02 May Segregated Black Patients Less Likely To Receive Lung Cancer Surgery
Posted at 14:04h
in AACR, Author Interviews, Cancer Research, Lung Cancer, Race/Ethnic Diversity, Surgical Research
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
[caption id="attachment_23958" align="alignleft" width="150"]
Dr. Asal Mohamadi Johnson[/caption]
Asal Mohamadi Johnson, PhD, MPH
Assistant Professor of Epidemiology, Integrative Health Science
Stetson University
DeLand, FL 32723
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Johnson: Public health research is primarily focused on neighborhood poverty and racial disparities by illustrating differences between white and black individuals or communities. For example, it has been established that African Americans have higher cancer mortality rates and are less likely to receive appropriate treatment that whites. What we wanted to know in this study was the impact of living in segregated areas apart from other area level characteristics such as poverty or education. Instead of solely looking at health disparities between whites and black patients, our study focused on differences in survival among black patients with early stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) living in different levels of neighborhood segregation.
Dr. Paul Nghiem[/caption]
Paul Nghiem, MD, PhD
Professor & Head, University of Washington Dermatology
George F. Odland Endowed Chair
Affiliate Investigator, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
Professor, Adjunct, of Pathology and Oral Health Sciences
Clinical Director, Skin Oncology, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance
UW Medical Center at Lake Union
Seattle WA 98109
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Nghiem: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is about 30 times less common than malignant melanoma, but about 3 times more likely to kill a patient than a melanoma. There is no FDA-approved therapy for this cancer & chemotherapy typically only provides about 90 days prior to the cancer progressing. Because of the strong links between MCC and the immune system, including the fact that most MCCs are caused by a virus, there was interest in trying to use immune checkpoint therapy to treat advanced Merkel cell carcinoma. The response to immune stimulation with anti-PD1 therapy was about as frequent as to chemotherapy (56% of patients responded) but importantly, among the responders, 86% remained in ongoing responses at a median of 7.6 months. While still early, this appears to be strikingly more durable than responses to chemotherapy.
Dr. Stephen Freedland[/caption]
Stephen J. Freedland, MD
Associate Director, Faculty Development Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute
Co-Director, Cancer Genetics and Prevention Program
Director, Center for Integrated Research in Cancer and Lifestyle
Professor, Surgery
Warschaw Robertson Law Families Chair in Prostate Cancer
Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Freedland: PSA is a marker of prostate pathology. While often used to screen for prostate cancer, it is not prostate specific and can be elevated due to inflammation or enlarged prostate or other reasons. Whether it predicts the development of urinary symptoms is not clear. Among men with minimal to no urinary symptoms, we found that the higher the PSA, the greater the risk of future development of urinary symptoms.
MedicalResearch.com: What should clinicians and patients take away from your report?
Dr. Freedland: The readers should know that if a man has an elevated PSA and a negative prostate biopsy, the higher the PSA, the greater the risk of future urinary symptoms. These are men who may need closer follow-up. 
Dr. J. William Harbour[/caption]
Dr. Stacie Dusetzina[/caption]
Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD
Assistant Professor
Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy
Eshelman School of Pharmacy
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Dusetzina: Drug prices are of significant policy interest, particularly the prices for so-called “specialty” medications which are used to treat rare and/or complex conditions like cancer. In this study I estimated monthly price for orally-administered cancer treatments that were approved between 2000 and 2014. First I looked at the price of the drug during the year of initial FDA approval and then I looked at annual changes in the price after the year of approval. The main findings are that, even after inflation adjustment, the monthly price paid for orally-administered cancer treatments is increasing rapidly both at the time of approval and in subsequent years.
As an example, if you compare average monthly prices during the first year post-approval for treatments approved between 2000-2010 to those approved after 2010 there was a major increase in launch prices from $5,529 per month to $9,013 per month. Year-to-year changes in price after launch varied a lot by drug ranging from decreases in price of -2.7% per year to increases of 11.4% per year. However, nearly all of the products studied increased in price over time.
Donghao Lu[/caption]
Donghao Lu MD, PhD candidate
Department of Medical Epidemiology & Biostatistics,
Karolinska Institutet
Stockholm
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Lu: Psychiatric comorbidities are common among cancer patients. However, whether or not there is already increased risk of psychiatric disorders during the diagnostic workup leading to a cancer diagnosis was largely unknown.
We found that, among cancer patients, the risks for several common and potentially stress-related mental disorders, including depression, anxiety, substance abuse, somatoform/conversion disorder and stress reaction/adjustment disorder started to increase from ten months before cancer diagnosis, peaked during the first week after diagnosis, compared to cancer-free individuals in Sweden.
Dr. Stamatia Destounis[/caption]
Stamatia Destounis, MD, FSBI, FACR
Elizabeth Wende Breast Care, LLC,
Clinical Professor of Imaging Sciences
University of Rochester
School of Medicine and Dentistry
Rochester NY 14620
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Destounis: Identification of women who have an increased risk of breast cancer is important, as they are often eligible for additional screening methods, such as breast MRI. One criterion for eligibility for screening breast MRI is >20% lifetime risk of breast cancer, as determined by risk assessment models through genetic counseling.
At my facility, we have incorporated a genetics program. Through the program we are flagging and identifying a large volume of patients who are potentially eligible for additional services. This study was conducted to determine the value of screening MRI in the patient subgroup who have undergone genetic counseling at my facility. In this group we found 50% of patients who were referred for counseling were also recommended to have screening MRI. However, only 21.3% of those recommended actually pursued the exam. Of those patients who did have a screening MRI, 4 were diagnosed with breast cancer, all of which were invasive and node negative. We ultimately had a 10% biopsy rate and 50% cancer detection rate in this subgroup.
Dr. Elizabeth Rafferty[/caption]
Elizabeth A. Rafferty, MD
Department of Radiology,
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
Now with L&M Radiology, West Acton,
Massachusetts
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Rafferty: Breast tomosynthesis has been approved for mammographic screening in the United States for just over 5 years, and many single center studies have demonstrated its improved performance for screening outcomes over digital mammography alone. Our previously published multi-center analysis, (JAMA 2014;311(24), the largest study on this topic to date, demonstrated significantly improved cancer detection and reduced recall rates for women undergoing tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone. In the current issue of JAMA we evaluate the differential screening performance after implementation of breast tomosynthesis as a function of breast density.
While tomosynthesis continues to be increasingly available, questions remained about which women should be imaged with this technique. In particular, does this technology offer additional benefit for all women, or only for women with dense breasts. The size of the database compiled by the centers participating in this study allowed us to evaluate this important question.
The most critical finding of our study was that the use of tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening significantly improved invasive cancer detection rates while simultaneously significantly reducing recall rates both for women with dense and non-dense breast tissue. Having said that, the magnitude of the benefit was largest for women with heterogeneously dense breast tissue; for this population, tomosynthesis increased the detection of invasive cancers by 50% while simultaneously reducing the recall rate by 14%.
Dr. Reddy[/caption]
E. Premkumar Reddy, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Oncological Sciences
and Department of Structural and Chemical Biology
Director, Experimental Cancer Therapeutics
Mount Sinai School of Medicine
New York, NY 10029
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Reddy: It is now well established that cancer cells harbor mutations in their genome which are responsible for uncontrolled proliferation. Nearly 30 years ago, we as well as two other groups discovered that RAS genes are often mutated in human cancers. Later studies showed that nearly 25-30% of human cancers contain this mutation and these mutations can be caused by chemical carcinogens such as tobacco smoke. Since then there has been an intense effort to understand the biological functions of RAS and to develop drugs that block the activity of these mutant RAS genes. Although molecular oncologists have made significant headway in understanding these mutations and their impact on cellular signaling, little progress has been made towards developing drugs that systematically target the RAS oncogenes. This lack of progress has led many in the field to label RAS as “undruggable”. However, basic research conducted by scientists in this field has revealed that RAS proteins function as ON-OFF switches to signal cells to grow or not to grow because of their ability to bind to a large number of cellular proteins and transmit this signal to their binding partners. These findings also revealed that mutations in RAS genes leaves them in a permanent “ON” position which continues to transmit growth signals permanently. Since most efforts to develop drugs that bind to RAS proteins and reverse their activity failed, we took a different approach to block these signals. Since transmission of growth signals by RAS genes requires their interaction with cellular proteins, all of which contain a domain called “RAS-Binding Domain (RBD)” we created a drug named “Rigosertib” that binds to these RBDs and block their binding to RAS, thereby interrupting RAS signals. When Rigosertib was tested in animals, it could readily inhibit the growth of human tumors that contain RAS mutations. Our studies also show that Rigosertib is a very safe drug with minimal side-effects.
Dr. Nelly Tan[/caption]
Dr. Nelly Tan MD
David Geffen School of Medicine
Department of Radiology
UCLA
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Tan: Standard of care for prostate cancer diagnosis has been to perform ultrasound guided random (non-targeted) prostate biopsy (TRUS) which is neither sensitive or specific. The main limitation had been our inability to detect and localize prostate cancer through imaging.
Over the past 10 years, MRI has taken center stage for detection and localization of prostate cancer and has shown to improve prostate cancer diagnosis, risk stratification, and staging of the disease. Over the past few years, MRI guided biopsy techniques (in the form of Ultrasound-MRI (US-MRI) fusion and in-bore direct MRI guided biopsy) have been reported. We reported our performance of direct in-bore MRI guided biopsy at UCLA. Our study showed a prostate cancer diagnosis of 59% in all patients and 80% of patients with prostate cancer had clinically significant cancer.
