CancerNetwork Members: Login | Register
Become a fan on  Facebook  Add us on  Google Plus Follow us on  Twitter Join us on LinkedIn Sign up for our Newsletters Subscribe to our RSS Feed

 

CancerNetwork SearchMedica Medline Drugs

Powered by SearchMedica

 
PUBLICATIONS
NEWS
PODCASTS
TOPICS
BLOGS
NURSES
PATIENTS
JOBS
CONFERENCES
CME
SUPPLEMENTS
 

Home » NURSES

RESEARCH REPORT 

Biologic Rheumatoid Arthritis Therapies Pose No Increased Cancer Risk

By Anne Landry | September 13, 2012
Executive Editor, Oncology Nurse Edition

After a conducting a large meta-analysis of clinical trials involving more than 29,000 patients, researchers from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston have concluded that patients taking currently available biologic therapies for their rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are not at increased risk of cancer, compared with those receiving traditional disease-modifying treatments for RA, such as methotrexate(Drug information on methotrexate) and anti-inflammatory drugs.

X-ray image of the hand showing rheumatoid arthritis

The study, led by Maria E. Suarez-Almazor, MD, from MD Anderson’s Department of General Internal Medicine, was published online on September 5 in JAMA.

The worry over newer biologic response modifiers for RA is that several of them include tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, which some studies have suggested increase the risk of developing certain malignancies, including spontaneous lymphoma in children and adolescents. All TNF inhibitors currently carry an FDA label warning against the risk of malignancy.

Biologic response modifiers, or BRMs, are used by about one-quarter to one-half of patients with RA, and are prescribed as second-line therapy when traditional treatments for RA fail to provide a benefit. BRMs target secretions in the joints that can trigger inflammation and lead to joint destruction. Because they also target immune cells, there has been some concern that they may pose a cancer risk.

Study Design and Findings

To evaluate malignancy risk in RA patients, Dr. Suarez-Almazor and colleagues searched electronic databases, conference proceedings, and websites of regulatory agencies for people with RA who were enrolled in randomized controlled trials of the nine BRMs currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in RA (abatacept, adalimumab(Drug information on adalimumab), anakinra(Drug information on anakinra), certolizumab, etanercept(Drug information on etanercept), golimumab, infliximab(Drug information on infliximab), rituximab(Drug information on rituximab), and tocilizumab), from study initiation through early July 2012. The studies included in the assessment had to compare the safety of any BRMs used in RA patients vs placebo and/or any traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and needed to have at least 6 months of follow-up.

Independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data on quality and outcomes. Dr. Suarez-Almazor and colleagues used the Cochrane Collaboration trials database to analyze a total of 63 randomized controlled trials with 29,423 patients, and found no statistically significant increased risk of developing malignancy in the RA patients receiving BRMs. They wrote that, of the 29,423 patients, 211 developed a malignancy during the trial. There were 118 solid tumors reported, 48 skin cancers, 14 lymphomas, 5 hematologic nonlymphomas, and 26 malignancies that were not specified. During the first year of therapy, they said, the incidence rate for any malignancy was very low in the BRM plus methotrexate group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–0.92), in the BRM monotherapy group (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42–0.95), and in the controls (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52–0.84). Treatment with the BRM anakinra plus the traditional RA drug methotrexate showed lower odds than methotrexate given alone (Peto odds ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.03–0.45). However, the investigators noted that while “no statistically significant risk was observed for specific cancer sites…the Peto odds ratio for lymphoma was 2.1 (95% CI, 0.55–8.4) in patients receiving tumor necrosis factor inhibitors compared with controls.”

“These results are reassuring for patients considering biologic therapies for their disease,” said Dr. Suarez-Almazor, commenting on the study in a news release from MD Anderson. “Patients are understandably concerned when treatments are linked to cancer risk. With this knowledge, clinicians can effectively demonstrate that the benefits of BRMs far outweigh the risk.”

Other researchers who contributed to the study are from the department of general internal medicine and the research medical library at MD Anderson; the Texas Tech University Health Science Center (based in Lubbock, Texas), the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (Madrid, Spain), the Hospital 12 de Octubre (Madrid); and Manati Medical Center (in Manati, Puerto Rico).

 

Join the Conversation

Want to join the conversation? If you're a healthcare professional, we'd like to hear your comments. Just sign in or register today to become part of our growing, online community.






 
RELATED CONTENT

ASCO: Yoga Reduces Insomnia in Breast Cancer Patients Treated With Hormone Therapy
June 18, 2013
ASCO: DNR Completion at End of Life Influenced by Perception of Caregiver Support
June 3, 2013
ONS: Implementing a Comprehensive Infection-Prevention Plan
May 6, 2013
ONS: Infection Risk, Prevention, and Management
April 29, 2013
ONS: Nurse-Physician PACT Yields Sharp Decrease in Codes
April 29, 2013
 
TOPIC INDEX

Cancer Types

 
  • Breast
  • Breast (HER2+)
  • Breast (Triple-Negative)
  • CML
  • Colorectal
  • Gastrointestinal
  • GIST
  • Genitourinary
  • Gynecologic
  • Head & Neck
  • Hematology
  • Kidney (Renal Cell)
  • Leukemia
  • Lung
  • Lymphoma
  • Melanoma
  • Multiple Myeloma
  • Ovarian
  • Prostate
  • Sarcoma

Supportive Care

More Topics

  • Bone Metastases
  • End-of-Life Care
  • Palliative Care
  • Ethics in Oncology
  • Practice Management
  • Practice & Policy


All Topics 


 
   SEARCH MEDICA RX
   Browse drugs by name:
A B C D E F G H I J
K L M N O P Q R S T
U V W X Y Z All      
   Search for drugs:
Search

 

 
FROM PHYSICIANS PRACTICE
Key Differences between FQHCs and RHCs
Chastity Werner, RHIT, June 13, 2013
FQHCs and RHCs take up a unique niche among physician practices. And that affects compensation and billing.
Improving Care Coordination in Your Practice
Susanne Madden,  June 12, 2013
Practices are feverishly working to control the rising costs of healthcare - effective care coordination can help.
Refunding Overpayments: Two Options for Medical Practices
Ericka L. Adler,  June 12, 2013
Medicare and Medicaid providers must return overpayments once identified. Here are two different refund approaches for practices to consider when necessary.
Four Easy Ways to Boost Patient Time of Service Collections
Aubrey Westgate,  June 12, 2013
Simple ways your medical practice staff can increase the likelihood patients will pay when presenting for appointments.
iPad Alternatives for Mobile Physicians
Marisa Torrieri, June 11, 2013
As more physicians are seeing the merits of media tablets, the market is expanding, too.
 

 

 
MOST POPULAR
  • Most Popular
  • Most Emailed
  • Most Recent
  • Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma
  • Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Who Is Benefiting?
  • ASCO: Long-Term Tamoxifen Benefit for Breast Cancer Confirmed
  • A 48-Year-Old Woman With Irregular Vaginal Bleeding
  • Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Targeted Therapies
  • Cannabis Linked to Decreased Bladder Cancer Risk
  • Breast Cancer Screening, Risk, and Options for High-Risk Women
  • Rising PSA Level in a 46-Year-Old Man
  • ASCO: Long-Term Tamoxifen Benefit for Breast Cancer Confirmed
  • Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: An Update on Treatment
  • Soluble HER2 Levels Prognostic Factor in HER2+ Breast Cancer
  • ASCO: PD-L1 Antibody Elicits Durable Response in RCC
  • RECORD-3: Sunitinib Still Standard First-Line Treatment in Metastatic RCC
  • ASCO: Dabrafenib Shows Activity in BRAF-Mutated NSCLC Patients
  • Preventing Burnout in Oncology
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
 
COMMENTS
  • Most Commented
  • Most Recent
  • 50 Shades of Pink—And Why It Helps to Know the Difference
  • Preventing Exposure to Hazardous Drugs
  • ASCO: Vinegar Screening Significantly Reduces Cervical Cancer Mortality
  • ASCO: Sulforaphane in Prostate Cancer Found Worthy of Further Investigation
  • Study: Recurrent Heartburn Ups Risk for Throat Cancer
  • Radiation-Induced Enteritis: Incidence, Mechanisms, and Management
  • HER2-Directed Therapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer
  • Accelerated Partial-Breast Irradiation: The Current State of Our Knowledge
  • It’s Time for Clinicians to Reconsider Their Proscription Against the Use of Soyfoods by Breast Cancer Patients
  • 50 Shades of Pink—And Why It Helps to Know the Difference
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter



CancerNetwork on Facebook
 
SearchMedica Search Result

Find peer-reviewed literature and websites for practicing medical professionals

CME on Oncology Nursing
Evidence on Oncology Nursing
Guidelines on Oncology Nursing
Patient Education on Oncology Nursing
Clinical Trials on Oncology Nursing
Practical Articles on Oncology Nursing
Research and Reviews on Oncology Nursing
All "Oncology Nursing" results

CancerNetwork | ConsultantLive | Diagnostic Imaging | Musculoskeletal Network | OBGYN.net | PediatricsConsultantLive |
Physicians Practice | Psychiatric Times | SearchMedica | Medical Resources

© 1996 - 2013 UBM Medica LLC, a UBM company
Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Advertising Information - Editorial Policy Statement - UBM Medica Network Privacy Policy