. Thus, the FDA deemed it important to ascertain the efficacy of everolimus alone for ER+ breast cancer, and to determine the contribution of exemestane to combination therapy with everolimus. Capecitabine is often the first chemotherapeutic agent given for ER+ breast cancer that has progressed on anti-estrogen therapy. It has a reported PFS of 4.1–7.9 months among patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. However, it has a different safety profile to everolimus or exemestane, and a comparison of endocrine-based combination therapy with single-agent chemotherapy was yet to be conducted.

The median PFS with EVE + EXE (8.4 months) was consistent with BOLERO-2 (7.8 months), and compared to EVE alone here (6.8 months) corresponded to an estimated 26% reduction of risk of disease progression or death (HR 0.74).

A numerical median PFS difference was observed for CAP over EVE + EXE (9.6 vs 8.4 months), which may be attributed to various baseline characteristics favoring CAP and potential informative censoring. The median PFS with capacitabine was longer than expected based on previous trials. Interpretation of the results of BOLERO-6 must consider the limited sample size and open-label design.  Continue reading

How Long Should Cancer Survivors Be Followed by Oncology?

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: Dr. Anil K. Sood M.D. Professor and Vice Chair for Translational Research in the Departments of Gynecologic Oncology and Cancer Biology and co-director of the Center for RNA Interference and Non-Coding RNA MD Anderson Cancer Center

Dr. Sood

Dr. Anil K. Sood M.D.
Professor and Vice Chair for Translational Research in the Departments of Gynecologic Oncology and Cancer Biology and co-director of the Center for RNA Interference and Non-Coding RNA
MD Anderson Cancer Center

MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?

Response: Cancer survivorship care involves coordinating between oncologists, surgeons, and primary care teams, yet there are no consistent or universal guidelines to dictate who will oversee which aspects of care, and when.

MedicalResearch.com: What are the main findings?

Response: Some cancer survivorship populations have a short high-risk period and exceedingly low cancer mortality, suggesting their survivorship care may best be overseen by their primary care physician. The highest-risk populations saw a majority of deaths from their primary cancer, and had high-risk periods longer than five-years, suggesting an extended period of survivorship care management by their oncologist.

MedicalResearch.com: What should clinicians and patients take away from your report?

Response: Many patients may be undergoing excessively long survivorship care with their oncologist, while others may be receiving insufficient periods of oncologist-led survivorship care

MedicalResearch.com: What recommendations do you have for future research as a result of this study?

Response: This study looked at broad, organ-based cancer types. The methods used in this study could be performed to further tailor personalized survivorship care based on cancer and patient-level specifics.

All authors have no pertinent disclosures.

MedicalResearch.com: Thank you for your contribution to the MedicalResearch.com community

Citation:

Dood RL, Zhao Y, Armbruster SD, et al. Defining Survivorship Trajectories Across Patients With Solid TumorsAn Evidence-Based Approach. JAMA Oncol. Published online June 02, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.2761

 

Note: Content is Not intended as medical advice. Please consult your health care provider regarding your specific medical condition and questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 SM-88 as Potential Alternative to Existing Toxic Treatments for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:

Dr. Marcus Smith Noel, MD University of Rochester James P. Wilmot Cancer Institute Strong Memorial Hospital

Dr. Smith Noel

Dr. Marcus Smith Noel, MD
University of Rochester James P. Wilmot Cancer Institute
Strong Memorial Hospital

MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?

Response: Pancreatic cancer outcomes are poor even despite improvement in the overall prognosis for many cancers. Early detection of pancreatic cancer is uncommon because early stage pancreatic cancer often has few symptoms. Unfortunately, most cases are diagnosed at more advanced stages, which is in part why the disease is so lethal. Current standard of care treatments are highly toxic and not effective long-term, as about 90% of patients diagnosed with advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer do not survive a year.

SM-88 is a relatively non-toxic novel combination therapy designed to utilize cellular metabolism and oxidative stress to drive cancer cell death. This therapy has previously demonstrated activity in various metastatic cancers, such as pancreatic cancer, and is currently being evaluated in an ongoing Phase II trial for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

This study is a trial in progress report of Tyme’s Phase II trial in patients with metastatic cancer. The Phase II trial is designed as an open-label, multi-center study of SM-88 in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who have failed at least one prior line of therapy. In the first stage of the trial, 36 patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive a dose of either a currently utilized active regimen or a double dose per day of SM-88. Primary endpoints are overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS), disease control rate, duration of response and time to subsequent treatment. The purpose of the first stage of the study is to analyze the safety, efficacy and pharmacokinetics of SM-88 in patients.  The selected dose of SM-88 will be continued into the second stage of the trial for approximately 81 additional patients.

Continue reading

What Happened to Prostate Cancer Screening and Treatment After PSA Guidelines Changed?

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:

James T. Kearns, MD Clinical Fellow, Department of Urology University of Washington School of Medicine Seattle, WA 

Dr. Kearns

James T. Kearns, MD
Clinical Fellow, Department of Urology
University of Washington School of Medicine
Seattle, WA

MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?

Response: The effects of the USPSTF recommendation against prostate cancer screening had not been fully characterized among a younger population, particularly with respect to downstream effects such as prostate biopsy, prostate cancer diagnosis, and treatment for prostate cancer.

We found that PSA testing decreased in the years surrounding the USPSTF recommendation, but we also found a larger proportionate decrease in prostate biopsy, prostate cancer diagnosis, and use of surgery or radiation for the treatment of prostate cancer.

Continue reading

Combination Therapy Could Dramatically Alter CLL Treatment

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:

Dr. Danelle James,

Dr. James

Dr. Danelle James, M.D., M.A.S.
Head of Clinical Science
Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company

MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?

Response: CAPTIVATE is a Phase 2 study investigating IMBRUVICA (ibrutinib) plus VENCLEXTA (venetoclax) for the treatment of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) in the first-line setting. It was designed to evaluate if remission with undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) can provide treatment-naïve CLL/SLL patients with treatment holidays (a period of time when a patient is able to stop therapy). The study enrolled 164 patients with previously untreated CLL or SLL.

In preclinical and ongoing clinical studies, we’ve seen complementary activities with this combination. The combination has also previously shown potential for deeper remissions, as well as potential for lower risk of tumor lysis syndrome with ibrutinib as the lead-in therapy.

Early data from CAPTIVATE show promising activity for the combination in this patient population, with 77 percent of the first 30 patients achieving responses with no detectable MRD in the blood after only six cycles of the combination therapy. Approximately nine out of 10 of the first patients achieved undetectable MRD after 12 cycles of combination therapy (which were preceded by three cycles of single agent ibrutinib, for a total of 15 cycles of therapy). Specifically, 86 percent of the first 14 patients achieved undetectable MRD in the marrow and 93 percent in the peripheral blood.

Continue reading

Engineered Single Cell ‘Cured’ Patient of CLL

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:

Dr. J Joseph Melenhorst, PhD Director, Product Development & Correlative Sciences laboratories (PDCS) Adjunct Associate Professor Penn Medicine Center for Cellular Immunotherapies University of Pennsylvania

Dr. Melenhorst

Dr. J Joseph Melenhorst, PhD
Director, Product Development & Correlative Sciences laboratories (PDCS)
Adjunct Associate Professor
Penn Medicine
Center for Cellular Immunotherapies
University of Pennsylvania

MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? Would you briefly explain what is meant by CLL and CAR T cells? 

Response: We started treating patients with a form of blood cancer called CLL (chronic lymphocytic leukemia) using a form of gene therapy wherein we engineer the patient’s own immune cells – T cells – with a tumor targeting molecule: The CAR, which stands for chimeric antigen receptor. When we engineer the patient’s immune cells we use a vehicle, in this case virus, that inserts the payload – the CAR – into the patient’s DNA. The virus disappears, and the CAR stays. Where this CAR inserts itself is unpredictable, but we always get stably engineered cells.  Continue reading

Prostate Cancer: ERLEADA (apalutamide) Delayed Metastases While Not Reducing Quality of Life

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:

Dr. Fred Saad, MD FRCS Full Professor and Chief of Urologic Oncology, CHUM; Medical Director of Interdisciplinary Urologic Oncology Group, CHUM; Department of Surgery/Faculty of Medicine; Institut du cancer de Montréal/CRCHUM

Dr. Saad

Dr. Fred Saad, MD FRCS
Professor and Chief of Urology
Director of GU Oncology
Raymond Garneau Chair in Prostate Cancer
University of Montreal Hospital Center (CHUM)
Director, Prostate Cancer Research , Montreal Cancer Institute

MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?

Response: Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) data from the Phase 3 SPARTAN study showed adding ERLEADA (apalutamide) to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for patients with nmCRPC who were asymptomatic and well, did not worsen or cause detriment to HRQoL when compared to the placebo.The percent of patients who felt “quite a bit” or “very much” bothered was low (<2–6 percent of patients in the apalutamide group and 0–6 percent of those in the placebo group), suggesting that ERLEADA treatment was generally well-tolerated. This outcome, coupled with the efficacy results seen in SPARTAN, suggest that apalutamide can be given to patients at risk of metastasis without worry about compounded side effects or negative HRQoL..

Continue reading

Apalutamide (Erleada™) Extended Metastasis-Free Survival in Resistant Prostate Cancer

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:

Dr. Fred Saad, MD FRCS Full Professor and Chief of Urologic Oncology, CHUM; Medical Director of Interdisciplinary Urologic Oncology Group, CHUM; Department of Surgery/Faculty of Medicine; Institut du cancer de Montréal/CRCHUM

Dr. Saad

Dr. Fred Saad, MD FRCS
Full Professor and Chief of Urologic Oncology, CHUM;
Medical Director of Interdisciplinary Urologic Oncology Group, CHUM;
Department of Surgery/Faculty of Medicine;
Institut du cancer de Montréal/CRCHUM

MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?

Response: The SPARTAN study was a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study that evaluated ERLEADA (apalutamide), a next-generation androgen signaling inhibitor, in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) who had a rapidly rising PSA (PSA doubling time ≤10 months). The post-hoc analysis presented at the American Urological Association (AUA) 2018 annual meeting showed in patients who received the treatment apalutamide while receiving continuous androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly decreased the risk of PSA progression by 94 percent compared with the placebo group. Continue reading

More Young Women Than Men Now Get Lung Cancer

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
“Woman smoking” by Pedro Ribeiro Simões is licensed under CC BY 2.0Ahmedin Jemal, DVM, PHD
Scientific Vice President, Surveillance & Health Services Rsch
American Cancer Society, Inc.
Atlanta, GA 30303

MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?

Response: Historically, lung cancer rates have been higher in men than women at all ages because of the substantially higher cigarette smoking prevalence in men.

However, cigarette smoking prevalences over the past few decades have become similar between young men and women. Consistent with this pattern, we previously reported the convergence of lung cancer rates between young men and young women. In this paper, we examined the lung cancer incidence rates in young women versus young men in the contemporary cohorts.

We found that the historically higher lung cancer incidence rates in young men than in young women have reversed in whites and Hispanics born since the mid-1960s. However, this emerging incidence patterns were not fully explained by sex difference in smoking prevalence as cigarette smoking prevalences among whites and Hispanics were not higher in young women than young men.

Continue reading

New Guidelines Improve Melanoma Diagnosis, But Still Room For Improvement

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH
Professor of Medicine
David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA
Director of the UCLA National Clinician Scholars Program
Affiliate Professor of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine

MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? 

Response: In a recent study published in 2017 in the British Medical Journal, our team found that pathologists disagreed on their diagnoses of some melanocytic skin biopsy lesions and early stage invasive melanoma more than 50% of the time. This concerning level of disagreement was particularly true for diagnoses in the middle of the disease spectrum, such as atypical lesions and melanoma in situ.  For example, Figure 1 from this paper shows the diagnoses of 36 pathologists who interpreted the same glass slide of a skin biopsy using their own microscopes; the diagnoses ranged from a benign lesion to invasive melanoma.

Since that study, the American Joint Committee on Cancer has released new guidelines for melanoma staging. Given this change, we wanted to examine whether the updated guidelines improved the reliability of melanoma diagnosis.

We found that using the new guidelines improved the accuracy of pathologists’ diagnoses for invasive melanoma (Elmore J, et al, JAMA Network Open 2018).  Continue reading

EWG Urges Sunscreen Companies and Consumers To Go Oxybenzone-Free By 2020

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
“Sunscreen” by Tom Newby is licensed under CC BY 2.0Carla Burns, M.S.

Environmental Working Group
She is one of the coauthors of the 2018 Guide to Sunscreens. 

MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for the EWG report? 

Response: Environmental Working Group (EWG) published its first Sunscreen Guide in 2007.

When we first started the guide, many sun protection products sold in the U.S. were not as safe and used misleading marketing claims.

Throughout the years, EWG has continued to find that a common sunscreen ingredient, oxybenzone, poses a hazard to human health and the environment. Despite EWG’s efforts to draw attention to the health hazards associated with this ingredient over the last 12, oxybenzone remains widely used in chemical-based sunscreens. So, this year, we are ramping up our efforts to rid the market of this ingredient by launching a campaign to urge companies and consumers to go oxybenzone-free by 2020.

Continue reading