Megan Brooks

SAN DIEGO — A 20-year initiative by Kaiser Permanente Northern California that assessed colorectal cancer (CRC) screening status and offered flexible options for screening has made a huge difference in CRC incidence, deaths, and racial disparities, an analysis showed.

“The program promptly doubled the proportion of people up to date with screening,” reported lead investigator Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, AGAF, a research scientist with Kaiser’s Division of Research, at a press briefing held on April 24, ahead of a presentation at the Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2025.

Additionally, within about 10 years, cancer rates were cut by a third, deaths were halved for the second most common cause of cancer deaths in the United States, and the differences that had previously been seen by race or ethnicity were largely eliminated, he said.

“Ten years ago, there were big gaps in cancer risk and death, especially among our Black patients. Now, those differences are nearly gone,” Corley said.

 

Closing the Gap

A systematic CRC screening program was implemented across Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The program included proactive outreach to members who were overdue for screening and mailing them fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits for at-home use.

Corley and colleagues tracked screening status and CRC incidence and mortality annually from 2000 to 2019 among about 1.1 million members aged 50-75 years across 22 medical centers of the integrated healthcare system. The cohort included American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and White members.

Screening rates via FIT, colonoscopy, or sigmoidoscopy more than doubled after starting the program, from about 37% in the early years to about 80% within a few years, and it stayed that high through 2019, Corley reported. 

“Importantly, these large increases occurred across the whole population with only small differences,” he said. 

For example, about 76% of Hispanic members, 77% of Black members, 82% of White members, and 83% of Asian members were up to date in the later years and through 2019.

“This shows that systematic, comparable outreach can provide a level playing field for completion of preventive care,” Corley said.

After an expected early uptick in CRC incidence due to early detection, incidence later declined and by 2019 had dropped approximately 30% across the groups.

 

Long-Standing Disparities Erased

CRC deaths also fell by about 50% across all groups, with the largest decline among Black members, Corley noted.

Racial and ethnic disparities in both CRC incidence and mortality have long existed, with Black patients in particular experiencing higher risks and worse outcomes, likely from a mixture of risk factors and healthcare utilization, Corley said.

Offering outreach and equal access to screening in the Kaiser program erased those long-standing disparities.

“It’s remarkable that some of these large differences in mortality by race and ethnicity that we saw two decades ago, and which are found throughout the United States, are now similar to small chance variation in the population,” Corley said.

Flexibility was key to getting more people screened, he noted. “It’s about reaching people at their homes and offering a choice to patients. It’s an astonishingly simple concept.”

It’s important to note that these findings stem from a large, integrated healthcare system, which may differ from other settings, although similar outreach strategies have succeeded in safety net clinics and smaller practices, Corley added.

By boosting screening rates to 80%, the health system reached the level that’s essentially been defined in the past as our goal of screening programs, said Loren Laine, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine (digestive diseases) at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and chair of this year’s DDW. 

“It shows that if health systems institute programmatic screening for all their covered individuals, they could markedly increase screening, said Laine, who also served as moderator of the press briefing.

“Most importantly, of course, [screening] was associated with a reduction in colorectal cancer incidence and deaths,” he said.

The study had no commercial funding. Corley reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

Laine’s disclosures included consulting and/or relationships with Medtronic, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Biohaven, Celgene, Intercept, Merck, and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A 20-year initiative by Kaiser Permanente Northern California that assessed colorectal cancer (CRC) screening status and offered flexible options for screening has made a huge difference in CRC incidence, deaths, and racial disparities, an analysis showed.

“The program promptly doubled the proportion of people up to date with screening,” reported lead investigator Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, AGAF, a research scientist with Kaiser’s Division of Research, at a press briefing held on April 24, ahead of a presentation at the Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2025.

Additionally, within about 10 years, cancer rates were cut by a third, deaths were halved for the second most common cause of cancer deaths in the United States, and the differences that had previously been seen by race or ethnicity were largely eliminated, he said.

“Ten years ago, there were big gaps in cancer risk and death, especially among our Black patients. Now, those differences are nearly gone,” Corley said.

 

Closing the Gap

A systematic CRC screening program was implemented across Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The program included proactive outreach to members who were overdue for screening and mailing them fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits for at-home use.

Corley and colleagues tracked screening status and CRC incidence and mortality annually from 2000 to 2019 among about 1.1 million members aged 50-75 years across 22 medical centers of the integrated healthcare system. The cohort included American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and White members.

Screening rates via FIT, colonoscopy, or sigmoidoscopy more than doubled after starting the program, from about 37% in the early years to about 80% within a few years, and it stayed that high through 2019, Corley reported. 

“Importantly, these large increases occurred across the whole population with only small differences,” he said. 

For example, about 76% of Hispanic members, 77% of Black members, 82% of White members, and 83% of Asian members were up to date in the later years and through 2019.

“This shows that systematic, comparable outreach can provide a level playing field for completion of preventive care,” Corley said.

After an expected early uptick in CRC incidence due to early detection, incidence later declined and by 2019 had dropped approximately 30% across the groups.

 

Long-Standing Disparities Erased

CRC deaths also fell by about 50% across all groups, with the largest decline among Black members, Corley noted.

Racial and ethnic disparities in both CRC incidence and mortality have long existed, with Black patients in particular experiencing higher risks and worse outcomes, likely from a mixture of risk factors and healthcare utilization, Corley said.

Offering outreach and equal access to screening in the Kaiser program erased those long-standing disparities.

“It’s remarkable that some of these large differences in mortality by race and ethnicity that we saw two decades ago, and which are found throughout the United States, are now similar to small chance variation in the population,” Corley said.

Flexibility was key to getting more people screened, he noted. “It’s about reaching people at their homes and offering a choice to patients. It’s an astonishingly simple concept.”

It’s important to note that these findings stem from a large, integrated healthcare system, which may differ from other settings, although similar outreach strategies have succeeded in safety net clinics and smaller practices, Corley added.

By boosting screening rates to 80%, the health system reached the level that’s essentially been defined in the past as our goal of screening programs, said Loren Laine, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine (digestive diseases) at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and chair of this year’s DDW. 

“It shows that if health systems institute programmatic screening for all their covered individuals, they could markedly increase screening, said Laine, who also served as moderator of the press briefing.

“Most importantly, of course, [screening] was associated with a reduction in colorectal cancer incidence and deaths,” he said.

The study had no commercial funding. Corley reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

Laine’s disclosures included consulting and/or relationships with Medtronic, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Biohaven, Celgene, Intercept, Merck, and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A 20-year initiative by Kaiser Permanente Northern California that assessed colorectal cancer (CRC) screening status and offered flexible options for screening has made a huge difference in CRC incidence, deaths, and racial disparities, an analysis showed.

“The program promptly doubled the proportion of people up to date with screening,” reported lead investigator Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, AGAF, a research scientist with Kaiser’s Division of Research, at a press briefing held on April 24, ahead of a presentation at the Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2025.

Additionally, within about 10 years, cancer rates were cut by a third, deaths were halved for the second most common cause of cancer deaths in the United States, and the differences that had previously been seen by race or ethnicity were largely eliminated, he said.

“Ten years ago, there were big gaps in cancer risk and death, especially among our Black patients. Now, those differences are nearly gone,” Corley said.

 

Closing the Gap

A systematic CRC screening program was implemented across Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The program included proactive outreach to members who were overdue for screening and mailing them fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits for at-home use.

Corley and colleagues tracked screening status and CRC incidence and mortality annually from 2000 to 2019 among about 1.1 million members aged 50-75 years across 22 medical centers of the integrated healthcare system. The cohort included American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and White members.

Screening rates via FIT, colonoscopy, or sigmoidoscopy more than doubled after starting the program, from about 37% in the early years to about 80% within a few years, and it stayed that high through 2019, Corley reported. 

“Importantly, these large increases occurred across the whole population with only small differences,” he said. 

For example, about 76% of Hispanic members, 77% of Black members, 82% of White members, and 83% of Asian members were up to date in the later years and through 2019.

“This shows that systematic, comparable outreach can provide a level playing field for completion of preventive care,” Corley said.

After an expected early uptick in CRC incidence due to early detection, incidence later declined and by 2019 had dropped approximately 30% across the groups.

 

Long-Standing Disparities Erased

CRC deaths also fell by about 50% across all groups, with the largest decline among Black members, Corley noted.

Racial and ethnic disparities in both CRC incidence and mortality have long existed, with Black patients in particular experiencing higher risks and worse outcomes, likely from a mixture of risk factors and healthcare utilization, Corley said.

Offering outreach and equal access to screening in the Kaiser program erased those long-standing disparities.

“It’s remarkable that some of these large differences in mortality by race and ethnicity that we saw two decades ago, and which are found throughout the United States, are now similar to small chance variation in the population,” Corley said.

Flexibility was key to getting more people screened, he noted. “It’s about reaching people at their homes and offering a choice to patients. It’s an astonishingly simple concept.”

It’s important to note that these findings stem from a large, integrated healthcare system, which may differ from other settings, although similar outreach strategies have succeeded in safety net clinics and smaller practices, Corley added.

By boosting screening rates to 80%, the health system reached the level that’s essentially been defined in the past as our goal of screening programs, said Loren Laine, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine (digestive diseases) at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and chair of this year’s DDW. 

“It shows that if health systems institute programmatic screening for all their covered individuals, they could markedly increase screening, said Laine, who also served as moderator of the press briefing.

“Most importantly, of course, [screening] was associated with a reduction in colorectal cancer incidence and deaths,” he said.

The study had no commercial funding. Corley reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

Laine’s disclosures included consulting and/or relationships with Medtronic, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Biohaven, Celgene, Intercept, Merck, and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Both endoscopic ultrasound–guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) and precut sphincterotomy are equally effective salvage techniques for patients with benign biliary obstruction and difficult bile duct cannulation, new data suggest.

Selective deep cannulation of the common bile duct remains the key rate-limiting step in successful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), especially in benign biliary disease.

In cases of difficult cannulation, the traditional fallback has been precut sphincterotomy. Recently, EUS-RV has emerged as an alternative. However, head-to-head comparisons of these salvage techniques in homogeneous patient populations have been lacking, until now. 

A team led by Arup Choudhury, MD, DM, with Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, compared the two salvage techniques in a single-center, randomized controlled trial of 100 patients with benign biliary disease and difficult bile duct cannulation.

There were 50 patients in each group. When one technique failed, patients were crossed over to the other technique.

The technical success rate for achieving deep biliary, the primary outcome measure, was similar with EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy (92% and 90%, respectively; P = 1.00; relative risk [RR], 1.02), the authors reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Median procedure time was also comparable (10.1 minutes with EUS-RV and 9.75 minutes with precut sphincterotomy). As expected, radiation exposure was notably higher in the EUS-RV group (median, 200.2 vs 67.8 mGy).

There was no difference in overall complication rates (12% and 10%, respectively; RR, 1.20).

Five patients in each group (10%) developed post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP); one patient in the EUS-RV had moderately severe pancreatitis, whereas the rest had mild pancreatitis.

In an exploratory analysis of the subcohort of 72 patients who did not have 1 or more inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation, two (5.6%) patients in the precut sphincterotomy group had PEP, whereas none of the patients in the EUS-RV had PEP (RR, 0.21). The investigators caution that a larger, multicenter, randomized controlled trial would be required to evaluate the “probable benefit” of lower PEP in the EUS-RV approach.

None of the patients had bleeding or perforation, but two (4%) patients in the EUS-RV group had an infection after the intervention. One required repeated ERCP due to post procedure cholangitis, whereas the other developed lower respiratory tract infection with transient acute lung injury and sputum showing gram-negative organism. None of the patients required surgical intervention.

“Interestingly,” said the investigators, on crossover from one salvage technique to the other, all of the cases could be successfully cannulated, suggesting the two salvage techniques are “complementary to each other and can help achieve successful cannulation in all cases when used in any sequence.”

Summing up, they said it appears from this head-to-head comparison that both EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy can be considered effective salvage techniques in expert centers with similar safety and success profiles.

Limitations included the single-center design with both procedures performed by expert operators. EUS-RV entailed additional cost of needle and use of a separate scope, and a cost-efficacy analysis was not done.

This study had no specific funding. Disclosures for the authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Both endoscopic ultrasound–guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) and precut sphincterotomy are equally effective salvage techniques for patients with benign biliary obstruction and difficult bile duct cannulation, new data suggest.

Selective deep cannulation of the common bile duct remains the key rate-limiting step in successful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), especially in benign biliary disease.

In cases of difficult cannulation, the traditional fallback has been precut sphincterotomy. Recently, EUS-RV has emerged as an alternative. However, head-to-head comparisons of these salvage techniques in homogeneous patient populations have been lacking, until now. 

A team led by Arup Choudhury, MD, DM, with Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, compared the two salvage techniques in a single-center, randomized controlled trial of 100 patients with benign biliary disease and difficult bile duct cannulation.

There were 50 patients in each group. When one technique failed, patients were crossed over to the other technique.

The technical success rate for achieving deep biliary, the primary outcome measure, was similar with EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy (92% and 90%, respectively; P = 1.00; relative risk [RR], 1.02), the authors reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Median procedure time was also comparable (10.1 minutes with EUS-RV and 9.75 minutes with precut sphincterotomy). As expected, radiation exposure was notably higher in the EUS-RV group (median, 200.2 vs 67.8 mGy).

There was no difference in overall complication rates (12% and 10%, respectively; RR, 1.20).

Five patients in each group (10%) developed post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP); one patient in the EUS-RV had moderately severe pancreatitis, whereas the rest had mild pancreatitis.

In an exploratory analysis of the subcohort of 72 patients who did not have 1 or more inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation, two (5.6%) patients in the precut sphincterotomy group had PEP, whereas none of the patients in the EUS-RV had PEP (RR, 0.21). The investigators caution that a larger, multicenter, randomized controlled trial would be required to evaluate the “probable benefit” of lower PEP in the EUS-RV approach.

None of the patients had bleeding or perforation, but two (4%) patients in the EUS-RV group had an infection after the intervention. One required repeated ERCP due to post procedure cholangitis, whereas the other developed lower respiratory tract infection with transient acute lung injury and sputum showing gram-negative organism. None of the patients required surgical intervention.

“Interestingly,” said the investigators, on crossover from one salvage technique to the other, all of the cases could be successfully cannulated, suggesting the two salvage techniques are “complementary to each other and can help achieve successful cannulation in all cases when used in any sequence.”

Summing up, they said it appears from this head-to-head comparison that both EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy can be considered effective salvage techniques in expert centers with similar safety and success profiles.

Limitations included the single-center design with both procedures performed by expert operators. EUS-RV entailed additional cost of needle and use of a separate scope, and a cost-efficacy analysis was not done.

This study had no specific funding. Disclosures for the authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Both endoscopic ultrasound–guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) and precut sphincterotomy are equally effective salvage techniques for patients with benign biliary obstruction and difficult bile duct cannulation, new data suggest.

Selective deep cannulation of the common bile duct remains the key rate-limiting step in successful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), especially in benign biliary disease.

In cases of difficult cannulation, the traditional fallback has been precut sphincterotomy. Recently, EUS-RV has emerged as an alternative. However, head-to-head comparisons of these salvage techniques in homogeneous patient populations have been lacking, until now. 

A team led by Arup Choudhury, MD, DM, with Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, compared the two salvage techniques in a single-center, randomized controlled trial of 100 patients with benign biliary disease and difficult bile duct cannulation.

There were 50 patients in each group. When one technique failed, patients were crossed over to the other technique.

The technical success rate for achieving deep biliary, the primary outcome measure, was similar with EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy (92% and 90%, respectively; P = 1.00; relative risk [RR], 1.02), the authors reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Median procedure time was also comparable (10.1 minutes with EUS-RV and 9.75 minutes with precut sphincterotomy). As expected, radiation exposure was notably higher in the EUS-RV group (median, 200.2 vs 67.8 mGy).

There was no difference in overall complication rates (12% and 10%, respectively; RR, 1.20).

Five patients in each group (10%) developed post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP); one patient in the EUS-RV had moderately severe pancreatitis, whereas the rest had mild pancreatitis.

In an exploratory analysis of the subcohort of 72 patients who did not have 1 or more inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation, two (5.6%) patients in the precut sphincterotomy group had PEP, whereas none of the patients in the EUS-RV had PEP (RR, 0.21). The investigators caution that a larger, multicenter, randomized controlled trial would be required to evaluate the “probable benefit” of lower PEP in the EUS-RV approach.

None of the patients had bleeding or perforation, but two (4%) patients in the EUS-RV group had an infection after the intervention. One required repeated ERCP due to post procedure cholangitis, whereas the other developed lower respiratory tract infection with transient acute lung injury and sputum showing gram-negative organism. None of the patients required surgical intervention.

“Interestingly,” said the investigators, on crossover from one salvage technique to the other, all of the cases could be successfully cannulated, suggesting the two salvage techniques are “complementary to each other and can help achieve successful cannulation in all cases when used in any sequence.”

Summing up, they said it appears from this head-to-head comparison that both EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy can be considered effective salvage techniques in expert centers with similar safety and success profiles.

Limitations included the single-center design with both procedures performed by expert operators. EUS-RV entailed additional cost of needle and use of a separate scope, and a cost-efficacy analysis was not done.

This study had no specific funding. Disclosures for the authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers have developed and internally validated a simple score using clinical factors that can help estimate the likelihood of advanced colorectal neoplasia in adults younger than age 45 years.

While colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence has declined overall due to screening, early-onset CRC is on the rise, particularly in individuals younger than 45 years — an age group not currently recommended for CRC screening.

Studies have shown that the risk for early-onset advanced neoplasia varies based on several factors, including sex, race, family history of CRC, smoking, alcohol consumption, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and diet.

A score that incorporates some of these factors to identify which younger adults are at higher risk for advanced neoplasia, a precursor to CRC, could support earlier, more targeted screening interventions.

The simple clinical score can be easily calculated by primary care providers in the office, Carole Macaron, MD, lead author of the study and a gastroenterologist at Cleveland Clinic, told GI & Hepatology News. “Patients with a high-risk score would be referred for colorectal cancer screening.”

The study was published in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

To develop and validate their risk score, Macaron and colleagues did a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 9446 individuals aged 18-44 years (mean age, 36.8 years; 61% women) who underwent colonoscopy at their center.

Advanced neoplasia was defined as a tubular adenoma ≥ 10 mm or any adenoma with villous features or high-grade dysplasia, sessile serrated polyp ≥ 10 mm, sessile serrated polyp with dysplasia, traditional serrated adenoma, or invasive adenocarcinoma.

The 346 (3.7%) individuals found to have advanced neoplasia served as the case group, and the remainder with normal colonoscopy or non-advanced neoplasia served as controls.

A multivariate logistic regression model identified three independent risk factors significantly associated with advanced neoplasia: Higher body mass index (BMI; P = .0157), former and current tobacco use (P = .0009 and P = .0015, respectively), and having a first-degree relative with CRC < 60 years (P < .0001) or other family history of CRC (P = .0117).

The researchers used these risk factors to develop a risk prediction score to estimate the likelihood of detecting advanced neoplasia, which ranged from a risk of 1.8% for patients with a score of 1 to 22.2% for those with a score of 12. Individuals with a score of ≥ 9 had a 14% or higher risk for advanced neoplasia.

Based on the risk model, the likelihood of detecting advanced neoplasia in an asymptomatic 32-year-old overweight individual, with a history of previous tobacco use and a first-degree relative younger than age 60 with CRC would be 20.3%, Macaron and colleagues noted.

The model demonstrated “moderate” discriminatory power in the validation set (C-statistic: 0.645), indicating that it can effectively differentiate between individuals at a higher and lower risk for advanced neoplasia.

Additionally, the authors are exploring ways to improve the discriminatory power of the score, possibly by including additional risk factors.

Given the score is calculated using easily obtainable risk factors for individuals younger than 45 who are at risk for early-onset colorectal neoplasia, it could help guide individualized screening decisions for those in whom screening is not currently offered, Macaron said. It could also serve as a tool for risk communication and shared decision-making.

Integration into electronic health records or online calculators may enhance its accessibility and clinical utility.

The authors noted that this retrospective study was conducted at a single center caring mainly for White non-Hispanic adults, limiting generalizability to the general population and to other races and ethnicities.

 

Validation in Real-World Setting Needed

“There are no currently accepted advanced colorectal neoplasia risk scores that are used in general practice,” said Steven H. Itzkowitz, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine, oncological sciences, and medical education, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “If these lesions can be predicted, it would enable these young individuals to undergo screening colonoscopy, which could detect and remove these lesions, thereby preventing CRC.”

Many of the known risk factors (family history, high BMI, or smoking) for CRC development at any age are incorporated within this tool, so it should be feasible to collect these data,” said Itzkowitz, who was not involved with the study.

But he cautioned that accurate and adequate family histories are not always performed. Clinicians also may not have considered combining these factors into an actionable risk score.

“If this score can be externally validated in a real-world setting, it could be a useful addition in our efforts to lower CRC rates among young individuals,” Itzkowitz said.

The study did not receive any funding. Macaron and Itzkowitz reported no competing interests.

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

Researchers have developed and internally validated a simple score using clinical factors that can help estimate the likelihood of advanced colorectal neoplasia in adults younger than age 45 years.

While colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence has declined overall due to screening, early-onset CRC is on the rise, particularly in individuals younger than 45 years — an age group not currently recommended for CRC screening.

Studies have shown that the risk for early-onset advanced neoplasia varies based on several factors, including sex, race, family history of CRC, smoking, alcohol consumption, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and diet.

A score that incorporates some of these factors to identify which younger adults are at higher risk for advanced neoplasia, a precursor to CRC, could support earlier, more targeted screening interventions.

The simple clinical score can be easily calculated by primary care providers in the office, Carole Macaron, MD, lead author of the study and a gastroenterologist at Cleveland Clinic, told GI & Hepatology News. “Patients with a high-risk score would be referred for colorectal cancer screening.”

The study was published in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

To develop and validate their risk score, Macaron and colleagues did a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 9446 individuals aged 18-44 years (mean age, 36.8 years; 61% women) who underwent colonoscopy at their center.

Advanced neoplasia was defined as a tubular adenoma ≥ 10 mm or any adenoma with villous features or high-grade dysplasia, sessile serrated polyp ≥ 10 mm, sessile serrated polyp with dysplasia, traditional serrated adenoma, or invasive adenocarcinoma.

The 346 (3.7%) individuals found to have advanced neoplasia served as the case group, and the remainder with normal colonoscopy or non-advanced neoplasia served as controls.

A multivariate logistic regression model identified three independent risk factors significantly associated with advanced neoplasia: Higher body mass index (BMI; P = .0157), former and current tobacco use (P = .0009 and P = .0015, respectively), and having a first-degree relative with CRC < 60 years (P < .0001) or other family history of CRC (P = .0117).

The researchers used these risk factors to develop a risk prediction score to estimate the likelihood of detecting advanced neoplasia, which ranged from a risk of 1.8% for patients with a score of 1 to 22.2% for those with a score of 12. Individuals with a score of ≥ 9 had a 14% or higher risk for advanced neoplasia.

Based on the risk model, the likelihood of detecting advanced neoplasia in an asymptomatic 32-year-old overweight individual, with a history of previous tobacco use and a first-degree relative younger than age 60 with CRC would be 20.3%, Macaron and colleagues noted.

The model demonstrated “moderate” discriminatory power in the validation set (C-statistic: 0.645), indicating that it can effectively differentiate between individuals at a higher and lower risk for advanced neoplasia.

Additionally, the authors are exploring ways to improve the discriminatory power of the score, possibly by including additional risk factors.

Given the score is calculated using easily obtainable risk factors for individuals younger than 45 who are at risk for early-onset colorectal neoplasia, it could help guide individualized screening decisions for those in whom screening is not currently offered, Macaron said. It could also serve as a tool for risk communication and shared decision-making.

Integration into electronic health records or online calculators may enhance its accessibility and clinical utility.

The authors noted that this retrospective study was conducted at a single center caring mainly for White non-Hispanic adults, limiting generalizability to the general population and to other races and ethnicities.

 

Validation in Real-World Setting Needed

“There are no currently accepted advanced colorectal neoplasia risk scores that are used in general practice,” said Steven H. Itzkowitz, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine, oncological sciences, and medical education, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “If these lesions can be predicted, it would enable these young individuals to undergo screening colonoscopy, which could detect and remove these lesions, thereby preventing CRC.”

Many of the known risk factors (family history, high BMI, or smoking) for CRC development at any age are incorporated within this tool, so it should be feasible to collect these data,” said Itzkowitz, who was not involved with the study.

But he cautioned that accurate and adequate family histories are not always performed. Clinicians also may not have considered combining these factors into an actionable risk score.

“If this score can be externally validated in a real-world setting, it could be a useful addition in our efforts to lower CRC rates among young individuals,” Itzkowitz said.

The study did not receive any funding. Macaron and Itzkowitz reported no competing interests.

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

Researchers have developed and internally validated a simple score using clinical factors that can help estimate the likelihood of advanced colorectal neoplasia in adults younger than age 45 years.

While colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence has declined overall due to screening, early-onset CRC is on the rise, particularly in individuals younger than 45 years — an age group not currently recommended for CRC screening.

Studies have shown that the risk for early-onset advanced neoplasia varies based on several factors, including sex, race, family history of CRC, smoking, alcohol consumption, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and diet.

A score that incorporates some of these factors to identify which younger adults are at higher risk for advanced neoplasia, a precursor to CRC, could support earlier, more targeted screening interventions.

The simple clinical score can be easily calculated by primary care providers in the office, Carole Macaron, MD, lead author of the study and a gastroenterologist at Cleveland Clinic, told GI & Hepatology News. “Patients with a high-risk score would be referred for colorectal cancer screening.”

The study was published in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

To develop and validate their risk score, Macaron and colleagues did a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 9446 individuals aged 18-44 years (mean age, 36.8 years; 61% women) who underwent colonoscopy at their center.

Advanced neoplasia was defined as a tubular adenoma ≥ 10 mm or any adenoma with villous features or high-grade dysplasia, sessile serrated polyp ≥ 10 mm, sessile serrated polyp with dysplasia, traditional serrated adenoma, or invasive adenocarcinoma.

The 346 (3.7%) individuals found to have advanced neoplasia served as the case group, and the remainder with normal colonoscopy or non-advanced neoplasia served as controls.

A multivariate logistic regression model identified three independent risk factors significantly associated with advanced neoplasia: Higher body mass index (BMI; P = .0157), former and current tobacco use (P = .0009 and P = .0015, respectively), and having a first-degree relative with CRC < 60 years (P < .0001) or other family history of CRC (P = .0117).

The researchers used these risk factors to develop a risk prediction score to estimate the likelihood of detecting advanced neoplasia, which ranged from a risk of 1.8% for patients with a score of 1 to 22.2% for those with a score of 12. Individuals with a score of ≥ 9 had a 14% or higher risk for advanced neoplasia.

Based on the risk model, the likelihood of detecting advanced neoplasia in an asymptomatic 32-year-old overweight individual, with a history of previous tobacco use and a first-degree relative younger than age 60 with CRC would be 20.3%, Macaron and colleagues noted.

The model demonstrated “moderate” discriminatory power in the validation set (C-statistic: 0.645), indicating that it can effectively differentiate between individuals at a higher and lower risk for advanced neoplasia.

Additionally, the authors are exploring ways to improve the discriminatory power of the score, possibly by including additional risk factors.

Given the score is calculated using easily obtainable risk factors for individuals younger than 45 who are at risk for early-onset colorectal neoplasia, it could help guide individualized screening decisions for those in whom screening is not currently offered, Macaron said. It could also serve as a tool for risk communication and shared decision-making.

Integration into electronic health records or online calculators may enhance its accessibility and clinical utility.

The authors noted that this retrospective study was conducted at a single center caring mainly for White non-Hispanic adults, limiting generalizability to the general population and to other races and ethnicities.

 

Validation in Real-World Setting Needed

“There are no currently accepted advanced colorectal neoplasia risk scores that are used in general practice,” said Steven H. Itzkowitz, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine, oncological sciences, and medical education, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “If these lesions can be predicted, it would enable these young individuals to undergo screening colonoscopy, which could detect and remove these lesions, thereby preventing CRC.”

Many of the known risk factors (family history, high BMI, or smoking) for CRC development at any age are incorporated within this tool, so it should be feasible to collect these data,” said Itzkowitz, who was not involved with the study.

But he cautioned that accurate and adequate family histories are not always performed. Clinicians also may not have considered combining these factors into an actionable risk score.

“If this score can be externally validated in a real-world setting, it could be a useful addition in our efforts to lower CRC rates among young individuals,” Itzkowitz said.

The study did not receive any funding. Macaron and Itzkowitz reported no competing interests.

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

For years, the default definitive treatment for patients with early-stage I non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been surgical resection, typically minimally invasive lobectomy with systematic lymph node dissection.

Guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the European Society for Medical Oncology all list surgery (in particular, lobectomy) as the primary local therapy for fit, operable patients with stage I NSCLC.

More recently, however, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), also called stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, has emerged as a definitive treatment option for stage I NSCLC, especially for older, less fit patients who are unsuitable or deemed high-risk for surgery.

“We see patients in our practice who cannot undergo surgery or who may not have adequate lung function to be able to tolerate surgery, and for these patients who are medically inoperable or surgically unresectable, radiation therapy may be a reasonable option,” Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, professor and lung cancer specialist, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

Given some encouraging data suggesting that SBRT could provide similar survival outcomes and be an alternative to surgery for operable disease, SBRT is also increasingly being considered in these early-stage patients. However, other evidence indicates that SBRT may be associated with higher rates of regional and distant recurrences and worse long-term survival, particularly in operable patients.

What may ultimately matter most is carefully selecting operable patients who undergo SBRT.

Aggarwal has encountered certain patients who are fit for surgery but would rather have radiation therapy. “This is an individual decision, and these patients are usually discussed at tumor board and in multidisciplinary discussions to really make sure that they’re making the right decision for themselves,” she explained.

 

The Pros and Cons of SBRT

SBRT is a nonsurgical approach in which precision high-dose radiation is delivered in just a few fractions — typically, 3, 5, or 8, depending on institutional protocols and tumor characteristics.

SBRT is performed on an outpatient basis, usually over 1-2 weeks, with most patients able to resume usual activities with minimal to no delay. Surgery, on the other hand, requires a hospital stay and takes most people about 2-6 weeks to return to regular activities. SBRT also avoids anesthesia and surgical incisions, both of which come with risks.

The data on SBRT in early-stage NSCLC are mixed. While some studies indicate that SBRT comes with promising survival outcomes, other research has reported worse survival and recurrence rates.

One potential reason for higher recurrence rates with SBRT is the lack of pathologic nodal staging, which only happens after surgery, as well as lower rates of nodal evaluation with endobronchial ultrasound or mediastinoscopy before surgery or SBRT. Without nodal assessments, clinicians may miss a more aggressive histology or more advanced nodal stage, which would go undertreated if patients received SBRT.

 

Latest Data in Large Cohort

A recent study published in Lung Cancer indicated that, when carefully selected, operable patients with early NSCLC have comparable survival with lobectomy or SBRT.

In the study, Dutch researchers took an in-depth look at survival and recurrence patterns in a retrospective cohort study of 2183 patients with clinical stage I NSCLC treated with minimally invasive lobectomy or SBRT. The study includes one of the largest cohorts to date, with robust data collection on baseline characteristics, comorbidities, tumor size, performance status, and follow-up.

Patients receiving SBRT were typically older (median age, 74 vs 67 years), had higher comorbidity burdens (Charlson index ≥ 5 in 57% of SBRT patients vs 23% of surgical patients), worse performance status, and lower lung function. To adjust for these differences, the researchers used propensity score weighting so the SBRT group’s baseline characteristics were comparable with those in the surgery group.

The surgery cohort had more invasive nodal evaluation: 21% underwent endobronchial ultrasound or mediastinoscopy vs only 12% in the SBRT group. The vast majority in both groups had PET-CT staging, reflecting modern imaging-based workups.

While 5-year local recurrence rates between the two groups were similar (13.1% for SBRT vs 12.1% for surgery), the 5-year regional recurrence rate was significantly higher after SBRT than lobectomy (18.1% vs 14.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), as was the distant metastasis rate (26.2% vs 20.2%; HR, 0.72).

Mortality at 30 days was higher after surgery than SBRT (1.0% vs 0.2%). And in the unadjusted analysis, 5-year overall survival was significantly better with lobectomy than SBRT (70.2% vs 40.3%).

However, when the analysis only included patients with similar baseline characteristics, overall survival was no longer significantly different in the two groups (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.65-1.20). Lung cancer–specific mortality was also not significantly different between the two treatments (HR, 1.08), but the study was underpowered to detect significant differences in this outcome on the basis of a relatively low number of deaths from NSCLC.

Still, even after comparing similar patients, recurrence-free survival was notably better with surgery (HR, 0.70), due to fewer regional recurrences and distant metastases. Overall, 13% of the surgical cohort had nodal upstaging at pathology, meaning that even in clinically “node-negative” stage I disease, a subset of patients had unsuspected nodal involvement.

Patients receiving SBRT did not have pathologic nodal staging, raising the possibility of occult micrometastases. The authors noted that the proportion of SBRT patients with occult lymph node metastases is likely at least equal to that in the surgery group, but these metastases would go undetected without pathologic assessment.

Missing potential occult micrometastases in the SBRT group likely contributed to higher regional recurrence rates over time. By improving nodal staging, more patients with occult lymph node metastases who would be undertreated with SBRT may be identified before treatment, the authors said.

 

What Do Experts Say?

So, is SBRT an option for patients with stage I NSCLC?

Opinions vary.

“If you got one shot for a cure, then you want to do the surgery because that’s what results in a cure,” said Raja Flores, MD, chairman of Thoracic Surgery, Mount Sinai Health System, New York City.

Flores noted that the survival rate with surgery is high in this population. “There’s really nothing out there that can compare,” he said.

In his view, surgery “remains the gold standard.” However, “radiation could be considered in nonsurgical candidates,” he said.

The most recent NCCN guidelines align with Flores’ take. The guidelines say that SBRT is indicated for stage IA-IIA (N0) NSCLC in patients who are deemed “medically inoperable, high surgical risk as determined by thoracic surgeon, and those who decline surgery after thoracic surgical consultation.”

Clifford G. Robinson, MD, agreed. “In the United States, we largely treat patients with SBRT who are medically inoperable or high-risk operable and a much smaller proportion who decline surgery,” said Robinson, professor of radiation oncology and chief of SBRT at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis. “Many patients who are deemed operable are not offered SBRT.”

Still, for Robinson, determining which patients are best suited for surgery or SBRT remains unclear.

“Retrospective comparisons are fraught with problems because of confounding,” Robinson told this news organization. “That is, the healthier patients get surgery, and the less healthy ones get SBRT. No manner of fancy statistical manipulation can remove that fact.”

In fact, a recent meta-analysis found that the most significant variable predicting whether surgery or SBRT was superior in retrospective studies was whether the author was a surgeon or radiation oncologist.

Robinson noted that multiple randomized trials have attempted to randomize patients with medically operable early-stage NSCLC to surgery or SBRT and failed to accrue, largely due to patients’ “understandable unwillingness to be randomized between operative vs nonoperative interventions when most already prefer one or the other approach.”

Flores highlighted another point of caution about interpreting trial results: Not all early-stage NSCLC behaves similarly. “Some are slow-growing ‘turtles,’ and others are aggressive ‘rabbits’ — and the turtles are usually the ones that have been included in these radiotherapy trials, and that’s the danger,” he said.

While medical operability is the primary factor for deciding the treatment modality for early-stage NSCLC, there are other more subtle factors that can play into the decision.

These include prior surgery or radiotherapy to the chest, prior cancers, and social issues, such as the patient being a primary caregiver for another person and job insecurity, that might make recovery from surgery more challenging. And in rare instances, a patient may be medically fit to undergo surgery, but the cancer is technically challenging to resect due to anatomic issues or prior surgery to the chest, Robinson added.

 

A Winner?

Results from two ongoing, highly anticipated randomized trials expected in the next several years will hopefully provide additional insights and clarify ongoing uncertainties about the optimal treatment strategies for operable patients with stage I NSCLC.

STABLE-MATES is comparing outcomes after sublobar resection and SBRT in high-risk operable stage I NSCLC, and VALOR is evaluating outcomes after anatomic pulmonary resections and SBRT in patients with stage I NSCLC who have a long life expectancy and are fit enough to tolerate surgery.

But Robinson said his group believes that trying to decide on a winner is a “fool’s errand” and is instead running a pragmatic study across multiple academic and community centers around the United States and Canada where patients choose therapy based on their personal preferences and guidance from their physicians. The researchers will carefully track baseline comorbidity and frailty and assess serial quality-of-life changes over time.

“The goal is to create a calculator that a given patient might use in the future to determine what patients like them would have received, complete with expected outcomes and side effects,” Robinson said.

Robinson cautioned, however, that it “seems unlikely, given the existing literature, that one of the treatments will be truly ‘superior’ to the other one and lead to the ‘losing’ treatment fading away since both are excellent options with pros and cons.”

Aggarwal, Robinson, and Flores had no relevant disclosures.

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

For years, the default definitive treatment for patients with early-stage I non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been surgical resection, typically minimally invasive lobectomy with systematic lymph node dissection.

Guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the European Society for Medical Oncology all list surgery (in particular, lobectomy) as the primary local therapy for fit, operable patients with stage I NSCLC.

More recently, however, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), also called stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, has emerged as a definitive treatment option for stage I NSCLC, especially for older, less fit patients who are unsuitable or deemed high-risk for surgery.

“We see patients in our practice who cannot undergo surgery or who may not have adequate lung function to be able to tolerate surgery, and for these patients who are medically inoperable or surgically unresectable, radiation therapy may be a reasonable option,” Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, professor and lung cancer specialist, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

Given some encouraging data suggesting that SBRT could provide similar survival outcomes and be an alternative to surgery for operable disease, SBRT is also increasingly being considered in these early-stage patients. However, other evidence indicates that SBRT may be associated with higher rates of regional and distant recurrences and worse long-term survival, particularly in operable patients.

What may ultimately matter most is carefully selecting operable patients who undergo SBRT.

Aggarwal has encountered certain patients who are fit for surgery but would rather have radiation therapy. “This is an individual decision, and these patients are usually discussed at tumor board and in multidisciplinary discussions to really make sure that they’re making the right decision for themselves,” she explained.

 

The Pros and Cons of SBRT

SBRT is a nonsurgical approach in which precision high-dose radiation is delivered in just a few fractions — typically, 3, 5, or 8, depending on institutional protocols and tumor characteristics.

SBRT is performed on an outpatient basis, usually over 1-2 weeks, with most patients able to resume usual activities with minimal to no delay. Surgery, on the other hand, requires a hospital stay and takes most people about 2-6 weeks to return to regular activities. SBRT also avoids anesthesia and surgical incisions, both of which come with risks.

The data on SBRT in early-stage NSCLC are mixed. While some studies indicate that SBRT comes with promising survival outcomes, other research has reported worse survival and recurrence rates.

One potential reason for higher recurrence rates with SBRT is the lack of pathologic nodal staging, which only happens after surgery, as well as lower rates of nodal evaluation with endobronchial ultrasound or mediastinoscopy before surgery or SBRT. Without nodal assessments, clinicians may miss a more aggressive histology or more advanced nodal stage, which would go undertreated if patients received SBRT.

 

Latest Data in Large Cohort

A recent study published in Lung Cancer indicated that, when carefully selected, operable patients with early NSCLC have comparable survival with lobectomy or SBRT.

In the study, Dutch researchers took an in-depth look at survival and recurrence patterns in a retrospective cohort study of 2183 patients with clinical stage I NSCLC treated with minimally invasive lobectomy or SBRT. The study includes one of the largest cohorts to date, with robust data collection on baseline characteristics, comorbidities, tumor size, performance status, and follow-up.

Patients receiving SBRT were typically older (median age, 74 vs 67 years), had higher comorbidity burdens (Charlson index ≥ 5 in 57% of SBRT patients vs 23% of surgical patients), worse performance status, and lower lung function. To adjust for these differences, the researchers used propensity score weighting so the SBRT group’s baseline characteristics were comparable with those in the surgery group.

The surgery cohort had more invasive nodal evaluation: 21% underwent endobronchial ultrasound or mediastinoscopy vs only 12% in the SBRT group. The vast majority in both groups had PET-CT staging, reflecting modern imaging-based workups.

While 5-year local recurrence rates between the two groups were similar (13.1% for SBRT vs 12.1% for surgery), the 5-year regional recurrence rate was significantly higher after SBRT than lobectomy (18.1% vs 14.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), as was the distant metastasis rate (26.2% vs 20.2%; HR, 0.72).

Mortality at 30 days was higher after surgery than SBRT (1.0% vs 0.2%). And in the unadjusted analysis, 5-year overall survival was significantly better with lobectomy than SBRT (70.2% vs 40.3%).

However, when the analysis only included patients with similar baseline characteristics, overall survival was no longer significantly different in the two groups (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.65-1.20). Lung cancer–specific mortality was also not significantly different between the two treatments (HR, 1.08), but the study was underpowered to detect significant differences in this outcome on the basis of a relatively low number of deaths from NSCLC.

Still, even after comparing similar patients, recurrence-free survival was notably better with surgery (HR, 0.70), due to fewer regional recurrences and distant metastases. Overall, 13% of the surgical cohort had nodal upstaging at pathology, meaning that even in clinically “node-negative” stage I disease, a subset of patients had unsuspected nodal involvement.

Patients receiving SBRT did not have pathologic nodal staging, raising the possibility of occult micrometastases. The authors noted that the proportion of SBRT patients with occult lymph node metastases is likely at least equal to that in the surgery group, but these metastases would go undetected without pathologic assessment.

Missing potential occult micrometastases in the SBRT group likely contributed to higher regional recurrence rates over time. By improving nodal staging, more patients with occult lymph node metastases who would be undertreated with SBRT may be identified before treatment, the authors said.

 

What Do Experts Say?

So, is SBRT an option for patients with stage I NSCLC?

Opinions vary.

“If you got one shot for a cure, then you want to do the surgery because that’s what results in a cure,” said Raja Flores, MD, chairman of Thoracic Surgery, Mount Sinai Health System, New York City.

Flores noted that the survival rate with surgery is high in this population. “There’s really nothing out there that can compare,” he said.

In his view, surgery “remains the gold standard.” However, “radiation could be considered in nonsurgical candidates,” he said.

The most recent NCCN guidelines align with Flores’ take. The guidelines say that SBRT is indicated for stage IA-IIA (N0) NSCLC in patients who are deemed “medically inoperable, high surgical risk as determined by thoracic surgeon, and those who decline surgery after thoracic surgical consultation.”

Clifford G. Robinson, MD, agreed. “In the United States, we largely treat patients with SBRT who are medically inoperable or high-risk operable and a much smaller proportion who decline surgery,” said Robinson, professor of radiation oncology and chief of SBRT at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis. “Many patients who are deemed operable are not offered SBRT.”

Still, for Robinson, determining which patients are best suited for surgery or SBRT remains unclear.

“Retrospective comparisons are fraught with problems because of confounding,” Robinson told this news organization. “That is, the healthier patients get surgery, and the less healthy ones get SBRT. No manner of fancy statistical manipulation can remove that fact.”

In fact, a recent meta-analysis found that the most significant variable predicting whether surgery or SBRT was superior in retrospective studies was whether the author was a surgeon or radiation oncologist.

Robinson noted that multiple randomized trials have attempted to randomize patients with medically operable early-stage NSCLC to surgery or SBRT and failed to accrue, largely due to patients’ “understandable unwillingness to be randomized between operative vs nonoperative interventions when most already prefer one or the other approach.”

Flores highlighted another point of caution about interpreting trial results: Not all early-stage NSCLC behaves similarly. “Some are slow-growing ‘turtles,’ and others are aggressive ‘rabbits’ — and the turtles are usually the ones that have been included in these radiotherapy trials, and that’s the danger,” he said.

While medical operability is the primary factor for deciding the treatment modality for early-stage NSCLC, there are other more subtle factors that can play into the decision.

These include prior surgery or radiotherapy to the chest, prior cancers, and social issues, such as the patient being a primary caregiver for another person and job insecurity, that might make recovery from surgery more challenging. And in rare instances, a patient may be medically fit to undergo surgery, but the cancer is technically challenging to resect due to anatomic issues or prior surgery to the chest, Robinson added.

 

A Winner?

Results from two ongoing, highly anticipated randomized trials expected in the next several years will hopefully provide additional insights and clarify ongoing uncertainties about the optimal treatment strategies for operable patients with stage I NSCLC.

STABLE-MATES is comparing outcomes after sublobar resection and SBRT in high-risk operable stage I NSCLC, and VALOR is evaluating outcomes after anatomic pulmonary resections and SBRT in patients with stage I NSCLC who have a long life expectancy and are fit enough to tolerate surgery.

But Robinson said his group believes that trying to decide on a winner is a “fool’s errand” and is instead running a pragmatic study across multiple academic and community centers around the United States and Canada where patients choose therapy based on their personal preferences and guidance from their physicians. The researchers will carefully track baseline comorbidity and frailty and assess serial quality-of-life changes over time.

“The goal is to create a calculator that a given patient might use in the future to determine what patients like them would have received, complete with expected outcomes and side effects,” Robinson said.

Robinson cautioned, however, that it “seems unlikely, given the existing literature, that one of the treatments will be truly ‘superior’ to the other one and lead to the ‘losing’ treatment fading away since both are excellent options with pros and cons.”

Aggarwal, Robinson, and Flores had no relevant disclosures.

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

For years, the default definitive treatment for patients with early-stage I non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been surgical resection, typically minimally invasive lobectomy with systematic lymph node dissection.

Guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the European Society for Medical Oncology all list surgery (in particular, lobectomy) as the primary local therapy for fit, operable patients with stage I NSCLC.

More recently, however, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), also called stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, has emerged as a definitive treatment option for stage I NSCLC, especially for older, less fit patients who are unsuitable or deemed high-risk for surgery.

“We see patients in our practice who cannot undergo surgery or who may not have adequate lung function to be able to tolerate surgery, and for these patients who are medically inoperable or surgically unresectable, radiation therapy may be a reasonable option,” Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, professor and lung cancer specialist, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

Given some encouraging data suggesting that SBRT could provide similar survival outcomes and be an alternative to surgery for operable disease, SBRT is also increasingly being considered in these early-stage patients. However, other evidence indicates that SBRT may be associated with higher rates of regional and distant recurrences and worse long-term survival, particularly in operable patients.

What may ultimately matter most is carefully selecting operable patients who undergo SBRT.

Aggarwal has encountered certain patients who are fit for surgery but would rather have radiation therapy. “This is an individual decision, and these patients are usually discussed at tumor board and in multidisciplinary discussions to really make sure that they’re making the right decision for themselves,” she explained.

 

The Pros and Cons of SBRT

SBRT is a nonsurgical approach in which precision high-dose radiation is delivered in just a few fractions — typically, 3, 5, or 8, depending on institutional protocols and tumor characteristics.

SBRT is performed on an outpatient basis, usually over 1-2 weeks, with most patients able to resume usual activities with minimal to no delay. Surgery, on the other hand, requires a hospital stay and takes most people about 2-6 weeks to return to regular activities. SBRT also avoids anesthesia and surgical incisions, both of which come with risks.

The data on SBRT in early-stage NSCLC are mixed. While some studies indicate that SBRT comes with promising survival outcomes, other research has reported worse survival and recurrence rates.

One potential reason for higher recurrence rates with SBRT is the lack of pathologic nodal staging, which only happens after surgery, as well as lower rates of nodal evaluation with endobronchial ultrasound or mediastinoscopy before surgery or SBRT. Without nodal assessments, clinicians may miss a more aggressive histology or more advanced nodal stage, which would go undertreated if patients received SBRT.

 

Latest Data in Large Cohort

A recent study published in Lung Cancer indicated that, when carefully selected, operable patients with early NSCLC have comparable survival with lobectomy or SBRT.

In the study, Dutch researchers took an in-depth look at survival and recurrence patterns in a retrospective cohort study of 2183 patients with clinical stage I NSCLC treated with minimally invasive lobectomy or SBRT. The study includes one of the largest cohorts to date, with robust data collection on baseline characteristics, comorbidities, tumor size, performance status, and follow-up.

Patients receiving SBRT were typically older (median age, 74 vs 67 years), had higher comorbidity burdens (Charlson index ≥ 5 in 57% of SBRT patients vs 23% of surgical patients), worse performance status, and lower lung function. To adjust for these differences, the researchers used propensity score weighting so the SBRT group’s baseline characteristics were comparable with those in the surgery group.

The surgery cohort had more invasive nodal evaluation: 21% underwent endobronchial ultrasound or mediastinoscopy vs only 12% in the SBRT group. The vast majority in both groups had PET-CT staging, reflecting modern imaging-based workups.

While 5-year local recurrence rates between the two groups were similar (13.1% for SBRT vs 12.1% for surgery), the 5-year regional recurrence rate was significantly higher after SBRT than lobectomy (18.1% vs 14.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), as was the distant metastasis rate (26.2% vs 20.2%; HR, 0.72).

Mortality at 30 days was higher after surgery than SBRT (1.0% vs 0.2%). And in the unadjusted analysis, 5-year overall survival was significantly better with lobectomy than SBRT (70.2% vs 40.3%).

However, when the analysis only included patients with similar baseline characteristics, overall survival was no longer significantly different in the two groups (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.65-1.20). Lung cancer–specific mortality was also not significantly different between the two treatments (HR, 1.08), but the study was underpowered to detect significant differences in this outcome on the basis of a relatively low number of deaths from NSCLC.

Still, even after comparing similar patients, recurrence-free survival was notably better with surgery (HR, 0.70), due to fewer regional recurrences and distant metastases. Overall, 13% of the surgical cohort had nodal upstaging at pathology, meaning that even in clinically “node-negative” stage I disease, a subset of patients had unsuspected nodal involvement.

Patients receiving SBRT did not have pathologic nodal staging, raising the possibility of occult micrometastases. The authors noted that the proportion of SBRT patients with occult lymph node metastases is likely at least equal to that in the surgery group, but these metastases would go undetected without pathologic assessment.

Missing potential occult micrometastases in the SBRT group likely contributed to higher regional recurrence rates over time. By improving nodal staging, more patients with occult lymph node metastases who would be undertreated with SBRT may be identified before treatment, the authors said.

 

What Do Experts Say?

So, is SBRT an option for patients with stage I NSCLC?

Opinions vary.

“If you got one shot for a cure, then you want to do the surgery because that’s what results in a cure,” said Raja Flores, MD, chairman of Thoracic Surgery, Mount Sinai Health System, New York City.

Flores noted that the survival rate with surgery is high in this population. “There’s really nothing out there that can compare,” he said.

In his view, surgery “remains the gold standard.” However, “radiation could be considered in nonsurgical candidates,” he said.

The most recent NCCN guidelines align with Flores’ take. The guidelines say that SBRT is indicated for stage IA-IIA (N0) NSCLC in patients who are deemed “medically inoperable, high surgical risk as determined by thoracic surgeon, and those who decline surgery after thoracic surgical consultation.”

Clifford G. Robinson, MD, agreed. “In the United States, we largely treat patients with SBRT who are medically inoperable or high-risk operable and a much smaller proportion who decline surgery,” said Robinson, professor of radiation oncology and chief of SBRT at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis. “Many patients who are deemed operable are not offered SBRT.”

Still, for Robinson, determining which patients are best suited for surgery or SBRT remains unclear.

“Retrospective comparisons are fraught with problems because of confounding,” Robinson told this news organization. “That is, the healthier patients get surgery, and the less healthy ones get SBRT. No manner of fancy statistical manipulation can remove that fact.”

In fact, a recent meta-analysis found that the most significant variable predicting whether surgery or SBRT was superior in retrospective studies was whether the author was a surgeon or radiation oncologist.

Robinson noted that multiple randomized trials have attempted to randomize patients with medically operable early-stage NSCLC to surgery or SBRT and failed to accrue, largely due to patients’ “understandable unwillingness to be randomized between operative vs nonoperative interventions when most already prefer one or the other approach.”

Flores highlighted another point of caution about interpreting trial results: Not all early-stage NSCLC behaves similarly. “Some are slow-growing ‘turtles,’ and others are aggressive ‘rabbits’ — and the turtles are usually the ones that have been included in these radiotherapy trials, and that’s the danger,” he said.

While medical operability is the primary factor for deciding the treatment modality for early-stage NSCLC, there are other more subtle factors that can play into the decision.

These include prior surgery or radiotherapy to the chest, prior cancers, and social issues, such as the patient being a primary caregiver for another person and job insecurity, that might make recovery from surgery more challenging. And in rare instances, a patient may be medically fit to undergo surgery, but the cancer is technically challenging to resect due to anatomic issues or prior surgery to the chest, Robinson added.

 

A Winner?

Results from two ongoing, highly anticipated randomized trials expected in the next several years will hopefully provide additional insights and clarify ongoing uncertainties about the optimal treatment strategies for operable patients with stage I NSCLC.

STABLE-MATES is comparing outcomes after sublobar resection and SBRT in high-risk operable stage I NSCLC, and VALOR is evaluating outcomes after anatomic pulmonary resections and SBRT in patients with stage I NSCLC who have a long life expectancy and are fit enough to tolerate surgery.

But Robinson said his group believes that trying to decide on a winner is a “fool’s errand” and is instead running a pragmatic study across multiple academic and community centers around the United States and Canada where patients choose therapy based on their personal preferences and guidance from their physicians. The researchers will carefully track baseline comorbidity and frailty and assess serial quality-of-life changes over time.

“The goal is to create a calculator that a given patient might use in the future to determine what patients like them would have received, complete with expected outcomes and side effects,” Robinson said.

Robinson cautioned, however, that it “seems unlikely, given the existing literature, that one of the treatments will be truly ‘superior’ to the other one and lead to the ‘losing’ treatment fading away since both are excellent options with pros and cons.”

Aggarwal, Robinson, and Flores had no relevant disclosures.

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

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved guselkumab (Tremfya, Johnson & Johnson) for the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease (CD).

The approval marks the fourth indication for guselkumab, which was approved for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2017, active psoriatic arthritis in 2020, and moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in 2024. 

Guselkumab is the first and only interleukin-23 (IL-23) inhibitor that offers both subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) induction options for CD, the company said in a news release. 

“Despite the progress in the management of Crohn’s disease, many patients experience debilitating symptoms and are in need of new treatment options,” Remo Panaccione, MD, director of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unit at the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, said in the release. 

“The approval of Tremfya offers an IL-23 inhibitor that has shown robust rates of endoscopic remission with both subcutaneous and intravenous induction regimens. Importantly, the fully subcutaneous regimen offers choice and flexibility for patients and providers not available before,” said Panaccione.

The FDA nod in CD was based on positive results from three phase 3 trials evaluating guselkumab in more than 1300 patients with moderately to severely active CD who failed or were intolerant to corticosteroids, immunomodulators, or biologics. 

The GRAVITI trial showed that guselkumab as SC induction and maintenance therapy was superior to placebo in clinical remission as well as endoscopic response and remission and deep remission. 

Results from GALAXI 2 and GALAXI 3 showed that guselkumab was superior to ustekinumab (Stelara) on all pooled endoscopic endpoints. 

Guselkumab is the only IL-23 inhibitor to demonstrate “clinical remission and endoscopic response, both at 1 year, with a fully subcutaneous induction regimen,” the company said. 

The recommended SC induction dose of guselkumab is 400 mg (given as two consecutive injections of 200 mg each, dispensed in one induction pack) at weeks 0, 4 and 8. The drug is also available in a 200 mg prefilled syringe. For the IV induction option, 200 mg IV infusions are administered at weeks 0, 4, and 8.

The recommended maintenance dosage is 100 mg administered by SC injection at week 16, and every 8 weeks thereafter, or 200 mg administered by SC injection at week 12, and every 4 weeks thereafter. 

Use of the lowest effective recommended dosage to maintain therapeutic response is recommended. 

Full prescribing information and medication guide are available online.

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

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved guselkumab (Tremfya, Johnson & Johnson) for the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease (CD).

The approval marks the fourth indication for guselkumab, which was approved for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2017, active psoriatic arthritis in 2020, and moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in 2024. 

Guselkumab is the first and only interleukin-23 (IL-23) inhibitor that offers both subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) induction options for CD, the company said in a news release. 

“Despite the progress in the management of Crohn’s disease, many patients experience debilitating symptoms and are in need of new treatment options,” Remo Panaccione, MD, director of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unit at the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, said in the release. 

“The approval of Tremfya offers an IL-23 inhibitor that has shown robust rates of endoscopic remission with both subcutaneous and intravenous induction regimens. Importantly, the fully subcutaneous regimen offers choice and flexibility for patients and providers not available before,” said Panaccione.

The FDA nod in CD was based on positive results from three phase 3 trials evaluating guselkumab in more than 1300 patients with moderately to severely active CD who failed or were intolerant to corticosteroids, immunomodulators, or biologics. 

The GRAVITI trial showed that guselkumab as SC induction and maintenance therapy was superior to placebo in clinical remission as well as endoscopic response and remission and deep remission. 

Results from GALAXI 2 and GALAXI 3 showed that guselkumab was superior to ustekinumab (Stelara) on all pooled endoscopic endpoints. 

Guselkumab is the only IL-23 inhibitor to demonstrate “clinical remission and endoscopic response, both at 1 year, with a fully subcutaneous induction regimen,” the company said. 

The recommended SC induction dose of guselkumab is 400 mg (given as two consecutive injections of 200 mg each, dispensed in one induction pack) at weeks 0, 4 and 8. The drug is also available in a 200 mg prefilled syringe. For the IV induction option, 200 mg IV infusions are administered at weeks 0, 4, and 8.

The recommended maintenance dosage is 100 mg administered by SC injection at week 16, and every 8 weeks thereafter, or 200 mg administered by SC injection at week 12, and every 4 weeks thereafter. 

Use of the lowest effective recommended dosage to maintain therapeutic response is recommended. 

Full prescribing information and medication guide are available online.

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

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved guselkumab (Tremfya, Johnson & Johnson) for the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease (CD).

The approval marks the fourth indication for guselkumab, which was approved for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2017, active psoriatic arthritis in 2020, and moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in 2024. 

Guselkumab is the first and only interleukin-23 (IL-23) inhibitor that offers both subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) induction options for CD, the company said in a news release. 

“Despite the progress in the management of Crohn’s disease, many patients experience debilitating symptoms and are in need of new treatment options,” Remo Panaccione, MD, director of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unit at the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, said in the release. 

“The approval of Tremfya offers an IL-23 inhibitor that has shown robust rates of endoscopic remission with both subcutaneous and intravenous induction regimens. Importantly, the fully subcutaneous regimen offers choice and flexibility for patients and providers not available before,” said Panaccione.

The FDA nod in CD was based on positive results from three phase 3 trials evaluating guselkumab in more than 1300 patients with moderately to severely active CD who failed or were intolerant to corticosteroids, immunomodulators, or biologics. 

The GRAVITI trial showed that guselkumab as SC induction and maintenance therapy was superior to placebo in clinical remission as well as endoscopic response and remission and deep remission. 

Results from GALAXI 2 and GALAXI 3 showed that guselkumab was superior to ustekinumab (Stelara) on all pooled endoscopic endpoints. 

Guselkumab is the only IL-23 inhibitor to demonstrate “clinical remission and endoscopic response, both at 1 year, with a fully subcutaneous induction regimen,” the company said. 

The recommended SC induction dose of guselkumab is 400 mg (given as two consecutive injections of 200 mg each, dispensed in one induction pack) at weeks 0, 4 and 8. The drug is also available in a 200 mg prefilled syringe. For the IV induction option, 200 mg IV infusions are administered at weeks 0, 4, and 8.

The recommended maintenance dosage is 100 mg administered by SC injection at week 16, and every 8 weeks thereafter, or 200 mg administered by SC injection at week 12, and every 4 weeks thereafter. 

Use of the lowest effective recommended dosage to maintain therapeutic response is recommended. 

Full prescribing information and medication guide are available online.

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

In patients with gastroesophageal reflux (GERD) symptoms undergoing screening upper endoscopy, adjunctive use of wide-area transepithelial sampling with 3D computer-assisted analysis (WATS-3D) increases detection of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) and dysplasia, new research showed. 

Compared with forceps biopsies (FB) alone, the addition of WATS-3D led to confirmation of BE in an additional one fifth of patients, roughly doubled dysplasia diagnoses, and influenced clinical management in the majority of patients. 

“The big take-home point here is that the use of WATS-3D brushing along with conventional biopsies increases the likelihood that intestinal metaplasia will be identified,” first author Nicholas Shaheen, MD, MPH, AGAF, with the Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing, University of North Carolina School of Medicine at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. 

“Almost 20% of patients who harbor BE were only identified by WATS-3D and might have otherwise gone undiagnosed had only forceps biopsies been performed,” Shaheen said. 

The study was published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

 

Beyond Traditional Biopsies

BE develops as a complication of chronic GERD and is the chief precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Early detection of BE and dysplasia is crucial to enable timely intervention. 

The current gold standard for BE screening involves upper endoscopy with FB following the Seattle protocol, which consists of four-quadrant biopsies from every 1-2 cm of areas of columnar-lined epithelium (CLE) to confirm the presence of intestinal metaplasia. However, this protocol is prone to sampling errors and high false-negative rates, leading to repeat endoscopy, the study team pointed out. 

WATS-3D (CDx Diagnostics) is a complementary technique designed to improve diagnostic yield by using brush biopsy to sample more tissue than routine biopsies.

WATS-3D has been shown to increase detection of dysplasia in patients with BE undergoing surveillance for BE, but less is known about the value of WATS-3D for BE screening in a community-based cohort of patients with GERD. 

To investigate, Shaheen and colleagues studied 23,933 consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective observational registry assessing the utility of WATS-3D in the screening of symptomatic GERD patients for BE. 

Patients had both WATS-3D and FB in the same endoscopic session. No patient had a history of BE, intestinal metaplasia or dysplasia in esophageal mucosa, or esophageal surgery, endoscopic ablation or endoscopic mucosal resection prior to enrollment. 

Overall, 6829 patients (29%) met endoscopic criteria for BE (≥ 1 cm esophageal CLE with accompanying biopsies showing intestinal metaplasia). 

Of these, 2878 (42%) had intestinal metaplasia identified by either FB or WATS-3D, but 19.3% had their BE diagnosis confirmed solely on the basis of WATS-3D findings. 

Among patients who fulfilled the endoscopic criteria for BE, the adjunctive yield of WATS-3D was 76.5% and the absolute yield was 18.1%.

Of the 240 (1.0%) patients with dysplasia, 107 (45%) were found solely by WATS-3D.

 

‘Clinically Valuable Adjunct’

Among patients with positive WATS-3D but negative FB results, clinical management changed in 90.7% of cases, mostly involving initiation or modification of surveillance and proton pump inhibitor therapy. 

These results suggest that WATS-3D is a “clinically valuable adjunct” to FB for the diagnosis of BE when used as a screening tool in symptomatic GERD patients and particularly in patients with endoscopic evidence of > 1 cm esophageal columnar-lined epithelium, the study team wrote. 

Adjunctive use of WATS-3D when BE is suspected “may save endoscopies and lead to quicker, more accurate diagnoses,” they added. 

The investigators said a limitation of the study is the lack of central pathology review, potentially leading to diagnostic variability. They also noted that over half of the detected dysplasia cases were crypt dysplasia or indefinite for dysplasia, raising concerns about clinical significance. 

Reached for comment, Philip O. Katz, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine and director of the GI Function Laboratories, Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said he’s been using WATS for more than a decade as an adjunct to standard biopsy in patients undergoing screening and surveillance for BE and finds it clinically helpful in managing his patients.

This new study provides “further information that WATS added to biopsy that has been traditionally done with the Seattle protocol increases the yield of intestinal metaplasia and likely dysplasia in patients being screened for Barrett’s,” Katz, who wasn’t involved in the study, told GI & Hepatology News.

Funding for the study was provided by CDx Diagnostics. Shaheen and several coauthors disclosed relationships with the company. Katz disclosed relationships (consultant/advisor) for Phathom Pharmaceuticals and Sebella.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In patients with gastroesophageal reflux (GERD) symptoms undergoing screening upper endoscopy, adjunctive use of wide-area transepithelial sampling with 3D computer-assisted analysis (WATS-3D) increases detection of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) and dysplasia, new research showed. 

Compared with forceps biopsies (FB) alone, the addition of WATS-3D led to confirmation of BE in an additional one fifth of patients, roughly doubled dysplasia diagnoses, and influenced clinical management in the majority of patients. 

“The big take-home point here is that the use of WATS-3D brushing along with conventional biopsies increases the likelihood that intestinal metaplasia will be identified,” first author Nicholas Shaheen, MD, MPH, AGAF, with the Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing, University of North Carolina School of Medicine at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. 

“Almost 20% of patients who harbor BE were only identified by WATS-3D and might have otherwise gone undiagnosed had only forceps biopsies been performed,” Shaheen said. 

The study was published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

 

Beyond Traditional Biopsies

BE develops as a complication of chronic GERD and is the chief precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Early detection of BE and dysplasia is crucial to enable timely intervention. 

The current gold standard for BE screening involves upper endoscopy with FB following the Seattle protocol, which consists of four-quadrant biopsies from every 1-2 cm of areas of columnar-lined epithelium (CLE) to confirm the presence of intestinal metaplasia. However, this protocol is prone to sampling errors and high false-negative rates, leading to repeat endoscopy, the study team pointed out. 

WATS-3D (CDx Diagnostics) is a complementary technique designed to improve diagnostic yield by using brush biopsy to sample more tissue than routine biopsies.

WATS-3D has been shown to increase detection of dysplasia in patients with BE undergoing surveillance for BE, but less is known about the value of WATS-3D for BE screening in a community-based cohort of patients with GERD. 

To investigate, Shaheen and colleagues studied 23,933 consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective observational registry assessing the utility of WATS-3D in the screening of symptomatic GERD patients for BE. 

Patients had both WATS-3D and FB in the same endoscopic session. No patient had a history of BE, intestinal metaplasia or dysplasia in esophageal mucosa, or esophageal surgery, endoscopic ablation or endoscopic mucosal resection prior to enrollment. 

Overall, 6829 patients (29%) met endoscopic criteria for BE (≥ 1 cm esophageal CLE with accompanying biopsies showing intestinal metaplasia). 

Of these, 2878 (42%) had intestinal metaplasia identified by either FB or WATS-3D, but 19.3% had their BE diagnosis confirmed solely on the basis of WATS-3D findings. 

Among patients who fulfilled the endoscopic criteria for BE, the adjunctive yield of WATS-3D was 76.5% and the absolute yield was 18.1%.

Of the 240 (1.0%) patients with dysplasia, 107 (45%) were found solely by WATS-3D.

 

‘Clinically Valuable Adjunct’

Among patients with positive WATS-3D but negative FB results, clinical management changed in 90.7% of cases, mostly involving initiation or modification of surveillance and proton pump inhibitor therapy. 

These results suggest that WATS-3D is a “clinically valuable adjunct” to FB for the diagnosis of BE when used as a screening tool in symptomatic GERD patients and particularly in patients with endoscopic evidence of > 1 cm esophageal columnar-lined epithelium, the study team wrote. 

Adjunctive use of WATS-3D when BE is suspected “may save endoscopies and lead to quicker, more accurate diagnoses,” they added. 

The investigators said a limitation of the study is the lack of central pathology review, potentially leading to diagnostic variability. They also noted that over half of the detected dysplasia cases were crypt dysplasia or indefinite for dysplasia, raising concerns about clinical significance. 

Reached for comment, Philip O. Katz, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine and director of the GI Function Laboratories, Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said he’s been using WATS for more than a decade as an adjunct to standard biopsy in patients undergoing screening and surveillance for BE and finds it clinically helpful in managing his patients.

This new study provides “further information that WATS added to biopsy that has been traditionally done with the Seattle protocol increases the yield of intestinal metaplasia and likely dysplasia in patients being screened for Barrett’s,” Katz, who wasn’t involved in the study, told GI & Hepatology News.

Funding for the study was provided by CDx Diagnostics. Shaheen and several coauthors disclosed relationships with the company. Katz disclosed relationships (consultant/advisor) for Phathom Pharmaceuticals and Sebella.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In patients with gastroesophageal reflux (GERD) symptoms undergoing screening upper endoscopy, adjunctive use of wide-area transepithelial sampling with 3D computer-assisted analysis (WATS-3D) increases detection of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) and dysplasia, new research showed. 

Compared with forceps biopsies (FB) alone, the addition of WATS-3D led to confirmation of BE in an additional one fifth of patients, roughly doubled dysplasia diagnoses, and influenced clinical management in the majority of patients. 

“The big take-home point here is that the use of WATS-3D brushing along with conventional biopsies increases the likelihood that intestinal metaplasia will be identified,” first author Nicholas Shaheen, MD, MPH, AGAF, with the Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing, University of North Carolina School of Medicine at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. 

“Almost 20% of patients who harbor BE were only identified by WATS-3D and might have otherwise gone undiagnosed had only forceps biopsies been performed,” Shaheen said. 

The study was published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

 

Beyond Traditional Biopsies

BE develops as a complication of chronic GERD and is the chief precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Early detection of BE and dysplasia is crucial to enable timely intervention. 

The current gold standard for BE screening involves upper endoscopy with FB following the Seattle protocol, which consists of four-quadrant biopsies from every 1-2 cm of areas of columnar-lined epithelium (CLE) to confirm the presence of intestinal metaplasia. However, this protocol is prone to sampling errors and high false-negative rates, leading to repeat endoscopy, the study team pointed out. 

WATS-3D (CDx Diagnostics) is a complementary technique designed to improve diagnostic yield by using brush biopsy to sample more tissue than routine biopsies.

WATS-3D has been shown to increase detection of dysplasia in patients with BE undergoing surveillance for BE, but less is known about the value of WATS-3D for BE screening in a community-based cohort of patients with GERD. 

To investigate, Shaheen and colleagues studied 23,933 consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective observational registry assessing the utility of WATS-3D in the screening of symptomatic GERD patients for BE. 

Patients had both WATS-3D and FB in the same endoscopic session. No patient had a history of BE, intestinal metaplasia or dysplasia in esophageal mucosa, or esophageal surgery, endoscopic ablation or endoscopic mucosal resection prior to enrollment. 

Overall, 6829 patients (29%) met endoscopic criteria for BE (≥ 1 cm esophageal CLE with accompanying biopsies showing intestinal metaplasia). 

Of these, 2878 (42%) had intestinal metaplasia identified by either FB or WATS-3D, but 19.3% had their BE diagnosis confirmed solely on the basis of WATS-3D findings. 

Among patients who fulfilled the endoscopic criteria for BE, the adjunctive yield of WATS-3D was 76.5% and the absolute yield was 18.1%.

Of the 240 (1.0%) patients with dysplasia, 107 (45%) were found solely by WATS-3D.

 

‘Clinically Valuable Adjunct’

Among patients with positive WATS-3D but negative FB results, clinical management changed in 90.7% of cases, mostly involving initiation or modification of surveillance and proton pump inhibitor therapy. 

These results suggest that WATS-3D is a “clinically valuable adjunct” to FB for the diagnosis of BE when used as a screening tool in symptomatic GERD patients and particularly in patients with endoscopic evidence of > 1 cm esophageal columnar-lined epithelium, the study team wrote. 

Adjunctive use of WATS-3D when BE is suspected “may save endoscopies and lead to quicker, more accurate diagnoses,” they added. 

The investigators said a limitation of the study is the lack of central pathology review, potentially leading to diagnostic variability. They also noted that over half of the detected dysplasia cases were crypt dysplasia or indefinite for dysplasia, raising concerns about clinical significance. 

Reached for comment, Philip O. Katz, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine and director of the GI Function Laboratories, Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said he’s been using WATS for more than a decade as an adjunct to standard biopsy in patients undergoing screening and surveillance for BE and finds it clinically helpful in managing his patients.

This new study provides “further information that WATS added to biopsy that has been traditionally done with the Seattle protocol increases the yield of intestinal metaplasia and likely dysplasia in patients being screened for Barrett’s,” Katz, who wasn’t involved in the study, told GI & Hepatology News.

Funding for the study was provided by CDx Diagnostics. Shaheen and several coauthors disclosed relationships with the company. Katz disclosed relationships (consultant/advisor) for Phathom Pharmaceuticals and Sebella.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study supports the importance of intensive nutrition therapy in managing patients with alcohol-related acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF).

In a randomized controlled trial, compared with standard care, dietitian-supported, intensive nutritional therapy improved survival, reduced frailty, and lowered hospitalization rates in men with alcohol-related ACLF.

The study, performed by a team from the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

ACLF related to alcohol use is associated with poor outcomes due to poor nutritional intake and frailty. Frail patients with ACLF face higher morbidity, mortality, and hospitalization rates than their nonfrail counterparts. However, research on the role of structured nutritional interventions in improving these outcomes is limited.

Patal Giri, MBBS, MD, and colleagues enrolled 70 men with alcohol-related ACLF and frailty (liver frailty index [LFI] > 4.5) in a single-center, open-label study. Half were randomly allocated to an intervention group receiving outpatient intensive nutrition therapy (OINT) plus standard medical treatment (SMT) and half to a control group receiving SMT alone for 3 months.

The intervention group received a monitored high-calorie, high-protein, and salt-restricted diet as prescribed by a dedicated senior liver dietitian. The control group received regular nutritional recommendations and were managed for the ACLF-associated complications, without intervention or guidance by the study team.

After 3 months follow-up, overall survival (the primary outcome) was significantly improved in the OINT group compared with the control group (91.4% vs 57.1%), “suggesting that the improvement in nutrition status is associated with better survival,” the study team noted. Three patients died in the OINT group vs 15 in the SMT group.

OINT also led to a significant improvement in frailty, with LFI scores decreasing by an average of 0.93 in the intervention group vs 0.33 in the control group; 97% of patients improved from frail to prefrail status in the OINT group, whereas only 20% of patients improved in the SMT group.

The mean change in LFI of 0.93 with OINT is “well above the substantially clinically important difference” (change of 0.8) established in a previous study, the authors noted.

Significant improvements in weight and body mass index were also observed in the OINT group relative to the control group.

Liver disease severity, including model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores, showed greater improvement in the OINT group than in the control group (−8.7 vs −6.3 points from baseline to 3 months).

During the follow-up period, fewer patients in the intervention group than in the control group required a hospital stay (17% vs 45.7%).

Limitations of the study include the single-center design and the short follow-up period of 3 months, which limits long-term outcome assessment. Further, the study only included patients meeting Asia Pacific Association for Study of Liver criteria for ACLF, which does not include the patients with organ failure as defined by European Association for the Study of the Liver-Chronic Liver Failure Consortium criteria. Patients with ACLF who had more severe disease (MELD score > 30 or AARC > 10) were also not included.

Despite these limitations, the authors said their study showed that “dietician-monitored goal-directed nutrition therapy is very important in the management of patients with alcohol-related ACLF along with SMT.”

 

Confirmatory Data 

Reached for comment, Katherine Patton, MEd, RD, a registered dietitian with the Center for Human Nutrition at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, said it’s well known that the ACLF patient population has a “very high rate of morbidity and mortality and their quality of life tends to be poor due to their frailty. It is also fairly well-known that proper nutrition therapy can improve outcomes, however barriers to adequate nutrition include decreased appetite, nausea, pain, altered taste, and early satiety from ascites.”

“Hepatologists are likely stressing the importance of adequate protein energy intake and doctors may refer patients to an outpatient dietitian, but it is up to the patient to make that appointment and act on the recommendations,” Patton told GI & Hepatology News.

“If a dietitian works in the same clinic as the hepatologist and patients can be referred and seen the same day, this is ideal. During a hospital admission, protein/calorie intake can be more closely monitored and encouraged by a multi-disciplinary team,” Patton explained.

She cautioned that “the average patient is not familiar with how to apply general calorie and protein goals to their everyday eating habits. This study amplifies the role of a dietitian and what consistent education and resources can do to improve a patient’s quality of life and survival.”

This study had no specific funding. The authors have declared no relevant conflicts of interest. Patton had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study supports the importance of intensive nutrition therapy in managing patients with alcohol-related acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF).

In a randomized controlled trial, compared with standard care, dietitian-supported, intensive nutritional therapy improved survival, reduced frailty, and lowered hospitalization rates in men with alcohol-related ACLF.

The study, performed by a team from the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

ACLF related to alcohol use is associated with poor outcomes due to poor nutritional intake and frailty. Frail patients with ACLF face higher morbidity, mortality, and hospitalization rates than their nonfrail counterparts. However, research on the role of structured nutritional interventions in improving these outcomes is limited.

Patal Giri, MBBS, MD, and colleagues enrolled 70 men with alcohol-related ACLF and frailty (liver frailty index [LFI] > 4.5) in a single-center, open-label study. Half were randomly allocated to an intervention group receiving outpatient intensive nutrition therapy (OINT) plus standard medical treatment (SMT) and half to a control group receiving SMT alone for 3 months.

The intervention group received a monitored high-calorie, high-protein, and salt-restricted diet as prescribed by a dedicated senior liver dietitian. The control group received regular nutritional recommendations and were managed for the ACLF-associated complications, without intervention or guidance by the study team.

After 3 months follow-up, overall survival (the primary outcome) was significantly improved in the OINT group compared with the control group (91.4% vs 57.1%), “suggesting that the improvement in nutrition status is associated with better survival,” the study team noted. Three patients died in the OINT group vs 15 in the SMT group.

OINT also led to a significant improvement in frailty, with LFI scores decreasing by an average of 0.93 in the intervention group vs 0.33 in the control group; 97% of patients improved from frail to prefrail status in the OINT group, whereas only 20% of patients improved in the SMT group.

The mean change in LFI of 0.93 with OINT is “well above the substantially clinically important difference” (change of 0.8) established in a previous study, the authors noted.

Significant improvements in weight and body mass index were also observed in the OINT group relative to the control group.

Liver disease severity, including model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores, showed greater improvement in the OINT group than in the control group (−8.7 vs −6.3 points from baseline to 3 months).

During the follow-up period, fewer patients in the intervention group than in the control group required a hospital stay (17% vs 45.7%).

Limitations of the study include the single-center design and the short follow-up period of 3 months, which limits long-term outcome assessment. Further, the study only included patients meeting Asia Pacific Association for Study of Liver criteria for ACLF, which does not include the patients with organ failure as defined by European Association for the Study of the Liver-Chronic Liver Failure Consortium criteria. Patients with ACLF who had more severe disease (MELD score > 30 or AARC > 10) were also not included.

Despite these limitations, the authors said their study showed that “dietician-monitored goal-directed nutrition therapy is very important in the management of patients with alcohol-related ACLF along with SMT.”

 

Confirmatory Data 

Reached for comment, Katherine Patton, MEd, RD, a registered dietitian with the Center for Human Nutrition at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, said it’s well known that the ACLF patient population has a “very high rate of morbidity and mortality and their quality of life tends to be poor due to their frailty. It is also fairly well-known that proper nutrition therapy can improve outcomes, however barriers to adequate nutrition include decreased appetite, nausea, pain, altered taste, and early satiety from ascites.”

“Hepatologists are likely stressing the importance of adequate protein energy intake and doctors may refer patients to an outpatient dietitian, but it is up to the patient to make that appointment and act on the recommendations,” Patton told GI & Hepatology News.

“If a dietitian works in the same clinic as the hepatologist and patients can be referred and seen the same day, this is ideal. During a hospital admission, protein/calorie intake can be more closely monitored and encouraged by a multi-disciplinary team,” Patton explained.

She cautioned that “the average patient is not familiar with how to apply general calorie and protein goals to their everyday eating habits. This study amplifies the role of a dietitian and what consistent education and resources can do to improve a patient’s quality of life and survival.”

This study had no specific funding. The authors have declared no relevant conflicts of interest. Patton had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study supports the importance of intensive nutrition therapy in managing patients with alcohol-related acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF).

In a randomized controlled trial, compared with standard care, dietitian-supported, intensive nutritional therapy improved survival, reduced frailty, and lowered hospitalization rates in men with alcohol-related ACLF.

The study, performed by a team from the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

ACLF related to alcohol use is associated with poor outcomes due to poor nutritional intake and frailty. Frail patients with ACLF face higher morbidity, mortality, and hospitalization rates than their nonfrail counterparts. However, research on the role of structured nutritional interventions in improving these outcomes is limited.

Patal Giri, MBBS, MD, and colleagues enrolled 70 men with alcohol-related ACLF and frailty (liver frailty index [LFI] > 4.5) in a single-center, open-label study. Half were randomly allocated to an intervention group receiving outpatient intensive nutrition therapy (OINT) plus standard medical treatment (SMT) and half to a control group receiving SMT alone for 3 months.

The intervention group received a monitored high-calorie, high-protein, and salt-restricted diet as prescribed by a dedicated senior liver dietitian. The control group received regular nutritional recommendations and were managed for the ACLF-associated complications, without intervention or guidance by the study team.

After 3 months follow-up, overall survival (the primary outcome) was significantly improved in the OINT group compared with the control group (91.4% vs 57.1%), “suggesting that the improvement in nutrition status is associated with better survival,” the study team noted. Three patients died in the OINT group vs 15 in the SMT group.

OINT also led to a significant improvement in frailty, with LFI scores decreasing by an average of 0.93 in the intervention group vs 0.33 in the control group; 97% of patients improved from frail to prefrail status in the OINT group, whereas only 20% of patients improved in the SMT group.

The mean change in LFI of 0.93 with OINT is “well above the substantially clinically important difference” (change of 0.8) established in a previous study, the authors noted.

Significant improvements in weight and body mass index were also observed in the OINT group relative to the control group.

Liver disease severity, including model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores, showed greater improvement in the OINT group than in the control group (−8.7 vs −6.3 points from baseline to 3 months).

During the follow-up period, fewer patients in the intervention group than in the control group required a hospital stay (17% vs 45.7%).

Limitations of the study include the single-center design and the short follow-up period of 3 months, which limits long-term outcome assessment. Further, the study only included patients meeting Asia Pacific Association for Study of Liver criteria for ACLF, which does not include the patients with organ failure as defined by European Association for the Study of the Liver-Chronic Liver Failure Consortium criteria. Patients with ACLF who had more severe disease (MELD score > 30 or AARC > 10) were also not included.

Despite these limitations, the authors said their study showed that “dietician-monitored goal-directed nutrition therapy is very important in the management of patients with alcohol-related ACLF along with SMT.”

 

Confirmatory Data 

Reached for comment, Katherine Patton, MEd, RD, a registered dietitian with the Center for Human Nutrition at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, said it’s well known that the ACLF patient population has a “very high rate of morbidity and mortality and their quality of life tends to be poor due to their frailty. It is also fairly well-known that proper nutrition therapy can improve outcomes, however barriers to adequate nutrition include decreased appetite, nausea, pain, altered taste, and early satiety from ascites.”

“Hepatologists are likely stressing the importance of adequate protein energy intake and doctors may refer patients to an outpatient dietitian, but it is up to the patient to make that appointment and act on the recommendations,” Patton told GI & Hepatology News.

“If a dietitian works in the same clinic as the hepatologist and patients can be referred and seen the same day, this is ideal. During a hospital admission, protein/calorie intake can be more closely monitored and encouraged by a multi-disciplinary team,” Patton explained.

She cautioned that “the average patient is not familiar with how to apply general calorie and protein goals to their everyday eating habits. This study amplifies the role of a dietitian and what consistent education and resources can do to improve a patient’s quality of life and survival.”

This study had no specific funding. The authors have declared no relevant conflicts of interest. Patton had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Results from the PHENIX-I trial support skipping pelvic lymphadenectomy in women with early cervical cancer who have a negative sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Omitting pelvic lymphadenectomy in these patients “did not compromise disease-free survival and potentially [led to] improved overall survival,” reported lead investigator Jihong Liu, MD, gynecologic oncologist, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.

Forgoing the additional procedure also decreased the incidence of retroperitoneal lymph node recurrence and adverse events and demonstrated superior surgical outcomes including shorter operative duration, reduced blood loss, and a lower morbidity.

Liu reported the PHENIX-I results at this year’s Society of Gynecologic Oncology Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancers (SGO) 2025.

Pelvic lymphadenectomy has been part of standard care for early-stage cervical cancer for over a century, even though the incidence of lymph node metastasis in early-stage cervical cancer is relatively low. Overtreatment and increased morbidity have been notable drawbacks of the procedure.

It may be possible to forgo pelvic lymphadenectomy in early-stage cervical cancer when sentinel lymph node biopsy findings are negative, but evidence from randomized controlled trials are lacking, Liu explained.

The PHENIX-I trial prospectively assessed survival outcomes among patients who received pelvic lymphadenectomy and those who did not. More specifically, all patients underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy and patients with negative lymph nodes were then intraoperatively randomized (1:1) to undergo pelvic lymphadenectomy (417 patients) or not (416 patients).

The multicenter, randomized controlled trial involved patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for stage IA1 (lymphovascular invasion), IA2, IB1, IB2 or IIA1 cervical cancer with tumor size not exceeding 3 cm.

“The only difference between the two groups was that patients in the experimental arm did not have pelvic lymphadenectomy,” Liu said.

Liu and colleagues reported that 23 patients (2.8%) had a positive lymph node on postoperative pathology examination. The rate of false-negative sentinel lymph node biopsy was < 1%. About half the patients in both groups received postoperative adjuvant therapy, and there was no significant between-group difference in the rates and time to initiate adjuvant therapy.

Overall, about 3.85% of patients (n = 16) in the biopsy-only group had a recurrence compared with 6.24% (n = 26) in the pelvic lymphadenectomy group at a median follow-up of 50 months.

But no patients in the biopsy-only group had a recurrence in the retroperitoneal lymph nodes compared with 9 patients in the pelvic lymphadenectomy group.

The 3-year disease-free survival (primary endpoint) rates were similar between the two groups — 96.8% in the biopsy-only group and 94.5% in the lymphadenectomy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; P = .12). However, the 3-year overall survival was significantly higher in biopsy-only group — 100% vs 97.8% in the lymphadenectomy group (HR, 0.21; P = .007). Overall, three patients (19%) in the biopsy-only group died from cervical cancer vs 14 (54%) in the lymphadenectomy group.

As for surgical complications, pelvic lymphadenectomy was associated with a higher incidence of pain (5.8% vs 1.7%), lymphocyst (22.1% vs 8.4%), and lymphedema (10.1% vs 2.4%), as well as longer operating time and more blood loss.

Offering perspective on PHENIX-I, discussant Premal Thaker, MD, noted that this is the first randomized trial to report on the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy alone vs biopsy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy after radical hysterectomy.

Key takeaways are the “equivalent” 3-year disease-free outcomes but “lower” overall survival in the pelvic lymphadenectomy group as well as more adverse events, said Thaker, gynecologic oncologist and surgeon, Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St Louis.

Although quality of life data was not presented in the trial, patients who skipped pelvic lymphadenectomy had fewer adverse events, “which is very important for our patients,” Thaker added.

This study had no commercial funding. Liu and Thaker had no relevant disclosures.

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

Results from the PHENIX-I trial support skipping pelvic lymphadenectomy in women with early cervical cancer who have a negative sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Omitting pelvic lymphadenectomy in these patients “did not compromise disease-free survival and potentially [led to] improved overall survival,” reported lead investigator Jihong Liu, MD, gynecologic oncologist, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.

Forgoing the additional procedure also decreased the incidence of retroperitoneal lymph node recurrence and adverse events and demonstrated superior surgical outcomes including shorter operative duration, reduced blood loss, and a lower morbidity.

Liu reported the PHENIX-I results at this year’s Society of Gynecologic Oncology Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancers (SGO) 2025.

Pelvic lymphadenectomy has been part of standard care for early-stage cervical cancer for over a century, even though the incidence of lymph node metastasis in early-stage cervical cancer is relatively low. Overtreatment and increased morbidity have been notable drawbacks of the procedure.

It may be possible to forgo pelvic lymphadenectomy in early-stage cervical cancer when sentinel lymph node biopsy findings are negative, but evidence from randomized controlled trials are lacking, Liu explained.

The PHENIX-I trial prospectively assessed survival outcomes among patients who received pelvic lymphadenectomy and those who did not. More specifically, all patients underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy and patients with negative lymph nodes were then intraoperatively randomized (1:1) to undergo pelvic lymphadenectomy (417 patients) or not (416 patients).

The multicenter, randomized controlled trial involved patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for stage IA1 (lymphovascular invasion), IA2, IB1, IB2 or IIA1 cervical cancer with tumor size not exceeding 3 cm.

“The only difference between the two groups was that patients in the experimental arm did not have pelvic lymphadenectomy,” Liu said.

Liu and colleagues reported that 23 patients (2.8%) had a positive lymph node on postoperative pathology examination. The rate of false-negative sentinel lymph node biopsy was < 1%. About half the patients in both groups received postoperative adjuvant therapy, and there was no significant between-group difference in the rates and time to initiate adjuvant therapy.

Overall, about 3.85% of patients (n = 16) in the biopsy-only group had a recurrence compared with 6.24% (n = 26) in the pelvic lymphadenectomy group at a median follow-up of 50 months.

But no patients in the biopsy-only group had a recurrence in the retroperitoneal lymph nodes compared with 9 patients in the pelvic lymphadenectomy group.

The 3-year disease-free survival (primary endpoint) rates were similar between the two groups — 96.8% in the biopsy-only group and 94.5% in the lymphadenectomy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; P = .12). However, the 3-year overall survival was significantly higher in biopsy-only group — 100% vs 97.8% in the lymphadenectomy group (HR, 0.21; P = .007). Overall, three patients (19%) in the biopsy-only group died from cervical cancer vs 14 (54%) in the lymphadenectomy group.

As for surgical complications, pelvic lymphadenectomy was associated with a higher incidence of pain (5.8% vs 1.7%), lymphocyst (22.1% vs 8.4%), and lymphedema (10.1% vs 2.4%), as well as longer operating time and more blood loss.

Offering perspective on PHENIX-I, discussant Premal Thaker, MD, noted that this is the first randomized trial to report on the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy alone vs biopsy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy after radical hysterectomy.

Key takeaways are the “equivalent” 3-year disease-free outcomes but “lower” overall survival in the pelvic lymphadenectomy group as well as more adverse events, said Thaker, gynecologic oncologist and surgeon, Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St Louis.

Although quality of life data was not presented in the trial, patients who skipped pelvic lymphadenectomy had fewer adverse events, “which is very important for our patients,” Thaker added.

This study had no commercial funding. Liu and Thaker had no relevant disclosures.

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

Results from the PHENIX-I trial support skipping pelvic lymphadenectomy in women with early cervical cancer who have a negative sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Omitting pelvic lymphadenectomy in these patients “did not compromise disease-free survival and potentially [led to] improved overall survival,” reported lead investigator Jihong Liu, MD, gynecologic oncologist, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.

Forgoing the additional procedure also decreased the incidence of retroperitoneal lymph node recurrence and adverse events and demonstrated superior surgical outcomes including shorter operative duration, reduced blood loss, and a lower morbidity.

Liu reported the PHENIX-I results at this year’s Society of Gynecologic Oncology Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancers (SGO) 2025.

Pelvic lymphadenectomy has been part of standard care for early-stage cervical cancer for over a century, even though the incidence of lymph node metastasis in early-stage cervical cancer is relatively low. Overtreatment and increased morbidity have been notable drawbacks of the procedure.

It may be possible to forgo pelvic lymphadenectomy in early-stage cervical cancer when sentinel lymph node biopsy findings are negative, but evidence from randomized controlled trials are lacking, Liu explained.

The PHENIX-I trial prospectively assessed survival outcomes among patients who received pelvic lymphadenectomy and those who did not. More specifically, all patients underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy and patients with negative lymph nodes were then intraoperatively randomized (1:1) to undergo pelvic lymphadenectomy (417 patients) or not (416 patients).

The multicenter, randomized controlled trial involved patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for stage IA1 (lymphovascular invasion), IA2, IB1, IB2 or IIA1 cervical cancer with tumor size not exceeding 3 cm.

“The only difference between the two groups was that patients in the experimental arm did not have pelvic lymphadenectomy,” Liu said.

Liu and colleagues reported that 23 patients (2.8%) had a positive lymph node on postoperative pathology examination. The rate of false-negative sentinel lymph node biopsy was < 1%. About half the patients in both groups received postoperative adjuvant therapy, and there was no significant between-group difference in the rates and time to initiate adjuvant therapy.

Overall, about 3.85% of patients (n = 16) in the biopsy-only group had a recurrence compared with 6.24% (n = 26) in the pelvic lymphadenectomy group at a median follow-up of 50 months.

But no patients in the biopsy-only group had a recurrence in the retroperitoneal lymph nodes compared with 9 patients in the pelvic lymphadenectomy group.

The 3-year disease-free survival (primary endpoint) rates were similar between the two groups — 96.8% in the biopsy-only group and 94.5% in the lymphadenectomy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; P = .12). However, the 3-year overall survival was significantly higher in biopsy-only group — 100% vs 97.8% in the lymphadenectomy group (HR, 0.21; P = .007). Overall, three patients (19%) in the biopsy-only group died from cervical cancer vs 14 (54%) in the lymphadenectomy group.

As for surgical complications, pelvic lymphadenectomy was associated with a higher incidence of pain (5.8% vs 1.7%), lymphocyst (22.1% vs 8.4%), and lymphedema (10.1% vs 2.4%), as well as longer operating time and more blood loss.

Offering perspective on PHENIX-I, discussant Premal Thaker, MD, noted that this is the first randomized trial to report on the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy alone vs biopsy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy after radical hysterectomy.

Key takeaways are the “equivalent” 3-year disease-free outcomes but “lower” overall survival in the pelvic lymphadenectomy group as well as more adverse events, said Thaker, gynecologic oncologist and surgeon, Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St Louis.

Although quality of life data was not presented in the trial, patients who skipped pelvic lymphadenectomy had fewer adverse events, “which is very important for our patients,” Thaker added.

This study had no commercial funding. Liu and Thaker had no relevant disclosures.

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