All posts by CPTFeditor

Quitting smoking: women and men may do it differently

By Anna E. Mazzucco, Ph.D

Quitting  smoking is hard to do, and new studies suggest that what works for men may not always work for women, and vice versa.  Scientists believe that nicotine is more important for men, while other aspects of smoking seem to be more important for women.  If you are trying to quit, there’s new research that may help you choose the strategy that is most likely to work for you.

Many counselors, quit lines, and other experts recommend talking with your doctor about your interest in quitting or cutting back on the number of cigarettes you smoke. Your doctor will discuss different tools and medications, some of which require a prescription.  Nicotine patches and gum, for instance, can be purchased without a prescription.  These are often used to “step down” nicotine levels (see this article for more information),  but studies have suggested that these medications may work better for men than women, especially when it comes to quitting for good. 1  Other types of medication to help you quit smoking, such as prescription drugs Chantix and Zyban, do not replace nicotine, but instead try to reduce the craving for it.  But these drugs are riskier and have more side effects than nicotine replacements (see this article for more information).

So, what are the other options, especially for women who may not be helped as much by nicotine patches or gum, and who don’t want to use prescription medicines with serious side effects?  Most experts suggest the following:

  1. Plan for success.  Start by picking a good time to quit.  Experts recommend choosing a time of year that is not particularly stressful, since quitting can take a lot of energy.  You might try setting a goal like a “smoke-free” date that is personally meaningful to you—maybe your or a loved one’s birthday, or a holiday.  Some people decide to save the money they would have spent on cigarettes for something special.  If watching your savings accumulate is helpful, consider putting a glass jar somewhere where you can easily see it and get re-inspired daily!  Interestingly, one study showed that women who try to quit during the first half of their monthly cycle (right after menstruation) are more likely to succeed.2
  2. Know yourself.  Quitting can be more successful if you try to identify the situations where you tend to smoke.  Do you have a particular time of day, or group of people that you enjoy smoking with? Anticipate these situations and come up with plans for how to handle them ahead of time.
  3. Find healthier replacements.   Some people find mint gum, lozenges, sunflower seeds or shelled nuts can help reduce their craving for a cigarette.   This may be especially important for women, who often need to replace the hand-to-mouth aspects of smoking as much or more than the nicotine itself.  Research suggests that certain foods might make cigarettes less appealing, such as healthy fruits and vegetables and spicy foods, which might curb the craving for a strong taste.3  Even brushing your teeth can help keep cravings at bay!
  4. Be good to your body.  Regular exercise, such as brisk walking, jogging, yoga or tai chi, can help reduce stress and increase a sense of well-being.  Research suggests that these feel-good replacements may be especially useful for those who smoke to cope with stress. 4  Lungs can quickly begin to heal once you quit smoking.  So breathe deeply and enjoy!
  5. Call in reinforcements.  Next time you feel a craving, try calling a friend, or consider joining a support group.  There are also online quitting tools such as TheExPlan, SmokeFree Women Quit Plan, QuitNet, and Freedom From Smoking Online.  And, you guessed it, there are now many “quitting apps” such as Smoke Out, tweetsmoking, Butt Out, Livestrong MyQuit Coach, and Smoke Break.   Apps can help you count the days since your last cigarette, calculate money saved, show your decreasing risks for diseases, and share your progress with others– and many of them are free. (For a detailed review, see this site). There are also many websites with useful information and links, compiled here by the Center for Disease Control.

Statement of Dr. Diana Zuckerman before the FDA Advisory Committee Regarding Dapagliflozin (Farxiga)

By Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D.
December 12, 2013

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.  I’m Dr. Diana Zuckerman. I’m president of the Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund.

Our center is dedicated to improving the health and safety of adults and children, and we do that by conducting and scrutinizing research and explaining the findings to health professionals, patients, and the general public.   Our non-profit center does not accept funding from pharmaceutical companies, so I have no conflicts of interest.

Today I am speaking from my perspective as someone trained in epidemiology at YaleMedicalSchool. I also was on the faculty at Yale and at Vassar and conducted research at Harvard, and was a fellow at the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.  I’ve also discussed the data with an expert on our staff who previously worked at NCI, Dr. Anna Mazzucco.  I’m putting together all of those perspectives, as well as having worked for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as a consultant to the Institute of Medicine., and as someone with several close family members with diabetes, one of whom died from the disease..

My concern about this drug is that there are just too many unanswered questions – and those unanswered questions are frightening ones.  That was true when the FDA rejected this application for approval 2 years ago, and it is still true today.

Question #1: How well does it work?

The results indicate that DAPA is NOT effective for patients with moderate to severe renal impairment.  As the FDA has noted, 20-40% of diabetes patients have compromised renal function.

DAPA is better than placebo but does not provide a significant improvement over currently available drugs.  Specifically, glipizide was superior in the short-term and comparable to DAPA at week 52.

So, in the context of these limited benefits what are the risks?

FDA stated that the animal studies conducted could not rule out the possibility that dapagliflozin contributes to bladder cancer.   We completely agree.  Experiments done using cell lines and tumor models which are not implanted in the bladder cannot answer questions about the risks to humans.  Because in humans, changes in the bladder microenvironment or urine flow may be most relevant to carcinogenesis.  FDA has already suggested use of an appropriate animal model which could address these concerns, specifically a “a (BBN) chemically-induced rodent bladder cancer model (4-hydroxybutyl(butyl)nitrosamine).

Why didn’t the company do the right kind of animal study?  That’s an important question to keep in mind.  But, until the correct type of animal studies are done, DAPA must be considered a possible cause of bladder cancer.  Since other effective diabetes drugs are already on the market, and those drugs are more effective for more patients, bladder cancer is an unacceptable risk.

But bladder cancer isn’t the only concern.  What about breast cancer?  The FDA consultant gave several reasons why DAPA is unlikely to have caused the breast cancers that were observed.

These reasons included:

  • short treatment time prior to onset,
  • the decline in incidence risk ratio over time, and
  • the fact that the breast cancers were estrogen receptor positive.

 

Let’s start with the short treatment time before onset.  We all know that cancer usually takes years to develop.  So, it would be easy to assume – or perhaps hope – that the increase in cancer happened by chance.  But wishful thinking isn’t enough.  We need to know.

When the percentage of women taking hormone replacement therapy for menopause dropped dramatically, the rate of new cancers in the U.S. went down for the first time ever.  Experts in the field agree that this unexpected quick effect was because of the drop in use of hormone therapy.  So, we know from that experience that even a slow growing cancer can be stimulated by a drug.

We challenge the other 2 assumptions as well.  Hormone receptor status is irrelevant because the potential mechanism for this drug to cause breast cancer is unknown.  It is entirely possible that dapagliflozin could act in multiple biological pathways, including hormone receptor signaling, or in a biological pathway that is common to breast cancers regardless of hormone receptor status.

Similarly, long-term biological responses to dapagliflozin and potential feedback mechanisms in breast tissue are also unknown.  Thus, the decline in incidence risk ratio over time doesn’t mean the drug is safe — because the body could respond differently to dapagliflozin over time.

Diabetes and the prior use of hypoglycemic medications were also listed as reasons to doubt potential breast cancer risk, but these factors are common among all patient groups in these trials.

In summary, these arguments cannot rule out the possibility that dapagliflozin causes breast cancer.  The only way to answer this question is with appropriately designed animal models of mammary tumors, or human patients.

Other Safety Issues:

Renal impairment/failure adverse events were associated with dapagliflozin treatment in data based on 13 short-term studies (3.2% in dapagliflozin-treated patients vs. 1.8% with placebo) and the 9-short-term plus long-term studies (6.7% vs. 4.2%) studies.  As many diabetes patients already have compromised renal function, this risk represents a significant health hazard primarily for the patients most likely to receive this drug.

At two different doses, the DAPA patients had elevated LDL levels, while placebo patients did not.  This increase raises concerns that any potential cardiovascular benefits – which are questionable — cannot justify the additional risks.

Lack of Diversity in the Studies

In the entire clinical program, less than 4% of the patient s were African American.  And yet 13% of African Americans have type II diabetes.  They should have been tested if the intent was to approve the drug for all Americans, not just white Americans.

But, given the risks, it would be difficult to justify recruiting African Americans or whites for more research at this time.

When I speak at FDA advisory committee meetings it is always as a scientist, but today I also want to speak on behalf of patients.  My Dad developed diabetes at the age of 90, probably because he took lupron for prostate cancer.   In retrospect, that was probably not a good treatment decision, since prostate cancer is rarely fatal.   It would certainly be ironic if a diabetes patient developed bladder cancer, which is often fatal, or breast cancer, which can be fatal, as a result of taking a diabetes medication that is no more effective, and often less effective, than other diabetes treatments on the market.

It’s hard to imagine a well- informed patient choosing DAPA, but unfortunately, patients are rarely well-informed.   I assume that the physicians on this panel would clearly and carefully inform their patients of the risks of this drug, but in the real world, many doctors won’t be well-informed because the company that makes DAPA is telling doctors very clearly that DAPA is safe and does NOT cause cancer, when the truth is we don’t know, but it might.

We can’t solve this with a black box warning on a label, because many doctors and patients don’t read the labels.  We can’t ethically rely on post-market studies, because it would not be ethical to prescribe this medication with all these unanswered questions.

I sympathize with the companies’ repeated efforts to get this drug approved, but I wonder why they didn’t do the animal study that the FDA recommended.   And I would not want anyone I care about to take a drug with such serious potential risks when so many alternatives are on the market that do not cause cancer.

A Special Focus on Carcinoid Tumors

Anna E. Mazzucco, Ph.D., Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund

Although textbooks call them rare, the incidence of carcinoid tumors is on the rise.  In 1973, carcinoid tumors were diagnosed in only 8.5 people per million; by 1994 this number more than quadrupled to 38.4 per million.5 This increase could be due to several factors, such as more sensitive detection, increased awareness, and the larger number of Americans over the age of 50.6   However, the cause of the increase is unclear, and these tumors can be life-threatening.  When they grow and spread, these tumors often affect organs that show no symptoms until late in the disease. Like almost all cancers, earlier diagnosis is very important for the overall prognosis.

Carcinoid tumors belong to a larger medical category called neuroendocrine tumors, which are named for their “neural” (i.e. information-sensing) and “endocrine” (i.e. hormone-related) functions.  Carcinoid tumors are a particular type of neuroendocrine tumor, named to reflect being “carcinoma-like” or “carcinoid” due to their microscopic similarities to more aggressive cancers.  They are considered distinct types of tumors because they are usually very slow-growing.7  Instead of being named for the organ in which they occur, the unifying feature of carcinoid tumors is that they start in a particular kind of neuroendocrine cell, which can be found in several different organs.  That is why carcinoid tumors can be found in the stomach, appendix, colon, lung, and other organs, and also why the symptoms, treatment and prognosis of carcinoid tumors can also vary so much between patients.  The location and size of the tumor determine a lot about its characteristics and also which treatments are best.

Risk Factors

Scientists and physicians are still working to understand carcinoid tumors.  We know that there are a few traits which can increase a person’s risk of having a carcinoid tumor.  These include:

  • Age (50 and older)
  • Gender (female)
  • Family history of multiple endocrine neoplasia type I (MEN1)
  • Conditions which cause low stomach acid production, such as Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, pernicious anemia, and atrophic gastritis
  • Smoking (for atypical lung carcinoid tumors)

Symptoms

As carcinoid tumors can form in many different organs, symptoms vary by location, and can be similar to those of other health issues.  However, if you experience any of these symptoms for several days, call your doctor.

For carcinoid tumors of the gastrointestinal system, symptoms may include:

  • diarrhea or constipation
  • nausea
  • abdominal or rectal pain
  • rectal bleeding

For carcinoid tumors of the lungs, symptoms may include:

  • chest pain
  • wheezing or shortness of breath
  • skin discloration that looks like stretch marks
  • unexplained weight gain in the midsection or upper back

Another feature of carcinoid tumors which makes them different from other tumors is that they can cause symptoms which at first may seem unrelated to each other.  In these rare cases (only about five percent of all carcinoid tumor cases), the tumor can cause unusually high amounts of hormones in the blood.8  This situation, called carcinoid syndrome, could result in symptoms such as:

  • flushing
  • heart palpitations
  • large changes in blood pressure
  • swelling of legs and feet

Diagnosis

Diagnosis may rely on several sources of information, such blood and urine tests, imaging tests such as CT or MRI, endoscopy, or biopsy.  Endoscopy allows closer visual examination of the tumor with a tiny camera passed through the digestive tract.  During an endoscopy, a biopsy sample may be collected, which is very small amount of tissue removed for analysis.  Based on this information, physicians will often classify carcinoid tumors as either typical or atypical.  They will also define a tumor as having “local”, “regional spread”, or “distant spread”, based on how far a tumor may have grown beyond its original location.

Treatment

Surgery is often used as the first treatment for carcinoid tumors.  If the tumor hasn’t spread, surgery can cure the cancer.  Surgery may also be combined with other treatments to reduce the tumor and the symptoms.  If the tumor has spread to the liver, which is quite common, it can be surgically treated by blocking the artery to the liver with chemotherapy or injected polymer beads. Liver tumors can also be treated by radiofrequency (radiowaves) or cryotherapy (using cold to destroy cancer cells).2

The drugs most commonly used to treat carcinoid tumors are hormone therapies called somatostatin analogues, such as octreotide (Sandostatin) and lanreotide (Somatuline Depot), which are given as daily or monthly injections, respectively.  These drugs work to block the growth of the tumor and the hormones it may produce, and can be effective for long periods of time, although the dose may need to be increased over time.  Newer versions of these drugs, such as pasireotide, are being developed and compared to the older drugs to determine which are more effective, and for whom.   Other treatments are being developed that use these same drugs to deliver radiation directly to cancer cells, such as in MIBG therapy.   A different drug also used to treat carcinoid tumors is interferon (Intron A, Pegasys), which uses the body’s own immune defenses against the tumor.2  New studies are evaluating the safety and effectiveness of combining hormone therapies such as octreotide with interferon to see if they work better together.  Radiation and traditional chemotherapies are not usually helpful for slow-growing carcinoid tumors.  However, some carcinoid tumors (often called “atypical”) with higher growth rates (or high “proliferation index”) may respond to them.  Studies of combinations of chemotherapy drugs are being conducted to find out which are most effective.

As scientists are learning more about carcinoid tumors, new drugs called “targeted therapies” are being developed, which are based on a detailed biological understanding of the tumor.  Clinical trials are being done to investigate these new drugs for carcinoid tumors, such as everolimus (Afinitor), sunitinib (Sutent), azaspirane (Atiprimod), IGF-R1 blockers (AMG 479), and VEGFR and Akt inhibitors (such as Tricirinine, Axitinib, Votrient, Avastin, Cometriq, Ziv-aflibercept) 2,9  Everolimus and sunitinib have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, but FDA will not approve these drugs for carcinoid tumors until clinical trials are completed to show whether they are safe and effective for those tumors.   Studies have shown that carcinoid tumors produce high amounts of particular proteins related to cell growth, including IGF-R1 and VEGFR2, and new drugs are being developed to block these molecules.10   Another new treatment, YF476, is being tested specifically for stomach carcinoid tumors.

If you are undergoing treatment for a carcinoid tumors, up-to-date information about clinical trials can be found here.   A healthy diet, exercise, and emotional support can also be helpful during treatment for cancer.  If you have questions about your treatment or want to know more about your treatment options, ask your doctor lots of questions and consider seeking another opinion until you receive the information you need.

Public Comments on NIOSH Draft Intelligence on Carcinogen Classification and Target Risk Level Policy for Chemical Hazards in the Workplace

By Anna E. Mazzucco
December 16, 2013

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.  My name is Dr. Anna Mazzucco, and I speak on behalf of the National Research Center for Women & Families, and our Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund.  After completing my Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology at Harvard Medical School, I conducted research at the National Cancer Institute.  I speak today as a cancer biologist gravely concerned that these regulations lag behind the state of the science, and fall far short of protecting Americans from occupational causes of cancer.

In 2013, more than half a million Americans will die from cancer.  A 2003 joint report from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences stated that “exposure to a wide variety of natural and man-made substances in the environment accounts for at least two-thirds of all the cases of cancer in the United States.” Yet after reviewing the current state of regulatory policy and research efforts, the President’s Cancer Panel reported in 2010 that “environmental health, including cancer risk, has been largely excluded from overall national policy on protecting and improving the health of Americans.”   When notorious and decades-known carcinogens such as asbestos and radon are still present at unsafe or unknown levels in American workplaces, how can the public have confidence that our regulations can handle new and complex occupational hazards arising every day?  Only a few hundred out of more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety.  We should be concerned.

The National Institutes of Health estimated the total cost of cancer in 2008 at $201.5 billion in both direct health care costs and the indirect cost of lost productivity due to premature deaths.   Another recent study estimated that cancer is responsible for 20 percent of all health care spending.  Disability days alone cost $7.5 billion in lost productivity each year.  And these numbers cannot attempt to capture the human value of lives lost.

Unfortunately, the NIOSH draft report represents a continuation of the status quo.  It reinforces a reactive rather than proactive approach to regulation.  It maintains historical policy positions which are no longer appropriate.  It  places burdens on workers rather than on industry.  And, it overlooks glaring gaps in regulation. This report does not provide sufficient information on proposed new policies that would add to redundancy between agencies, rather than eliminating redundancy.  Even more troubling, these new policies could allow a more permissive stance towards carcinogens in the workplace despite more stringent regulation of the very same agents by other federal agencies.

We have 5 Areas of concern that we want to emphasize:

  1. Safe exposure limits must be based on actual, not theoretical, workplace exposures. Real-life workplace chemical use involves multiple agents and complex exposures.  This report does not give any concrete statements on how to address the true chemical milieu to which workers are exposed.  There is no scientific reason to limit our safety analyses to single agents.  If the goal is to prevent chemical hazard exposure in the workplace, then we must start with the workplace, and not a theoretical framework which likely applies to very few real-life situations.
  2. Acceptable occupational risk assessments should be based on up-to-date, circumspect and truly representative information.  NIOSH uses a lifetime cancer risk increase of 1 in 1,000 as the acceptable regulatory threshold, while stating that “controlling exposure to lower concentrations is always warranted.” NIOSH admits that “an excess risk of 1 in 1,000 is one or more orders of magnitude higher than what the United States permits for the general public.” NIOSH justifies this questionable threshold with two arguments:  The first is the historic “benzene decision” made by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1980, where a 1 in 1,000 risk was used in a seemingly rhetorical example.  The second justification is that workers are a very small subset of the general population, and higher exposures for small numbers of people may be considered acceptable if they are comparable to the overall risks of employment itself.  We disagree with these nonscientific justifications.  There is increasing evidence that occupational carcinogens spread into the greater environment.  For example, trichloroethylene (TCE), an industrial solvent, is now present in approximately one-third of the U.S. water supply.   The maximum risk threshold acceptable to the EPA is 10-fold less than the NIOSH threshold – and given the overlapping exposures, that does not make sense.  The EPA considers 1 in 1,000,000 to be the target threshold for as many people as possible, but that is 1000 times lower than the NIOSH threshold. The bottom line is that there is no scientific basis for these differential safety standards, and we now know that occupational and environmental exposures frequently become indistinguishable.  For that reason, the workforce should be afforded the same level of protection as the general public.
  3. Safety determinations will only be as effective as the quality of the science they are based on.  This report outlines the use of linear modeling to extrapolate low-dose effects of carcinogens.  But linear modeling isn’t appropriate for chemicals with non-monotonic dose-response curves, such as endocrine disruptors.  In addition, bioaccumulation and multigenerational effects must be considered — otherwise, limits will be simplistic and inaccurate. When NTP/EPA/IARC classifications disagree, NIOSH says they will “adopt the classification determined to be most relevant to occupational exposures“.  This policy would allow for “down-classifying” of carcinogens based on workplace considerations.  Given the technical difficulty in distinguishing between occupational and greater environmental exposures, the public needs detailed information about this decision-making process, so that we can ensure that any down-classifications are justified by scientific evidence.  NIOSH should also consider making full use of the NTP Executive Committee before investing their own time and resources in classifying agents, in order to focus their efforts on the stated goal of reducing risks.
  4. A safe exposure level based on technical feasibility rather than safety places workers at risk. NIOSH plans to set the recommended exposure limit (REL) to the higher, detectable dose (the reliable quantitation limit).   This would directly place workers in potentially unsafe conditions, while rendering them powerless to detect or remove the agent to ensure safe levels.  If we want to instead guarantee safety to workers in this situation, NIOSH needs to ban these chemicals until more sensitive detection methods are developed.  That policy would protect workers while creating an incentive for industry to develop more sensitive diagnostic capabilities or find safer alternatives.
  5. Sensitive subpopulations require protections too.  Birth defects, childhood cancer, and adult cancers can all caused by in utero exposures.  The NIOSH draft report does not provide details on how sensitive subpopulations will be protected.  Just as NIOSH sets risk thresholds for all workers, it must have regulations which sufficiently protect everyone in that group.

We urge you to consider these changes, and use every resource at your disposal to ensure that our national policies regarding occupational carcinogens meet their goal of protecting Americans at work.  This will ensure a healthy society, thriving economy, and also safeguard our environment for generations to come.

For more information, contact Anna Mazzucco at (202) 223-4000 or am@center4research.org

 

Endometrial cancer: what you need to know

By Laurén Doamekpor, M.P.H.

What is endometrial cancer?

Endometrial cancer—also called uterine cancer—is the most common cancer affecting a woman’s reproductive system. It is diagnosed when tumors start growing in the lining of the uterus, which is called the endometrium. Studies show that endometrial cancer is much more likely to occur in women who have already reached menopause, and most endometrial cancer is diagnosed around age 70.11 When physicians and medical experts talk about endometrial cancer, they often refer to it as type I or type II. Type I endometrial cancer is more common, and is influenced by levels of the female hormone estrogen in a woman’s body.12 Anything that affects a woman’s estrogen levels can potentially raise or lower a woman’s risk of developing type I endometrial cancer.13 Type II is less common and does not seem to be related to estrogen.14

In 2013, 49,560 new cases of endometrial cancer were diagnosed in the U.S., and about 8,000 women are expected to die from it this year.15

What are common symptoms of endometrial cancer?

Abnormal vaginal bleeding or discharge are frequently reported symptoms, as is pain in the pelvic area, and pain during intercourse.16  However, a woman can have endometrial cancer without having any of these symptoms, and women can have these symptoms without having cancer. You know your body best, so it is important to see your doctor if you experience any symptoms that seem out of the ordinary.

Who is at risk?

Some of the factors that increase a woman’s chances of getting endometrial cancer are out of her control, but she can reduce her risks.  These factors increase a woman’s risks of endometrial cancer:

  • Had her first menstrual period before age 126
  • Has a family history of endometrial cancer6
  • Has or had trouble getting pregnant6
  • Has used or is using tamoxifen, a drug used to treat or prevent some types of breast cancer. Tamoxifen blocks estrogen to the breast, starving cancer cells that like to feed off of estrogen, but it acts like estrogen on the uterus.6
  • Had menopause after age 5517
  • Is obese – Studies suggest that obesity may be the largest risk factor for endometrial cancer.4

The more menstrual cycles a woman has in her life, the greater her risk.  That is why either early menstruation or late menopause (or both) can increase a woman’s risk of getting endometrial cancer.  And that is why taking birth control pills lowers a woman’s risk of endometrial cancer. Oral contraceptives eliminate “real” menstruation, replacing it with “withdrawal bleeding.”18

Screening and diagnosis

For women without symptoms, there are no accepted guidelines for a routine screening test.  That is why it is important to see your doctor if you experience any symptoms.  Most cases (80%) are diagnosed at an early stage because of symptoms, and as a result survival rates are high9. Most women with symptoms that are consistent with endometrial cancer will receive one or more of the following tests, in addition to a physical exam and blood tests:

  • Pelvic exam: A pelvic exam will allow your doctor to check your vagina and uterus for any unusual changes in size or shape.
  • Transvaginal ultrasound: This type of ultrasound (sound waves) makes a picture of the uterus, and can be used to detect small masses.
  • Biopsy: A biopsy involves the removal of tissue from the uterus to test whether cancer cells are present. 19

However, screening all women instead of only screening women with symptoms will often result in unnecessary biopsies because of false-positive transvaginal ultrasound results. for that reason, screening should be limited to symptomatic women to minimize anxiety and complications from biopsies.9

What are the treatment options?

If you have been diagnosed with endometrial cancer, treatment depends on the type of uterine cancer you have and how far it has spread, your age, and how fast the tumor is likely to grow.20 Treatment usually includes:

  • Surgery to remove the tumors
  • Chemotherapy
  • Radiation therapy
  • Hormone therapy to block hormones and keep them from feeding cancer cells 10
  • Immunotherapy12-15

The effectiveness of treatments can vary. For example, a 2023 study found that adding radiation to chemotherapy treatment did not increase how long endometrial cancer patients lived12 However, immunotherapy in addition to chemotherapy, has been shown to significantly improve outcomes according to the results of two different randomized clinical trials.13,14 Experts have predicted that these studies will convince doctors and patients to incorporate immunotherapy into the treatment of all patients with endometrial cancer,

How can you lower your risk of endometrial cancer?

Did you know that being overweight or obese increases your risk of many types of cancer, including endometrial cancer?  Keeping your weight down is the number one way you can reduce your risk, so limit the number of calories you eat and drink and stay (or get) active.  You can read more about the link between excess weight and cancer here. Scientists have proposed a few different explanations for this link, but one of them is that fat tissues secrete hormones, including estrogen. Abnormal amounts of estrogen circulating in the body increase a woman’s chances of developing type I endometrial cancer.

Dropping pounds (or at least not gaining weight) offers many health benefits in addition to lowering your risk of endometrial cancer. Shedding pounds can be a challenge. One of the easier ways is to cut down on sodas and other sweetened drinks that are high in calories with zero nutritional value.  A 2013 study found that women who drank a lot of sugar-sweetened beverages, such as Coke, Pepsi, and other carbonated beverages (such as 7-Up, Sprite), or non-carbonated drinks such as lemonade or Hawaiian Punch, were more likely to develop type I endometrial cancer than women who didn’t drink them, regardless of their body mass index (BMI), how physically active they were, or whether they had a history of diabetes or smoking. The study was based on postmenopausal, mostly white women who participated in the Iowa Women’s Health Study.  We don’t know if the results would be identical for younger women, or women of color, but we do know that these types of sugary beverages are generally harmful because they cause weight gain and do not provide nutrition.21 (Although the drinks are called “sugary,” most are made with corn syrup, not sugar.)

Physical activity is another way to control or reduce your weight and is one of the NRC’s seven recommended ways to maximize your health. Everyone can benefit from regular exercise, because it reduces the risk of heart disease and diabetes and can help you sleep better and improve your mood.22 Simple changes to your daily routine can make a difference. Read here to learn how to begin an exercise routine that works for your schedule.

The bottom line

If you’re having any pain in the pelvic area or experiencing unusual bleeding or discharge, be sure to tell your doctor.  Many of the factors that increase your risk of endometrial cancer are out of your control. What you can control is what you eat and drink. You can lower your chances of endometrial cancer and many other cancers by keeping your weight down and staying active.


 

  1. Amant F, Moerman P, Neven P, Timmerman D, Van Limbergen E, & Vergote I. Endometrial cancer. The Lancet. 2005;366(9484):491-505.  
  2. Setiawan, VW, Yang HP, Pike MC, McCann SE, Yu H, Xiang Y, Wolk A et al. Type I and II Endometrial Cancers: Have They Different Risk Factors? Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2013;31(20): 2607-2620.  
  3. Doll A, Abal M, Rigau M, Monge M, Gonzalez M, Demajo S, et al. Novel molecular profiles of endometrial cancer-new light through old windows. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2008;108(3–5):221–229.  
  4. Felix AS, Weissfeld JL, Stone RA, Bowser R, Chivukula M, Edwards RP, Linkov F. Factors associated with Type I and Type II endometrial cancer. Cancer Causes & Control. 2010;21(11):1851-1856.  
  5. National Cancer Institute SEER Cancer Statistics Factsheets: Endometrial Cancer. National Cancer Institute. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/corp.html. Accessed November 26, 2013.  
  6. National Cancer Institute. What you need to know about cancer of the uterus. Risk Factors. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/uterus/page4. Accessed November 26, 2013.  
  7. Setiawan VW, Pike MC, Kolonel LN, Nomura AM, Goodman MT, Henderson BE. Racial/ethnic differences in endometrial cancer risk: the multiethnic cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165(3):262-270.  
  8. Combination oral contraceptive use and the risk of endometrial cancer. The Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study of the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. JAMA. 1987;257(6):796-800.  
  9. Trojano, G., Olivieri, C., Tinelli, R., Damiani, G. R., Pellegrino, A., & Cicinelli, E. (2019). Conservative treatment in early stage endometrial cancer: a review. Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis90(4), 405–410. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v90i4.7800
  10. National Cancer Institute. What You Need To Know About Cancer of the Uterus- Diagnosis. 2010. Available at:http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/uterus/page6. Accessed November 25, 2013.  
  11. National Cancer Institute. What You Need To Know About Cancer of the Uterus- Treatment. 2010. Available at:http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/uterus/page8. Accessed November 26, 2013.  
  12. Nelson, R. (2023).No Survival Benefit to Radiation Add-on in Endometrial Cancer. Medscapehttps://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/990236?ecd=WNL_confwrap_230405_MSCPEDIT&uac=140425SY&impID=5307712#vp_1
  13. Eskander, R., Sill, M., Beffa, L., et al. (2023).Pembrolizumab plus Chemotherapy in Advanced Endometrial Cancer. NEJMhttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2302312
  14. Mirza, M., Chase, D., Slomovitz, B., et al. (2023).Dostarlimab for Primary Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer. NEJMhttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2216334
  15. Nelson, R. (2023)’Home Run’: Immunotherapy Add-on for Advanced Endometrial Cancer. Medscapehttps://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/990179?ecd=WNL_confwrap_230405_MSCPEDIT&uac=140425SY&impID=5307712
  16. Inoue-Choi M, Robien K, Mariani A, Cerhan JR, Anderson KE. Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Intake and the Risk of Type I and Type II Endometrial Cancer among Postmenopausal Women.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0636  
  17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Physical Activity and Health. Available at:http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/health/. Accessed December 2, 2013.  

How a recalled medical device killed a vet at Seattle’s VA Hospital- KUOW

DECEMBER 2013

When Eddie Creed, a Seattle jazz musician, died at the Veterans Affairs hospital on Beacon Hill last year, his death certificate said throat cancer had killed him.

But a KUOW investigation reveals what his doctors knew: A medical device called an Infusomat, which had been recalled the month before, ended his life. Still, nobody knows why.

The week the device was recalled, a trainer for B. Braun, the German manufacturer that produced it, came to the Seattle VA to teach nurses how to use the machine. According to the nurses, the trainer told them that a correction was coming soon for the device’s breakable plastic clip, but it was safe to use the machines until they were repaired. So the VA started using the Infusomats despite the “urgent medical correction letter” posted at FDA.gov.

That recall was the most serious kind – a “Class I” recall. Class I doesn’t mean the product has to be pulled right away, but it does mean someone could die or be seriously harmed if the recall is ignored. The manufacturer said that improperly loading the Infusomat could lead to an uncontrolled flow of drugs. So could closing its door too hard and breaking a small plastic clip inside.

So far as anyone can tell, none of those problems happened with the Infusomat hooked up to Creed. But the machine malfunctioned anyway, draining all its morphine into Creed – three weeks after the recall.

VA officials in Seattle say they never received the recall letter. B. Braun had sent it to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ central office in Washington, D.C., where most recall notices go, according to VA Puget Sound Chief of Staff William Campbell. He said a Seattle VA nurse saw the urgent, Class I recall on the FDA’s website a few days after the recall was issued.

“It is the most urgent class, but it doesn’t mean that something needs to be done immediately,” Campbell said. “‘Immediately’ would mean you cannot use that pump unless whatever fix it is, is done right then and there.”

Jason Ford, the US spokesman for B. Braun, a manufacturer with more than $6 billion in annual revenue, declined to to be interviewed or answer questions for this story.

‘Not very confidence inspiring’

When Creed was in the Army in the 1950s, he directed a choir and played trombone in a marching band. Later, he played piano for Seattle’s Chamber Jazz Quartet.

“When he would play the piano, it just melted my heart and made me so proud of him,” said Sherry Evard, his partner of several years.

Creed was 77 when he died at the VA hospital. He had been struggling with throat cancer and went to the VA for end-of-life care in April 2012.

“The last time I saw Eddie was the night that he died, and as I left him, I kissed his forehead and said, ‘I love you,’” Evard said. “I had no idea that he was going to die that night, or I would have stayed.”

On his first day at the hospital, nurses hooked him up to a morphine drip for his pain. Evard said the nurses appeared to have trouble setting it up.

“They seemed concerned about how to get it started and a bit uncertain, maybe, that it was administering the morphine properly,” she said. But to the nurses’ credit, she said, they double-checked before they left.

“After they left, I said to Eddie, ‘That was not very confidence inspiring, was it?’” she said. “He just simply said, ‘No.'”

The Infusomat, a machine the size of a phone book, is designed to send precise volumes of liquid from a hanging plastic pouch into a patient’s IV line. B. Braun’s training materials emphasize safety and avoiding the danger of free flow — that’s drugs pouring out, uncontrolled.

According to a B. Braun training video: “Clinicians must be vigilant to be certain they are using the technology as intended to achieve the maximum safety afforded by the technology.”

But on Creed’s second night at the VA, something went wrong and the morphine flowed freely while he was asleep. Around 11 p.m., a nurse found a drained pouch of morphine hanging above his bed. Creed had received about 10 times the dose he was prescribed. He was pronounced dead minutes later.

Medical Device Recalls

Recalls of medical devices rarely make headlines. But over the past decade, the US Food and Drug Administration has seen a “dramatic increase” in the number of recalls affecting infusion pumps.

“Sadly, we actually have much more access to information about defective toasters, and certainly defective cars, than we seem to about defective medical devices,” said Diana Zuckerman, who heads the National Research Center for Women and Families in Washington, D.C. The nonprofit focuses on medical-device safety.

Manufacturers are required to notify their customers of the recalls. Often, Zuckerman said, the medical-device recall notice doesn’t reach the right hospital department or doctor.

“There’s a lot of ways that the information may not get to the right person in a timely manner,” she said. “In some cases, devices continue to get used that should have not been used at all anymore because they’re so dangerous.”

The FDA doesn’t say how quickly a hospital must act on a manufacturer’s recall, even a Class I recall. The VA’s Campbell said the VA handled this recall properly.

“This specific recall was something that needed to be scheduled in a timely manner, but it didn’t need to be done that day, and there was no need to remove pumps from circulation,” he said. “If that had been communicated, we would’ve done that without hesitation.”

The night that Creed died, the VA hospital set his Infusomat aside to investigate what went wrong. VA staff couldn’t find anything, so they brought in medical-device experts from the ECRI Institute in Pennsylvania. ECRI, an independent nonprofit, is listed as a federal patient safety organization by the US Department of Health and Human Services and accepts no funding from the medical-device or pharmaceutical industries.

“They did not find evidence of user error from the programming,” Campbell said. “They were not able to produce the free flow, either.”

In other words, the VA and the outside experts tried to make fluids flow freely out of the electronic pump again — as the morphine had flowed into Creed — but couldn’t. They also ruled out anyone misusing or tampering with the pump.

“A clip had not broken,” Campbell said. “When we first pulled the pump out of circulation, that was one of first things that was looked at, and the clip was intact.”

Doctors Don’t Indicate Accident

Why Creed died that night remains a mystery. Would quicker action on the recall have spared his life that night? Or would a newly repaired pump have had the exact same problem? There’s no way to know.

But Evard wishes doctors had been more immediately forthcoming with her about his death.

The night Creed died, a VA doctor telephoned Creed’s sister and Evard with the bad news. He asked if they wanted an autopsy to be done. They had no idea there had been a medical accident. They said no.

“A doctor called me and informed me that Eddie had passed away, but he did not indicate that an accident had happened,” Evard said.

Creed’s family members were informed of the accident the next day. But they were not asked again whether they wanted an autopsy.

Campbell acknowledged that seemed “a bit out of sequence,” because the family wasn’t able to make an informed decision. Campbell said the VA could examine how that happened. But one thing they can’t do now, or ever, is an autopsy. Creed was cremated five days after he died.

The VA investigated the accident almost immediately and brought in outside investigators as well. The hospital only released the findings to Creed’s loved ones in the past two weeks – after KUOW first reported events leading to Creed’s death.

The VA also did not report the accident to the county medical examiner as required by state law.

“We’re required to investigate any drug overdose or complication of therapy. Something goes wrong in surgery, a hospital reports that to us and we take jurisdiction,” Greg Hewett of the King County Medical Examiner’s Office said. “That wasn’t reported to us in this case.”

After KUOW brought the erroneous death certificate to the VA’s attention, VA Puget Sound officials issued a statement. It acknowledged the morphine accident as the main cause of Creed’s death. It blamed an internal communication error and said the VA is reviewing its policies to make sure such an error is not repeated.

VA officials said they reported the accident to the FDA. Such reports wind up in a national database of medical equipment accidents. The data is available to the public, but it is scrubbed of all identifying information – not just of patients or doctors involved, but of the hospitals as well.

“I think the important point here is there was no attempt to cover anything up. We were very open with the family from the get-go about the morphine over-infusion,” Campbell said.

Thousands Harmed By Medical Devices

Creed was just one of thousands of patients harmed by a malfunctioning medical device in the US every year. Finding out how or even where those events happened can be an uphill climb for families or others interested in hospital safety, particularly for those whose loved ones are patients at the VA.

If a malfunctioning device harms a patient at almost any hospital in Washington state, it has to be reported to the state health department. Those mishaps appear on a website the state has set up to provide more transparency around hospital safety.

VA hospitals and state-run psychiatric hospitals are the only ones exempt from that requirement.

As part of an agency-wide push for more transparency, the Department of Veterans Affairs does put a lot of information online about its hospitals, including various measures of the quality of care the hospitals provide.

But the VA shares little about its medical mishaps.

Other hospitals in Washington state must publicly disclose 29 different kinds of mishaps any time they occur. VA hospitals only reveal four types of mishaps. Those four mishaps don’t include what killed Creed: a medication error. The only way to learn about those at a VA hospital is if an individual involved comes forward, as Evard did to KUOW.

Infusomat: One-Star Rating

A December 2012 review from the journal Health Devices gave the Infusomat a one-star rating, lowest of the six drug pumps reviewed. With its general difficulty of use and risk of life-threatening free flow, the Infusomat “should be avoided,” according to the nonprofit journal’s reviewers.

Medication errors aren’t limited to any one brand. According to the latest numbers available from the FDA, the agency gets about 10,000 reports a year of infusion pump problems. About 120 people die each year and 3,800 suffer serious injuries from pump malfunctions.

National medical organizations started warning of the risk of drugs pouring uncontrolled out of infusion pumps more than a decade before that exact thing killed Creed.

“Eliminate the use of IV pumps and administration sets that are unnecessarily hazardous when alternatives exist,” the VA’s own National Center for Patient Safety advised in 2002.

In 2010, the FDA concluded that infusion pumps have resulted in “numerous, systemic problems with device design, manufacturing, and adverse event reporting.”

That year, the FDA started an infusion pump safety initiative. Three years later, the agency is still drafting voluntary guidelines for companies to use in manufacturing safer pumps.

FDA spokeswoman Morgan Liscinsky declined to answer questions about the safety initiative, other than to state that most manufacturers are following the draft guidelines.

In November, ECRI Institute, the medical-device research group hired by the VA to investigate Creed’s accidental overdose, called infusion pumps the nation’s number-two medical-technology safety hazard. They came in second only to an excessive din of medical alerts causing alarm fatigue in hospitals.

Uneven Standards

According to FDA watchdogs, the problems don’t stop at drug pumps. More than 90 percent of all new medical devices are cleared by the FDA without being clinically tested on humans.

“Implants and infusion pumps aren’t held to the same standards as a medication for tummy aches,” Zuckerman said. “If you’re a company, and you’re making a new infusion pump, all you have to do is paperwork that you say is evidence your new kind of infusion pump is substantially similar to another infusion pump that’s already on the market. It might be that infusion pump has never been proven safe or effective either.”

The FDA will even okay a new device if it’s similar to another device that’s been recalled. Legislation to close that loophole died in Congress last year.

The Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences, said in 2011 that the FDA’s screening of new medical devices was unreliable and the process needed to be scrapped entirely.

Medical device industry lobbying groups didn’t respond to requests for comment. But the website of the Advanced Medical Technology Association praises the current FDA system, saying it “has a remarkable 30-year track record of protecting the public health while making safe and effective products available without unnecessary delays.”

As for the Infusomats at the Seattle VA, they were taken out of service two weeks after Creed died and moved to a warehouse where they’ve been sitting unused since. That’s $1.9 million of medical equipment the VA isn’t using because of Creed’s death. The VA returned to the older pumps the Infusomats were meant to replace.

“We’re all frustrated about not having a definitive answer,” Campbell said. “It prompted us to remove the pumps from service, and we’re comfortable having done that, but we really would like to know exactly what it was that happened. So I understand Mr. Creed’s loved ones’ frustration with this; we share that frustration.”

VA Puget Sound hasn’t taken any concrete steps to return the Infusomats or recover any costs from B. Braun. VA officials said they haven’t decided how to proceed.

 

Please find the original KUOW article here.

Testimony of Dr. Anna E. Mazzucco on MK-3475 and Nivolumab

By Anna E. Mazzucco, Ph.D.
November 5, 2013

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund.  My name is Dr. Anna Mazzucco, and after completing my  Ph.D. in Cell and Developmental Biology from HarvardMedicalSchool I conducted research at the National Cancer Institute. I bring those perspectives today.

Our nonprofit organization conducts research, scrutinizes data in the research literature, and then explains the evidence of risks and benefits to patients and providers.  Our president is on the Board of Directors of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA, which is a nonprofit dedicated to increasing the resources that the FDA needs to do its job.  Our organization does not accept funding from pharmaceutical companies, and therefore I have no conflicts of interest.

Pediatric cancers represent a dire unmet medical need.  Several pediatric cancers still cannot be cured, and patients relapse within a few years.  Cancer immunotherapy is an area of great excitement and promise for addressing these issues, as we seek non-genotoxic strategies for pediatric patients who are uniquely vulnerable to the long-term effects of such treatments.  Therapies of this class have shown the potential to synergize with existing standard of care, which is an essential aspect of the combination therapies ultimately required for curative care.

We support the FDA’s efforts to expedite medical advances for pediatric cancer patients, but this priority must not come at the cost of safety standards.  Although distinct from the side effects resulting from traditional chemotherapy, nivolumab and MK-3475 have significant risks.

Three deaths occurred in the trials of nivolumab in advanced malignancy adult patients due to uncontrollable pneumonitis, out of 296 patients – 1%.  Grade 3 and 4 adverse events occurred in 14% of these patients.  The assertion that pediatric patients will tolerate nivolumab comparably to adults relies on a single ongoing study of a different drug, ipilimumab, in only 6 patients under the age of 12.  While ipilimumab is also an immunomodulatory drug, it is a distinct agent with a different mechanism of action.  Thus, critical safety data cannot be extrapolated from these studies.  The Bristol-Myers Squibb studies do not include any preclinical data in non-adult primates.  As the Bristol-Myers Squibb briefing document acknowledges, these drugs may have different and more pronounced effects in pediatric patients since their immune systems are still developing.

I have 4 recommendations that I respectfully suggest that you seriously consider:

#1.  In the Merck preclinical studies, toxicity was evaluated in primates at an age roughly comparable to a “young toddler”, but the plan here calls for trials in infants as young as six months old. Before pediatric studies begin, longer-term preclinical studies of MK-3475 and nivolumab should be performed in primates at comparable stages of development so that human infants are not exposed to greater safety risks than those observed in adults.  Until such studies are conducted, I hope you will urge the FDA to oppose the Bristol-Myers Squibb plan to initiate pediatric studies of nivolumab immediately at the adult dose of 3mg/kg, without any further preclinical studies.  This could be fatal.

#2  The Bristol-Myers Squibb plan also includes pediatric trials using the combination of nivolumab with ipilimumab.  This combination resulted in markedly increased toxicity in preclinical studies, which were conducted for only 4 weeks, and also in the study of human adults.  In the melanoma study in adults, almost half of the patients (49%) experienced Grade 3 or 4 events. This percentage is higher than the 40% who showed a beneficial clinical response – in other words, the risks outweighed the benefits, with more patients experiencing serious adverse events than benefitting.  Combination treatment was discontinued in 21% of patients in this trial due to these adverse events.

Other studies have indicated that these serious adverse events are not always reversible; for example 2% of patients taking ipilimumab in a Phase III trial had hypopituitarism, which can be permanent.  This condition requires long-term hormone replacement therapy, but even that will not eliminate significant health risks.  Tragically, those health risks would be exacerbated in young patients who are still developing.  Longer preclinical studies are needed to evaluate safety before it would be ethical to begin combination trials with ipilimumab.

#3.  The Bristol-Myers Squibb briefing document emphasizes the importance of early detection for management of adverse events.  High doses of corticosteroids will undoubtedly be required to control drug-related adverse events. This could be dangerous for children.  We agree with the FDA that the long-term effects of immune modulation should be carefully considered in the context of a pediatric population.  The Pediatric Study Plan does not yet delineate specific steps for rapid clinical detection and management of these events, which will be more difficult in these patients.  It is essential that those specific steps be delineated before research is conducted.

#4.  Lastly, as the FDA has noted, the combination of these agents with others of non-overlapping mechanism of action should be a priority consideration in the ongoing studies in adults.  We also agree with FDA that the threshold of PD-L1 expression used for patient selection should be modified for combination therapy where PD-L1 expression could be induced, therefore a lower initial threshold of expression may still identify a responsive patient population, and that the planned biomarker studies explicitly address this possibility.   This will ensure that these agents are used to the greatest effect in all patients who need them.

In conclusion, the 4 steps I outlined above will help reduce the risks to children with pediatric cancer and also help assure that these therapies reach the patients most likely to benefit from them.

Comments of the National Research Center for Women & Families and the Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund on FDA Safety and Innovation Act Section 907 Report

NOVEMBER 20, 2013

Division of Dockets Management
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061 (HFA-305)
Rockville, Maryland 20852

Comments of the National Research Center for Women & Families and the Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund
on FDA Safety and Innovation Act Section 907 Report

Docket no. FDA-2013-N-0745-0001

The National Research Center for Women & Families strongly supports the requirement of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) for an action plan to include demographic subgroups in clinical trials and data analysis. Greater diversity in clinical trials, analyzing subgroup data, and reporting the results and explaining the implications in product labels and MedGuides will shed light on which medical products are safe and effective for which demographic subgroups, including racial and ethnic minorities.

The Section 907 report, which outlines the recent status of demographic subgroup’s inclusion in clinical trials and data analysis, creates a baseline measurement that indicates much room for improvement. Although there have been improvements in the last decade, this report is replete with examples (described in detail below) where lack of adequate demographic subgroup reporting not only hindered this analysis itself, but also obscures medically important information. Even when subgroup information has been collected, if crucial subgroup data are not explicitly included on labels, providers and patients may incorrectly assume that “no news is good news,” when in reality the drug or device may not have been adequately tested or analyzed for their subgroup.

Our major criticisms of the report are that, as reflected in the Executive Summary:

The inclusion of demographic subgroups is considered a measure of success, rather than acknowledging the importance of having large enough subgroups to analyze separately.
The lower prevalence of disease in those subgroups is given as justification for inadequate numbers of patients even when those diseases are very prevalent.
The summary optimistically states that “We also found that FDA shares this information with the public in a variety of ways.” We are disappointed with the small amount of useful information that is made public, particularly on the label, which is the easiest route to communicate with doctors and patients.
We respectfully urge the FDA to incorporate our comments and recommendations into the Action Plan.

On the matter of inclusion, although demographic subgroups were frequently included in the clinical trials described in the report, they were rarely analyzed separately. In many cases, their numbers were too small to be meaningfully analyzed as separate subgroups. There is little value in including subgroups if they are not analyzed separately to produce useful information on the safety and effectiveness of the products for these subgroups. Including subgroups that are so small that their data cannot be meaningfully analyzed renders their participation useless from a scientific point of view. In addition, the report sometimes generalizes the findings in ways that are not precisely accurate; for example, many studies had very limited diversity and yet the Executive Summary states that “For approved drugs and biologics, the extent to which patients were represented in clinical trials by age and sex tended to reflect the disease indication studied.”

In addition to minimizing the importance of subgroup analysis, that statement ignores the fact that there are many examples where a subgroup has a lower incidence of the disease, but also has much worse outcomes when they get the disease. Breast cancer is one such example: the disease is less prevalent among African Americans, but African American women tend to get a more aggressive form of the disease and their survival rate is lower.

If a treatment is substantially less effective in a particular subgroup, and that subgroup is too small to analyze separately, the results of the study will not provide the crucial information to warn that subgroup that the medical product is ineffective. On the other hand, if a treatment is more effective for some subgroups that are not analyzed separately, that crucial information would also be unavailable.

For example, all (100%) of the patients in the melanoma trials were white (See Table 1-3), but many reports before 2011 indicate an increasing incidence among non-white populations. These include a 20% increase in melanoma among Hispanic men and a 60% increase among non-Hispanic black women in Florida.23 Even more concerning, studies suggest melanoma is more likely to be diagnosed at later stages in minorities than in non-Hispanic whites, and has a poorer prognosis.24, 25, 26, 27 By not conducting trials that analyze Hispanics separately, there is no opportunity for medical advances for this disease where they are urgently needed.

Why It is Important to Improve Diversity in Clinical Trials Used as the Basis for FDA Approval

Even if a drug or device is more frequently used in one subgroup, whether males or a large minority population, or individuals of a particular age, it should be possible to conduct trials for treatments of common diseases that include sufficiently large subgroups in order to determine its safety and effectiveness for most if not all users. If the FDA was not willing to approve a drug or device for the subgroups that were not adequately studied, the companies would have the incentive they need to include adequate representation of those subgroups in their clinical trials.

In addition to requiring companies to include demographic subgroups in adequate numbers in Phase III clinical trials, the FDA should broaden their requirements to include adequate demographic subgroup representation in early phase trials and post-market studies, in order to obtain a broader picture of how safe and effective these products are for subgroups.

Devices

Diversity in clinical trials was even more limited for devices than for drugs and biologics. The report concluded that age and sex were usually described in the PMA studies, but in fact, women were less than one-third of the patients in 21% of the device trials. Almost one-third of the PMA applications did not report any information about race or ethnicity. Subgroup analysis was even less likely. Twelve percent of the PMA applications did not include analysis by sex, 30% did not include analysis by age, and 73% did not include analysis by race or ethnicity.

Women

Female subjects were often underrepresented in the drug and device trials even when the diseases were prevalent among women. For example, Figure 1-2 shows that the two COPD medication trials had only 20% and 30% women, and yet a 2010 report indicates that 2006 was the sixth consecutive year in which more women (63,006) than men (57,970) died of COPD.28 Only 10 out of 33 medical device studies had greater than 40% female representation, as shown in Figure 2-2. The PMA for an endovascular occlusion device had only 18% female representation, but this under-representation of women was justified by stating that patients are often selected for such devices if they have larger coronary size and less diffuse nature of coronary disease – and hence typically male. However, this product was not approved only for men; it was approved for all adults.

Racial and Ethnic Minorities

Racial and ethnic subgroups were also not adequately represented in drug or device trials. Hispanics composed 17% of the U.S. population in 2012.29 However, 17 out of 23 (74%) of device trials were less than 10% Hispanic, as shown in Figure 2-3. Therefore, the majority of device trials were not representative of the Hispanic population. African Americans make up approximately 13% of the U.S. population,30 but 87% of the CDER/CBER trials included fewer than 13% African Americans. To give an example with important public health implications, approximately 13% of African Americans have diabetes,31 but African Americans represented only 2% of participants for type 2 diabetes clinical trials. Such inadequate representation is not useful for determining whether a medical product is safe or effective for African Americans, and is particularly disturbing given the prevalence of diabetes in that population.

The 2011 census indicates that Asians are approximately 5% of the U.S. population, but most (54%) of the trials cited had less than 5% Asian participants. For example, Table 1-3 indicates that both Hepatitis C trials had only 2% Asian composition, whereas there is significantly higher prevalence of Hepatitis C in this population, and a higher rate of liver cancer and a differential response to antiviral therapy in this population.32

Demographic data was often collected inconsistently; sometimes race and ethnicity were collected together, and sometimes they were collected as two separate categories. For CDER/CBER, ethnicity was not analyzed for the report since some applications reported race and ethnicity as one item. For medical devices, 23 out of 33 trials (70%) included separate ethnic data. Hispanic ethnicity was sometimes separated into subcategories, and sometimes it was kept as a single ethnic category. Such inconsistent data collection leads to results that are very difficult to interpret and use.

Age Groups

Age group data were also reported inconsistently, reducing the usefulness of the data. In 8 of the 31 drugs approved (26%), age was reported as a median with range or with a cut-off of 60 instead of 65, rather than actual numbers. These inconsistencies, due to lack of specifics in the guidance, resulted in omission of this 26% of studies from this analysis. For CBER and medical devices, age data were presented as ranges without medians, and were spread over such large age windows that the information was not useful for comparing age groups (Figures 1-4 and 2-1). Although all the device studies included patients up to age 75, for example, the report does not specify how many patients in each study were in any specific age group, such as over 65. A specific example of where a lack of elderly representation is problematic is ALCL. Although it is arguably less common in elderly (20-50% of all cases), the subtype which occurs in elderly is biologically distinct, thus requiring a different treatment, and has poorer clinical outcomes.33, 34, 35 Lack of children is also a problem in clinical trials; despite 2007 PREA legislation, a 2012 study showed that 96% of all intensive care pediatric patients, and 100% of those ages 13-17, receive off-label medications that have not been tested in those age groups.36

Labels

Even the limited information gained from demographic subgroup analyses in these trials was rarely presented in the medical products’ labeling. In subgroup analysis of safety based on sex shown in figure 1-8, only 5 of 30 drugs had data information in the label (17%). In most of these 30 drugs (57%), subgroup analyses were not included on the label, but only in public review material. In another 5 out of the 30 drugs (17%), the label did not include any subgroup analysis by sex, despite it being mentioned in the public review. For subgroup analysis of efficacy by sex as shown in Figure 1-8, only 6 out of 30 (20%) had efficacy subgroup analysis on the label. Although inadequate, this is not surprising, because there is no requirement for that information to be included on the label. For medical devices, 63% had a statement in device labeling about sex subgroup analyses, 57% about age analyses and 16% about race/ethnicity analyses. The report then glossed over these unimpressive statistics, stating that, “This demonstrates that FDA publicly communicated information on subgroup analyses for sex and age for more than 50% of the PMA applications approved in 2011.”

RECOMMENDATIONS:

FDA should issue regulations to require that all applications for devices, drugs, and biologics provide data on safety and effectiveness by sex, age, race and ethnicity.
FDA should finalize the draft guidance for sex-specific analysis that the agency proposed in 2011 and issue similar guidance for racial and ethnic minorities and the aged.
CBER should require biologics sponsors to report summary subgroup data, just as the CDER requires.
In its regulations, guidance documents, and decisions, the FDA should make it clear that the agency will not approve medical products for all populations if the product was not tested on major demographic subgroups with meaningful subgroup analysis.
FDA should require that ethnicity and race information be recorded and reported separately, as they have already described in their draft guidance Collection of Race and Ethnicity Data in Clinical Trials in 2005. Unless this happens, data will continue to be collected in an inconsistent manner, making it useless for analysis, as this report demonstrated.
Postmarket study requirements should never be a substitute for demographic subgroup analyses in pre-market studies, but post-market studies should be required to provide additional information about long-term safety and efficacy for subgroups.
Labels should include subgroup-specific analyses in language that is understandable by health professionals and patients. If not enough information on subgroups was collected to analyze and draw conclusions about potential differences, FDA should be required to state that on the label, and approval should not be assumed for major subgroups that were not analyzed. If lack of subgroup data and analysis is not explicitly stated, physicians and patients will erroneously assume that those groups have been adequately tested. Similarly, as for pediatrics and geriatrics, sex, race and ethnicity should be mandatory, standardized, easy-to-understand sections on the label, so that patients and doctors can quickly find this information or be aware where information does not exist.
FDA should issue a public report every 2 years that evaluates compliance with these recommendations.
In conclusion, if the FDA took the firm stance of not approving medical products for the general population unless they have been adequately tested on subgroups instead of simply recommending it, all medical products on the market would have information on safety and efficacy for most potential users.

Comments to FDA on Draft “Endocrine Disruption Potential of Drugs: Nonclinical Evaluation.”

Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061
Rockville, MD 20852

 

Re: Draft guidance for industry entitled
“Endocrine Disruption Potential of Drugs: Nonclinical Evaluation.”
Docket ID: FDA-2013-D-1039

 

We welcome the opportunity to comment on the FDA’s guidance to industry on preclinical detection of endocrine disruption potential in drug and biologics applications.

There is increasing awareness in the medical community that the human endocrine system is very vulnerable to disruption, whether from pharmaceutical or other environmental sources.  In 2009, the American Medical Association adopted the recommendations of The Endocrine Society, calling for increased action on this issue by FDA.37

Between 1982 and 1995, infertility rates almost doubled in American women ages 18-25,38 and in 2002 alone, Americans spent 2.9 billion dollars on fertility treatments.39  While these are complex medical issues likely stemming from multiple factors, it is clear that FDA could be doing more to address this public health concern.

Several well-documented pharmacological features of endocrine disruptors are disregarded in FDA’s proposed preclinical study guidelines.  These policies would unfortunately set the stage for unintended endocrine-disrupting function to be obfuscated in preclinical studies, with potentially disastrous consequences.

Our specific areas of concern include:

  1. Many studies have shown that endocrine disruptors display non-traditional, non-monotonic dose-response curves in toxicology studies, consistent with historical work in hormone receptor biology.40 This issue has been clearly described by the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Dr. Linda Birnbaum, who is a leading expert on this issue.41  The FDA’s draft guidance ignores this issue, citing only the need for toxicology studies over “a wide range of doses,” when the weight of evidence clearly indicates that higher doses would be expected to have different, if not opposite effects, when compared to lower doses.   The weight of evidence strongly challenges the FDA’s statement that “endocrine activities that only occur in animals at exposures substantially above the human exposure usually do not warrant additional investigation. Additional assessment likely would be appropriate for endocrine-active drugs for which human exposure is comparable to or exceeds the exposure level at which activity on endocrine-sensitive tissues is observed in standard nonclinical studies.” Toxicology studies must be done at the doses that humans are likely to experience in order to be acceptable.
  2. The use of inappropriate laboratory animal strains and uncontrolled experimental design is a notorious problem in toxicology studies of endocrine disruptors.  Several studies have demonstrated that certain rodent strains do not respond to endocrine disrupting chemicals, likely due to inherent genetic differences.42  Without rationally chosen animal models combined with relevant positive controls, these studies are useless and do not meet the basic requirements of responsible science.  Standardization of animal models and positive controls in these studies would do much to improve scientific quality, and would also prevent the waste of resources which comes from performing studies only to repeat them due to inconclusive findings.
  3. Many scientific studies have shown that endocrine disrupting agents exert their strongest effects during developmental windows when delicate hormone balance is required for biological events to properly occur, such as during prepregnancy (i.e. before and including the time when pregnancy is possible for all women of reproductive age),  prenatal and prepubescent stages.6   FDA is aware of this fact, stating that “Some developmental stages (e.g., gestational, neonatal, peripubertal) are particularly sensitive to endocrine disruption effects” while at the same time acknowledging insufficiency in their guidance on this issue.   For example, FDA states that “Standard developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) studies generally capture gestational developmental time points effectively, but might not be adequate for evaluation of effects on postnatal development unless the neonates are dosed directly during the lactation period.”   And yet, in this guidance, such studies are inappropriately left to the discretion of the sponsor, rather than required by the FDA.  The FDA needs to take a stronger stand regarding the need for these studies, since otherwise such studies may never be conducted.  Direct dosing during these developmental stages could be included in preclinical studies without requiring the initiation of new studies with additional animals, while generating critical information about endocrine disrupting function when it would be most obvious.
  4. “Inactive” ingredients and delivery agents, such as enteric coating, in pharmaceuticals have been shown to possess endocrine disrupting function.43 Toxicology studies must be conducted using the same formulation intended for human use in order to be relevant.  Similarly, the route of exposure, such as through vaginal delivery, can significantly alter the dose-response behavior of hormonally active agents.44  Drug administration in preclinical studies must mirror the route of administration intended for human use.
  5. Gross anatomical assays described here, such as preputial separation and anogenital distance, may not be as sensitive or quantitative as direct measurement of hormones levels, which are mentioned only as a suggested alternative or addition to these standard tests.  As such assays are not laborious or expensive and could be performed simultaneously with preclinical studies already being done, why should they be held in reserve for only special cases?  Similarly, FDA acknowledges that other animal models, such as castration studies, are more sensitive than standard ones.  What is the scientific rationale for not performing the most sensitive assays available?  Logic suggests that starting with the most sensitive assays, rather than the least, to detect endocrine disrupting function is the most judicious use of resources, and most likely to ensure that critical safety information is not overlooked.

We strongly urge that the FDA modify the guidance to better reflect the concerns above as well as the scientific issues that have been raised by a sister PHS agency, NIEHS.  We also urge the FDA to make it clear to sponsors that these important preclinical studies are not mere theoretical suggestion, but are essential for approval.

Sincerely,

The National Research Center for Women & Families

For more information, contact Anna Mazzucco at (202) 223-4000 or am@center4research.org


 

Comment for Proposed Rulemaking, Menthol in Cigarettes, Tobacco Products; Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0521

November 2013

We write today to urge the FDA to remove menthol cigarettes from the market as quickly as possible.

Tobacco use is responsible for more than 400,000 deaths each year in the United States and is the leading preventable cause of death. A quarter of all cigarettes sold are menthol cigarettes, which studies show are preferred by younger smokers and new smokers. Since almost 9 out of 10 (88%) adult smokers began smoking before age 18, it will save lives to make smoking as unappealing as possible for teenagers and young adults. Menthol’s “cooling effect” does the opposite: it makes smoking as palatable (perhaps more palatable) to young people and nonsmokers as candy flavoring, which was banned in 2009 under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. According to the FDA’s Preliminary Scientific Evaluation of the Possible Public Health Effects of Menthol Versus Nonmenthol Cigarettes, “the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that menthol in cigarettes is likely associated with increased initiation and progression to regular cigarette smoking.”

Not only are menthol cigarettes a starter product for youth, they are harder to quit because they are likely associated with: 1) “increased dependence,” and 2) “reduced success in smoking cessation, especially among African American menthol smokers.”  For these reasons, we strongly agree with the FDA conclusions that “menthol cigarettes pose a public health risk above that seen with nonmenthol cigarettes.”

The Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC), before which we testified, concluded over two years ago that “removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit public health in the United States.” A conservative modeling scenario published in a peer-reviewed medical journal estimated that over 320,000 deaths—most of them among African Americans—could be averted by 2050 had menthol been banned in 2011 as recommended.45 The FDA must not drag its feet any longer. The decision to extend the comment period an additional two months itself cost thousands of lives.

The Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund represents the millions of American families whose lives have been touched by cancer, and our mission is to gather and scrutinize research to determine how programs and policies can reduce the incidence of cancer and improve treatment options for cancer patients.  Our scientific analysis indicates that hundreds of thousands of lives will be saved when the FDA removes menthol cigarettes from the market, and we strongly urge the FDA to protect the public health by implementing a final rule to do so.

Sincerely,

Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund