Patients With Acromegaly Face Higher Cancer Risk
Patients with acromegaly had significantly higher odds of developing leukemia/lymphoma or ovarian, breast, lung, or other cancers, many of which occurred at younger ages than typically seen in the general population. These data underscored the urgent need to integrate cancer screening protocols into routine care for patients with acromegaly to facilitate earlier detection and intervention.
METHODOLOGY:
Excess growth hormone secretion in patients with acromegaly increases the levels of insulin-like growth factor, a known cancer risk factor; however, the true prevalence of cancer in these patients is not well known.
Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using data from a multinational research network platform to compare cancer prevalence in individuals with acromegaly and those without the condition.
Patients with acromegaly (n = 10,207; mean age at disease onset, 43.2 years; 52.9% women) were matched with 102,070 individuals from the general population without the condition.
TAKEAWAY:
Patients with acromegaly had a 3.3-fold increased odds of developing leukemia/lymphoma (95% CI, 2.3-4.67), a 1.9-fold increased odds of developing ovarian cancer (95% CI, 1.3-2.8), a 1.8-fold increased odds of developing breast cancer (95% CI, 1.5-2.0), 1.9-fold increased odds of developing lung cancer (95% CI, 1.5-2.3), and a 1.5-fold increased odds of developing prostate cancer (95% CI, 1.3-1.8).
The onset of certain cancers, specifically ovarian, lung, liver, and neuroendocrine, occurred much earlier (3.2-7.2 years) in patients with acromegaly than in control individuals from the general population.
IN PRACTICE:
'Our findings suggest that acromegaly may play a bigger role in cancer risk than previously thought, highlighting the need for increased awareness and early cancer screening in this population,' said the lead researcher in a press release.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Hitam Hagog Natour, MD, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. It was presented on July 14, 2025, at the ENDO 2025: The Endocrine Society Annual Meeting in San Francisco.
LIMITATIONS:
This study did not report any specific limitations.
DISCLOSURES:
This study did not report any specific funding or conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
4 hours ago
- Medscape
Alcohol and Pancreatic Cancer: New Evidence About Risk
Does drinking alcohol increase the risk for pancreatic cancer? Researchers have long suspected it does, but the evidence has remained inconsistent. Now, a global study of more than two million people is firming up the case that a link exists. The study, which pooled data from 30 prospective cohorts, found that daily alcohol intake was associated with a 'modest' increased risk for pancreatic cancer in both women and men, regardless of smoking status. However, the extent of the risk depended somewhat on how the researchers modeled alcohol intake. One model, which mapped continuous increases in alcohol consumption, suggested there is no safe dose of alcohol — any amount can increase the risk for pancreatic cancer, though only by 3% for every additional 10 g of alcohol per day or about two thirds of a standard drink. The other model, which compared risk by alcohol volume categories, found that the risk does not become significant until a certain alcohol threshold — about two to three drinks per day for men and one to two for women. Still, overall, 'our findings provide new evidence that pancreatic cancer may be another cancer type associated with alcohol consumption, a connection that has been underestimated until now,' the study's senior author Pietro Ferrari, PhD, head of the Nutrition and Metabolism Branch at International Agency for Research on Cancer, said in a statement. The co-author Jeanine Genkinger, PhD, MHS, had a stronger take on the findings. 'I think this shows that alcohol use is a robust risk factor for pancreatic cancer,' said Genkinger, associate professor, epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York City, noting that even more moderate drinking levels— no more than one drink for women and two for men — might be enough to boost pancreatic cancer risk. How Much of a Risk? The latest data, published in PLoS Medicine, come at a time of increased attention to the alcohol-cancer link. Earlier this year, then-US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory calling for cancer warnings to be added to alcohol labels. Major cancer organizations have determined alcohol to be an established risk factor for seven cancer types : those of the oral cavity, larynx, pharynx, esophagus, liver, breast, and colon/rectum. Despite the strong suspicion that drinking alcohol also contributes to pancreatic cancer risk, this aggressive cancer has not yet made the official list. The major reason is that the evidence surrounding an alcohol-pancreatic cancer link has been deemed 'inconsistent,' 'suggestive,' and 'inconclusive' by expert panels. Studies have been hampered by difficulties separating alcohol use from smoking — a known risk factor for pancreatic cancer — as well as varying findings by alcohol type and geographic location. In addition, certain studies highlighting a link have indicated that any association between alcohol and pancreatic cancer is driven only by more extreme drinking habits — more than four drinks a day, and sometimes as high as nine drinks. The latest analysis, Genkinger said, helps clarify uncertainty surrounding the alcohol-pancreatic cancer link, which is especially important for 'a disease where we don't have that many modifiable risk factors.' The findings are based on cohorts spanning four continents, all part of the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer. Just under 2.5 million cancer-free participants were recruited between 1980 and 2013 (median age, 57 years), of whom 70% were alcohol drinkers, 47% were never-smokers, and 64% were alcohol drinkers and never smokers. Most study participants were from North America (60%), followed by Europe or Australia (32%) and Asia (8%). Alcohol intake was modeled in two ways: continuously for every 10 g/d increase and by volume threshold, using 0.1 to < 5 g/d as the reference for nondrinkers. For context, in the US, the amount of alcohol in a standard drink is defined as 14 g of pure alcohol — equivalent to a 12-ounce can of regular beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot glass of distilled spirits. Over a median of 16 years, the researchers observed 10,067 incidents of pancreatic cancers. In the continuous model, the risk for pancreatic cancer rose by 3% for every additional 10 g of alcohol consumed per day (hazard ratio [HR],1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04). This association remained consistent and significant among women and men (HR, 1.03 for both), current smokers (HR, 1.03), former smokers (HR, 1.02), and never-smokers (HR, 1.03), and across cohorts from Australia, Europe, and North America (HR, 1.03 for all), though not Asia (HR, 1.00). The research team also found evidence that the type of alcohol mattered: Alcohol from beer and liquor/spirits was associated with a significantly increased risk for pancreatic cancer (HR, 1.02 and 1.04, respectively) but alcohol from wine was not (HR, 1.00). This finding is in line with some previous studies suggesting that wine may have a different relationship with cancer risk compared with other alcoholic beverages. But Genkinger pointed out, this finding could 'reflect the ways in which people tend to drink different types of alcohol.' Wine, she noted, is often part of a meal, and people who favor wine may be less likely to binge drink than those who typically choose other types of alcohol. This study, however, did not survey participants about specific drinking patterns, including binge-drinking. In the threshold model, however, the increased risk only became significant once alcohol intake reached a certain level. For women, drinking one to two standard drinks per day raised their risk for pancreatic cancer by 12% compared with little to no drinking. For men, the threshold was a little higher: Consuming two to four drinks a day was associated with a 15% increase in risk, whereas drinking more than that was tied to a 36% greater risk. Overall, this research contributes to the growing body of evidence that pancreatic cancer should be added to the official alcohol-cancer risk list, according to Alison Klein, PhD, MHS, professor of oncology, pathology, and epidemiology, at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, who was not involved in the research. Having the Conversation The recent Surgeon General's advisory encouraged clinicians to inform their patients that drinking is a cancer risk factor — something unknown to most Americans, according to recent survey findings. 'I think this study is a good reminder to all of us to talk to our patients about their alcohol use,' said Edward Thomas Lewis III, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and clinical assistant professor at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. Providers can take opportunities for those discussions during routine care, such as when prescribing a medication that can interact with alcohol or when a patient's health condition, such as high blood pressure or heart disease, can be exacerbated by drinking. 'I think these are opportunities to really remind people about moderation,' Lewis said, 'and to talk about some of the individual risk factors that may cause someone to make changes related to their drinking.' It's also possible that drinking might interact with certain genetic variants to modify pancreatic cancer risk — an avenue Klein and colleagues are exploring. What's challenging, Lewis said, is advising patients on what level of drinking is 'Okay,' given that even lower levels of alcohol consumption — around one to two drinks per day — may carry some risk. 'There is no zero-risk alcohol use,' Lewis said. But, he added, people do not necessarily have to abstain to see benefits, either. 'So it may be that a patient, at the end of the day, is able to reduce their alcohol consumption by two or three standard drinks over a given week. That still has a positive net effect,' he said. Another challenge is patients often don't know what a 'standard drink' looks like and can underestimate how much they drink. Showing patients visual examples — such as these— can be an eye-opener, Lewis said. Given the associations between drinking alcohol and many health outcomes, Genkinger said, it's important for clinicians to discuss alcohol use, just as they would discuss physical activity and healthy body weight. 'These are all lifestyle factors that have an impact on numerous disease outcomes, not only pancreatic cancer,' she said.
Medscape
5 hours ago
- Medscape
More Sit-to-Stand Transitions Benefit Postmenopausal Women
TOPLINE: Reducing sedentary behavior with interventions such as increasing daily sit-to-stand transitions might help lower blood pressure in postmenopausal women with overweight or obesity. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess how different strategies to reduce time spent sitting affected the physiologic responses of postmenopausal women who led sedentary lives. The researchers included 407 women in the postmenopausal phase (mean age, 68 years; 92% White) who had overweight or obesity (average BMI, 32), had a sitting time of at least 7 hours a day, and performed no more than 70 sit-to-stand transitions daily. The women were randomly assigned to one of three study arms: healthy living (n = 135), sit less (n = 136), and increased sit-to-stand transitions (n = 136). All arms received seven sessions of individual health coaching over 12 weeks. Researchers assessed blood pressure and markers of glucose regulation using fasting blood samples. Readings from thigh- and hip-worn accelerometers for 7 days were used to evaluate posture, sedentary behavior, and physical activity. Primary outcomes were measurements of glucose regulation and resting blood pressure at baseline and 3 months. TAKEAWAY: A total of 388 women completed the trial, with no serious adverse events related to the study. Participants in the sit-less arm had a daily sitting time of approximately 58 minutes less than those in the healthy-living arm (P < .001), whereas those in the sit-to-stand arm had 26 more sit-to-stand transitions daily (P < .001). Diastolic blood pressure fell by 2.24 mm Hg in the sit-to-stand arm compared with the healthy living arm (P = .02); the decrease in systolic blood pressure did not reach a predefined significance level. Compared with the healthy-living arm, neither intervention produced significant changes in markers of glucose regulation. IN PRACTICE: 'Postmenopausal women are at high risk of engaging in large amounts of sitting time and cardiovascular diseases. The present randomized controlled trial adds to existing evidence by demonstrating that within just 3 months, increasing' sit-to-stand transitions can lower diastolic blood pressure, the researchers wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Sheri J. Hartman, PhD, University of California, San Diego. It was published online on July 25, 2025, in Circulation. LIMITATIONS: The generalizability of findings was limited by the lack of ethnic and racial diversity. The 3-month intervention period may have been too brief to observe sizeable physiologic changes. Measurement of only fasting glucose parameters could not capture changes after meals. DISCLOSURES: This study received support from the National Institute of Aging. Additional support was provided by the Altman Clinical & Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego, funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
CNN
5 hours ago
- CNN
A researcher with hearing loss got a grant to study restoring hearing. The Trump administration cancelled it because of DEI
Dr. Uri Manor feels like much of his early life was blessed by fate. Born with genetic hearing loss that enables him to hear only about 10% of what others might, Manor was diagnosed at age 2, when he happened to be living in Wichita, Kansas – the home of what he describes as 'one of the most advanced schools for children with hearing loss, maybe in the world.' 'It wasn't clear if I would ever learn language, if I would ever be able to speak clearly,' said Manor, now 45. 'So I was very lucky, really weirdly lucky, that we were living in Wichita, Kansas, at the time.' Working in Wichita with experts at the Institute of Logopedics, now called Heartspring, Manor learned to speak. That same sort of serendipity led Manor into an unexpected career studying hearing loss himself, first at the US National Institutes of Health and, now, leading his own lab at the University of California, San Diego, where his research into ways to restore hearing was supported by a major five-year NIH grant. But that's where Manor's luck ran out. His grant was terminated in May by the Trump administration as part of its policies targeting diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives; Manor's funding had been awarded through a program that aimed to promote workforce diversity, for which he qualified because he has hearing loss. Now, Manor's research is in limbo, like that of thousands of other scientists whose work is supported in large part by the federal government and who've been affected by grant terminations. And the halt comes as research into hearing loss, which affects as many as 15% of American adults and 1 in 400 children at birth, had recently shown signs of rapid advancement. It was intense curiosity about the world that led Manor into a career in science, where early on, fate seemed to strike again. As a researcher at the NIH and Johns Hopkins working toward his Ph.D., Manor hoped to find an adviser interested in how magnetic fields could influence cells – an obsession that stemmed from a fascination with animals' ability to navigate using magnetic fields of the Earth. 'I was describing that to a physicist PI [primary investigator] at the NIH, and he goes, 'Yeah, I can't support that project, but what you're describing sounds a lot like the hair cells of the inner ear. You should go talk to this PI, who studies hair cells,'' Manor recalled. Despite spending much of his time at the audiologist's office, he said, 'I'd never thought about the ear.' That PI, Dr. Bechara Kachar, showed him microscope images of hair cells in the inner ear, which enable us to hear, and Manor remembers being stunned. 'I fell in love with the hair cell, these mysterious cells in our ear, because the system was so amazing, how it all comes together and how it all works,' Manor said. 'I got goosebumps. I have hearing loss, and I never thought about studying it. But now I was in this room falling in love with this system. I was like, 'What if this is like my destiny? What if this is what I'm supposed to be doing?'' In 2023, Manor received his first R01 grant from the NIH, a major five-year award that would support his lab's work on ways to restore hearing. Again, serendipity had struck; the R01 grant process is intensely competitive, funding only a fraction of the applications the biomedical research agency gets. Young researchers are advised to apply to research funding programs where they may have a unique edge, to improve their odds, Manor said. There was one that seemed a perfect fit; he was encouraged by mentors to apply to a program at the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders that aimed to promote workforce diversity. It was specifically designed to support early-stage researchers 'from diverse backgrounds, including those from underrepresented groups,' such as people with disabilities. Manor qualified because he has 'congenital severe-to-profound hearing loss,' he said. 'It felt right.' Even at the time, Manor said, he acknowledged the risk that government initiatives supporting DEI may not always be popular. His biggest concern, though, was that he might not be able to renew his grant through the same program after its five years were up. But his luck turned. In late May, he received notification from the NIH that, only two years in, his five-year grant had been canceled. The reason: The Trump administration was targeting programs promoting DEI. 'Research programs based primarily on artificial and non-scientific categories, including amorphous equity objectives, are antithetical to the scientific inquiry, do nothing to expand our knowledge of living systems, provide low returns on investment, and ultimately do not enhance health, lengthen life, or reduce illness,' the notice read. 'It is the policy of NIH not to prioritize such research programs.' No more funding would be awarded, it continued, and all future years on the grant had been removed. 'No one ever imagined that a grant could be canceled in the middle of an award period,' Manor said. 'It might be naïve and incorrect, but when you get a five-year grant from the NIH, that's a five-year contract, and you make plans based on five years. … That's really kind of rocked our world.' A spokesperson for the NIH told CNN: 'The study itself has value, however unfortunately it was funded under an ideologically driven DEI program under the Biden Administration. In the future, NIH will review, and fund research based on scientific merit rather than on DEI criteria.' Manor spent the next two weeks sleeping two to three hours a night, writing new grant proposals to try to replace the lost funds. But the termination meant his lab had to stop experiments, some of which had taken years to set up. Manor took that measure in an attempt to avoid having to lay off staff members – which he ultimately had to do as well. Hearing loss affects more than 30 million people in the US, with prevalence rising as people age. Recently, the field has taken leaps forward, with trials of gene therapies, which deliver working copies of genes to make up for mutated ones that cause deafness, helping children hear for the first time. 'We're at the threshold of a brave new world, so to speak,' said Dr. Charles Liberman, a senior scientist and former director of the Eaton-Peabody Laboratories at Mass Eye and Ear, one of the largest hearing research laboratories in the world. 'It's pretty incredible, the progress that's been made in the last 10 or 15 years, on understanding what goes wrong in the ear and having a pretty good handle on what kinds of approaches might work to cure sensorineural hearing loss.' Liberman anticipates breakthroughs in the next five to 10 years in slowing age-related hearing loss as well and, 'perhaps farther in the future, to actually reverse age-related hearing loss.' Liberman said Manor – with whom he's collaborated in the past – is contributing to the field's advancements. 'He has not been in the field for terribly long, but he's already made a big impression because of the incredible sort of computational approaches he takes to analyzing data from the inner ear,' he said. 'His grant got cut because it was a diversity initiative,' Liberman continued, 'but Uri's research is top quality, and I'm sure it would have been funded just on its own merit.' Manor's was one of thousands of NIH grants cut by the Trump administration, amounting to almost $3.8 billion in lost funding, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. Others canceled under the banner of combating DEI ideology include those focused on HIV, where researchers reported receiving notification identical to Manor's. But recently, Manor's fortunes seemed to have changed again. A federal judge ruled in June that it was illegal for the Trump administration to cancel several hundred research grants in areas including racial health disparities and transgender health. Manor's is among the grants included, and he received notice that the funding should come through. Still, he said he worries about whether that decision will hold through future court challenges. And he, like so many other scientists affected by the administration's drastic cuts to research funding, warns about the effects on scientific progress. 'No matter what your political leanings are, you have a 1 in 400 chance of having a child with hearing loss,' he said. Anyone dealing with medical conditions 'will benefit from the amazing advances of science and our biomedical research force.' But he also emphasized the importance of recognizing that research like his is supported by taxpayers, some of whom 'are struggling to pay their own bills, who are struggling to pay their kids' doctors bills.' 'And some of their taxpayer dollars are coming to my lab,' he said. 'That's a huge responsibility and privilege, and we have to make sure we're doing good with it. For me, that's a really powerful motivating factor, and I would like to believe that we're doing it.'
