CCJM delivers practical clinical articles relevant to internists, cardiologists, endocrinologists, and other specialists, all written by known experts.

Theme
medstat_ccjm
Top Sections
CME
Reviews
1-Minute Consult
The Clinical Picture
Smart Testing
Symptoms to Diagnosis
ccjm
Main menu
CCJM Main Menu
Explore menu
CCJM Explore Menu
Proclivity ID
18804001
Unpublish
Negative Keywords
gaming
gambling
compulsive behaviors
ammunition
assault rifle
black jack
Boko Haram
bondage
child abuse
cocaine
Daech
drug paraphernalia
explosion
gun
human trafficking
ISIL
ISIS
Islamic caliphate
Islamic state
mixed martial arts
MMA
molestation
national rifle association
NRA
nsfw
pedophile
pedophilia
poker
porn
pornography
psychedelic drug
recreational drug
sex slave rings
slot machine
terrorism
terrorist
Texas hold 'em
UFC
substance abuse
abuseed
abuseer
abusees
abuseing
abusely
abuses
aeolus
aeolused
aeoluser
aeoluses
aeolusing
aeolusly
aeoluss
ahole
aholeed
aholeer
aholees
aholeing
aholely
aholes
alcohol
alcoholed
alcoholer
alcoholes
alcoholing
alcoholly
alcohols
allman
allmaned
allmaner
allmanes
allmaning
allmanly
allmans
alted
altes
alting
altly
alts
analed
analer
anales
analing
anally
analprobe
analprobeed
analprobeer
analprobees
analprobeing
analprobely
analprobes
anals
anilingus
anilingused
anilinguser
anilinguses
anilingusing
anilingusly
anilinguss
anus
anused
anuser
anuses
anusing
anusly
anuss
areola
areolaed
areolaer
areolaes
areolaing
areolaly
areolas
areole
areoleed
areoleer
areolees
areoleing
areolely
areoles
arian
arianed
arianer
arianes
arianing
arianly
arians
aryan
aryaned
aryaner
aryanes
aryaning
aryanly
aryans
asiaed
asiaer
asiaes
asiaing
asialy
asias
ass
ass hole
ass lick
ass licked
ass licker
ass lickes
ass licking
ass lickly
ass licks
assbang
assbanged
assbangeded
assbangeder
assbangedes
assbangeding
assbangedly
assbangeds
assbanger
assbanges
assbanging
assbangly
assbangs
assbangsed
assbangser
assbangses
assbangsing
assbangsly
assbangss
assed
asser
asses
assesed
asseser
asseses
assesing
assesly
assess
assfuck
assfucked
assfucker
assfuckered
assfuckerer
assfuckeres
assfuckering
assfuckerly
assfuckers
assfuckes
assfucking
assfuckly
assfucks
asshat
asshated
asshater
asshates
asshating
asshatly
asshats
assholeed
assholeer
assholees
assholeing
assholely
assholes
assholesed
assholeser
assholeses
assholesing
assholesly
assholess
assing
assly
assmaster
assmastered
assmasterer
assmasteres
assmastering
assmasterly
assmasters
assmunch
assmunched
assmuncher
assmunches
assmunching
assmunchly
assmunchs
asss
asswipe
asswipeed
asswipeer
asswipees
asswipeing
asswipely
asswipes
asswipesed
asswipeser
asswipeses
asswipesing
asswipesly
asswipess
azz
azzed
azzer
azzes
azzing
azzly
azzs
babeed
babeer
babees
babeing
babely
babes
babesed
babeser
babeses
babesing
babesly
babess
ballsac
ballsaced
ballsacer
ballsaces
ballsacing
ballsack
ballsacked
ballsacker
ballsackes
ballsacking
ballsackly
ballsacks
ballsacly
ballsacs
ballsed
ballser
ballses
ballsing
ballsly
ballss
barf
barfed
barfer
barfes
barfing
barfly
barfs
bastard
bastarded
bastarder
bastardes
bastarding
bastardly
bastards
bastardsed
bastardser
bastardses
bastardsing
bastardsly
bastardss
bawdy
bawdyed
bawdyer
bawdyes
bawdying
bawdyly
bawdys
beaner
beanered
beanerer
beaneres
beanering
beanerly
beaners
beardedclam
beardedclamed
beardedclamer
beardedclames
beardedclaming
beardedclamly
beardedclams
beastiality
beastialityed
beastialityer
beastialityes
beastialitying
beastialityly
beastialitys
beatch
beatched
beatcher
beatches
beatching
beatchly
beatchs
beater
beatered
beaterer
beateres
beatering
beaterly
beaters
beered
beerer
beeres
beering
beerly
beeyotch
beeyotched
beeyotcher
beeyotches
beeyotching
beeyotchly
beeyotchs
beotch
beotched
beotcher
beotches
beotching
beotchly
beotchs
biatch
biatched
biatcher
biatches
biatching
biatchly
biatchs
big tits
big titsed
big titser
big titses
big titsing
big titsly
big titss
bigtits
bigtitsed
bigtitser
bigtitses
bigtitsing
bigtitsly
bigtitss
bimbo
bimboed
bimboer
bimboes
bimboing
bimboly
bimbos
bisexualed
bisexualer
bisexuales
bisexualing
bisexually
bisexuals
bitch
bitched
bitcheded
bitcheder
bitchedes
bitcheding
bitchedly
bitcheds
bitcher
bitches
bitchesed
bitcheser
bitcheses
bitchesing
bitchesly
bitchess
bitching
bitchly
bitchs
bitchy
bitchyed
bitchyer
bitchyes
bitchying
bitchyly
bitchys
bleached
bleacher
bleaches
bleaching
bleachly
bleachs
blow job
blow jobed
blow jober
blow jobes
blow jobing
blow jobly
blow jobs
blowed
blower
blowes
blowing
blowjob
blowjobed
blowjober
blowjobes
blowjobing
blowjobly
blowjobs
blowjobsed
blowjobser
blowjobses
blowjobsing
blowjobsly
blowjobss
blowly
blows
boink
boinked
boinker
boinkes
boinking
boinkly
boinks
bollock
bollocked
bollocker
bollockes
bollocking
bollockly
bollocks
bollocksed
bollockser
bollockses
bollocksing
bollocksly
bollockss
bollok
bolloked
bolloker
bollokes
bolloking
bollokly
bolloks
boner
bonered
bonerer
boneres
bonering
bonerly
boners
bonersed
bonerser
bonerses
bonersing
bonersly
bonerss
bong
bonged
bonger
bonges
bonging
bongly
bongs
boob
boobed
boober
boobes
boobies
boobiesed
boobieser
boobieses
boobiesing
boobiesly
boobiess
boobing
boobly
boobs
boobsed
boobser
boobses
boobsing
boobsly
boobss
booby
boobyed
boobyer
boobyes
boobying
boobyly
boobys
booger
boogered
boogerer
boogeres
boogering
boogerly
boogers
bookie
bookieed
bookieer
bookiees
bookieing
bookiely
bookies
bootee
booteeed
booteeer
booteees
booteeing
booteely
bootees
bootie
bootieed
bootieer
bootiees
bootieing
bootiely
booties
booty
bootyed
bootyer
bootyes
bootying
bootyly
bootys
boozeed
boozeer
boozees
boozeing
boozely
boozer
boozered
boozerer
boozeres
boozering
boozerly
boozers
boozes
boozy
boozyed
boozyer
boozyes
boozying
boozyly
boozys
bosomed
bosomer
bosomes
bosoming
bosomly
bosoms
bosomy
bosomyed
bosomyer
bosomyes
bosomying
bosomyly
bosomys
bugger
buggered
buggerer
buggeres
buggering
buggerly
buggers
bukkake
bukkakeed
bukkakeer
bukkakees
bukkakeing
bukkakely
bukkakes
bull shit
bull shited
bull shiter
bull shites
bull shiting
bull shitly
bull shits
bullshit
bullshited
bullshiter
bullshites
bullshiting
bullshitly
bullshits
bullshitsed
bullshitser
bullshitses
bullshitsing
bullshitsly
bullshitss
bullshitted
bullshitteded
bullshitteder
bullshittedes
bullshitteding
bullshittedly
bullshitteds
bullturds
bullturdsed
bullturdser
bullturdses
bullturdsing
bullturdsly
bullturdss
bung
bunged
bunger
bunges
bunging
bungly
bungs
busty
bustyed
bustyer
bustyes
bustying
bustyly
bustys
butt
butt fuck
butt fucked
butt fucker
butt fuckes
butt fucking
butt fuckly
butt fucks
butted
buttes
buttfuck
buttfucked
buttfucker
buttfuckered
buttfuckerer
buttfuckeres
buttfuckering
buttfuckerly
buttfuckers
buttfuckes
buttfucking
buttfuckly
buttfucks
butting
buttly
buttplug
buttpluged
buttpluger
buttpluges
buttpluging
buttplugly
buttplugs
butts
caca
cacaed
cacaer
cacaes
cacaing
cacaly
cacas
cahone
cahoneed
cahoneer
cahonees
cahoneing
cahonely
cahones
cameltoe
cameltoeed
cameltoeer
cameltoees
cameltoeing
cameltoely
cameltoes
carpetmuncher
carpetmunchered
carpetmuncherer
carpetmuncheres
carpetmunchering
carpetmuncherly
carpetmunchers
cawk
cawked
cawker
cawkes
cawking
cawkly
cawks
chinc
chinced
chincer
chinces
chincing
chincly
chincs
chincsed
chincser
chincses
chincsing
chincsly
chincss
chink
chinked
chinker
chinkes
chinking
chinkly
chinks
chode
chodeed
chodeer
chodees
chodeing
chodely
chodes
chodesed
chodeser
chodeses
chodesing
chodesly
chodess
clit
clited
cliter
clites
cliting
clitly
clitoris
clitorised
clitoriser
clitorises
clitorising
clitorisly
clitoriss
clitorus
clitorused
clitoruser
clitoruses
clitorusing
clitorusly
clitoruss
clits
clitsed
clitser
clitses
clitsing
clitsly
clitss
clitty
clittyed
clittyer
clittyes
clittying
clittyly
clittys
cocain
cocaine
cocained
cocaineed
cocaineer
cocainees
cocaineing
cocainely
cocainer
cocaines
cocaining
cocainly
cocains
cock
cock sucker
cock suckered
cock suckerer
cock suckeres
cock suckering
cock suckerly
cock suckers
cockblock
cockblocked
cockblocker
cockblockes
cockblocking
cockblockly
cockblocks
cocked
cocker
cockes
cockholster
cockholstered
cockholsterer
cockholsteres
cockholstering
cockholsterly
cockholsters
cocking
cockknocker
cockknockered
cockknockerer
cockknockeres
cockknockering
cockknockerly
cockknockers
cockly
cocks
cocksed
cockser
cockses
cocksing
cocksly
cocksmoker
cocksmokered
cocksmokerer
cocksmokeres
cocksmokering
cocksmokerly
cocksmokers
cockss
cocksucker
cocksuckered
cocksuckerer
cocksuckeres
cocksuckering
cocksuckerly
cocksuckers
coital
coitaled
coitaler
coitales
coitaling
coitally
coitals
commie
commieed
commieer
commiees
commieing
commiely
commies
condomed
condomer
condomes
condoming
condomly
condoms
coon
cooned
cooner
coones
cooning
coonly
coons
coonsed
coonser
coonses
coonsing
coonsly
coonss
corksucker
corksuckered
corksuckerer
corksuckeres
corksuckering
corksuckerly
corksuckers
cracked
crackwhore
crackwhoreed
crackwhoreer
crackwhorees
crackwhoreing
crackwhorely
crackwhores
crap
craped
craper
crapes
craping
craply
crappy
crappyed
crappyer
crappyes
crappying
crappyly
crappys
cum
cumed
cumer
cumes
cuming
cumly
cummin
cummined
cumminer
cummines
cumming
cumminged
cumminger
cumminges
cumminging
cummingly
cummings
cummining
cumminly
cummins
cums
cumshot
cumshoted
cumshoter
cumshotes
cumshoting
cumshotly
cumshots
cumshotsed
cumshotser
cumshotses
cumshotsing
cumshotsly
cumshotss
cumslut
cumsluted
cumsluter
cumslutes
cumsluting
cumslutly
cumsluts
cumstain
cumstained
cumstainer
cumstaines
cumstaining
cumstainly
cumstains
cunilingus
cunilingused
cunilinguser
cunilinguses
cunilingusing
cunilingusly
cunilinguss
cunnilingus
cunnilingused
cunnilinguser
cunnilinguses
cunnilingusing
cunnilingusly
cunnilinguss
cunny
cunnyed
cunnyer
cunnyes
cunnying
cunnyly
cunnys
cunt
cunted
cunter
cuntes
cuntface
cuntfaceed
cuntfaceer
cuntfacees
cuntfaceing
cuntfacely
cuntfaces
cunthunter
cunthuntered
cunthunterer
cunthunteres
cunthuntering
cunthunterly
cunthunters
cunting
cuntlick
cuntlicked
cuntlicker
cuntlickered
cuntlickerer
cuntlickeres
cuntlickering
cuntlickerly
cuntlickers
cuntlickes
cuntlicking
cuntlickly
cuntlicks
cuntly
cunts
cuntsed
cuntser
cuntses
cuntsing
cuntsly
cuntss
dago
dagoed
dagoer
dagoes
dagoing
dagoly
dagos
dagosed
dagoser
dagoses
dagosing
dagosly
dagoss
dammit
dammited
dammiter
dammites
dammiting
dammitly
dammits
damn
damned
damneded
damneder
damnedes
damneding
damnedly
damneds
damner
damnes
damning
damnit
damnited
damniter
damnites
damniting
damnitly
damnits
damnly
damns
dick
dickbag
dickbaged
dickbager
dickbages
dickbaging
dickbagly
dickbags
dickdipper
dickdippered
dickdipperer
dickdipperes
dickdippering
dickdipperly
dickdippers
dicked
dicker
dickes
dickface
dickfaceed
dickfaceer
dickfacees
dickfaceing
dickfacely
dickfaces
dickflipper
dickflippered
dickflipperer
dickflipperes
dickflippering
dickflipperly
dickflippers
dickhead
dickheaded
dickheader
dickheades
dickheading
dickheadly
dickheads
dickheadsed
dickheadser
dickheadses
dickheadsing
dickheadsly
dickheadss
dicking
dickish
dickished
dickisher
dickishes
dickishing
dickishly
dickishs
dickly
dickripper
dickrippered
dickripperer
dickripperes
dickrippering
dickripperly
dickrippers
dicks
dicksipper
dicksippered
dicksipperer
dicksipperes
dicksippering
dicksipperly
dicksippers
dickweed
dickweeded
dickweeder
dickweedes
dickweeding
dickweedly
dickweeds
dickwhipper
dickwhippered
dickwhipperer
dickwhipperes
dickwhippering
dickwhipperly
dickwhippers
dickzipper
dickzippered
dickzipperer
dickzipperes
dickzippering
dickzipperly
dickzippers
diddle
diddleed
diddleer
diddlees
diddleing
diddlely
diddles
dike
dikeed
dikeer
dikees
dikeing
dikely
dikes
dildo
dildoed
dildoer
dildoes
dildoing
dildoly
dildos
dildosed
dildoser
dildoses
dildosing
dildosly
dildoss
diligaf
diligafed
diligafer
diligafes
diligafing
diligafly
diligafs
dillweed
dillweeded
dillweeder
dillweedes
dillweeding
dillweedly
dillweeds
dimwit
dimwited
dimwiter
dimwites
dimwiting
dimwitly
dimwits
dingle
dingleed
dingleer
dinglees
dingleing
dinglely
dingles
dipship
dipshiped
dipshiper
dipshipes
dipshiping
dipshiply
dipships
dizzyed
dizzyer
dizzyes
dizzying
dizzyly
dizzys
doggiestyleed
doggiestyleer
doggiestylees
doggiestyleing
doggiestylely
doggiestyles
doggystyleed
doggystyleer
doggystylees
doggystyleing
doggystylely
doggystyles
dong
donged
donger
donges
donging
dongly
dongs
doofus
doofused
doofuser
doofuses
doofusing
doofusly
doofuss
doosh
dooshed
doosher
dooshes
dooshing
dooshly
dooshs
dopeyed
dopeyer
dopeyes
dopeying
dopeyly
dopeys
douchebag
douchebaged
douchebager
douchebages
douchebaging
douchebagly
douchebags
douchebagsed
douchebagser
douchebagses
douchebagsing
douchebagsly
douchebagss
doucheed
doucheer
douchees
doucheing
douchely
douches
douchey
doucheyed
doucheyer
doucheyes
doucheying
doucheyly
doucheys
drunk
drunked
drunker
drunkes
drunking
drunkly
drunks
dumass
dumassed
dumasser
dumasses
dumassing
dumassly
dumasss
dumbass
dumbassed
dumbasser
dumbasses
dumbassesed
dumbasseser
dumbasseses
dumbassesing
dumbassesly
dumbassess
dumbassing
dumbassly
dumbasss
dummy
dummyed
dummyer
dummyes
dummying
dummyly
dummys
dyke
dykeed
dykeer
dykees
dykeing
dykely
dykes
dykesed
dykeser
dykeses
dykesing
dykesly
dykess
erotic
eroticed
eroticer
erotices
eroticing
eroticly
erotics
extacy
extacyed
extacyer
extacyes
extacying
extacyly
extacys
extasy
extasyed
extasyer
extasyes
extasying
extasyly
extasys
fack
facked
facker
fackes
facking
fackly
facks
fag
faged
fager
fages
fagg
fagged
faggeded
faggeder
faggedes
faggeding
faggedly
faggeds
fagger
fagges
fagging
faggit
faggited
faggiter
faggites
faggiting
faggitly
faggits
faggly
faggot
faggoted
faggoter
faggotes
faggoting
faggotly
faggots
faggs
faging
fagly
fagot
fagoted
fagoter
fagotes
fagoting
fagotly
fagots
fags
fagsed
fagser
fagses
fagsing
fagsly
fagss
faig
faiged
faiger
faiges
faiging
faigly
faigs
faigt
faigted
faigter
faigtes
faigting
faigtly
faigts
fannybandit
fannybandited
fannybanditer
fannybandites
fannybanditing
fannybanditly
fannybandits
farted
farter
fartes
farting
fartknocker
fartknockered
fartknockerer
fartknockeres
fartknockering
fartknockerly
fartknockers
fartly
farts
felch
felched
felcher
felchered
felcherer
felcheres
felchering
felcherly
felchers
felches
felching
felchinged
felchinger
felchinges
felchinging
felchingly
felchings
felchly
felchs
fellate
fellateed
fellateer
fellatees
fellateing
fellately
fellates
fellatio
fellatioed
fellatioer
fellatioes
fellatioing
fellatioly
fellatios
feltch
feltched
feltcher
feltchered
feltcherer
feltcheres
feltchering
feltcherly
feltchers
feltches
feltching
feltchly
feltchs
feom
feomed
feomer
feomes
feoming
feomly
feoms
fisted
fisteded
fisteder
fistedes
fisteding
fistedly
fisteds
fisting
fistinged
fistinger
fistinges
fistinging
fistingly
fistings
fisty
fistyed
fistyer
fistyes
fistying
fistyly
fistys
floozy
floozyed
floozyer
floozyes
floozying
floozyly
floozys
foad
foaded
foader
foades
foading
foadly
foads
fondleed
fondleer
fondlees
fondleing
fondlely
fondles
foobar
foobared
foobarer
foobares
foobaring
foobarly
foobars
freex
freexed
freexer
freexes
freexing
freexly
freexs
frigg
frigga
friggaed
friggaer
friggaes
friggaing
friggaly
friggas
frigged
frigger
frigges
frigging
friggly
friggs
fubar
fubared
fubarer
fubares
fubaring
fubarly
fubars
fuck
fuckass
fuckassed
fuckasser
fuckasses
fuckassing
fuckassly
fuckasss
fucked
fuckeded
fuckeder
fuckedes
fuckeding
fuckedly
fuckeds
fucker
fuckered
fuckerer
fuckeres
fuckering
fuckerly
fuckers
fuckes
fuckface
fuckfaceed
fuckfaceer
fuckfacees
fuckfaceing
fuckfacely
fuckfaces
fuckin
fuckined
fuckiner
fuckines
fucking
fuckinged
fuckinger
fuckinges
fuckinging
fuckingly
fuckings
fuckining
fuckinly
fuckins
fuckly
fucknugget
fucknuggeted
fucknuggeter
fucknuggetes
fucknuggeting
fucknuggetly
fucknuggets
fucknut
fucknuted
fucknuter
fucknutes
fucknuting
fucknutly
fucknuts
fuckoff
fuckoffed
fuckoffer
fuckoffes
fuckoffing
fuckoffly
fuckoffs
fucks
fucksed
fuckser
fuckses
fucksing
fucksly
fuckss
fucktard
fucktarded
fucktarder
fucktardes
fucktarding
fucktardly
fucktards
fuckup
fuckuped
fuckuper
fuckupes
fuckuping
fuckuply
fuckups
fuckwad
fuckwaded
fuckwader
fuckwades
fuckwading
fuckwadly
fuckwads
fuckwit
fuckwited
fuckwiter
fuckwites
fuckwiting
fuckwitly
fuckwits
fudgepacker
fudgepackered
fudgepackerer
fudgepackeres
fudgepackering
fudgepackerly
fudgepackers
fuk
fuked
fuker
fukes
fuking
fukly
fuks
fvck
fvcked
fvcker
fvckes
fvcking
fvckly
fvcks
fxck
fxcked
fxcker
fxckes
fxcking
fxckly
fxcks
gae
gaeed
gaeer
gaees
gaeing
gaely
gaes
gai
gaied
gaier
gaies
gaiing
gaily
gais
ganja
ganjaed
ganjaer
ganjaes
ganjaing
ganjaly
ganjas
gayed
gayer
gayes
gaying
gayly
gays
gaysed
gayser
gayses
gaysing
gaysly
gayss
gey
geyed
geyer
geyes
geying
geyly
geys
gfc
gfced
gfcer
gfces
gfcing
gfcly
gfcs
gfy
gfyed
gfyer
gfyes
gfying
gfyly
gfys
ghay
ghayed
ghayer
ghayes
ghaying
ghayly
ghays
ghey
gheyed
gheyer
gheyes
gheying
gheyly
gheys
gigolo
gigoloed
gigoloer
gigoloes
gigoloing
gigololy
gigolos
goatse
goatseed
goatseer
goatsees
goatseing
goatsely
goatses
godamn
godamned
godamner
godamnes
godamning
godamnit
godamnited
godamniter
godamnites
godamniting
godamnitly
godamnits
godamnly
godamns
goddam
goddamed
goddamer
goddames
goddaming
goddamly
goddammit
goddammited
goddammiter
goddammites
goddammiting
goddammitly
goddammits
goddamn
goddamned
goddamner
goddamnes
goddamning
goddamnly
goddamns
goddams
goldenshower
goldenshowered
goldenshowerer
goldenshoweres
goldenshowering
goldenshowerly
goldenshowers
gonad
gonaded
gonader
gonades
gonading
gonadly
gonads
gonadsed
gonadser
gonadses
gonadsing
gonadsly
gonadss
gook
gooked
gooker
gookes
gooking
gookly
gooks
gooksed
gookser
gookses
gooksing
gooksly
gookss
gringo
gringoed
gringoer
gringoes
gringoing
gringoly
gringos
gspot
gspoted
gspoter
gspotes
gspoting
gspotly
gspots
gtfo
gtfoed
gtfoer
gtfoes
gtfoing
gtfoly
gtfos
guido
guidoed
guidoer
guidoes
guidoing
guidoly
guidos
handjob
handjobed
handjober
handjobes
handjobing
handjobly
handjobs
hard on
hard oned
hard oner
hard ones
hard oning
hard only
hard ons
hardknight
hardknighted
hardknighter
hardknightes
hardknighting
hardknightly
hardknights
hebe
hebeed
hebeer
hebees
hebeing
hebely
hebes
heeb
heebed
heeber
heebes
heebing
heebly
heebs
hell
helled
heller
helles
helling
hellly
hells
hemp
hemped
hemper
hempes
hemping
hemply
hemps
heroined
heroiner
heroines
heroining
heroinly
heroins
herp
herped
herper
herpes
herpesed
herpeser
herpeses
herpesing
herpesly
herpess
herping
herply
herps
herpy
herpyed
herpyer
herpyes
herpying
herpyly
herpys
hitler
hitlered
hitlerer
hitleres
hitlering
hitlerly
hitlers
hived
hiver
hives
hiving
hivly
hivs
hobag
hobaged
hobager
hobages
hobaging
hobagly
hobags
homey
homeyed
homeyer
homeyes
homeying
homeyly
homeys
homo
homoed
homoer
homoes
homoey
homoeyed
homoeyer
homoeyes
homoeying
homoeyly
homoeys
homoing
homoly
homos
honky
honkyed
honkyer
honkyes
honkying
honkyly
honkys
hooch
hooched
hoocher
hooches
hooching
hoochly
hoochs
hookah
hookahed
hookaher
hookahes
hookahing
hookahly
hookahs
hooker
hookered
hookerer
hookeres
hookering
hookerly
hookers
hoor
hoored
hoorer
hoores
hooring
hoorly
hoors
hootch
hootched
hootcher
hootches
hootching
hootchly
hootchs
hooter
hootered
hooterer
hooteres
hootering
hooterly
hooters
hootersed
hooterser
hooterses
hootersing
hootersly
hooterss
horny
hornyed
hornyer
hornyes
hornying
hornyly
hornys
houstoned
houstoner
houstones
houstoning
houstonly
houstons
hump
humped
humpeded
humpeder
humpedes
humpeding
humpedly
humpeds
humper
humpes
humping
humpinged
humpinger
humpinges
humpinging
humpingly
humpings
humply
humps
husbanded
husbander
husbandes
husbanding
husbandly
husbands
hussy
hussyed
hussyer
hussyes
hussying
hussyly
hussys
hymened
hymener
hymenes
hymening
hymenly
hymens
inbred
inbreded
inbreder
inbredes
inbreding
inbredly
inbreds
incest
incested
incester
incestes
incesting
incestly
incests
injun
injuned
injuner
injunes
injuning
injunly
injuns
jackass
jackassed
jackasser
jackasses
jackassing
jackassly
jackasss
jackhole
jackholeed
jackholeer
jackholees
jackholeing
jackholely
jackholes
jackoff
jackoffed
jackoffer
jackoffes
jackoffing
jackoffly
jackoffs
jap
japed
japer
japes
japing
japly
japs
japsed
japser
japses
japsing
japsly
japss
jerkoff
jerkoffed
jerkoffer
jerkoffes
jerkoffing
jerkoffly
jerkoffs
jerks
jism
jismed
jismer
jismes
jisming
jismly
jisms
jiz
jized
jizer
jizes
jizing
jizly
jizm
jizmed
jizmer
jizmes
jizming
jizmly
jizms
jizs
jizz
jizzed
jizzeded
jizzeder
jizzedes
jizzeding
jizzedly
jizzeds
jizzer
jizzes
jizzing
jizzly
jizzs
junkie
junkieed
junkieer
junkiees
junkieing
junkiely
junkies
junky
junkyed
junkyer
junkyes
junkying
junkyly
junkys
kike
kikeed
kikeer
kikees
kikeing
kikely
kikes
kikesed
kikeser
kikeses
kikesing
kikesly
kikess
killed
killer
killes
killing
killly
kills
kinky
kinkyed
kinkyer
kinkyes
kinkying
kinkyly
kinkys
kkk
kkked
kkker
kkkes
kkking
kkkly
kkks
klan
klaned
klaner
klanes
klaning
klanly
klans
knobend
knobended
knobender
knobendes
knobending
knobendly
knobends
kooch
kooched
koocher
kooches
koochesed
koocheser
koocheses
koochesing
koochesly
koochess
kooching
koochly
koochs
kootch
kootched
kootcher
kootches
kootching
kootchly
kootchs
kraut
krauted
krauter
krautes
krauting
krautly
krauts
kyke
kykeed
kykeer
kykees
kykeing
kykely
kykes
lech
leched
lecher
leches
leching
lechly
lechs
leper
lepered
leperer
leperes
lepering
leperly
lepers
lesbiansed
lesbianser
lesbianses
lesbiansing
lesbiansly
lesbianss
lesbo
lesboed
lesboer
lesboes
lesboing
lesboly
lesbos
lesbosed
lesboser
lesboses
lesbosing
lesbosly
lesboss
lez
lezbianed
lezbianer
lezbianes
lezbianing
lezbianly
lezbians
lezbiansed
lezbianser
lezbianses
lezbiansing
lezbiansly
lezbianss
lezbo
lezboed
lezboer
lezboes
lezboing
lezboly
lezbos
lezbosed
lezboser
lezboses
lezbosing
lezbosly
lezboss
lezed
lezer
lezes
lezing
lezly
lezs
lezzie
lezzieed
lezzieer
lezziees
lezzieing
lezziely
lezzies
lezziesed
lezzieser
lezzieses
lezziesing
lezziesly
lezziess
lezzy
lezzyed
lezzyer
lezzyes
lezzying
lezzyly
lezzys
lmaoed
lmaoer
lmaoes
lmaoing
lmaoly
lmaos
lmfao
lmfaoed
lmfaoer
lmfaoes
lmfaoing
lmfaoly
lmfaos
loined
loiner
loines
loining
loinly
loins
loinsed
loinser
loinses
loinsing
loinsly
loinss
lubeed
lubeer
lubees
lubeing
lubely
lubes
lusty
lustyed
lustyer
lustyes
lustying
lustyly
lustys
massa
massaed
massaer
massaes
massaing
massaly
massas
masterbate
masterbateed
masterbateer
masterbatees
masterbateing
masterbately
masterbates
masterbating
masterbatinged
masterbatinger
masterbatinges
masterbatinging
masterbatingly
masterbatings
masterbation
masterbationed
masterbationer
masterbationes
masterbationing
masterbationly
masterbations
masturbate
masturbateed
masturbateer
masturbatees
masturbateing
masturbately
masturbates
masturbating
masturbatinged
masturbatinger
masturbatinges
masturbatinging
masturbatingly
masturbatings
masturbation
masturbationed
masturbationer
masturbationes
masturbationing
masturbationly
masturbations
methed
mether
methes
mething
methly
meths
militaryed
militaryer
militaryes
militarying
militaryly
militarys
mofo
mofoed
mofoer
mofoes
mofoing
mofoly
mofos
molest
molested
molester
molestes
molesting
molestly
molests
moolie
moolieed
moolieer
mooliees
moolieing
mooliely
moolies
moron
moroned
moroner
morones
moroning
moronly
morons
motherfucka
motherfuckaed
motherfuckaer
motherfuckaes
motherfuckaing
motherfuckaly
motherfuckas
motherfucker
motherfuckered
motherfuckerer
motherfuckeres
motherfuckering
motherfuckerly
motherfuckers
motherfucking
motherfuckinged
motherfuckinger
motherfuckinges
motherfuckinging
motherfuckingly
motherfuckings
mtherfucker
mtherfuckered
mtherfuckerer
mtherfuckeres
mtherfuckering
mtherfuckerly
mtherfuckers
mthrfucker
mthrfuckered
mthrfuckerer
mthrfuckeres
mthrfuckering
mthrfuckerly
mthrfuckers
mthrfucking
mthrfuckinged
mthrfuckinger
mthrfuckinges
mthrfuckinging
mthrfuckingly
mthrfuckings
muff
muffdiver
muffdivered
muffdiverer
muffdiveres
muffdivering
muffdiverly
muffdivers
muffed
muffer
muffes
muffing
muffly
muffs
murdered
murderer
murderes
murdering
murderly
murders
muthafuckaz
muthafuckazed
muthafuckazer
muthafuckazes
muthafuckazing
muthafuckazly
muthafuckazs
muthafucker
muthafuckered
muthafuckerer
muthafuckeres
muthafuckering
muthafuckerly
muthafuckers
mutherfucker
mutherfuckered
mutherfuckerer
mutherfuckeres
mutherfuckering
mutherfuckerly
mutherfuckers
mutherfucking
mutherfuckinged
mutherfuckinger
mutherfuckinges
mutherfuckinging
mutherfuckingly
mutherfuckings
muthrfucking
muthrfuckinged
muthrfuckinger
muthrfuckinges
muthrfuckinging
muthrfuckingly
muthrfuckings
nad
naded
nader
nades
nading
nadly
nads
nadsed
nadser
nadses
nadsing
nadsly
nadss
nakeded
nakeder
nakedes
nakeding
nakedly
nakeds
napalm
napalmed
napalmer
napalmes
napalming
napalmly
napalms
nappy
nappyed
nappyer
nappyes
nappying
nappyly
nappys
nazi
nazied
nazier
nazies
naziing
nazily
nazis
nazism
nazismed
nazismer
nazismes
nazisming
nazismly
nazisms
negro
negroed
negroer
negroes
negroing
negroly
negros
nigga
niggaed
niggaer
niggaes
niggah
niggahed
niggaher
niggahes
niggahing
niggahly
niggahs
niggaing
niggaly
niggas
niggased
niggaser
niggases
niggasing
niggasly
niggass
niggaz
niggazed
niggazer
niggazes
niggazing
niggazly
niggazs
nigger
niggered
niggerer
niggeres
niggering
niggerly
niggers
niggersed
niggerser
niggerses
niggersing
niggersly
niggerss
niggle
niggleed
niggleer
nigglees
niggleing
nigglely
niggles
niglet
nigleted
nigleter
nigletes
nigleting
nigletly
niglets
nimrod
nimroded
nimroder
nimrodes
nimroding
nimrodly
nimrods
ninny
ninnyed
ninnyer
ninnyes
ninnying
ninnyly
ninnys
nooky
nookyed
nookyer
nookyes
nookying
nookyly
nookys
nuccitelli
nuccitellied
nuccitellier
nuccitellies
nuccitelliing
nuccitellily
nuccitellis
nympho
nymphoed
nymphoer
nymphoes
nymphoing
nympholy
nymphos
opium
opiumed
opiumer
opiumes
opiuming
opiumly
opiums
orgies
orgiesed
orgieser
orgieses
orgiesing
orgiesly
orgiess
orgy
orgyed
orgyer
orgyes
orgying
orgyly
orgys
paddy
paddyed
paddyer
paddyes
paddying
paddyly
paddys
paki
pakied
pakier
pakies
pakiing
pakily
pakis
pantie
pantieed
pantieer
pantiees
pantieing
pantiely
panties
pantiesed
pantieser
pantieses
pantiesing
pantiesly
pantiess
panty
pantyed
pantyer
pantyes
pantying
pantyly
pantys
pastie
pastieed
pastieer
pastiees
pastieing
pastiely
pasties
pasty
pastyed
pastyer
pastyes
pastying
pastyly
pastys
pecker
peckered
peckerer
peckeres
peckering
peckerly
peckers
pedo
pedoed
pedoer
pedoes
pedoing
pedoly
pedophile
pedophileed
pedophileer
pedophilees
pedophileing
pedophilely
pedophiles
pedophilia
pedophiliac
pedophiliaced
pedophiliacer
pedophiliaces
pedophiliacing
pedophiliacly
pedophiliacs
pedophiliaed
pedophiliaer
pedophiliaes
pedophiliaing
pedophilialy
pedophilias
pedos
penial
penialed
penialer
peniales
penialing
penially
penials
penile
penileed
penileer
penilees
penileing
penilely
peniles
penis
penised
peniser
penises
penising
penisly
peniss
perversion
perversioned
perversioner
perversiones
perversioning
perversionly
perversions
peyote
peyoteed
peyoteer
peyotees
peyoteing
peyotely
peyotes
phuck
phucked
phucker
phuckes
phucking
phuckly
phucks
pillowbiter
pillowbitered
pillowbiterer
pillowbiteres
pillowbitering
pillowbiterly
pillowbiters
pimp
pimped
pimper
pimpes
pimping
pimply
pimps
pinko
pinkoed
pinkoer
pinkoes
pinkoing
pinkoly
pinkos
pissed
pisseded
pisseder
pissedes
pisseding
pissedly
pisseds
pisser
pisses
pissing
pissly
pissoff
pissoffed
pissoffer
pissoffes
pissoffing
pissoffly
pissoffs
pisss
polack
polacked
polacker
polackes
polacking
polackly
polacks
pollock
pollocked
pollocker
pollockes
pollocking
pollockly
pollocks
poon
pooned
pooner
poones
pooning
poonly
poons
poontang
poontanged
poontanger
poontanges
poontanging
poontangly
poontangs
porn
porned
porner
pornes
porning
pornly
porno
pornoed
pornoer
pornoes
pornography
pornographyed
pornographyer
pornographyes
pornographying
pornographyly
pornographys
pornoing
pornoly
pornos
porns
prick
pricked
pricker
prickes
pricking
prickly
pricks
prig
priged
priger
priges
priging
prigly
prigs
prostitute
prostituteed
prostituteer
prostitutees
prostituteing
prostitutely
prostitutes
prude
prudeed
prudeer
prudees
prudeing
prudely
prudes
punkass
punkassed
punkasser
punkasses
punkassing
punkassly
punkasss
punky
punkyed
punkyer
punkyes
punkying
punkyly
punkys
puss
pussed
pusser
pusses
pussies
pussiesed
pussieser
pussieses
pussiesing
pussiesly
pussiess
pussing
pussly
pusss
pussy
pussyed
pussyer
pussyes
pussying
pussyly
pussypounder
pussypoundered
pussypounderer
pussypounderes
pussypoundering
pussypounderly
pussypounders
pussys
puto
putoed
putoer
putoes
putoing
putoly
putos
queaf
queafed
queafer
queafes
queafing
queafly
queafs
queef
queefed
queefer
queefes
queefing
queefly
queefs
queer
queered
queerer
queeres
queering
queerly
queero
queeroed
queeroer
queeroes
queeroing
queeroly
queeros
queers
queersed
queerser
queerses
queersing
queersly
queerss
quicky
quickyed
quickyer
quickyes
quickying
quickyly
quickys
quim
quimed
quimer
quimes
quiming
quimly
quims
racy
racyed
racyer
racyes
racying
racyly
racys
rape
raped
rapeded
rapeder
rapedes
rapeding
rapedly
rapeds
rapeed
rapeer
rapees
rapeing
rapely
raper
rapered
raperer
raperes
rapering
raperly
rapers
rapes
rapist
rapisted
rapister
rapistes
rapisting
rapistly
rapists
raunch
raunched
rauncher
raunches
raunching
raunchly
raunchs
rectus
rectused
rectuser
rectuses
rectusing
rectusly
rectuss
reefer
reefered
reeferer
reeferes
reefering
reeferly
reefers
reetard
reetarded
reetarder
reetardes
reetarding
reetardly
reetards
reich
reiched
reicher
reiches
reiching
reichly
reichs
retard
retarded
retardeded
retardeder
retardedes
retardeding
retardedly
retardeds
retarder
retardes
retarding
retardly
retards
rimjob
rimjobed
rimjober
rimjobes
rimjobing
rimjobly
rimjobs
ritard
ritarded
ritarder
ritardes
ritarding
ritardly
ritards
rtard
rtarded
rtarder
rtardes
rtarding
rtardly
rtards
rum
rumed
rumer
rumes
ruming
rumly
rump
rumped
rumper
rumpes
rumping
rumply
rumprammer
rumprammered
rumprammerer
rumprammeres
rumprammering
rumprammerly
rumprammers
rumps
rums
ruski
ruskied
ruskier
ruskies
ruskiing
ruskily
ruskis
sadism
sadismed
sadismer
sadismes
sadisming
sadismly
sadisms
sadist
sadisted
sadister
sadistes
sadisting
sadistly
sadists
scag
scaged
scager
scages
scaging
scagly
scags
scantily
scantilyed
scantilyer
scantilyes
scantilying
scantilyly
scantilys
schlong
schlonged
schlonger
schlonges
schlonging
schlongly
schlongs
scrog
scroged
scroger
scroges
scroging
scrogly
scrogs
scrot
scrote
scroted
scroteed
scroteer
scrotees
scroteing
scrotely
scroter
scrotes
scroting
scrotly
scrots
scrotum
scrotumed
scrotumer
scrotumes
scrotuming
scrotumly
scrotums
scrud
scruded
scruder
scrudes
scruding
scrudly
scruds
scum
scumed
scumer
scumes
scuming
scumly
scums
seaman
seamaned
seamaner
seamanes
seamaning
seamanly
seamans
seamen
seamened
seamener
seamenes
seamening
seamenly
seamens
seduceed
seduceer
seducees
seduceing
seducely
seduces
semen
semened
semener
semenes
semening
semenly
semens
shamedame
shamedameed
shamedameer
shamedamees
shamedameing
shamedamely
shamedames
shit
shite
shiteater
shiteatered
shiteaterer
shiteateres
shiteatering
shiteaterly
shiteaters
shited
shiteed
shiteer
shitees
shiteing
shitely
shiter
shites
shitface
shitfaceed
shitfaceer
shitfacees
shitfaceing
shitfacely
shitfaces
shithead
shitheaded
shitheader
shitheades
shitheading
shitheadly
shitheads
shithole
shitholeed
shitholeer
shitholees
shitholeing
shitholely
shitholes
shithouse
shithouseed
shithouseer
shithousees
shithouseing
shithousely
shithouses
shiting
shitly
shits
shitsed
shitser
shitses
shitsing
shitsly
shitss
shitt
shitted
shitteded
shitteder
shittedes
shitteding
shittedly
shitteds
shitter
shittered
shitterer
shitteres
shittering
shitterly
shitters
shittes
shitting
shittly
shitts
shitty
shittyed
shittyer
shittyes
shittying
shittyly
shittys
shiz
shized
shizer
shizes
shizing
shizly
shizs
shooted
shooter
shootes
shooting
shootly
shoots
sissy
sissyed
sissyer
sissyes
sissying
sissyly
sissys
skag
skaged
skager
skages
skaging
skagly
skags
skank
skanked
skanker
skankes
skanking
skankly
skanks
slave
slaveed
slaveer
slavees
slaveing
slavely
slaves
sleaze
sleazeed
sleazeer
sleazees
sleazeing
sleazely
sleazes
sleazy
sleazyed
sleazyer
sleazyes
sleazying
sleazyly
sleazys
slut
slutdumper
slutdumpered
slutdumperer
slutdumperes
slutdumpering
slutdumperly
slutdumpers
sluted
sluter
slutes
sluting
slutkiss
slutkissed
slutkisser
slutkisses
slutkissing
slutkissly
slutkisss
slutly
sluts
slutsed
slutser
slutses
slutsing
slutsly
slutss
smegma
smegmaed
smegmaer
smegmaes
smegmaing
smegmaly
smegmas
smut
smuted
smuter
smutes
smuting
smutly
smuts
smutty
smuttyed
smuttyer
smuttyes
smuttying
smuttyly
smuttys
snatch
snatched
snatcher
snatches
snatching
snatchly
snatchs
sniper
snipered
sniperer
sniperes
snipering
sniperly
snipers
snort
snorted
snorter
snortes
snorting
snortly
snorts
snuff
snuffed
snuffer
snuffes
snuffing
snuffly
snuffs
sodom
sodomed
sodomer
sodomes
sodoming
sodomly
sodoms
spic
spiced
spicer
spices
spicing
spick
spicked
spicker
spickes
spicking
spickly
spicks
spicly
spics
spik
spoof
spoofed
spoofer
spoofes
spoofing
spoofly
spoofs
spooge
spoogeed
spoogeer
spoogees
spoogeing
spoogely
spooges
spunk
spunked
spunker
spunkes
spunking
spunkly
spunks
steamyed
steamyer
steamyes
steamying
steamyly
steamys
stfu
stfued
stfuer
stfues
stfuing
stfuly
stfus
stiffy
stiffyed
stiffyer
stiffyes
stiffying
stiffyly
stiffys
stoneded
stoneder
stonedes
stoneding
stonedly
stoneds
stupided
stupider
stupides
stupiding
stupidly
stupids
suckeded
suckeder
suckedes
suckeding
suckedly
suckeds
sucker
suckes
sucking
suckinged
suckinger
suckinges
suckinging
suckingly
suckings
suckly
sucks
sumofabiatch
sumofabiatched
sumofabiatcher
sumofabiatches
sumofabiatching
sumofabiatchly
sumofabiatchs
tard
tarded
tarder
tardes
tarding
tardly
tards
tawdry
tawdryed
tawdryer
tawdryes
tawdrying
tawdryly
tawdrys
teabagging
teabagginged
teabagginger
teabagginges
teabagginging
teabaggingly
teabaggings
terd
terded
terder
terdes
terding
terdly
terds
teste
testee
testeed
testeeed
testeeer
testeees
testeeing
testeely
testeer
testees
testeing
testely
testes
testesed
testeser
testeses
testesing
testesly
testess
testicle
testicleed
testicleer
testiclees
testicleing
testiclely
testicles
testis
testised
testiser
testises
testising
testisly
testiss
thrusted
thruster
thrustes
thrusting
thrustly
thrusts
thug
thuged
thuger
thuges
thuging
thugly
thugs
tinkle
tinkleed
tinkleer
tinklees
tinkleing
tinklely
tinkles
tit
tited
titer
tites
titfuck
titfucked
titfucker
titfuckes
titfucking
titfuckly
titfucks
titi
titied
titier
tities
titiing
titily
titing
titis
titly
tits
titsed
titser
titses
titsing
titsly
titss
tittiefucker
tittiefuckered
tittiefuckerer
tittiefuckeres
tittiefuckering
tittiefuckerly
tittiefuckers
titties
tittiesed
tittieser
tittieses
tittiesing
tittiesly
tittiess
titty
tittyed
tittyer
tittyes
tittyfuck
tittyfucked
tittyfucker
tittyfuckered
tittyfuckerer
tittyfuckeres
tittyfuckering
tittyfuckerly
tittyfuckers
tittyfuckes
tittyfucking
tittyfuckly
tittyfucks
tittying
tittyly
tittys
toke
tokeed
tokeer
tokees
tokeing
tokely
tokes
toots
tootsed
tootser
tootses
tootsing
tootsly
tootss
tramp
tramped
tramper
trampes
tramping
tramply
tramps
transsexualed
transsexualer
transsexuales
transsexualing
transsexually
transsexuals
trashy
trashyed
trashyer
trashyes
trashying
trashyly
trashys
tubgirl
tubgirled
tubgirler
tubgirles
tubgirling
tubgirlly
tubgirls
turd
turded
turder
turdes
turding
turdly
turds
tush
tushed
tusher
tushes
tushing
tushly
tushs
twat
twated
twater
twates
twating
twatly
twats
twatsed
twatser
twatses
twatsing
twatsly
twatss
undies
undiesed
undieser
undieses
undiesing
undiesly
undiess
unweded
unweder
unwedes
unweding
unwedly
unweds
uzi
uzied
uzier
uzies
uziing
uzily
uzis
vag
vaged
vager
vages
vaging
vagly
vags
valium
valiumed
valiumer
valiumes
valiuming
valiumly
valiums
venous
virgined
virginer
virgines
virgining
virginly
virgins
vixen
vixened
vixener
vixenes
vixening
vixenly
vixens
vodkaed
vodkaer
vodkaes
vodkaing
vodkaly
vodkas
voyeur
voyeured
voyeurer
voyeures
voyeuring
voyeurly
voyeurs
vulgar
vulgared
vulgarer
vulgares
vulgaring
vulgarly
vulgars
wang
wanged
wanger
wanges
wanging
wangly
wangs
wank
wanked
wanker
wankered
wankerer
wankeres
wankering
wankerly
wankers
wankes
wanking
wankly
wanks
wazoo
wazooed
wazooer
wazooes
wazooing
wazooly
wazoos
wedgie
wedgieed
wedgieer
wedgiees
wedgieing
wedgiely
wedgies
weeded
weeder
weedes
weeding
weedly
weeds
weenie
weenieed
weenieer
weeniees
weenieing
weeniely
weenies
weewee
weeweeed
weeweeer
weeweees
weeweeing
weeweely
weewees
weiner
weinered
weinerer
weineres
weinering
weinerly
weiners
weirdo
weirdoed
weirdoer
weirdoes
weirdoing
weirdoly
weirdos
wench
wenched
wencher
wenches
wenching
wenchly
wenchs
wetback
wetbacked
wetbacker
wetbackes
wetbacking
wetbackly
wetbacks
whitey
whiteyed
whiteyer
whiteyes
whiteying
whiteyly
whiteys
whiz
whized
whizer
whizes
whizing
whizly
whizs
whoralicious
whoralicioused
whoraliciouser
whoraliciouses
whoraliciousing
whoraliciously
whoraliciouss
whore
whorealicious
whorealicioused
whorealiciouser
whorealiciouses
whorealiciousing
whorealiciously
whorealiciouss
whored
whoreded
whoreder
whoredes
whoreding
whoredly
whoreds
whoreed
whoreer
whorees
whoreface
whorefaceed
whorefaceer
whorefacees
whorefaceing
whorefacely
whorefaces
whorehopper
whorehoppered
whorehopperer
whorehopperes
whorehoppering
whorehopperly
whorehoppers
whorehouse
whorehouseed
whorehouseer
whorehousees
whorehouseing
whorehousely
whorehouses
whoreing
whorely
whores
whoresed
whoreser
whoreses
whoresing
whoresly
whoress
whoring
whoringed
whoringer
whoringes
whoringing
whoringly
whorings
wigger
wiggered
wiggerer
wiggeres
wiggering
wiggerly
wiggers
woody
woodyed
woodyer
woodyes
woodying
woodyly
woodys
wop
woped
woper
wopes
woping
woply
wops
wtf
wtfed
wtfer
wtfes
wtfing
wtfly
wtfs
xxx
xxxed
xxxer
xxxes
xxxing
xxxly
xxxs
yeasty
yeastyed
yeastyer
yeastyes
yeastying
yeastyly
yeastys
yobbo
yobboed
yobboer
yobboes
yobboing
yobboly
yobbos
zoophile
zoophileed
zoophileer
zoophilees
zoophileing
zoophilely
zoophiles
anal
ass
ass lick
balls
ballsac
bisexual
bleach
causas
cheap
cost of miracles
cunt
display network stats
fart
fda and death
fda AND warn
fda AND warning
fda AND warns
feom
fuck
gfc
humira AND expensive
illegal
madvocate
masturbation
nuccitelli
overdose
porn
shit
snort
texarkana
direct\-acting antivirals
assistance
ombitasvir
support path
harvoni
abbvie
direct-acting antivirals
paritaprevir
advocacy
ledipasvir
vpak
ritonavir with dasabuvir
program
gilead
greedy
financial
needy
fake-ovir
viekira pak
v pak
sofosbuvir
support
oasis
discount
dasabuvir
protest
ritonavir
Negative Keywords Excluded Elements
header[@id='header']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'pane-pub-article-cleveland-clinic')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-pub-home-cleveland-clinic')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-pub-topic-cleveland-clinic')]
div[contains(@class, 'panel-panel-inner')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-node-field-article-topics')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
Altmetric
DSM Affiliated
Display in offset block
Disqus Exclude
Best Practices
CE/CME
Education Center
Medical Education Library
Enable Disqus
Display Author and Disclosure Link
Publication Type
Society
Slot System
Featured Buckets
Disable Sticky Ads
Disable Ad Block Mitigation
Featured Buckets Admin
LayerRx MD-IQ Id
773
Show Ads on this Publication's Homepage
Consolidated Pub
Show Article Page Numbers on TOC
Use larger logo size
Off
publication_blueconic_enabled
Off
Show More Destinations Menu
Disable Adhesion on Publication
Off
Restore Menu Label on Mobile Navigation
Disable Facebook Pixel from Publication
Exclude this publication from publication selection on articles and quiz

Soft-tissue sarcomas: Overview of management, with a focus on surgical treatment considerations

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 10/02/2018 - 11:39
Display Headline
Soft-tissue sarcomas: Overview of management, with a focus on surgical treatment considerations

Soft-tissue sarcomas are tumors of the mesenchymal system, and half develop in the extremities.1 Although patients with soft-tissue sarcomas have been treated with a combination of surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy, it remains unclear whether either radiation or chemotherapy improves outcomes for these patients. Soft-tissue sarcomas are therefore currently treated with surgical resection when possible, with or without chemotherapy or radiation.

Even though multimodal therapy for patients with these tumors is controversial, a multidisciplinary conference among the many providers who may be involved in the management these patients—orthopedic, medical, and radiation oncologists, as well as the referring primary care physician, plastic and reconstructive surgeons, physical therapists, and radiologists and pathologists with expertise in these tumors—is helpful.2 This article presents an overview of the management of these patients, with a focus on the mainstay treatment, surgical resection. The roles of chemotherapy and radiation therapy for soft-tissue sarcomas, while touched upon here, are detailed in the final two articles in this supplement.

HISTOLOGIC GRADING AND THERAPY IMPLICATIONS

The prognosis of soft-tissue sarcomas correlates with histopathologic grade, and a three-grade system appears to be more accurate than a two-grade system.3 In general, low-grade lesions (grade 1) are unlikely to metastasize and are therefore less likely to need treatment with chemotherapy or radiation, as the risks of these therapies would most likely outweigh any benefit in terms of local control.

Specifically, the risk of radiation involves debilitation of local wound healing and the chance of dedifferentiation of low-grade lesions to higher-grade lesions with more metastatic potential. Grade 2 and 3 lesions are usually considered high-grade and are more likely to be treated with radiation and chemotherapy. Radiation is frequently used in patients with high-grade lesions when anticipated margins or actual margins are less than 1 cm.4–6

Chemotherapy’s lack of proven efficacy for soft-tissue sarcomas likely stems from poor understanding of the pathophysiology, molecular biology, and even some aspects of the natural history of these uncommon and heterogeneous tumors. There are more than 50 subtypes of soft-tissue sarcoma,7,8 and this heterogeneity has likely contributed to the difficulty of identifying chemotherapeutic agents that are highly active against these diseases.9

THE ROLE OF FAMILIAL GENETICS

Developing effective chemotherapeutic strategies may depend on grouping soft-tissue sarcomas more homogeneously. To compare like lesions with like lesions, molecular analysis and even molecular signatures may be of assistance. Along these lines, critical mutations and translocations have been described for several soft-tissue sarcoma subtypes.

Li-Fraumeni syndrome is an autosomal dominant cancer predisposition syndrome caused by germline mutations (ie, in every cell) in the p53 gene.10 Patients with Li-Fraumeni syndrome have an increased risk of developing soft-tissue sarcomas.1,11

Neurofibromatosis type 1 is caused by germline mutations in the NF1 gene, and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors occur within neurofibromas in neurofibromatosis patients and typically have additional mutations in CDKN2A or p53.9 INI1 loss is seen in all cases of extrarenal rhabdoid tumors and has been reported in a subset of epithelioid sarcomas (those occurring in proximal/axial regions).9,12 Delineation and greater understanding of these genetic abnormalities may lead to more effective medical therapy.

EVALUATION OF SUSPICIOUS SOFT-TISSUE MASSES

Figure 1. A general step-by-step approach to the patient with a soft-tissue mass suspicious for sarcoma.
Soft-tissue sarcomas occur primarily in adults, and incidence rates rise gradually with age.1 About half of these tumors develop in the extremities (primarily the lower extremities), with the remainder occurring in the retroperitoneum, the trunk, and other less common sites.1

Figure 1 presents in flow chart form our general approach to the evaluation and management of patients with a soft-tissue mass suspicious for sarcoma—an approach detailed in the text below.

History and physical examination

Patients with soft-tissue sarcomas present with a mass that generally is increasing in size. The location and depth of the mass can be assessed on physical examination. In general, the deeper the mass, the more likely it is to be a sarcoma.13 Unlike bone sarcomas, soft-tissue sarcomas frequently are not associated with pain, so lack of pain does not make a mass more likely to be benign. In general, the only way to be sure that a mass is not malignant is to biopsy it. However, there are certain symptoms and signs that make a benign diagnosis much more likely. For example, very soft superficial masses that have not changed in size in years tend to be benign lipomas, and discolored lesions that go away with elevation of the affected body part tend to be hemangiomas.

Magnetic resonance imaging

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the primary imaging method for soft-tissue sarcomas. The benignity of a lesion such as a lipoma or hemangioma may be able to be determined with high certainty on MRI, in which case we call the imaging of the lesion “determinate.” Such lesions with determinate imaging (often referred to as “determinate lesions”) usually do not require a biopsy. However, the nature and identity of most lesions cannot be determined by MRI; although the MRI is still useful to help plan the biopsy in these cases, these lesions are termed “indeterminate” by MRI and should usually be biopsied.

Lesions that can be deemed determinate and usually be diagnosed as benign based on MRI findings include lipomas, hemangiomas, granuloma annulare, and ganglion cysts. However, most other soft-tissue lesions are indeterminate on MRI and, except in rare circumstances, require a biopsy to determine what they are and how they should be treated.

 

 

BIOPSY

The primary biopsy procedures for soft-tissue sarcomas are needle or open biopsy techniques and, in general, are similar to those for bone sarcomas, as reviewed in the previous article in this supplement. Regardless of the biopsy technique, hemostasis must be meticulous and patients are generally advised to not use the affected limb for at least several days after the biopsy to reduce the risk of a cancer cell–laden hematoma. It is preferable for the biopsy to be performed by or in consultation with the surgeon who will do the resection, if required.

Avoid transverse incisions

Figure 2. (A) Transverse incision for a biopsy of a soft-tissue sarcoma and (B) the subsequent resection of the biopsy tract required as a result of this transverse incision. Contrast this with the minimal additional soft-tissue resection that will be required with a properly performed needle biopsy (C).
Transverse incisions require that substantially more tissue be resected with removal of the biopsy tract (Figure 2, A and B) and should therefore be avoided. In general, small longitudinal incisions with no drains should be used if open biopsies are performed, and we prefer needle biopsies because much less tissue must be taken with the biopsy tract (Figure 2C).

Lymph node biopsies

Lymph node biopsies are not generally indicated in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma. However, lymph node assessment and management should be considered in cases of clear cell sarcoma, epithelioid sarcoma, angiosarcoma, and embryonal/alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma, each of which has a greater than 10% incidence of lymph node metastasis.14 In this subset of soft-tissue sarcomas, a 5-year survival rate of 46% has been reported with therapeutic lymphadenectomy with curative intent versus nearly 0% with no lymphadenectomy or noncurative lymphadenectomy.14

Our approach in these sarcomas that go to the lymph nodes with increased relative frequency has been to first resect the sarcoma and then, after the margin is determined to be negative on the permanent pathology report, to schedule a nuclear medicine radiotracer study to analyze the drainage of the surgical bed. With this information we take the patient to the operating room and assess the location of the sentinel node (ie, node with the highest level of activity) through the skin using a radioactive counter with a sterile probe. We then make an incision in this area and find the lymph node. Upon removal of the “hot” lymph node, we reassess the radioactivity of the resected node and its node bed to be sure that we have the sentinel node. If this node or any node in the dissection has tumor in it, we do a therapeutic lymphadenectomy to remove all the lymph nodes in the area. For example, in the lower leg the lymphatic drainage is to the popliteal area, the inguinal area, or both. In the lower arm the lymphatic drainage is to the epitrochlear area and the axilla.

RESECTION

The resection surgery involves careful preoperative planning, almost always with an MRI and subsequent review by musculoskeletal tumor radiologists. In the operating room, general anesthesia is preferred to avoid ineffective blocks or overly effective blocks, which prevent neurologic examination immediately after the operation. If the functional loss is not too great, resection of the entire muscle or muscles involved is performed. If neurovascular structures are not encased (ie, not more than 50% surrounded in the case of arteries or motor nerves), then these structures are spared. If arteries are encased, the vessels are bypassed and the encased structure is left with the resection specimen. If the tumor is adjacent to but not encasing the neurovascular structures, the best course is to discuss with the radiation oncology team whether they prefer preoperative or postoperative radiation therapy. In general, for a high-grade lesion with adjacent neurovascular structues and no plane between the tumor and these structures, we ask our radiation oncologist colleagues to see the patient and discuss preoperative or perioperative (brachytherapy) radiation therapy. Postoperatively, where there is less than a 1-cm margin with no fascial boundary, we generally recommend radiation.

Margins

In our experience, margins of 1 cm or greater or resections with a fascial boundary are adequate and will leave patients with a much lower than 10% risk of recurrence. Others have postulated that margins that are smaller than this can have a very low rate of recurrence if perioperative (preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative) radiation is given (personal communication from Drs. Jeffrey Eckardt and Dempsey Springfield). However, no well-controlled study has demonstrated how close the margin can be while still achieving an acceptable recurrence rate, and such a study would be very hard to perform given the rarity and heterogeneity of soft-tissue sarcomas and the variability in their assessment and surgical treatment.

Intralesional surgery leads to recurrence

Intralesional surgery will always lead to recurrence if the lesion is truly a soft-tissue sarcoma, even in spite of radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or both. Myomectomy and compartmental resections are frequently necessary to achieve a negative margin (normal tissue around the entire resection specimen). If intralesional surgery has been performed at an outside institution, we have generally recommended resection of the tumor bed, and in our experience this has reduced the recurrence rate after intralesional surgery to levels near those obtained when we perform the biopsy. In our experience, intralesional surgery without tumor bed resection will result in recurrence in nearly every case.

Reconstruction

Postoperative reconstruction of the defect involves closure of the fascia and skin with minimal tension, if possible. If there is tension, a vacuum-assisted closure dressing is placed on the wound and the patient returns for definitive closure, usually with a muscle flap. If the flap is a straightforward rotational flap, such as a medial gastrocnemius, or if only a split-thickness skin graft is required because there is healthy muscle in the floor of the open wound, this can be performed by experienced orthopedic surgeons. If these straightforward solutions are not possible, consultation with plastic surgeons is required, and they will cover the area with a complex rotational flap or, occasionally, with a free flap. For split-thickness skin grafts, it is prudent to make certain that the width of a #15 knife blade can pass between the blade and the housing of the Padgett dermatome and to take the skin from the extremity ipsilateral to the sarcoma (even with negative margins) to ensure that skin will not be contaminated with errant sarcoma cells.

Reconstruction following sarcoma resection is discussed in further detail in the next article in this supplement.

OUTCOMES AND FOLLOW-UP

The recurrence rate for soft-tissue sarcomas resected at Cleveland Clinic over the past 15 years has been less than 10%. This rate is comparable to the rates at other institutions that perform a high volume of sarcoma resections, but at institutions without a group dedicated to these procedures or without substantial experience in them, the recurrence rate is much higher, particularly with positive margins.15

Cure for soft-tissue sarcomas depends on being disease-free not only locally but also systemically. Most metastases from soft-tissue sarcomas are to the lung and, less commonly (as noted above), the lymph nodes. We assess local recurrence and metastatic disease at 3-month intervals for the first 2 years. Among patients who are disease-free at 2 years after the definitive surgery, the cure rate is 80% to 85%. After 2 years, we assess patients for presence of disease at 6-month intervals for the next 3 years and at yearly intervals thereafter.

Patients who have a recurrence are at increased risk for metastatic disease, and it is often very hard to achieve local control, as these patients frequently have had tumor contamination of the wound. At that point, unless the entire wound is excised or an amputation is performed, recurrences will continue. A nomogram has been validated for evaluating 10-year soft-tissue sarcoma–specific survival16 and is freely available at www.nomograms.org.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Future research challenges in this area include breaking down soft-tissue sarcoma subgroups more homogeneously, possibly with genetic markers, to better determine which lesions might benefit from chemotherapy. The goal of improved subtyping is to decrease the metastatic rate of soft-tissue sarcomas in much the same manner that directed chemotherapy has improved the metastasis and cure rates for patients with Ewing sarcoma and osteosarcoma.

References
  1. Simon MA, Springfield D, eds. Surgery for Bone and Soft-tissue Tumors. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1998.
  2. Glencross J, Balasubramanian SP, Bacon J, Robinson MH, Reed MW. An audit of the management of soft tissue sarcoma within a health region in the UK. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003; 29:670–675.
  3. Kandel RA, Bell RS, Wunder JS, et al. Comparison between a 2- and 3-grade system in predicting metastatic-free survival in extremity soft-tissue sarcoma. J Surg Oncol 1999; 72:77–82.
  4. Suit HD, Spiro I. Role of radiation in the management of adult patients with sarcoma of soft tissue. Semin Surg Oncol 1994; 10:347–356.
  5. Suit H, Spiro I. Preoperative radiation therapy for patients with sarcoma of the soft tissues. Cancer Treat Res 1993; 67:99–105.
  6. Suit HD, Mankin HJ, Wood WC, et al. Treatment of the patient with stage M0 soft tissue sarcoma. J Clin Oncol 1988; 6:854–862.
  7. Fletcher CDM, Unni KK, Mertens F. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of Soft Tissue and Bone. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2002.
  8. Brennan MF, Singer S, Maki RG, O’Sullivan B. Sarcomas of the soft tissue and bone. In: DeVita Jr VT, Lawrence TS, Rosenbert SA, eds. Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology. 8th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
  9. Weiss SW, Goldblum JR. Enzinger and Weiss’s Soft Tissue Tumors. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby Elsevier; 2008.
  10. Gonzalez KD, Buzin CH, Noltner KA, et al. High frequency of de novo mutations in Li-Fraumeni syndrome. J Med Genet 2009; 46:689–693.
  11. Gonzalez KD, Noltner KA, Buzin CH, et al. Beyond Li Fraumeni syndrome: clinical characteristics of families with p53 germline mutations. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:1250–1256.
  12. Modena P, Lualdi E, Facchinetti F, et al. SMARCB1/INI1 tumor suppressor gene is frequently inactivated in epithelioid sarcomas. Cancer Res 2005; 65:4012–4019.
  13. Peabody TD, Simon MA. Principles of staging of soft-tissue sarcomas. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993; 289:19–31.
  14. Fong Y, Coit DG, Woodruff JM, Brennan MF. Lymph node metastasis from soft tissue sarcoma in adults: analysis of data from a prospective database of 1,772 sarcoma patients. Ann Surg 1993; 217:72–77.
  15. Potter BK, Adams SC, Pitcher JD Jr, Temple HT. Local recurrence of disease after unplanned excisions of high-grade soft tissue sarcomas. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008; 466:3093–3100.
  16. Mariani L, Miceli R, Kattan MW, et al. Validation and adaptation of a nomogram for predicting the survival of patients with extremity soft tissue sarcoma using a three-grade system. Cancer 2005; 103:402–408.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Steven A. Lietman, MD
Director, Musculoskeletal Tumor Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, and Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Correspondence: Steven A. Lietman, MD, Director, Musculoskeletal Tumor Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A41, Cleveland, OH 44195; [email protected]

Acknowledgment: Ken Marks, MD, provided the biopsy figures and helpful guidance.

Dr. Lietman reported that he has no financial interests or relationships that pose a potential conflict of interest with this article.

Publications
Page Number
S13-S17
Author and Disclosure Information

Steven A. Lietman, MD
Director, Musculoskeletal Tumor Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, and Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Correspondence: Steven A. Lietman, MD, Director, Musculoskeletal Tumor Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A41, Cleveland, OH 44195; [email protected]

Acknowledgment: Ken Marks, MD, provided the biopsy figures and helpful guidance.

Dr. Lietman reported that he has no financial interests or relationships that pose a potential conflict of interest with this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Steven A. Lietman, MD
Director, Musculoskeletal Tumor Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, and Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Correspondence: Steven A. Lietman, MD, Director, Musculoskeletal Tumor Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A41, Cleveland, OH 44195; [email protected]

Acknowledgment: Ken Marks, MD, provided the biopsy figures and helpful guidance.

Dr. Lietman reported that he has no financial interests or relationships that pose a potential conflict of interest with this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

Soft-tissue sarcomas are tumors of the mesenchymal system, and half develop in the extremities.1 Although patients with soft-tissue sarcomas have been treated with a combination of surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy, it remains unclear whether either radiation or chemotherapy improves outcomes for these patients. Soft-tissue sarcomas are therefore currently treated with surgical resection when possible, with or without chemotherapy or radiation.

Even though multimodal therapy for patients with these tumors is controversial, a multidisciplinary conference among the many providers who may be involved in the management these patients—orthopedic, medical, and radiation oncologists, as well as the referring primary care physician, plastic and reconstructive surgeons, physical therapists, and radiologists and pathologists with expertise in these tumors—is helpful.2 This article presents an overview of the management of these patients, with a focus on the mainstay treatment, surgical resection. The roles of chemotherapy and radiation therapy for soft-tissue sarcomas, while touched upon here, are detailed in the final two articles in this supplement.

HISTOLOGIC GRADING AND THERAPY IMPLICATIONS

The prognosis of soft-tissue sarcomas correlates with histopathologic grade, and a three-grade system appears to be more accurate than a two-grade system.3 In general, low-grade lesions (grade 1) are unlikely to metastasize and are therefore less likely to need treatment with chemotherapy or radiation, as the risks of these therapies would most likely outweigh any benefit in terms of local control.

Specifically, the risk of radiation involves debilitation of local wound healing and the chance of dedifferentiation of low-grade lesions to higher-grade lesions with more metastatic potential. Grade 2 and 3 lesions are usually considered high-grade and are more likely to be treated with radiation and chemotherapy. Radiation is frequently used in patients with high-grade lesions when anticipated margins or actual margins are less than 1 cm.4–6

Chemotherapy’s lack of proven efficacy for soft-tissue sarcomas likely stems from poor understanding of the pathophysiology, molecular biology, and even some aspects of the natural history of these uncommon and heterogeneous tumors. There are more than 50 subtypes of soft-tissue sarcoma,7,8 and this heterogeneity has likely contributed to the difficulty of identifying chemotherapeutic agents that are highly active against these diseases.9

THE ROLE OF FAMILIAL GENETICS

Developing effective chemotherapeutic strategies may depend on grouping soft-tissue sarcomas more homogeneously. To compare like lesions with like lesions, molecular analysis and even molecular signatures may be of assistance. Along these lines, critical mutations and translocations have been described for several soft-tissue sarcoma subtypes.

Li-Fraumeni syndrome is an autosomal dominant cancer predisposition syndrome caused by germline mutations (ie, in every cell) in the p53 gene.10 Patients with Li-Fraumeni syndrome have an increased risk of developing soft-tissue sarcomas.1,11

Neurofibromatosis type 1 is caused by germline mutations in the NF1 gene, and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors occur within neurofibromas in neurofibromatosis patients and typically have additional mutations in CDKN2A or p53.9 INI1 loss is seen in all cases of extrarenal rhabdoid tumors and has been reported in a subset of epithelioid sarcomas (those occurring in proximal/axial regions).9,12 Delineation and greater understanding of these genetic abnormalities may lead to more effective medical therapy.

EVALUATION OF SUSPICIOUS SOFT-TISSUE MASSES

Figure 1. A general step-by-step approach to the patient with a soft-tissue mass suspicious for sarcoma.
Soft-tissue sarcomas occur primarily in adults, and incidence rates rise gradually with age.1 About half of these tumors develop in the extremities (primarily the lower extremities), with the remainder occurring in the retroperitoneum, the trunk, and other less common sites.1

Figure 1 presents in flow chart form our general approach to the evaluation and management of patients with a soft-tissue mass suspicious for sarcoma—an approach detailed in the text below.

History and physical examination

Patients with soft-tissue sarcomas present with a mass that generally is increasing in size. The location and depth of the mass can be assessed on physical examination. In general, the deeper the mass, the more likely it is to be a sarcoma.13 Unlike bone sarcomas, soft-tissue sarcomas frequently are not associated with pain, so lack of pain does not make a mass more likely to be benign. In general, the only way to be sure that a mass is not malignant is to biopsy it. However, there are certain symptoms and signs that make a benign diagnosis much more likely. For example, very soft superficial masses that have not changed in size in years tend to be benign lipomas, and discolored lesions that go away with elevation of the affected body part tend to be hemangiomas.

Magnetic resonance imaging

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the primary imaging method for soft-tissue sarcomas. The benignity of a lesion such as a lipoma or hemangioma may be able to be determined with high certainty on MRI, in which case we call the imaging of the lesion “determinate.” Such lesions with determinate imaging (often referred to as “determinate lesions”) usually do not require a biopsy. However, the nature and identity of most lesions cannot be determined by MRI; although the MRI is still useful to help plan the biopsy in these cases, these lesions are termed “indeterminate” by MRI and should usually be biopsied.

Lesions that can be deemed determinate and usually be diagnosed as benign based on MRI findings include lipomas, hemangiomas, granuloma annulare, and ganglion cysts. However, most other soft-tissue lesions are indeterminate on MRI and, except in rare circumstances, require a biopsy to determine what they are and how they should be treated.

 

 

BIOPSY

The primary biopsy procedures for soft-tissue sarcomas are needle or open biopsy techniques and, in general, are similar to those for bone sarcomas, as reviewed in the previous article in this supplement. Regardless of the biopsy technique, hemostasis must be meticulous and patients are generally advised to not use the affected limb for at least several days after the biopsy to reduce the risk of a cancer cell–laden hematoma. It is preferable for the biopsy to be performed by or in consultation with the surgeon who will do the resection, if required.

Avoid transverse incisions

Figure 2. (A) Transverse incision for a biopsy of a soft-tissue sarcoma and (B) the subsequent resection of the biopsy tract required as a result of this transverse incision. Contrast this with the minimal additional soft-tissue resection that will be required with a properly performed needle biopsy (C).
Transverse incisions require that substantially more tissue be resected with removal of the biopsy tract (Figure 2, A and B) and should therefore be avoided. In general, small longitudinal incisions with no drains should be used if open biopsies are performed, and we prefer needle biopsies because much less tissue must be taken with the biopsy tract (Figure 2C).

Lymph node biopsies

Lymph node biopsies are not generally indicated in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma. However, lymph node assessment and management should be considered in cases of clear cell sarcoma, epithelioid sarcoma, angiosarcoma, and embryonal/alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma, each of which has a greater than 10% incidence of lymph node metastasis.14 In this subset of soft-tissue sarcomas, a 5-year survival rate of 46% has been reported with therapeutic lymphadenectomy with curative intent versus nearly 0% with no lymphadenectomy or noncurative lymphadenectomy.14

Our approach in these sarcomas that go to the lymph nodes with increased relative frequency has been to first resect the sarcoma and then, after the margin is determined to be negative on the permanent pathology report, to schedule a nuclear medicine radiotracer study to analyze the drainage of the surgical bed. With this information we take the patient to the operating room and assess the location of the sentinel node (ie, node with the highest level of activity) through the skin using a radioactive counter with a sterile probe. We then make an incision in this area and find the lymph node. Upon removal of the “hot” lymph node, we reassess the radioactivity of the resected node and its node bed to be sure that we have the sentinel node. If this node or any node in the dissection has tumor in it, we do a therapeutic lymphadenectomy to remove all the lymph nodes in the area. For example, in the lower leg the lymphatic drainage is to the popliteal area, the inguinal area, or both. In the lower arm the lymphatic drainage is to the epitrochlear area and the axilla.

RESECTION

The resection surgery involves careful preoperative planning, almost always with an MRI and subsequent review by musculoskeletal tumor radiologists. In the operating room, general anesthesia is preferred to avoid ineffective blocks or overly effective blocks, which prevent neurologic examination immediately after the operation. If the functional loss is not too great, resection of the entire muscle or muscles involved is performed. If neurovascular structures are not encased (ie, not more than 50% surrounded in the case of arteries or motor nerves), then these structures are spared. If arteries are encased, the vessels are bypassed and the encased structure is left with the resection specimen. If the tumor is adjacent to but not encasing the neurovascular structures, the best course is to discuss with the radiation oncology team whether they prefer preoperative or postoperative radiation therapy. In general, for a high-grade lesion with adjacent neurovascular structues and no plane between the tumor and these structures, we ask our radiation oncologist colleagues to see the patient and discuss preoperative or perioperative (brachytherapy) radiation therapy. Postoperatively, where there is less than a 1-cm margin with no fascial boundary, we generally recommend radiation.

Margins

In our experience, margins of 1 cm or greater or resections with a fascial boundary are adequate and will leave patients with a much lower than 10% risk of recurrence. Others have postulated that margins that are smaller than this can have a very low rate of recurrence if perioperative (preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative) radiation is given (personal communication from Drs. Jeffrey Eckardt and Dempsey Springfield). However, no well-controlled study has demonstrated how close the margin can be while still achieving an acceptable recurrence rate, and such a study would be very hard to perform given the rarity and heterogeneity of soft-tissue sarcomas and the variability in their assessment and surgical treatment.

Intralesional surgery leads to recurrence

Intralesional surgery will always lead to recurrence if the lesion is truly a soft-tissue sarcoma, even in spite of radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or both. Myomectomy and compartmental resections are frequently necessary to achieve a negative margin (normal tissue around the entire resection specimen). If intralesional surgery has been performed at an outside institution, we have generally recommended resection of the tumor bed, and in our experience this has reduced the recurrence rate after intralesional surgery to levels near those obtained when we perform the biopsy. In our experience, intralesional surgery without tumor bed resection will result in recurrence in nearly every case.

Reconstruction

Postoperative reconstruction of the defect involves closure of the fascia and skin with minimal tension, if possible. If there is tension, a vacuum-assisted closure dressing is placed on the wound and the patient returns for definitive closure, usually with a muscle flap. If the flap is a straightforward rotational flap, such as a medial gastrocnemius, or if only a split-thickness skin graft is required because there is healthy muscle in the floor of the open wound, this can be performed by experienced orthopedic surgeons. If these straightforward solutions are not possible, consultation with plastic surgeons is required, and they will cover the area with a complex rotational flap or, occasionally, with a free flap. For split-thickness skin grafts, it is prudent to make certain that the width of a #15 knife blade can pass between the blade and the housing of the Padgett dermatome and to take the skin from the extremity ipsilateral to the sarcoma (even with negative margins) to ensure that skin will not be contaminated with errant sarcoma cells.

Reconstruction following sarcoma resection is discussed in further detail in the next article in this supplement.

OUTCOMES AND FOLLOW-UP

The recurrence rate for soft-tissue sarcomas resected at Cleveland Clinic over the past 15 years has been less than 10%. This rate is comparable to the rates at other institutions that perform a high volume of sarcoma resections, but at institutions without a group dedicated to these procedures or without substantial experience in them, the recurrence rate is much higher, particularly with positive margins.15

Cure for soft-tissue sarcomas depends on being disease-free not only locally but also systemically. Most metastases from soft-tissue sarcomas are to the lung and, less commonly (as noted above), the lymph nodes. We assess local recurrence and metastatic disease at 3-month intervals for the first 2 years. Among patients who are disease-free at 2 years after the definitive surgery, the cure rate is 80% to 85%. After 2 years, we assess patients for presence of disease at 6-month intervals for the next 3 years and at yearly intervals thereafter.

Patients who have a recurrence are at increased risk for metastatic disease, and it is often very hard to achieve local control, as these patients frequently have had tumor contamination of the wound. At that point, unless the entire wound is excised or an amputation is performed, recurrences will continue. A nomogram has been validated for evaluating 10-year soft-tissue sarcoma–specific survival16 and is freely available at www.nomograms.org.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Future research challenges in this area include breaking down soft-tissue sarcoma subgroups more homogeneously, possibly with genetic markers, to better determine which lesions might benefit from chemotherapy. The goal of improved subtyping is to decrease the metastatic rate of soft-tissue sarcomas in much the same manner that directed chemotherapy has improved the metastasis and cure rates for patients with Ewing sarcoma and osteosarcoma.

Soft-tissue sarcomas are tumors of the mesenchymal system, and half develop in the extremities.1 Although patients with soft-tissue sarcomas have been treated with a combination of surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy, it remains unclear whether either radiation or chemotherapy improves outcomes for these patients. Soft-tissue sarcomas are therefore currently treated with surgical resection when possible, with or without chemotherapy or radiation.

Even though multimodal therapy for patients with these tumors is controversial, a multidisciplinary conference among the many providers who may be involved in the management these patients—orthopedic, medical, and radiation oncologists, as well as the referring primary care physician, plastic and reconstructive surgeons, physical therapists, and radiologists and pathologists with expertise in these tumors—is helpful.2 This article presents an overview of the management of these patients, with a focus on the mainstay treatment, surgical resection. The roles of chemotherapy and radiation therapy for soft-tissue sarcomas, while touched upon here, are detailed in the final two articles in this supplement.

HISTOLOGIC GRADING AND THERAPY IMPLICATIONS

The prognosis of soft-tissue sarcomas correlates with histopathologic grade, and a three-grade system appears to be more accurate than a two-grade system.3 In general, low-grade lesions (grade 1) are unlikely to metastasize and are therefore less likely to need treatment with chemotherapy or radiation, as the risks of these therapies would most likely outweigh any benefit in terms of local control.

Specifically, the risk of radiation involves debilitation of local wound healing and the chance of dedifferentiation of low-grade lesions to higher-grade lesions with more metastatic potential. Grade 2 and 3 lesions are usually considered high-grade and are more likely to be treated with radiation and chemotherapy. Radiation is frequently used in patients with high-grade lesions when anticipated margins or actual margins are less than 1 cm.4–6

Chemotherapy’s lack of proven efficacy for soft-tissue sarcomas likely stems from poor understanding of the pathophysiology, molecular biology, and even some aspects of the natural history of these uncommon and heterogeneous tumors. There are more than 50 subtypes of soft-tissue sarcoma,7,8 and this heterogeneity has likely contributed to the difficulty of identifying chemotherapeutic agents that are highly active against these diseases.9

THE ROLE OF FAMILIAL GENETICS

Developing effective chemotherapeutic strategies may depend on grouping soft-tissue sarcomas more homogeneously. To compare like lesions with like lesions, molecular analysis and even molecular signatures may be of assistance. Along these lines, critical mutations and translocations have been described for several soft-tissue sarcoma subtypes.

Li-Fraumeni syndrome is an autosomal dominant cancer predisposition syndrome caused by germline mutations (ie, in every cell) in the p53 gene.10 Patients with Li-Fraumeni syndrome have an increased risk of developing soft-tissue sarcomas.1,11

Neurofibromatosis type 1 is caused by germline mutations in the NF1 gene, and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors occur within neurofibromas in neurofibromatosis patients and typically have additional mutations in CDKN2A or p53.9 INI1 loss is seen in all cases of extrarenal rhabdoid tumors and has been reported in a subset of epithelioid sarcomas (those occurring in proximal/axial regions).9,12 Delineation and greater understanding of these genetic abnormalities may lead to more effective medical therapy.

EVALUATION OF SUSPICIOUS SOFT-TISSUE MASSES

Figure 1. A general step-by-step approach to the patient with a soft-tissue mass suspicious for sarcoma.
Soft-tissue sarcomas occur primarily in adults, and incidence rates rise gradually with age.1 About half of these tumors develop in the extremities (primarily the lower extremities), with the remainder occurring in the retroperitoneum, the trunk, and other less common sites.1

Figure 1 presents in flow chart form our general approach to the evaluation and management of patients with a soft-tissue mass suspicious for sarcoma—an approach detailed in the text below.

History and physical examination

Patients with soft-tissue sarcomas present with a mass that generally is increasing in size. The location and depth of the mass can be assessed on physical examination. In general, the deeper the mass, the more likely it is to be a sarcoma.13 Unlike bone sarcomas, soft-tissue sarcomas frequently are not associated with pain, so lack of pain does not make a mass more likely to be benign. In general, the only way to be sure that a mass is not malignant is to biopsy it. However, there are certain symptoms and signs that make a benign diagnosis much more likely. For example, very soft superficial masses that have not changed in size in years tend to be benign lipomas, and discolored lesions that go away with elevation of the affected body part tend to be hemangiomas.

Magnetic resonance imaging

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the primary imaging method for soft-tissue sarcomas. The benignity of a lesion such as a lipoma or hemangioma may be able to be determined with high certainty on MRI, in which case we call the imaging of the lesion “determinate.” Such lesions with determinate imaging (often referred to as “determinate lesions”) usually do not require a biopsy. However, the nature and identity of most lesions cannot be determined by MRI; although the MRI is still useful to help plan the biopsy in these cases, these lesions are termed “indeterminate” by MRI and should usually be biopsied.

Lesions that can be deemed determinate and usually be diagnosed as benign based on MRI findings include lipomas, hemangiomas, granuloma annulare, and ganglion cysts. However, most other soft-tissue lesions are indeterminate on MRI and, except in rare circumstances, require a biopsy to determine what they are and how they should be treated.

 

 

BIOPSY

The primary biopsy procedures for soft-tissue sarcomas are needle or open biopsy techniques and, in general, are similar to those for bone sarcomas, as reviewed in the previous article in this supplement. Regardless of the biopsy technique, hemostasis must be meticulous and patients are generally advised to not use the affected limb for at least several days after the biopsy to reduce the risk of a cancer cell–laden hematoma. It is preferable for the biopsy to be performed by or in consultation with the surgeon who will do the resection, if required.

Avoid transverse incisions

Figure 2. (A) Transverse incision for a biopsy of a soft-tissue sarcoma and (B) the subsequent resection of the biopsy tract required as a result of this transverse incision. Contrast this with the minimal additional soft-tissue resection that will be required with a properly performed needle biopsy (C).
Transverse incisions require that substantially more tissue be resected with removal of the biopsy tract (Figure 2, A and B) and should therefore be avoided. In general, small longitudinal incisions with no drains should be used if open biopsies are performed, and we prefer needle biopsies because much less tissue must be taken with the biopsy tract (Figure 2C).

Lymph node biopsies

Lymph node biopsies are not generally indicated in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma. However, lymph node assessment and management should be considered in cases of clear cell sarcoma, epithelioid sarcoma, angiosarcoma, and embryonal/alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma, each of which has a greater than 10% incidence of lymph node metastasis.14 In this subset of soft-tissue sarcomas, a 5-year survival rate of 46% has been reported with therapeutic lymphadenectomy with curative intent versus nearly 0% with no lymphadenectomy or noncurative lymphadenectomy.14

Our approach in these sarcomas that go to the lymph nodes with increased relative frequency has been to first resect the sarcoma and then, after the margin is determined to be negative on the permanent pathology report, to schedule a nuclear medicine radiotracer study to analyze the drainage of the surgical bed. With this information we take the patient to the operating room and assess the location of the sentinel node (ie, node with the highest level of activity) through the skin using a radioactive counter with a sterile probe. We then make an incision in this area and find the lymph node. Upon removal of the “hot” lymph node, we reassess the radioactivity of the resected node and its node bed to be sure that we have the sentinel node. If this node or any node in the dissection has tumor in it, we do a therapeutic lymphadenectomy to remove all the lymph nodes in the area. For example, in the lower leg the lymphatic drainage is to the popliteal area, the inguinal area, or both. In the lower arm the lymphatic drainage is to the epitrochlear area and the axilla.

RESECTION

The resection surgery involves careful preoperative planning, almost always with an MRI and subsequent review by musculoskeletal tumor radiologists. In the operating room, general anesthesia is preferred to avoid ineffective blocks or overly effective blocks, which prevent neurologic examination immediately after the operation. If the functional loss is not too great, resection of the entire muscle or muscles involved is performed. If neurovascular structures are not encased (ie, not more than 50% surrounded in the case of arteries or motor nerves), then these structures are spared. If arteries are encased, the vessels are bypassed and the encased structure is left with the resection specimen. If the tumor is adjacent to but not encasing the neurovascular structures, the best course is to discuss with the radiation oncology team whether they prefer preoperative or postoperative radiation therapy. In general, for a high-grade lesion with adjacent neurovascular structues and no plane between the tumor and these structures, we ask our radiation oncologist colleagues to see the patient and discuss preoperative or perioperative (brachytherapy) radiation therapy. Postoperatively, where there is less than a 1-cm margin with no fascial boundary, we generally recommend radiation.

Margins

In our experience, margins of 1 cm or greater or resections with a fascial boundary are adequate and will leave patients with a much lower than 10% risk of recurrence. Others have postulated that margins that are smaller than this can have a very low rate of recurrence if perioperative (preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative) radiation is given (personal communication from Drs. Jeffrey Eckardt and Dempsey Springfield). However, no well-controlled study has demonstrated how close the margin can be while still achieving an acceptable recurrence rate, and such a study would be very hard to perform given the rarity and heterogeneity of soft-tissue sarcomas and the variability in their assessment and surgical treatment.

Intralesional surgery leads to recurrence

Intralesional surgery will always lead to recurrence if the lesion is truly a soft-tissue sarcoma, even in spite of radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or both. Myomectomy and compartmental resections are frequently necessary to achieve a negative margin (normal tissue around the entire resection specimen). If intralesional surgery has been performed at an outside institution, we have generally recommended resection of the tumor bed, and in our experience this has reduced the recurrence rate after intralesional surgery to levels near those obtained when we perform the biopsy. In our experience, intralesional surgery without tumor bed resection will result in recurrence in nearly every case.

Reconstruction

Postoperative reconstruction of the defect involves closure of the fascia and skin with minimal tension, if possible. If there is tension, a vacuum-assisted closure dressing is placed on the wound and the patient returns for definitive closure, usually with a muscle flap. If the flap is a straightforward rotational flap, such as a medial gastrocnemius, or if only a split-thickness skin graft is required because there is healthy muscle in the floor of the open wound, this can be performed by experienced orthopedic surgeons. If these straightforward solutions are not possible, consultation with plastic surgeons is required, and they will cover the area with a complex rotational flap or, occasionally, with a free flap. For split-thickness skin grafts, it is prudent to make certain that the width of a #15 knife blade can pass between the blade and the housing of the Padgett dermatome and to take the skin from the extremity ipsilateral to the sarcoma (even with negative margins) to ensure that skin will not be contaminated with errant sarcoma cells.

Reconstruction following sarcoma resection is discussed in further detail in the next article in this supplement.

OUTCOMES AND FOLLOW-UP

The recurrence rate for soft-tissue sarcomas resected at Cleveland Clinic over the past 15 years has been less than 10%. This rate is comparable to the rates at other institutions that perform a high volume of sarcoma resections, but at institutions without a group dedicated to these procedures or without substantial experience in them, the recurrence rate is much higher, particularly with positive margins.15

Cure for soft-tissue sarcomas depends on being disease-free not only locally but also systemically. Most metastases from soft-tissue sarcomas are to the lung and, less commonly (as noted above), the lymph nodes. We assess local recurrence and metastatic disease at 3-month intervals for the first 2 years. Among patients who are disease-free at 2 years after the definitive surgery, the cure rate is 80% to 85%. After 2 years, we assess patients for presence of disease at 6-month intervals for the next 3 years and at yearly intervals thereafter.

Patients who have a recurrence are at increased risk for metastatic disease, and it is often very hard to achieve local control, as these patients frequently have had tumor contamination of the wound. At that point, unless the entire wound is excised or an amputation is performed, recurrences will continue. A nomogram has been validated for evaluating 10-year soft-tissue sarcoma–specific survival16 and is freely available at www.nomograms.org.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Future research challenges in this area include breaking down soft-tissue sarcoma subgroups more homogeneously, possibly with genetic markers, to better determine which lesions might benefit from chemotherapy. The goal of improved subtyping is to decrease the metastatic rate of soft-tissue sarcomas in much the same manner that directed chemotherapy has improved the metastasis and cure rates for patients with Ewing sarcoma and osteosarcoma.

References
  1. Simon MA, Springfield D, eds. Surgery for Bone and Soft-tissue Tumors. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1998.
  2. Glencross J, Balasubramanian SP, Bacon J, Robinson MH, Reed MW. An audit of the management of soft tissue sarcoma within a health region in the UK. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003; 29:670–675.
  3. Kandel RA, Bell RS, Wunder JS, et al. Comparison between a 2- and 3-grade system in predicting metastatic-free survival in extremity soft-tissue sarcoma. J Surg Oncol 1999; 72:77–82.
  4. Suit HD, Spiro I. Role of radiation in the management of adult patients with sarcoma of soft tissue. Semin Surg Oncol 1994; 10:347–356.
  5. Suit H, Spiro I. Preoperative radiation therapy for patients with sarcoma of the soft tissues. Cancer Treat Res 1993; 67:99–105.
  6. Suit HD, Mankin HJ, Wood WC, et al. Treatment of the patient with stage M0 soft tissue sarcoma. J Clin Oncol 1988; 6:854–862.
  7. Fletcher CDM, Unni KK, Mertens F. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of Soft Tissue and Bone. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2002.
  8. Brennan MF, Singer S, Maki RG, O’Sullivan B. Sarcomas of the soft tissue and bone. In: DeVita Jr VT, Lawrence TS, Rosenbert SA, eds. Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology. 8th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
  9. Weiss SW, Goldblum JR. Enzinger and Weiss’s Soft Tissue Tumors. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby Elsevier; 2008.
  10. Gonzalez KD, Buzin CH, Noltner KA, et al. High frequency of de novo mutations in Li-Fraumeni syndrome. J Med Genet 2009; 46:689–693.
  11. Gonzalez KD, Noltner KA, Buzin CH, et al. Beyond Li Fraumeni syndrome: clinical characteristics of families with p53 germline mutations. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:1250–1256.
  12. Modena P, Lualdi E, Facchinetti F, et al. SMARCB1/INI1 tumor suppressor gene is frequently inactivated in epithelioid sarcomas. Cancer Res 2005; 65:4012–4019.
  13. Peabody TD, Simon MA. Principles of staging of soft-tissue sarcomas. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993; 289:19–31.
  14. Fong Y, Coit DG, Woodruff JM, Brennan MF. Lymph node metastasis from soft tissue sarcoma in adults: analysis of data from a prospective database of 1,772 sarcoma patients. Ann Surg 1993; 217:72–77.
  15. Potter BK, Adams SC, Pitcher JD Jr, Temple HT. Local recurrence of disease after unplanned excisions of high-grade soft tissue sarcomas. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008; 466:3093–3100.
  16. Mariani L, Miceli R, Kattan MW, et al. Validation and adaptation of a nomogram for predicting the survival of patients with extremity soft tissue sarcoma using a three-grade system. Cancer 2005; 103:402–408.
References
  1. Simon MA, Springfield D, eds. Surgery for Bone and Soft-tissue Tumors. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1998.
  2. Glencross J, Balasubramanian SP, Bacon J, Robinson MH, Reed MW. An audit of the management of soft tissue sarcoma within a health region in the UK. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003; 29:670–675.
  3. Kandel RA, Bell RS, Wunder JS, et al. Comparison between a 2- and 3-grade system in predicting metastatic-free survival in extremity soft-tissue sarcoma. J Surg Oncol 1999; 72:77–82.
  4. Suit HD, Spiro I. Role of radiation in the management of adult patients with sarcoma of soft tissue. Semin Surg Oncol 1994; 10:347–356.
  5. Suit H, Spiro I. Preoperative radiation therapy for patients with sarcoma of the soft tissues. Cancer Treat Res 1993; 67:99–105.
  6. Suit HD, Mankin HJ, Wood WC, et al. Treatment of the patient with stage M0 soft tissue sarcoma. J Clin Oncol 1988; 6:854–862.
  7. Fletcher CDM, Unni KK, Mertens F. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of Soft Tissue and Bone. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2002.
  8. Brennan MF, Singer S, Maki RG, O’Sullivan B. Sarcomas of the soft tissue and bone. In: DeVita Jr VT, Lawrence TS, Rosenbert SA, eds. Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology. 8th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
  9. Weiss SW, Goldblum JR. Enzinger and Weiss’s Soft Tissue Tumors. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby Elsevier; 2008.
  10. Gonzalez KD, Buzin CH, Noltner KA, et al. High frequency of de novo mutations in Li-Fraumeni syndrome. J Med Genet 2009; 46:689–693.
  11. Gonzalez KD, Noltner KA, Buzin CH, et al. Beyond Li Fraumeni syndrome: clinical characteristics of families with p53 germline mutations. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:1250–1256.
  12. Modena P, Lualdi E, Facchinetti F, et al. SMARCB1/INI1 tumor suppressor gene is frequently inactivated in epithelioid sarcomas. Cancer Res 2005; 65:4012–4019.
  13. Peabody TD, Simon MA. Principles of staging of soft-tissue sarcomas. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993; 289:19–31.
  14. Fong Y, Coit DG, Woodruff JM, Brennan MF. Lymph node metastasis from soft tissue sarcoma in adults: analysis of data from a prospective database of 1,772 sarcoma patients. Ann Surg 1993; 217:72–77.
  15. Potter BK, Adams SC, Pitcher JD Jr, Temple HT. Local recurrence of disease after unplanned excisions of high-grade soft tissue sarcomas. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008; 466:3093–3100.
  16. Mariani L, Miceli R, Kattan MW, et al. Validation and adaptation of a nomogram for predicting the survival of patients with extremity soft tissue sarcoma using a three-grade system. Cancer 2005; 103:402–408.
Page Number
S13-S17
Page Number
S13-S17
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Soft-tissue sarcomas: Overview of management, with a focus on surgical treatment considerations
Display Headline
Soft-tissue sarcomas: Overview of management, with a focus on surgical treatment considerations
Citation Override
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 2010 March;77(suppl 1):S13-S17
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

Considerations surrounding reconstruction after resection of musculoskeletal sarcomas

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 10/02/2018 - 11:40
Display Headline
Considerations surrounding reconstruction after resection of musculoskeletal sarcomas

Advances in the management of soft-tissue and bone sarcomas—referred to collectively as “musculoskeletal sarcomas” hereafter—have resulted in significant improvements in survival and quality of life.1–3 Several factors have likely contributed to these advances, including improved surgical technique and the development of referral centers for sarcoma treatment that have embraced a multidisciplinary approach.1,2

The goal of treatment for musculoskeletal sarcomas is to optimize oncologic outcome and maximize functional restoration.2,3 Surgical resection has been the mainstay of therapy,1–7 as detailed earlier in this supplement. In patients with musculoskeletal sarcomas of the extremities, limb-sparing resection has been shown to be significantly superior to amputation.1,7–9 Wide local excision of the tumor along with its muscle compartment, followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy, has allowed limb salvage without an increased risk of recurrence in many patients.3 However, wide tumor resection can leave large defects that are not amenable to coverage by mobilization of the surrounding tissues, particularly if those tissues have been irradiated. As a result, resection can expose neurovascular structures, bone without periosteum, alloplastic materials, and internal fixation devices.

GOALS OF RECONSTRUCTION

Reconstructive surgery after musculoskeletal sarcoma resection aims to provide adequate wound coverage, preserve function, and optimize the cosmetic outcome.1–3 Tumors can be found on areas crucial to limb movement or may involve tissues vital to limb function. Reconstruction to repair these deficits can take many forms. In certain situations, amputation is still inevitable. In those cases, the reconstruction should provide stable stump coverage with durability and the ability to fit well with an external prosthesis.3

TIMING OF RECONSTRUCTION

Immediate reconstruction should be pursued if possible

Immediate reconstruction after a negative margin should always be considered and should be attempted when possible. Immediate reconstruction allows the reconstructive surgeon to benefit from better evaluation of the defect and exposed structures, as no scar tissue is present to distort the anatomy. Likewise, patients benefit from faster recovery and can receive adjuvant treatment (if necessary) sooner, as well as earlier rehabilitation. Patients may also benefit psychologically from immediate reconstruction.1,3

Indications for delayed reconstruction

Delayed reconstruction is primarily indicated when there are wound healing problems or there is uncertainty about the tumor margins. Secondary indications for delayed reconstruction are wound dehiscence and unstable soft-tissue coverage. If hardware is exposed, the recommendation is for early intervention and wound coverage with well-vascularized tissue to protect and cover the implant or prosthesis.

What about radiation therapy?

A very important consideration in reconstruction is the need for neoadjuvant or adjuvant radiation therapy.3,10,11 Irradiated wounds have a higher incidence of complications, including a tendency to dehisce. In patients who have been previously irradiated, the best practice is to perform immediate reconstruction with well-vascularized tissue, most likely a free tissue transfer.4,6,11,12 This practice reduces hospital stay, costs, and morbidity and increases limb salvage and patient satisfaction.13

SYSTEMATIC PREOPERATIVE PLANNING NEEDED

Reconstruction after musculoskeletal sarcoma resection should be planned systematically within a process that involves preoperative anticipation of the defect size and the resulting functional and cosmetic deficits that might need to be addressed. A preoperative visit to the reconstructive surgeon can be very helpful for presurgical planning.

During surgery it is usually preferable to allow the surgeon doing the tumor resection (eg, surgical oncologist or orthopedic oncologist) to complete the resection because the dimensions of the defect are not certain until negative margins are obtained.14 If tumor margins are unclear at the time of initial resection, the surgeon should consider delaying the definitive reconstruction until the permanent sections confirm negative margins. Temporary closure can be achieved with wound dressings, skin grafts (either allograft or autograft), or negative-pressure wound therapy. In the same context, if neurovascular structures are exposed it is reasonable to use a muscle flap without “tailoring” the flap to the defect. This approach allows the flap to be advanced or repositioned in case of positive margins, and the skin graft can be applied to the muscle surface in a second procedure.3

RECONSTRUCTIVE METHODS: A BRIEF OVERVIEW

Several methods can be used to close musculoskeletal sarcoma excision defects. Smaller defects can be closed primarily, although most defects are large and not amenable to primary closure. If fascia or muscle is preserved with only the skin coverage missing, the wound can be covered with either split-thickness or full-thickness skin grafts.1,4,6 Split-thickness skin grafts can be obtained in larger amounts and often heal faster than full-thickness skin grafts. However, most resections will require durable tissue coverage, particularly if adjuvant radiation therapy is planned.

In the case of long bone sarcoma resection, the resulting defect is usually large and complex and the traditional reconstruction is based on avascular allografts and local tissue flaps. However, allografts are associated with high rates of infection, nonunion, and fracture, leading to failure in about 50% of cases. Microvascular free flaps that contain bone, such as free fibula flaps, have been used instead of allografts with good success rates.2

Lately there has been growing interest in the use of the vacuum-assisted closure device (a form of negative-pressure wound therapy) to promote wound healing. It has been shown to improve the granulation and healing of open wounds by absorbing moisture, as well as to promote adherence after skin grafting, thereby reducing the risk of graft displacement.1,3 This device can be used immediately after musculoskeletal sarcoma resection while definitive tumor margin results are pending. It also can be used to prepare the wound bed for grafting in high-risk patients who would not tolerate more complex reconstructions. 

Local or adjacent fascial, fasciocutaneous, and dermal flaps can also be used in lower-extremity reconstruction. However, muscle or musculocutaneous flaps are the mainstay of reconstruction after resection of musculoskeletal sarcomas. This group also includes perforator flaps, which have grown in popularity in the last few years.1,3

 

 

LOCATION-BASED WOUND RECONSTRUCTION

Musculoskeletal sarcomas can occur in virtually any region of the body, and myriad reconstructive options are available for various body sites. Since lower-extremity musculoskeletal sarcomas represent about 75% of cases,1 we will focus mainly on reconstruction of the lower extremity.

Factors driving choice of flap

Selection of an appropriate flap is essential to an optimal outcome. Flaps should be chosen with regard to donor site morbidity, functional requirements, length and diameter of the vascular pedicle, and aesthetic outcome.3 Usually physical examination, palpation of peripheral pulses, and Doppler ultrasonography are sufficient to evaluate the circulation. A preoperative angiogram should be considered in patients with severe peripheral vascular disease or previous trauma, which can potentially compromise the reconstructive outcome.15

Each region of the lower extremity possesses unique anatomic and functional characteristics that must be evaluated. It is useful to categorize the thigh, lower leg, and foot into separate anatomic units when planning reconstruction. We further divided these units into several subunits, as previously proposed by Sherman and Law15 and as outlined below.

Thigh

The thigh is usually well perfused and has several muscle groups, which facilitates reconstruction. Primary closure, skin grafts, or local flaps are acceptable options in most cases. The remaining musculature can be rotated or advanced to cover defects in the anterior or posterior thigh, providing bulk and adequate blood supply.

Hip and proximal/lateral thigh. Local muscle or myocutaneous flap options include tensor fascia lata, vastus lateralis, and rectus femoris flaps, all of which are based on the lateral circumflex femoral artery.

The tensor fascia lata flap is thin but has a long fascia extension that can be elevated from above the knee and can include a large skin paddle that is innervated by the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve. Some patients may experience knee instability after tensor fascia lata harvest.

The vastus lateralis muscle flap provides good bulk. Its arc of rotation reaches most of the inferior and posterior pelvis. It has little effect on ambulation.

The rectus femoris muscle flap is not so bulky, is easily mobilized, and has a wide arc of rotation. The donor site can be closed primarily. Harvest of this muscle can be associated with some strength loss during knee extension. For large defects of the upper third of the leg, a pedicled rectus abdominis muscle flap based on the deep inferior epigastric artery can be used. A vertically oriented skin island can be extended up to the costal margin, improving the reach. When the nature of the wound precludes use of pedicle flaps, free tissue transfer is indicated, with the latissimus dorsi muscle flap being used most commonly.15,16

Mid-thigh. Wounds in this location often can be closed with skin grafts or fasciocutaneous flaps. If the femur is exposed, however, a muscle flap will be required. As above, the tensor fascia lata, vastus lateralis, and rectus femoris can be used as flap options. If the lateral circumflex artery is unavailable, other flap options include the gracilis, vastus medialis, and rectus abdominis muscles. The gracilis muscle flap is based on the medial circumflex femoral artery and is useful for covering the medial aspect of the mid-thigh. Although this is a thin muscle, it can be used to cover long defects. The vastus medialis muscle flap is supplied by perforators from the profunda femoris and superficial femoral arteries. It can be rotated medially and advanced distally to cover patellar defects.

Supracondylar knee. The knee is a location where sarcoma resection is particularly likely to leave a defect with exposed bone, tendons, or ligaments that will need coverage. The gastrocnemius muscle flap combined with a split-thickness skin graft remains a consistent and reliable reconstructive option for this area. Other options are an extended medial gastrocnemius muscle flap or myocutaneous flap, which incorporates a random fasciocutaneous extension. For larger defects, free flaps should be considered, such as the anterior thigh flap, rectus abdominis muscle flap, or latissimus dorsi muscle flap. If tendons or ligaments need to be reconstructed, we favor autologous tissue, such as the fascia lata and plantaris tendons. These are easy to harvest and provide long-lasting joint stability.

Lower leg

Proximal third of the tibia. Defects here can usually be covered with a medial or lateral gastrocnemius muscle or myocutaneous flap, or a combination of the two. These muscles have a dominant vascular pedicle—the medial and lateral sural arteries. They can be harvested as an island for better reach, and they are reliable and have minimal donor site morbidity.15 The soleus muscle flap is another option that can be used alone or in combination with the medial or lateral gastrocnemius. Defects that are not amenable to closure by these flaps will most likely require free tissue transfer. The rectus abdominis or latissimus dorsi muscles are the first options. The latter can be combined with the serratus muscle if more bulk is needed.

Middle and lower thirds of the tibia. The soleus flap is frequently used for small or medium-sized mid-tibial defects. It is based on branches of the popliteal artery and posterior tibial artery. Larger defects require a combination of soleus and gastrocnemius muscle flaps or free tissue transfer.

Figure 1. (A) Defect in the lower third of the leg and the foot in a patient following excision of a soft-tissue sarcoma (clear-cell sarcoma) with negative margins. Note the exposed tendons and neurovascular pedicle. (B) Radial forearm free flap elevated from donor site. (C) Flap inserted to recipient site. (D) Flap donor site with split-thickness skin graft applied.
Thinner flaps should be used to provide better contour of the distal tibia and ankle. Distally based fasciocutaneous flaps, such as the reverse sural flap, can be used for small wounds. If more tissue is needed, a more suitable option is a fasiocutaneous free flap from the anterolateral thigh, the radial forearm (Figure 1), or the temporoparietal fascia.

Foot

Ideal reconstruction of the foot should provide thin and durable skin that will tolerate mechanical stress, and achieving this can be quite difficult. Skin grafts are seldom used for the foot, and are limited to non–weight-bearing portions with good underlying soft tissue.

Proximal non–weight-bearing areas (Achilles tendon and malleolar area). Local fasciocutaneous flaps are preferred. The lateral calcaneal artery flap, which is based on the peroneal artery branch, can cover exposed Achilles tendon, providing sensate coverage (sural nerve). The dorsalis pedis flap can be mobilized to cover the malleolar region and distal Achilles tendon, but donor site morbidity limits its use. Free tissue transfer is required for larger defects, and the the main options are flaps from the radial forearm, temporoparietal fascia, or lateral arm.

Heel and midplantar area. For heel reconstruction, the medial plantar artery flap, dorsalis pedis flap, abductor myocutaneous flap, peroneal artery flap, or anterior tibial artery flap can be used. The most versatile flap of the foot is the medial plantar artery flap, which is available only when the posterior tibial artery is intact. If local flaps are not suitable, microvascular tissue transfer is indicated. The radial forearm flap, scapular flap, lateral arm flap, or anterolateral thigh flap can be used. The radial forearm flap is usually the first choice because it is thin, has a long pedicle, and is easy to harvest.

If the foot defect is associated with a large cavity, muscle flaps are the first choices, specifically the gracilis or anterior serratus. A split latissimus muscle can also be applied. The full latissimus or the rectus abdominis are often too large for the type of defects observed.

Distal plantar area and forefoot. Most wounds in this region will require free tissue transfer. Free muscle flaps with split-thickness skin grafts provide the most stable and durable coverage.

Amputation vs limb salvage

It is important to evaluate the effects of lower-extremity salvage on ambulation. Salvage of a nonfunctional limb is of little value for the patient. Likewise, patients with severe medical problems may not be good candidates for limb salvage procedures. In those situations, amputation of the lower extremity is indicated. Adequate soft-tissue coverage and good distal perfusion are necessary to ensure healing of an amputation. If possible, local tissue rearrangement may be enough to provide a good amputation stump to fit an external prosthesis. In the case of radiation damage to the tissue, a free tissue transfer is necessary. The calcaneal-plantar unit from the amputated limb is frequently used as a free flap. Other flaps from the amputated limb, called fillet flaps, are harvested immediately and converted to flaps transferred to the defect site. Studies show that they are oncologically safe and reliable.17 Other flaps that provide good coverage for amputation defects are the latissimus dorsi muscle flap, the radial forearm flap, and the anterolateral thigh flap.

Upper extremities

Figure 2. (A) Complex defect of the forearm after wide excision of an intermediate-grade soft-tissue sarcoma (spindle-cell sarcoma) with excision of the extensor digiti communis tendon. (B) Reconstruction was performed with tendon transfer from the extensor carpi radialis to the extensor digiti communis to fingers 2–5, and the wound was closed with an anterolateral thigh free flap.
Musculoskeletal sarcomas of the arm and hand present challenges because of these sites’ unique anatomy. The arm and hand contain little soft tissue, and compartments are narrow. Amputation rates are higher for upper-extremity sarcomas, mostly because adequate margins are more difficult to obtain. Moreover, the sacrifice of important structures after wide resection can directly affect hand function.15 Exposure of nerves, tendons, blood vessels, and bone will often require free tissue transfer. In that situation, immediate coverage is recommended, with free tissue transfer being the most available choice. A pedicled radial forearm flap can be used for smaller defects. For larger defects, the anterolateral thigh flap is indicated (Figure 2). If bone is resected, a vascularized fibula free flap is used. In the case of sarcoma involving a digit, ray amputation is often required. For a single-digit ray amputation, defect transposition (such as index-to-middle finger or little-to-ring finger) can be used. A total thumb defect can be reconstructed with index finger transposition or a toe free flap.

 

 

POSTOPERATIVE CARE

Postoperative care following reconstruction after sarcoma resection requires a dedicated and trained team, particularly if a free flap is used for reconstruction.

Clinical evaluation of flaps includes color, temperature, and capillary refill. In cases of microsurgical reconstruction, postoperative care should include hourly examination of audible Doppler signals, at least for the first 36 hours. Free flap complications develop primarily in the first 24 hours, but they can occur during initial mobilization of the patient after a long period of bed rest. The surgical team should be aware of the potential problems and be able to act fast if necessary to reestablish blood flow to the flap.

In addition to flap monitoring, immobilization of the patient after surgery is extremely important. Postoperative swelling to the extremity should be avoided. Patients should be placed on bed rest until the postoperative swelling has subsided and the flap has adhered to the wound bed. Our protocol includes strict bed rest for about 7 days, followed by several days of dangling the extremity for short periods to ensure that dependent positioning will not alter the blood supply. A physical therapist should be involved to assist with crutches or a wheelchair. The patient should receive prophylactic anticoagulation during the resting period, in light of the high risk of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. A compressive garment should be used to prevent lymphedema.

COMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH FLAPS

Once the flap is raised, it can still fail as a result of tension at insetting, inadequate blood flow, twisting of the pedicle, hematoma and/or infection, or the patient’s condition (eg, coagulopathy, poor nutritional status, anemia). Failure to correctly evaluate the direction of arterial flow, whether anterograde or retrograde, can cause flap loss. Instruments such as Doppler ultrasonographic equipment can be used to help to determine the flow. Partial or complete occlusion of the vascular pedicle can occur for several reasons (eg, twisting of the pedicle), and the consequences are disastrous if not recognized in time. If a pedicle problem is suspected in the case of a free flap, the patient should be taken to the operating room immediately and the flap should be explored. Rupture of the vascular anastomosis can occur as a result of technical problems, tension, and (in rare cases) infection.

Hematomas can cause mass effect, limit the venous return, and lead to flap necrosis. Hematoma formation also releases free radicals that can contribute to flap necrosis. Prevention is achieved through meticulous hemostasis. If a hematoma is suspected, the wound should be explored and the hematoma evacuated and washed out with normal saline.

The presence of an infected wound bed can also damage a flap by increasing its metabolic demand and causing the flap to be compromised by the infection itself. It is usually best to wait until the infection is controlled before planning the reconstruction.

Partial flap losses, skin graft losses, and wound dehiscence also are possible. Most of the time these require wound care, and patients’ nutrition and general health should be optimized to help the healing process. In the case of partial or complete flap loss, a new flap is often required and should be planned at a proper time.

CONCLUSIONS

Soft-tissue reconstruction following musculoskeletal sarcoma resection can be as simple as allowing the wound to heal by itself, which is less ideal, or as complex as coverage with a microsurgical osteocutaneous free flap. Limb salvage for sarcomas of the lower extremity has demonstrated good final functional outcomes without adversely affecting the oncologic results. Moreover, patients feel better psychologically and have higher quality of life.18,19

We believe that soft-tissue coverage after a wide resection is the most critical factor for avoiding postoperative complications of the tumor resection, such as infection or fractures. For this reason, we recommend the use of well-vascularized coverage at the time of the initial operation, if possible. Careful preoperative planning is especially important. We believe that reconstruction following musculo­skeletal sarcoma resection can be done effectively only by using a team approach. Every such team should include, at minimum, an orthopedic surgeon and a reconstructive surgeon, with the mix of other providers dictated by the individual case.

References
  1. Misra A, Mistry N, Grimer R, Peart F. The management of soft tissue sarcoma. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009; 62:161–174.
  2. Morii T, Mochizuki K, Takushima A, Okazaki M, Satomi K. Soft tissue reconstruction using vascularized tissue transplantation following resection of musculoskeletal sarcoma: evaluation of oncologic and functional outcomes in 55 cases. Ann Plast Surg 2009; 62:252–257.
  3. Heller L, Kronowitz SJ. Lower extremity reconstruction. J Surg Oncol 2006; 94:479–489.
  4. Bannasch H, Haivas I, Momeni A, Stark GB. Oncosurgical and reconstructive concepts in the treatment of soft tissue sarcomas: a retrospective analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009; 129:43–49.
  5. Muramatsu K, Ihara K, Doi K, Hashimoto T, Taguchi T. Sarcoma in the forearm and hand: clinical outcomes and microsurgical reconstruction for limb salvage. Ann Plast Surg 2009; 62:28–33.
  6. Tukiainen E, Böhling T, Huuhtanen R. Soft tissue sarcoma of the trunk and extremities. Scand J Surg 2003; 92:257–263.
  7. Adelani MA, Holt GE, Dittus RS, Passman MA, Schwartz HS. Revascularization after segmental resection of lower extremity soft tissue sarcomas. J Surg Oncol 2007; 95:455–460.
  8. Lohman RF, Nabawi AS, Reece GP, Pollock RE, Evans GR. Soft tissue sarcoma of the upper extremity: a 5-year experience at two institutions emphasizing the role of soft tissue flap reconstruction. Cancer 2002; 94:2256–2264.
  9. Davis AM, Sennik S, Griffin AM, et al. Predictors of functional outcomes following limb salvage surgery for lower-extremity soft tissue sarcoma. J Surg Oncol 2000; 73:206–211.
  10. Heller L, Ballo MT, Cormier JN, Oates SD, Butler CE. Staged reconstruction for resection wounds in sarcoma patients treated with brachytherapy. Ann Plast Surg 2008; 60:58–63.
  11. Evans GR, Black JJ, Robb GL, et al. Adjuvant therapy: the effects on microvascular lower extremity reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 1997; 39:141–144.
  12. Peat BG, Bell RS, Davis A, et al. Wound-healing complications after soft-tissue sarcoma surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 1994; 93:980–987.
  13. Barwick WJ, Goldberg JA, Scully SP, Harrelson JM. Vascularized tissue transfer for closure of irradiated wounds after soft tissue sarcoma resection. Ann Surg 1992; 216:591–595.
  14. Masquelet AC, Romana MC. The medialis pedis flap: a new fasciocutaneous flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990; 85:765–772.
  15. Sherman R, Law M. Lower extremity reconstruction. In: Achauer BM, Eriksson E, Guyuron B, Coleman III JJ, Russell RC, Vander Kolk CA, eds. Plastic Surgery: Indications, Operations, and Outcomes. Vol 1. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2000:475–496.
  16. Innocenti M, Abed YY, Beltrami G, Delcroix L, Balatri A, Capanna R. Quadriceps muscle reconstruction with free functioning latissimus dorsi muscle flap after oncological resection. Microsurgery 2009; 29:189–198.
  17. Chiang YC, Wei FC, Wang JW, Chen WS. Reconstruction of below-knee stump using the salvaged foot fillet flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995; 96:731–738.
  18. Serletti JM, Carras AJ, O’Keefe RJ, Rosier RN. Functional outcome after soft-tissue reconstruction for limb salvage after sarcoma surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 102:1576–1583.
  19. Niimi R, Matsumine A, Kusuzaki K, et al. Usefulness of limb salvage surgery for bone and soft tissue sarcomas of the distal lower leg. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2008; 134:1087–1095.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Andrea Moreira-Gonzalez, MD
Department of Plastic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Risal Djohan, MD
Department of Plastic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Robert Lohman, MD
Department of Plastic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Correspondence: Andrea Moreira-Gonzalez, MD, Department of Plastic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A60, Cleveland, OH 44195; [email protected]

All authors reported that they have no financial interests or relationships that pose a potential conflict of interest with this article.

Publications
Page Number
S18-S22
Author and Disclosure Information

Andrea Moreira-Gonzalez, MD
Department of Plastic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Risal Djohan, MD
Department of Plastic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Robert Lohman, MD
Department of Plastic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Correspondence: Andrea Moreira-Gonzalez, MD, Department of Plastic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A60, Cleveland, OH 44195; [email protected]

All authors reported that they have no financial interests or relationships that pose a potential conflict of interest with this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Andrea Moreira-Gonzalez, MD
Department of Plastic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Risal Djohan, MD
Department of Plastic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Robert Lohman, MD
Department of Plastic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Correspondence: Andrea Moreira-Gonzalez, MD, Department of Plastic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A60, Cleveland, OH 44195; [email protected]

All authors reported that they have no financial interests or relationships that pose a potential conflict of interest with this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

Advances in the management of soft-tissue and bone sarcomas—referred to collectively as “musculoskeletal sarcomas” hereafter—have resulted in significant improvements in survival and quality of life.1–3 Several factors have likely contributed to these advances, including improved surgical technique and the development of referral centers for sarcoma treatment that have embraced a multidisciplinary approach.1,2

The goal of treatment for musculoskeletal sarcomas is to optimize oncologic outcome and maximize functional restoration.2,3 Surgical resection has been the mainstay of therapy,1–7 as detailed earlier in this supplement. In patients with musculoskeletal sarcomas of the extremities, limb-sparing resection has been shown to be significantly superior to amputation.1,7–9 Wide local excision of the tumor along with its muscle compartment, followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy, has allowed limb salvage without an increased risk of recurrence in many patients.3 However, wide tumor resection can leave large defects that are not amenable to coverage by mobilization of the surrounding tissues, particularly if those tissues have been irradiated. As a result, resection can expose neurovascular structures, bone without periosteum, alloplastic materials, and internal fixation devices.

GOALS OF RECONSTRUCTION

Reconstructive surgery after musculoskeletal sarcoma resection aims to provide adequate wound coverage, preserve function, and optimize the cosmetic outcome.1–3 Tumors can be found on areas crucial to limb movement or may involve tissues vital to limb function. Reconstruction to repair these deficits can take many forms. In certain situations, amputation is still inevitable. In those cases, the reconstruction should provide stable stump coverage with durability and the ability to fit well with an external prosthesis.3

TIMING OF RECONSTRUCTION

Immediate reconstruction should be pursued if possible

Immediate reconstruction after a negative margin should always be considered and should be attempted when possible. Immediate reconstruction allows the reconstructive surgeon to benefit from better evaluation of the defect and exposed structures, as no scar tissue is present to distort the anatomy. Likewise, patients benefit from faster recovery and can receive adjuvant treatment (if necessary) sooner, as well as earlier rehabilitation. Patients may also benefit psychologically from immediate reconstruction.1,3

Indications for delayed reconstruction

Delayed reconstruction is primarily indicated when there are wound healing problems or there is uncertainty about the tumor margins. Secondary indications for delayed reconstruction are wound dehiscence and unstable soft-tissue coverage. If hardware is exposed, the recommendation is for early intervention and wound coverage with well-vascularized tissue to protect and cover the implant or prosthesis.

What about radiation therapy?

A very important consideration in reconstruction is the need for neoadjuvant or adjuvant radiation therapy.3,10,11 Irradiated wounds have a higher incidence of complications, including a tendency to dehisce. In patients who have been previously irradiated, the best practice is to perform immediate reconstruction with well-vascularized tissue, most likely a free tissue transfer.4,6,11,12 This practice reduces hospital stay, costs, and morbidity and increases limb salvage and patient satisfaction.13

SYSTEMATIC PREOPERATIVE PLANNING NEEDED

Reconstruction after musculoskeletal sarcoma resection should be planned systematically within a process that involves preoperative anticipation of the defect size and the resulting functional and cosmetic deficits that might need to be addressed. A preoperative visit to the reconstructive surgeon can be very helpful for presurgical planning.

During surgery it is usually preferable to allow the surgeon doing the tumor resection (eg, surgical oncologist or orthopedic oncologist) to complete the resection because the dimensions of the defect are not certain until negative margins are obtained.14 If tumor margins are unclear at the time of initial resection, the surgeon should consider delaying the definitive reconstruction until the permanent sections confirm negative margins. Temporary closure can be achieved with wound dressings, skin grafts (either allograft or autograft), or negative-pressure wound therapy. In the same context, if neurovascular structures are exposed it is reasonable to use a muscle flap without “tailoring” the flap to the defect. This approach allows the flap to be advanced or repositioned in case of positive margins, and the skin graft can be applied to the muscle surface in a second procedure.3

RECONSTRUCTIVE METHODS: A BRIEF OVERVIEW

Several methods can be used to close musculoskeletal sarcoma excision defects. Smaller defects can be closed primarily, although most defects are large and not amenable to primary closure. If fascia or muscle is preserved with only the skin coverage missing, the wound can be covered with either split-thickness or full-thickness skin grafts.1,4,6 Split-thickness skin grafts can be obtained in larger amounts and often heal faster than full-thickness skin grafts. However, most resections will require durable tissue coverage, particularly if adjuvant radiation therapy is planned.

In the case of long bone sarcoma resection, the resulting defect is usually large and complex and the traditional reconstruction is based on avascular allografts and local tissue flaps. However, allografts are associated with high rates of infection, nonunion, and fracture, leading to failure in about 50% of cases. Microvascular free flaps that contain bone, such as free fibula flaps, have been used instead of allografts with good success rates.2

Lately there has been growing interest in the use of the vacuum-assisted closure device (a form of negative-pressure wound therapy) to promote wound healing. It has been shown to improve the granulation and healing of open wounds by absorbing moisture, as well as to promote adherence after skin grafting, thereby reducing the risk of graft displacement.1,3 This device can be used immediately after musculoskeletal sarcoma resection while definitive tumor margin results are pending. It also can be used to prepare the wound bed for grafting in high-risk patients who would not tolerate more complex reconstructions. 

Local or adjacent fascial, fasciocutaneous, and dermal flaps can also be used in lower-extremity reconstruction. However, muscle or musculocutaneous flaps are the mainstay of reconstruction after resection of musculoskeletal sarcomas. This group also includes perforator flaps, which have grown in popularity in the last few years.1,3

 

 

LOCATION-BASED WOUND RECONSTRUCTION

Musculoskeletal sarcomas can occur in virtually any region of the body, and myriad reconstructive options are available for various body sites. Since lower-extremity musculoskeletal sarcomas represent about 75% of cases,1 we will focus mainly on reconstruction of the lower extremity.

Factors driving choice of flap

Selection of an appropriate flap is essential to an optimal outcome. Flaps should be chosen with regard to donor site morbidity, functional requirements, length and diameter of the vascular pedicle, and aesthetic outcome.3 Usually physical examination, palpation of peripheral pulses, and Doppler ultrasonography are sufficient to evaluate the circulation. A preoperative angiogram should be considered in patients with severe peripheral vascular disease or previous trauma, which can potentially compromise the reconstructive outcome.15

Each region of the lower extremity possesses unique anatomic and functional characteristics that must be evaluated. It is useful to categorize the thigh, lower leg, and foot into separate anatomic units when planning reconstruction. We further divided these units into several subunits, as previously proposed by Sherman and Law15 and as outlined below.

Thigh

The thigh is usually well perfused and has several muscle groups, which facilitates reconstruction. Primary closure, skin grafts, or local flaps are acceptable options in most cases. The remaining musculature can be rotated or advanced to cover defects in the anterior or posterior thigh, providing bulk and adequate blood supply.

Hip and proximal/lateral thigh. Local muscle or myocutaneous flap options include tensor fascia lata, vastus lateralis, and rectus femoris flaps, all of which are based on the lateral circumflex femoral artery.

The tensor fascia lata flap is thin but has a long fascia extension that can be elevated from above the knee and can include a large skin paddle that is innervated by the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve. Some patients may experience knee instability after tensor fascia lata harvest.

The vastus lateralis muscle flap provides good bulk. Its arc of rotation reaches most of the inferior and posterior pelvis. It has little effect on ambulation.

The rectus femoris muscle flap is not so bulky, is easily mobilized, and has a wide arc of rotation. The donor site can be closed primarily. Harvest of this muscle can be associated with some strength loss during knee extension. For large defects of the upper third of the leg, a pedicled rectus abdominis muscle flap based on the deep inferior epigastric artery can be used. A vertically oriented skin island can be extended up to the costal margin, improving the reach. When the nature of the wound precludes use of pedicle flaps, free tissue transfer is indicated, with the latissimus dorsi muscle flap being used most commonly.15,16

Mid-thigh. Wounds in this location often can be closed with skin grafts or fasciocutaneous flaps. If the femur is exposed, however, a muscle flap will be required. As above, the tensor fascia lata, vastus lateralis, and rectus femoris can be used as flap options. If the lateral circumflex artery is unavailable, other flap options include the gracilis, vastus medialis, and rectus abdominis muscles. The gracilis muscle flap is based on the medial circumflex femoral artery and is useful for covering the medial aspect of the mid-thigh. Although this is a thin muscle, it can be used to cover long defects. The vastus medialis muscle flap is supplied by perforators from the profunda femoris and superficial femoral arteries. It can be rotated medially and advanced distally to cover patellar defects.

Supracondylar knee. The knee is a location where sarcoma resection is particularly likely to leave a defect with exposed bone, tendons, or ligaments that will need coverage. The gastrocnemius muscle flap combined with a split-thickness skin graft remains a consistent and reliable reconstructive option for this area. Other options are an extended medial gastrocnemius muscle flap or myocutaneous flap, which incorporates a random fasciocutaneous extension. For larger defects, free flaps should be considered, such as the anterior thigh flap, rectus abdominis muscle flap, or latissimus dorsi muscle flap. If tendons or ligaments need to be reconstructed, we favor autologous tissue, such as the fascia lata and plantaris tendons. These are easy to harvest and provide long-lasting joint stability.

Lower leg

Proximal third of the tibia. Defects here can usually be covered with a medial or lateral gastrocnemius muscle or myocutaneous flap, or a combination of the two. These muscles have a dominant vascular pedicle—the medial and lateral sural arteries. They can be harvested as an island for better reach, and they are reliable and have minimal donor site morbidity.15 The soleus muscle flap is another option that can be used alone or in combination with the medial or lateral gastrocnemius. Defects that are not amenable to closure by these flaps will most likely require free tissue transfer. The rectus abdominis or latissimus dorsi muscles are the first options. The latter can be combined with the serratus muscle if more bulk is needed.

Middle and lower thirds of the tibia. The soleus flap is frequently used for small or medium-sized mid-tibial defects. It is based on branches of the popliteal artery and posterior tibial artery. Larger defects require a combination of soleus and gastrocnemius muscle flaps or free tissue transfer.

Figure 1. (A) Defect in the lower third of the leg and the foot in a patient following excision of a soft-tissue sarcoma (clear-cell sarcoma) with negative margins. Note the exposed tendons and neurovascular pedicle. (B) Radial forearm free flap elevated from donor site. (C) Flap inserted to recipient site. (D) Flap donor site with split-thickness skin graft applied.
Thinner flaps should be used to provide better contour of the distal tibia and ankle. Distally based fasciocutaneous flaps, such as the reverse sural flap, can be used for small wounds. If more tissue is needed, a more suitable option is a fasiocutaneous free flap from the anterolateral thigh, the radial forearm (Figure 1), or the temporoparietal fascia.

Foot

Ideal reconstruction of the foot should provide thin and durable skin that will tolerate mechanical stress, and achieving this can be quite difficult. Skin grafts are seldom used for the foot, and are limited to non–weight-bearing portions with good underlying soft tissue.

Proximal non–weight-bearing areas (Achilles tendon and malleolar area). Local fasciocutaneous flaps are preferred. The lateral calcaneal artery flap, which is based on the peroneal artery branch, can cover exposed Achilles tendon, providing sensate coverage (sural nerve). The dorsalis pedis flap can be mobilized to cover the malleolar region and distal Achilles tendon, but donor site morbidity limits its use. Free tissue transfer is required for larger defects, and the the main options are flaps from the radial forearm, temporoparietal fascia, or lateral arm.

Heel and midplantar area. For heel reconstruction, the medial plantar artery flap, dorsalis pedis flap, abductor myocutaneous flap, peroneal artery flap, or anterior tibial artery flap can be used. The most versatile flap of the foot is the medial plantar artery flap, which is available only when the posterior tibial artery is intact. If local flaps are not suitable, microvascular tissue transfer is indicated. The radial forearm flap, scapular flap, lateral arm flap, or anterolateral thigh flap can be used. The radial forearm flap is usually the first choice because it is thin, has a long pedicle, and is easy to harvest.

If the foot defect is associated with a large cavity, muscle flaps are the first choices, specifically the gracilis or anterior serratus. A split latissimus muscle can also be applied. The full latissimus or the rectus abdominis are often too large for the type of defects observed.

Distal plantar area and forefoot. Most wounds in this region will require free tissue transfer. Free muscle flaps with split-thickness skin grafts provide the most stable and durable coverage.

Amputation vs limb salvage

It is important to evaluate the effects of lower-extremity salvage on ambulation. Salvage of a nonfunctional limb is of little value for the patient. Likewise, patients with severe medical problems may not be good candidates for limb salvage procedures. In those situations, amputation of the lower extremity is indicated. Adequate soft-tissue coverage and good distal perfusion are necessary to ensure healing of an amputation. If possible, local tissue rearrangement may be enough to provide a good amputation stump to fit an external prosthesis. In the case of radiation damage to the tissue, a free tissue transfer is necessary. The calcaneal-plantar unit from the amputated limb is frequently used as a free flap. Other flaps from the amputated limb, called fillet flaps, are harvested immediately and converted to flaps transferred to the defect site. Studies show that they are oncologically safe and reliable.17 Other flaps that provide good coverage for amputation defects are the latissimus dorsi muscle flap, the radial forearm flap, and the anterolateral thigh flap.

Upper extremities

Figure 2. (A) Complex defect of the forearm after wide excision of an intermediate-grade soft-tissue sarcoma (spindle-cell sarcoma) with excision of the extensor digiti communis tendon. (B) Reconstruction was performed with tendon transfer from the extensor carpi radialis to the extensor digiti communis to fingers 2–5, and the wound was closed with an anterolateral thigh free flap.
Musculoskeletal sarcomas of the arm and hand present challenges because of these sites’ unique anatomy. The arm and hand contain little soft tissue, and compartments are narrow. Amputation rates are higher for upper-extremity sarcomas, mostly because adequate margins are more difficult to obtain. Moreover, the sacrifice of important structures after wide resection can directly affect hand function.15 Exposure of nerves, tendons, blood vessels, and bone will often require free tissue transfer. In that situation, immediate coverage is recommended, with free tissue transfer being the most available choice. A pedicled radial forearm flap can be used for smaller defects. For larger defects, the anterolateral thigh flap is indicated (Figure 2). If bone is resected, a vascularized fibula free flap is used. In the case of sarcoma involving a digit, ray amputation is often required. For a single-digit ray amputation, defect transposition (such as index-to-middle finger or little-to-ring finger) can be used. A total thumb defect can be reconstructed with index finger transposition or a toe free flap.

 

 

POSTOPERATIVE CARE

Postoperative care following reconstruction after sarcoma resection requires a dedicated and trained team, particularly if a free flap is used for reconstruction.

Clinical evaluation of flaps includes color, temperature, and capillary refill. In cases of microsurgical reconstruction, postoperative care should include hourly examination of audible Doppler signals, at least for the first 36 hours. Free flap complications develop primarily in the first 24 hours, but they can occur during initial mobilization of the patient after a long period of bed rest. The surgical team should be aware of the potential problems and be able to act fast if necessary to reestablish blood flow to the flap.

In addition to flap monitoring, immobilization of the patient after surgery is extremely important. Postoperative swelling to the extremity should be avoided. Patients should be placed on bed rest until the postoperative swelling has subsided and the flap has adhered to the wound bed. Our protocol includes strict bed rest for about 7 days, followed by several days of dangling the extremity for short periods to ensure that dependent positioning will not alter the blood supply. A physical therapist should be involved to assist with crutches or a wheelchair. The patient should receive prophylactic anticoagulation during the resting period, in light of the high risk of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. A compressive garment should be used to prevent lymphedema.

COMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH FLAPS

Once the flap is raised, it can still fail as a result of tension at insetting, inadequate blood flow, twisting of the pedicle, hematoma and/or infection, or the patient’s condition (eg, coagulopathy, poor nutritional status, anemia). Failure to correctly evaluate the direction of arterial flow, whether anterograde or retrograde, can cause flap loss. Instruments such as Doppler ultrasonographic equipment can be used to help to determine the flow. Partial or complete occlusion of the vascular pedicle can occur for several reasons (eg, twisting of the pedicle), and the consequences are disastrous if not recognized in time. If a pedicle problem is suspected in the case of a free flap, the patient should be taken to the operating room immediately and the flap should be explored. Rupture of the vascular anastomosis can occur as a result of technical problems, tension, and (in rare cases) infection.

Hematomas can cause mass effect, limit the venous return, and lead to flap necrosis. Hematoma formation also releases free radicals that can contribute to flap necrosis. Prevention is achieved through meticulous hemostasis. If a hematoma is suspected, the wound should be explored and the hematoma evacuated and washed out with normal saline.

The presence of an infected wound bed can also damage a flap by increasing its metabolic demand and causing the flap to be compromised by the infection itself. It is usually best to wait until the infection is controlled before planning the reconstruction.

Partial flap losses, skin graft losses, and wound dehiscence also are possible. Most of the time these require wound care, and patients’ nutrition and general health should be optimized to help the healing process. In the case of partial or complete flap loss, a new flap is often required and should be planned at a proper time.

CONCLUSIONS

Soft-tissue reconstruction following musculoskeletal sarcoma resection can be as simple as allowing the wound to heal by itself, which is less ideal, or as complex as coverage with a microsurgical osteocutaneous free flap. Limb salvage for sarcomas of the lower extremity has demonstrated good final functional outcomes without adversely affecting the oncologic results. Moreover, patients feel better psychologically and have higher quality of life.18,19

We believe that soft-tissue coverage after a wide resection is the most critical factor for avoiding postoperative complications of the tumor resection, such as infection or fractures. For this reason, we recommend the use of well-vascularized coverage at the time of the initial operation, if possible. Careful preoperative planning is especially important. We believe that reconstruction following musculo­skeletal sarcoma resection can be done effectively only by using a team approach. Every such team should include, at minimum, an orthopedic surgeon and a reconstructive surgeon, with the mix of other providers dictated by the individual case.

Advances in the management of soft-tissue and bone sarcomas—referred to collectively as “musculoskeletal sarcomas” hereafter—have resulted in significant improvements in survival and quality of life.1–3 Several factors have likely contributed to these advances, including improved surgical technique and the development of referral centers for sarcoma treatment that have embraced a multidisciplinary approach.1,2

The goal of treatment for musculoskeletal sarcomas is to optimize oncologic outcome and maximize functional restoration.2,3 Surgical resection has been the mainstay of therapy,1–7 as detailed earlier in this supplement. In patients with musculoskeletal sarcomas of the extremities, limb-sparing resection has been shown to be significantly superior to amputation.1,7–9 Wide local excision of the tumor along with its muscle compartment, followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy, has allowed limb salvage without an increased risk of recurrence in many patients.3 However, wide tumor resection can leave large defects that are not amenable to coverage by mobilization of the surrounding tissues, particularly if those tissues have been irradiated. As a result, resection can expose neurovascular structures, bone without periosteum, alloplastic materials, and internal fixation devices.

GOALS OF RECONSTRUCTION

Reconstructive surgery after musculoskeletal sarcoma resection aims to provide adequate wound coverage, preserve function, and optimize the cosmetic outcome.1–3 Tumors can be found on areas crucial to limb movement or may involve tissues vital to limb function. Reconstruction to repair these deficits can take many forms. In certain situations, amputation is still inevitable. In those cases, the reconstruction should provide stable stump coverage with durability and the ability to fit well with an external prosthesis.3

TIMING OF RECONSTRUCTION

Immediate reconstruction should be pursued if possible

Immediate reconstruction after a negative margin should always be considered and should be attempted when possible. Immediate reconstruction allows the reconstructive surgeon to benefit from better evaluation of the defect and exposed structures, as no scar tissue is present to distort the anatomy. Likewise, patients benefit from faster recovery and can receive adjuvant treatment (if necessary) sooner, as well as earlier rehabilitation. Patients may also benefit psychologically from immediate reconstruction.1,3

Indications for delayed reconstruction

Delayed reconstruction is primarily indicated when there are wound healing problems or there is uncertainty about the tumor margins. Secondary indications for delayed reconstruction are wound dehiscence and unstable soft-tissue coverage. If hardware is exposed, the recommendation is for early intervention and wound coverage with well-vascularized tissue to protect and cover the implant or prosthesis.

What about radiation therapy?

A very important consideration in reconstruction is the need for neoadjuvant or adjuvant radiation therapy.3,10,11 Irradiated wounds have a higher incidence of complications, including a tendency to dehisce. In patients who have been previously irradiated, the best practice is to perform immediate reconstruction with well-vascularized tissue, most likely a free tissue transfer.4,6,11,12 This practice reduces hospital stay, costs, and morbidity and increases limb salvage and patient satisfaction.13

SYSTEMATIC PREOPERATIVE PLANNING NEEDED

Reconstruction after musculoskeletal sarcoma resection should be planned systematically within a process that involves preoperative anticipation of the defect size and the resulting functional and cosmetic deficits that might need to be addressed. A preoperative visit to the reconstructive surgeon can be very helpful for presurgical planning.

During surgery it is usually preferable to allow the surgeon doing the tumor resection (eg, surgical oncologist or orthopedic oncologist) to complete the resection because the dimensions of the defect are not certain until negative margins are obtained.14 If tumor margins are unclear at the time of initial resection, the surgeon should consider delaying the definitive reconstruction until the permanent sections confirm negative margins. Temporary closure can be achieved with wound dressings, skin grafts (either allograft or autograft), or negative-pressure wound therapy. In the same context, if neurovascular structures are exposed it is reasonable to use a muscle flap without “tailoring” the flap to the defect. This approach allows the flap to be advanced or repositioned in case of positive margins, and the skin graft can be applied to the muscle surface in a second procedure.3

RECONSTRUCTIVE METHODS: A BRIEF OVERVIEW

Several methods can be used to close musculoskeletal sarcoma excision defects. Smaller defects can be closed primarily, although most defects are large and not amenable to primary closure. If fascia or muscle is preserved with only the skin coverage missing, the wound can be covered with either split-thickness or full-thickness skin grafts.1,4,6 Split-thickness skin grafts can be obtained in larger amounts and often heal faster than full-thickness skin grafts. However, most resections will require durable tissue coverage, particularly if adjuvant radiation therapy is planned.

In the case of long bone sarcoma resection, the resulting defect is usually large and complex and the traditional reconstruction is based on avascular allografts and local tissue flaps. However, allografts are associated with high rates of infection, nonunion, and fracture, leading to failure in about 50% of cases. Microvascular free flaps that contain bone, such as free fibula flaps, have been used instead of allografts with good success rates.2

Lately there has been growing interest in the use of the vacuum-assisted closure device (a form of negative-pressure wound therapy) to promote wound healing. It has been shown to improve the granulation and healing of open wounds by absorbing moisture, as well as to promote adherence after skin grafting, thereby reducing the risk of graft displacement.1,3 This device can be used immediately after musculoskeletal sarcoma resection while definitive tumor margin results are pending. It also can be used to prepare the wound bed for grafting in high-risk patients who would not tolerate more complex reconstructions. 

Local or adjacent fascial, fasciocutaneous, and dermal flaps can also be used in lower-extremity reconstruction. However, muscle or musculocutaneous flaps are the mainstay of reconstruction after resection of musculoskeletal sarcomas. This group also includes perforator flaps, which have grown in popularity in the last few years.1,3

 

 

LOCATION-BASED WOUND RECONSTRUCTION

Musculoskeletal sarcomas can occur in virtually any region of the body, and myriad reconstructive options are available for various body sites. Since lower-extremity musculoskeletal sarcomas represent about 75% of cases,1 we will focus mainly on reconstruction of the lower extremity.

Factors driving choice of flap

Selection of an appropriate flap is essential to an optimal outcome. Flaps should be chosen with regard to donor site morbidity, functional requirements, length and diameter of the vascular pedicle, and aesthetic outcome.3 Usually physical examination, palpation of peripheral pulses, and Doppler ultrasonography are sufficient to evaluate the circulation. A preoperative angiogram should be considered in patients with severe peripheral vascular disease or previous trauma, which can potentially compromise the reconstructive outcome.15

Each region of the lower extremity possesses unique anatomic and functional characteristics that must be evaluated. It is useful to categorize the thigh, lower leg, and foot into separate anatomic units when planning reconstruction. We further divided these units into several subunits, as previously proposed by Sherman and Law15 and as outlined below.

Thigh

The thigh is usually well perfused and has several muscle groups, which facilitates reconstruction. Primary closure, skin grafts, or local flaps are acceptable options in most cases. The remaining musculature can be rotated or advanced to cover defects in the anterior or posterior thigh, providing bulk and adequate blood supply.

Hip and proximal/lateral thigh. Local muscle or myocutaneous flap options include tensor fascia lata, vastus lateralis, and rectus femoris flaps, all of which are based on the lateral circumflex femoral artery.

The tensor fascia lata flap is thin but has a long fascia extension that can be elevated from above the knee and can include a large skin paddle that is innervated by the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve. Some patients may experience knee instability after tensor fascia lata harvest.

The vastus lateralis muscle flap provides good bulk. Its arc of rotation reaches most of the inferior and posterior pelvis. It has little effect on ambulation.

The rectus femoris muscle flap is not so bulky, is easily mobilized, and has a wide arc of rotation. The donor site can be closed primarily. Harvest of this muscle can be associated with some strength loss during knee extension. For large defects of the upper third of the leg, a pedicled rectus abdominis muscle flap based on the deep inferior epigastric artery can be used. A vertically oriented skin island can be extended up to the costal margin, improving the reach. When the nature of the wound precludes use of pedicle flaps, free tissue transfer is indicated, with the latissimus dorsi muscle flap being used most commonly.15,16

Mid-thigh. Wounds in this location often can be closed with skin grafts or fasciocutaneous flaps. If the femur is exposed, however, a muscle flap will be required. As above, the tensor fascia lata, vastus lateralis, and rectus femoris can be used as flap options. If the lateral circumflex artery is unavailable, other flap options include the gracilis, vastus medialis, and rectus abdominis muscles. The gracilis muscle flap is based on the medial circumflex femoral artery and is useful for covering the medial aspect of the mid-thigh. Although this is a thin muscle, it can be used to cover long defects. The vastus medialis muscle flap is supplied by perforators from the profunda femoris and superficial femoral arteries. It can be rotated medially and advanced distally to cover patellar defects.

Supracondylar knee. The knee is a location where sarcoma resection is particularly likely to leave a defect with exposed bone, tendons, or ligaments that will need coverage. The gastrocnemius muscle flap combined with a split-thickness skin graft remains a consistent and reliable reconstructive option for this area. Other options are an extended medial gastrocnemius muscle flap or myocutaneous flap, which incorporates a random fasciocutaneous extension. For larger defects, free flaps should be considered, such as the anterior thigh flap, rectus abdominis muscle flap, or latissimus dorsi muscle flap. If tendons or ligaments need to be reconstructed, we favor autologous tissue, such as the fascia lata and plantaris tendons. These are easy to harvest and provide long-lasting joint stability.

Lower leg

Proximal third of the tibia. Defects here can usually be covered with a medial or lateral gastrocnemius muscle or myocutaneous flap, or a combination of the two. These muscles have a dominant vascular pedicle—the medial and lateral sural arteries. They can be harvested as an island for better reach, and they are reliable and have minimal donor site morbidity.15 The soleus muscle flap is another option that can be used alone or in combination with the medial or lateral gastrocnemius. Defects that are not amenable to closure by these flaps will most likely require free tissue transfer. The rectus abdominis or latissimus dorsi muscles are the first options. The latter can be combined with the serratus muscle if more bulk is needed.

Middle and lower thirds of the tibia. The soleus flap is frequently used for small or medium-sized mid-tibial defects. It is based on branches of the popliteal artery and posterior tibial artery. Larger defects require a combination of soleus and gastrocnemius muscle flaps or free tissue transfer.

Figure 1. (A) Defect in the lower third of the leg and the foot in a patient following excision of a soft-tissue sarcoma (clear-cell sarcoma) with negative margins. Note the exposed tendons and neurovascular pedicle. (B) Radial forearm free flap elevated from donor site. (C) Flap inserted to recipient site. (D) Flap donor site with split-thickness skin graft applied.
Thinner flaps should be used to provide better contour of the distal tibia and ankle. Distally based fasciocutaneous flaps, such as the reverse sural flap, can be used for small wounds. If more tissue is needed, a more suitable option is a fasiocutaneous free flap from the anterolateral thigh, the radial forearm (Figure 1), or the temporoparietal fascia.

Foot

Ideal reconstruction of the foot should provide thin and durable skin that will tolerate mechanical stress, and achieving this can be quite difficult. Skin grafts are seldom used for the foot, and are limited to non–weight-bearing portions with good underlying soft tissue.

Proximal non–weight-bearing areas (Achilles tendon and malleolar area). Local fasciocutaneous flaps are preferred. The lateral calcaneal artery flap, which is based on the peroneal artery branch, can cover exposed Achilles tendon, providing sensate coverage (sural nerve). The dorsalis pedis flap can be mobilized to cover the malleolar region and distal Achilles tendon, but donor site morbidity limits its use. Free tissue transfer is required for larger defects, and the the main options are flaps from the radial forearm, temporoparietal fascia, or lateral arm.

Heel and midplantar area. For heel reconstruction, the medial plantar artery flap, dorsalis pedis flap, abductor myocutaneous flap, peroneal artery flap, or anterior tibial artery flap can be used. The most versatile flap of the foot is the medial plantar artery flap, which is available only when the posterior tibial artery is intact. If local flaps are not suitable, microvascular tissue transfer is indicated. The radial forearm flap, scapular flap, lateral arm flap, or anterolateral thigh flap can be used. The radial forearm flap is usually the first choice because it is thin, has a long pedicle, and is easy to harvest.

If the foot defect is associated with a large cavity, muscle flaps are the first choices, specifically the gracilis or anterior serratus. A split latissimus muscle can also be applied. The full latissimus or the rectus abdominis are often too large for the type of defects observed.

Distal plantar area and forefoot. Most wounds in this region will require free tissue transfer. Free muscle flaps with split-thickness skin grafts provide the most stable and durable coverage.

Amputation vs limb salvage

It is important to evaluate the effects of lower-extremity salvage on ambulation. Salvage of a nonfunctional limb is of little value for the patient. Likewise, patients with severe medical problems may not be good candidates for limb salvage procedures. In those situations, amputation of the lower extremity is indicated. Adequate soft-tissue coverage and good distal perfusion are necessary to ensure healing of an amputation. If possible, local tissue rearrangement may be enough to provide a good amputation stump to fit an external prosthesis. In the case of radiation damage to the tissue, a free tissue transfer is necessary. The calcaneal-plantar unit from the amputated limb is frequently used as a free flap. Other flaps from the amputated limb, called fillet flaps, are harvested immediately and converted to flaps transferred to the defect site. Studies show that they are oncologically safe and reliable.17 Other flaps that provide good coverage for amputation defects are the latissimus dorsi muscle flap, the radial forearm flap, and the anterolateral thigh flap.

Upper extremities

Figure 2. (A) Complex defect of the forearm after wide excision of an intermediate-grade soft-tissue sarcoma (spindle-cell sarcoma) with excision of the extensor digiti communis tendon. (B) Reconstruction was performed with tendon transfer from the extensor carpi radialis to the extensor digiti communis to fingers 2–5, and the wound was closed with an anterolateral thigh free flap.
Musculoskeletal sarcomas of the arm and hand present challenges because of these sites’ unique anatomy. The arm and hand contain little soft tissue, and compartments are narrow. Amputation rates are higher for upper-extremity sarcomas, mostly because adequate margins are more difficult to obtain. Moreover, the sacrifice of important structures after wide resection can directly affect hand function.15 Exposure of nerves, tendons, blood vessels, and bone will often require free tissue transfer. In that situation, immediate coverage is recommended, with free tissue transfer being the most available choice. A pedicled radial forearm flap can be used for smaller defects. For larger defects, the anterolateral thigh flap is indicated (Figure 2). If bone is resected, a vascularized fibula free flap is used. In the case of sarcoma involving a digit, ray amputation is often required. For a single-digit ray amputation, defect transposition (such as index-to-middle finger or little-to-ring finger) can be used. A total thumb defect can be reconstructed with index finger transposition or a toe free flap.

 

 

POSTOPERATIVE CARE

Postoperative care following reconstruction after sarcoma resection requires a dedicated and trained team, particularly if a free flap is used for reconstruction.

Clinical evaluation of flaps includes color, temperature, and capillary refill. In cases of microsurgical reconstruction, postoperative care should include hourly examination of audible Doppler signals, at least for the first 36 hours. Free flap complications develop primarily in the first 24 hours, but they can occur during initial mobilization of the patient after a long period of bed rest. The surgical team should be aware of the potential problems and be able to act fast if necessary to reestablish blood flow to the flap.

In addition to flap monitoring, immobilization of the patient after surgery is extremely important. Postoperative swelling to the extremity should be avoided. Patients should be placed on bed rest until the postoperative swelling has subsided and the flap has adhered to the wound bed. Our protocol includes strict bed rest for about 7 days, followed by several days of dangling the extremity for short periods to ensure that dependent positioning will not alter the blood supply. A physical therapist should be involved to assist with crutches or a wheelchair. The patient should receive prophylactic anticoagulation during the resting period, in light of the high risk of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. A compressive garment should be used to prevent lymphedema.

COMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH FLAPS

Once the flap is raised, it can still fail as a result of tension at insetting, inadequate blood flow, twisting of the pedicle, hematoma and/or infection, or the patient’s condition (eg, coagulopathy, poor nutritional status, anemia). Failure to correctly evaluate the direction of arterial flow, whether anterograde or retrograde, can cause flap loss. Instruments such as Doppler ultrasonographic equipment can be used to help to determine the flow. Partial or complete occlusion of the vascular pedicle can occur for several reasons (eg, twisting of the pedicle), and the consequences are disastrous if not recognized in time. If a pedicle problem is suspected in the case of a free flap, the patient should be taken to the operating room immediately and the flap should be explored. Rupture of the vascular anastomosis can occur as a result of technical problems, tension, and (in rare cases) infection.

Hematomas can cause mass effect, limit the venous return, and lead to flap necrosis. Hematoma formation also releases free radicals that can contribute to flap necrosis. Prevention is achieved through meticulous hemostasis. If a hematoma is suspected, the wound should be explored and the hematoma evacuated and washed out with normal saline.

The presence of an infected wound bed can also damage a flap by increasing its metabolic demand and causing the flap to be compromised by the infection itself. It is usually best to wait until the infection is controlled before planning the reconstruction.

Partial flap losses, skin graft losses, and wound dehiscence also are possible. Most of the time these require wound care, and patients’ nutrition and general health should be optimized to help the healing process. In the case of partial or complete flap loss, a new flap is often required and should be planned at a proper time.

CONCLUSIONS

Soft-tissue reconstruction following musculoskeletal sarcoma resection can be as simple as allowing the wound to heal by itself, which is less ideal, or as complex as coverage with a microsurgical osteocutaneous free flap. Limb salvage for sarcomas of the lower extremity has demonstrated good final functional outcomes without adversely affecting the oncologic results. Moreover, patients feel better psychologically and have higher quality of life.18,19

We believe that soft-tissue coverage after a wide resection is the most critical factor for avoiding postoperative complications of the tumor resection, such as infection or fractures. For this reason, we recommend the use of well-vascularized coverage at the time of the initial operation, if possible. Careful preoperative planning is especially important. We believe that reconstruction following musculo­skeletal sarcoma resection can be done effectively only by using a team approach. Every such team should include, at minimum, an orthopedic surgeon and a reconstructive surgeon, with the mix of other providers dictated by the individual case.

References
  1. Misra A, Mistry N, Grimer R, Peart F. The management of soft tissue sarcoma. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009; 62:161–174.
  2. Morii T, Mochizuki K, Takushima A, Okazaki M, Satomi K. Soft tissue reconstruction using vascularized tissue transplantation following resection of musculoskeletal sarcoma: evaluation of oncologic and functional outcomes in 55 cases. Ann Plast Surg 2009; 62:252–257.
  3. Heller L, Kronowitz SJ. Lower extremity reconstruction. J Surg Oncol 2006; 94:479–489.
  4. Bannasch H, Haivas I, Momeni A, Stark GB. Oncosurgical and reconstructive concepts in the treatment of soft tissue sarcomas: a retrospective analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009; 129:43–49.
  5. Muramatsu K, Ihara K, Doi K, Hashimoto T, Taguchi T. Sarcoma in the forearm and hand: clinical outcomes and microsurgical reconstruction for limb salvage. Ann Plast Surg 2009; 62:28–33.
  6. Tukiainen E, Böhling T, Huuhtanen R. Soft tissue sarcoma of the trunk and extremities. Scand J Surg 2003; 92:257–263.
  7. Adelani MA, Holt GE, Dittus RS, Passman MA, Schwartz HS. Revascularization after segmental resection of lower extremity soft tissue sarcomas. J Surg Oncol 2007; 95:455–460.
  8. Lohman RF, Nabawi AS, Reece GP, Pollock RE, Evans GR. Soft tissue sarcoma of the upper extremity: a 5-year experience at two institutions emphasizing the role of soft tissue flap reconstruction. Cancer 2002; 94:2256–2264.
  9. Davis AM, Sennik S, Griffin AM, et al. Predictors of functional outcomes following limb salvage surgery for lower-extremity soft tissue sarcoma. J Surg Oncol 2000; 73:206–211.
  10. Heller L, Ballo MT, Cormier JN, Oates SD, Butler CE. Staged reconstruction for resection wounds in sarcoma patients treated with brachytherapy. Ann Plast Surg 2008; 60:58–63.
  11. Evans GR, Black JJ, Robb GL, et al. Adjuvant therapy: the effects on microvascular lower extremity reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 1997; 39:141–144.
  12. Peat BG, Bell RS, Davis A, et al. Wound-healing complications after soft-tissue sarcoma surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 1994; 93:980–987.
  13. Barwick WJ, Goldberg JA, Scully SP, Harrelson JM. Vascularized tissue transfer for closure of irradiated wounds after soft tissue sarcoma resection. Ann Surg 1992; 216:591–595.
  14. Masquelet AC, Romana MC. The medialis pedis flap: a new fasciocutaneous flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990; 85:765–772.
  15. Sherman R, Law M. Lower extremity reconstruction. In: Achauer BM, Eriksson E, Guyuron B, Coleman III JJ, Russell RC, Vander Kolk CA, eds. Plastic Surgery: Indications, Operations, and Outcomes. Vol 1. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2000:475–496.
  16. Innocenti M, Abed YY, Beltrami G, Delcroix L, Balatri A, Capanna R. Quadriceps muscle reconstruction with free functioning latissimus dorsi muscle flap after oncological resection. Microsurgery 2009; 29:189–198.
  17. Chiang YC, Wei FC, Wang JW, Chen WS. Reconstruction of below-knee stump using the salvaged foot fillet flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995; 96:731–738.
  18. Serletti JM, Carras AJ, O’Keefe RJ, Rosier RN. Functional outcome after soft-tissue reconstruction for limb salvage after sarcoma surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 102:1576–1583.
  19. Niimi R, Matsumine A, Kusuzaki K, et al. Usefulness of limb salvage surgery for bone and soft tissue sarcomas of the distal lower leg. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2008; 134:1087–1095.
References
  1. Misra A, Mistry N, Grimer R, Peart F. The management of soft tissue sarcoma. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009; 62:161–174.
  2. Morii T, Mochizuki K, Takushima A, Okazaki M, Satomi K. Soft tissue reconstruction using vascularized tissue transplantation following resection of musculoskeletal sarcoma: evaluation of oncologic and functional outcomes in 55 cases. Ann Plast Surg 2009; 62:252–257.
  3. Heller L, Kronowitz SJ. Lower extremity reconstruction. J Surg Oncol 2006; 94:479–489.
  4. Bannasch H, Haivas I, Momeni A, Stark GB. Oncosurgical and reconstructive concepts in the treatment of soft tissue sarcomas: a retrospective analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009; 129:43–49.
  5. Muramatsu K, Ihara K, Doi K, Hashimoto T, Taguchi T. Sarcoma in the forearm and hand: clinical outcomes and microsurgical reconstruction for limb salvage. Ann Plast Surg 2009; 62:28–33.
  6. Tukiainen E, Böhling T, Huuhtanen R. Soft tissue sarcoma of the trunk and extremities. Scand J Surg 2003; 92:257–263.
  7. Adelani MA, Holt GE, Dittus RS, Passman MA, Schwartz HS. Revascularization after segmental resection of lower extremity soft tissue sarcomas. J Surg Oncol 2007; 95:455–460.
  8. Lohman RF, Nabawi AS, Reece GP, Pollock RE, Evans GR. Soft tissue sarcoma of the upper extremity: a 5-year experience at two institutions emphasizing the role of soft tissue flap reconstruction. Cancer 2002; 94:2256–2264.
  9. Davis AM, Sennik S, Griffin AM, et al. Predictors of functional outcomes following limb salvage surgery for lower-extremity soft tissue sarcoma. J Surg Oncol 2000; 73:206–211.
  10. Heller L, Ballo MT, Cormier JN, Oates SD, Butler CE. Staged reconstruction for resection wounds in sarcoma patients treated with brachytherapy. Ann Plast Surg 2008; 60:58–63.
  11. Evans GR, Black JJ, Robb GL, et al. Adjuvant therapy: the effects on microvascular lower extremity reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 1997; 39:141–144.
  12. Peat BG, Bell RS, Davis A, et al. Wound-healing complications after soft-tissue sarcoma surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 1994; 93:980–987.
  13. Barwick WJ, Goldberg JA, Scully SP, Harrelson JM. Vascularized tissue transfer for closure of irradiated wounds after soft tissue sarcoma resection. Ann Surg 1992; 216:591–595.
  14. Masquelet AC, Romana MC. The medialis pedis flap: a new fasciocutaneous flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990; 85:765–772.
  15. Sherman R, Law M. Lower extremity reconstruction. In: Achauer BM, Eriksson E, Guyuron B, Coleman III JJ, Russell RC, Vander Kolk CA, eds. Plastic Surgery: Indications, Operations, and Outcomes. Vol 1. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2000:475–496.
  16. Innocenti M, Abed YY, Beltrami G, Delcroix L, Balatri A, Capanna R. Quadriceps muscle reconstruction with free functioning latissimus dorsi muscle flap after oncological resection. Microsurgery 2009; 29:189–198.
  17. Chiang YC, Wei FC, Wang JW, Chen WS. Reconstruction of below-knee stump using the salvaged foot fillet flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995; 96:731–738.
  18. Serletti JM, Carras AJ, O’Keefe RJ, Rosier RN. Functional outcome after soft-tissue reconstruction for limb salvage after sarcoma surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 102:1576–1583.
  19. Niimi R, Matsumine A, Kusuzaki K, et al. Usefulness of limb salvage surgery for bone and soft tissue sarcomas of the distal lower leg. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2008; 134:1087–1095.
Page Number
S18-S22
Page Number
S18-S22
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Considerations surrounding reconstruction after resection of musculoskeletal sarcomas
Display Headline
Considerations surrounding reconstruction after resection of musculoskeletal sarcomas
Citation Override
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 2010 March;77(suppl 1):S18-S22
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

Use of chemotherapy for patients with bone and soft-tissue sarcomas

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 10/02/2018 - 11:40
Display Headline
Use of chemotherapy for patients with bone and soft-tissue sarcomas

Surgical resection is the mainstay of treatment for musculoskeletal sarcomas, as detailed earlier in this supplement, but chemotherapy also has a proven role in the primary therapy of most bone sarcomas and a potential role for some patients with soft-tissue sarcomas. This article provides an overview of the roles of chemotherapy for patients with bone and soft-tissue sarcomas and addresses key considerations surrounding chemo­therapy in the context of overall patient management.

BONE SARCOMAS

Because most bone sarcomas occur in pediatric patients and young adults, studies of chemotherapy in this disease have often enrolled predominantly young subjects. As a result, very limited data are available in older adults. Single-institution experiences indicate that adults with bone sarcomas have inferior outcomes compared with their pediatric and adolescent counterparts,1 but the literature on these tumors in adults is scant. Therefore, the following discussion on chemotherapy for bone sarcomas incorporates data from trials conducted predominantly in children and young adults (ie, generally younger than 30 years and with a very large majority younger than 20 years).

Chemotherapy for osteosarcoma

At present, neoadjuvant (preoperative) chemotherapy followed by definitive resection with subsequent adjuvant (postoperative) chemotherapy is the well-established approach to treatment of localized osteosarcomas. Chemo­therapy can eradicate the micrometastatic disease that is believed to be present in the majority of patients with clinically resectable cancer.2

Efficacy. Historically, prior to the institution of effective chemotherapy, metastatic disease developed in 80% to 90% of patients who underwent curative resection with or without radiation therapy, which resulted in a long-term survival rate of less than 20%.3 In the 1980s, clinical trials that randomized patients with resectable osteosarcoma to surgery alone or to surgery plus chemotherapy found that the addition of perioperative chemotherapy led to significant improvements in recurrence rates and survival.4,5 More recent randomized trials have shown that treatment of such patients with modern multiagent chemotherapy regimens results in a 5-year survival rate of approximately 70%.6 Additionally, response to neoadjuvant (preoperative) treatment has become the most important predictor of outcome, as the median survival of osteosarcoma patients who have greater than 90% necrosis in the resected specimen following neoadjuvant chemotherapy is about 90% at 5 years.7,8

Toxicity. Current chemotherapy regimens are based on high doses of methotrexate and leucovorin in combination with doxorubicin, ifosfamide, and platinum. Long-term effects of such regimens include the following3:

  • Azospermia (in 100% of patients who received a total ifosfamide dose > 75 g/m2)
  • Subclinical renal impairment (in 48% of patients treated with high doses of ifosfamide)
  • Hearing impairment (in 40% of patients treated with cisplatin)
  • Second malignancies (in 2.1%)
  • Cardiomyopathy (in 1.7%).3

In light of this, the development of equally effective but less intensive regimens for patients whose disease carries a better prognosis is highly desirable. Ongoing clinical trials are investigating this strategy.

Metastatic disease. Metastatic osteosarcoma is found in approximately 20% of patients at the time of diagnosis. Sarcoma mainly spreads hematogenously, and the lungs are the most common initial site of metastases, being affected in more than 60% of patients who develop metastatic disease.9 Patients with metachronous lung lesions are initially considered for aggressive treatment with neoadjuvant chemo­therapy and subsequent resection of clinically apparent disease, which results in event-free survival rates of 20% to 30%.3

Patients with disease limited to the primary tumor and no more than one or two bone lesions fare best. The presence of multiple metastases is associated with the poorest prognosis, as few patients with this profile live past 2 years.10 In a review of 202 pediatric and adult patients with documented metastases at the time of osteosarcoma diagnosis, the presence of more than 5 metastatic lesions (which was reported in 91 patients) was associated with a 5-year overall survival rate of 19%.9

Chemotherapy for Ewing sarcoma

Perioperative chemotherapy in patients with localized Ewing sarcoma is believed to reduce the burden of micrometastasis that is thought to be present in most patients with early-stage disease. Five-year survival rates of 50% to 72% have been reported among patients with resectable Ewing sarcoma treated perioperatively with multiagent chemotherapy.11,12 Notably, randomized trials that studied intense multiagent chemotherapy regimens (consisting of doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and dactinomycin alternating with etoposide and ifosfamide) reported the best outcomes despite significant but acceptable toxicity. In a large randomized trial involving 398 patients with resectable disease, a 5-year survival rate of 72% was achieved with the above regimen, compared with 61% in patients treated with a less intense regimen that did not contain ifosfamide and etoposide (p = .01).12

Compressing these standard regimens to an every-14-day instead of every-21-day schedule improved event-free survival at 3 years from 65% to 76% (p = .028) without any significant increase in toxicity in a randomized trial involving 568 patients.13 Data on overall survival from this trial are not yet published.

Metastatic disease. Metastatic Ewing sarcoma is found in 15% to 35% of patients with newly diagnosed disease and is treated with multiagent chemotherapy; resection of residual disease is considered in good responders.3 This approach produces objective responses to therapy, but long-term survival is rare.

Toxicity. Myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia are the most dreaded long-term complications of intensive multiagent chemotherapy for Ewing sarcoma and develop in up to 8% of patients.14 Additionally, ifosfamide can lead to hematuria (~12% incidence), encephalopathy (mild somnolence and hallucinations to coma), chronic renal impairment (6% incidence), and hemorrhagic cystitis (though administration of mesna and generous intravenous hydration can minimize this latter complication).15 Recent efforts are therefore focused on testing less-intensive regimens in patients who have good prognostic features.

Chondrosarcoma: No role for chemotherapy

Chondrosarcoma, which represents approximately 20% of all bone sarcomas and has a peak incidence in older adults (ie, in the sixth decade of life), is insensitive to chemotherapy. Radiotherapy is also of limited value and is reserved for patients treated in the palliative setting.16 Definitive management of chondrosarcoma involves adequate surgical resection alone.

 

 

SOFT-TISSUE SARCOMAS

Aside from recent advances in the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors with the small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors imatinib and sunitinib (which are beyond the scope of this article), an overall survival advantage with chemotherapy has not been demonstrated in adults with soft-tissue sarcoma.17

Resectable disease

The decision to use chemotherapy needs to be weighed against the magnitude of potential clinical benefit and the acute and chronic toxicities that can develop.

Toxicity. Chemotherapy regimens with activity against soft-tissue sarcomas often contain anthracyclines, alkylating agents, and taxanes. These agents can produce serious long-term toxicities, which is especially important in patients treated with curative intent. Doxorubicin and other anthracyclines, for example, may result in cardiomyopathy, the risk of which rises with increasing cumulative dose.18 In addition, acute myeloid leukemia may develop in 2% to 12% of patients treated with anthracyclines or alkylating agents such as ifosfamide and dacarbazine.3,19 Renal failure and an elevated risk of bladder carcinoma are uncommonly reported in patients with a history of ifosfamide treatment.15 Sensory neuropathy associated with the use of taxanes (eg, paclitaxel and docetaxel) is dose dependent and reversible in more than half of patients. However, some patients treated with high doses of these agents can have persistent symptoms of paresthesias, burning, and decreased reflexes, which can be debilitating.20

Efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy. Because chemotherapy puts patients at risk of such serious chronic toxicities, its use can be justified only if it results in significant benefit, such as prolongation of survival. A 1997 meta-analysis of 14 clinical trials evaluating adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resectable soft-tissue sarcomas found chemotherapy to have an absolute benefit of 10% in recurrence-free survival at 10 years (ie, from 45% survival to 55% survival), with a hazard ratio of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64–0.87; p = .0001) for recurrence or death.21 However, when the analysis was limited to overall survival at 10 years, the survival difference between patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and those who did not (54% vs 50%, respectively) was not statistically significant (hazard ratio = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.76–1.03, p = .12).21

The concept of adjuvant therapy has been revisited since the antisarcoma activity of ifosfamide was established. A large European trial randomized 351 patients with resected soft-tissue sarcoma either to placebo or to doxorubicin and ifosfamide given every 21 days.22 The preliminary results, reported in abstract form at the 2007 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, showed a higher 5-year survival rate in the placebo arm (69%) compared with the chemotherapy arm (64%).22 This and other trials using ifosfamide in various drug combinations showed no difference in survival, suggesting that adjuvant chemotherapy should not be considered to be standard practice outside of a clinical trial.

Efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy also has been studied in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas. A retrospective analysis found that the greatest benefit is derived in patients with primary tumors larger than 10 cm, in whom neoadjuvant chemotherapy increased 3-year disease-specific survival from 62% to 83%.23 However, differing results came from a prospective multicenter trial that randomized patients with large primary and recurrent tumors to either surgery alone or surgery preceded by three cycles of neoadjuvant doxorubicin and ifosfamide (all patients could also receive adjuvant radiation therapy, depending on grade and adequacy of resection).24 The trial suffered from slow accrual, and only 150 patients were enrolled. At 5 years, survival was similar between the groups with and without neoadjuvant chemotherapy.24 Therefore, neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not yet recommended pending results of larger randomized trials.

No clear role for recurrent disease. Local recurrence of the primary tumor after resection occurs in 10% to 50% of cases of soft-tissue sarcoma, with the specific rate depending on the primary tumor location. The highest incidence of recurrence is found in patients with retroperitoneal and head and neck sarcoma (40% and 50%, respectively), mainly because of the difficulty of obtaining clear margins. Chemotherapy has not been well studied in this setting and is of uncertain value.3

Metastatic disease

Metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas may respond to chemotherapy, but there is a lack of evidence that chemotherapy improves overall survival. Pulmonary lesions are the most common site of distant recurrence, and resection of such metastases is sometimes undertaken in well-selected patients. However, there is no level 1 evidence supporting chemotherapy in this clinical setting despite its common preoperative use. There is a paucity of randomized phase 3 trials that compare established palliative chemotherapy regimens to best supportive care. It is believed that some groups of patients do benefit, however, including those who are young and have good performance status, low tumor grade, absence of liver metastasis or pulmonary metastasis only, and a long interval between treatment of the primary tumor and development of metastatic disease.3 Some histologies, such as uterine leiomyosarcomas and facial/scalp angiosarcomas, respond better to chemotherapy.17

Drugs found to have activity against metastatic sarcoma include doxorubicin, ifosfamide, platinum agents, gemcitabine, taxanes, and dacarbazine. Used either alone or in combinations, these drugs produce responses (ie, shrink metastatic tumors) in about 13% to 33% of patients.3 Use of chemotherapy is frequently curtailed by the acute toxicity of these agents, which includes pancytopenia, transfusion requirements, febrile neutropenia, nausea, alopecia, and significant fatigue, as well as renal failure with ifosfamide or cisplatin and peripheral neuropathy with platinum agents or taxanes. Appropriate patient selection for chemo­therapy and exclusion of those who should be managed solely with best supportive care is an important challenge that oncologists often face when managing patients with metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma.

Future directions

Trabectedin (ET-743) is a novel compound with promising activity against soft-tissue sarcomas that acts by inhibiting cell-cycle transition from the G2 to M stages. The drug covalently binds to the minor grove of the DNA molecule, changing its three-dimensional structure and impairing transcription and possibly DNA repair.25 Phase 2 studies showed durable responses to trabectedin in 3% to 8% of heavily pretreated patients26–28 and in 17% of treatment-naïve patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas.25 Time to progression of up to 20 months has been reported in patients who respond or develop stable disease.3

Toxic effects of trabec­tedin include myelosuppression, fever, edema, arthralgias, hepatotoxicity, and (rarely) rhabdomyolysis. To date, these toxicities have been self-limiting. Larger clinical trials and longer follow-up is needed to assess whether this agent has any significant long-term toxicities.

Trabectedin has already been approved in Europe for treatment of chemotherapy-refractory soft-tissue sarcoma when given as a 24-hour infusion every 21 days.

More broadly, an active effort is under way to better understand the molecular derangements in a variety of soft-tissue sarcoma subtypes. The hope is that this understanding will lead to improved therapies that target aberrant proliferation, angiogenesis, and other biologic processes that drive the growth and metastasis of soft-tissue and bone sarcomas.

References
  1. Meyers PA, Heller G, Healey J, et al. Chemotherapy for nonmetastatic osteogenic sarcoma: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering experience. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10:5–15.
  2. Bruland OS, Høifødt H, Saeter G, Smeland S, Fodstad O. Hematogenous micrometastases in osteosarcoma patients. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11:4666–4673.
  3. Pazdur R, Wagman LD, Camphausen KA, Hoskins WJ, eds. Cancer Management: A Multidisciplinary Approach. 11th ed. Manhasset, NY: CMP Medica; 2009.
  4. Link MP, Goorin AM, Miser AW, et al. The effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on relapse-free survival in patients with osteosarcoma of the extremity. N Engl J Med 1986; 314:1600–1606.
  5. Eilber F, Giuliano A, Eckardt J, Patterson K, Moseley S, Goodnight J. Adjuvant chemotherapy for osteosarcoma: a randomized prospective trial. J Clin Oncol 1987; 5:21–26.
  6. Meyers PA, Schwartz CL, Krailo M, et al. Osteosarcoma: a randomized, prospective trial of the addition of ifosfamide and/or muramyl tripeptide to cisplatin, doxorubicin, and high-dose methotrexate. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:2004–2011.
  7. Winkler K, Beron G, Delling G, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy of osteosarcomas: results of a randomized cooperative trial (COSS-82) with salvage chemotherapy based on histological tumor response. J Clin Oncol 1988; 6:329–337.
  8. Bramwell VH, Steward WP, Nooij M, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with doxorubicin and cisplatin in malignant fibrous histiocytoma of bone: a European Osteosarcoma Intergroup study. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17:3260–3269.
  9. Kager L, Zoubek A, Pötschger U, et al. Primary metastatic osteosarcoma: presentation and outcome of patients treated on Neoadjuvant Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group protocols. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:2011–2018.
  10. Longhi A, Fabbri N, Donati D, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with synchronous multifocal osteosarcoma: results in eleven cases. J Chemother 2001; 13:324–330.
  11. Nesbit ME Jr, Gehan EA, Burgert EO Jr, et al. Multimodal therapy for the management of primary, nonmetastatic Ewing’s sarcoma of bone: a long-term follow-up of the First Intergroup study. J Clin Oncol 1990; 8:1664–1674.
  12. Grier HE, Krailo MD, Tarbell NJ, et al. Addition of ifosfamide and etoposide to standard chemotherapy for Ewing’s sarcoma and primitive neuroectodermal tumor of bone. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:694–701.
  13. Womer RB, West DC, Krailo MD, et al; for the Children’s Oncology Group AEWS0031 Committee. Randomized comparison of every-two-week v. every-three-week chemotherapy in Ewing sarcoma family tumors. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26(May 20 suppl):10504. Abstract.
  14. Rodriguez-Galindo C, Poquette CA, Marina NM, et al. Hematologic abnormalities and acute myeloid leukemia in children and adolescents administered intensified chemotherapy for the Ewing sarcoma family of tumors. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2000; 22:321–329.
  15. Brade WP, Herdrich, K, Kachel-Fischer U, Araujo CE. Dosing and side-effects of ifosfamide plus mesna. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1991; 117(suppl 4):S164–S186.
  16. Healey JH, Lane JM. Chondrosarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986; 204:119–129.
  17. Clark MA, Fisher C, Judson I, Thomas JM. Soft-tissue sarcomas in adults. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:701–711.
  18. Alexander J, Dainiak N, Berger HJ, et al. Serial assessment of doxorubicin cardiotoxicity with quantitative radionuclide angiocardiography. N Engl J Med 1979; 300:278–283.
  19. Felix CA. Secondary leukemias induced by topoisomerase-targeted drugs. Biochim Biophys Acta 1998; 1400:233–255.
  20. Postma TJ, Vermorken JB, Liefting AJ, Pinedo HM, Heimans JJ. Paclitaxel-induced neuropathy. Ann Oncol 1995; 6:489–494.
  21. Sarcoma Meta-analysis Collaboration. Adjuvant chemotherapy for localised resectable soft-tissue sarcoma of adults: meta-analysis of individual data. Lancet 1997; 350:1647–1654.
  22. Woll PJ, van Glabbeke M, Hohenberger P, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) with doxorubicin and ifosfamide in resected soft tissue sarcoma (STS): interim analysis of a randomised phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25(June 20 suppl):10008. Abstract.
  23. Grobmyer SR, Maki RG, Demetri GD, et al. Neo-adjuvant chemo­therapy for primary high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcoma. Ann Oncol 2004; 15:1667–1672.
  24. Gortzak E, Azzarelli A, Buesa J, et al. A randomised phase II study on neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for ‘high-risk’ adult soft-tissue sarcoma. Eur J Cancer 2001; 37:1096–1103.
  25. Garcia-Carbonero R, Supko JG, Maki RG, et al. Ecteinascidin-743 (ET-743) for chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas: multicenter phase II and pharmacokinetic study. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:5484–5492.
  26. Yovine A, Riofrio M, Blay JY, et al. Phase II study of ectein­ascidin-743 in advanced pretreated soft tissue sarcoma patients. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:890–899.
  27. Garcia-Carbonero R, Supko JG, Manola J, et al. Phase II and pharmacokinetic study of ecteinascidin 743 in patients with progressive sarcomas of soft tissues refractory to chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:1480–1490.
  28. Le Cesne A, Blay JY, Judson I, et al. Phase II study of ET-743 in advanced soft tissue sarcomas: a European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) soft tissue and bone sarcoma group trial. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:576–584.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Robert Wesolowski, MD
Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

George Thomas Budd, MD
Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Correspondence: George Thomas Budd, MD, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, R35, Cleveland, OH 44195; [email protected]

Both authors reported that they have no financial interests or relationships that pose a potential conflict of interest with this article.

Publications
Page Number
S23-S26
Author and Disclosure Information

Robert Wesolowski, MD
Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

George Thomas Budd, MD
Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Correspondence: George Thomas Budd, MD, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, R35, Cleveland, OH 44195; [email protected]

Both authors reported that they have no financial interests or relationships that pose a potential conflict of interest with this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Robert Wesolowski, MD
Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

George Thomas Budd, MD
Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Correspondence: George Thomas Budd, MD, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, R35, Cleveland, OH 44195; [email protected]

Both authors reported that they have no financial interests or relationships that pose a potential conflict of interest with this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

Surgical resection is the mainstay of treatment for musculoskeletal sarcomas, as detailed earlier in this supplement, but chemotherapy also has a proven role in the primary therapy of most bone sarcomas and a potential role for some patients with soft-tissue sarcomas. This article provides an overview of the roles of chemotherapy for patients with bone and soft-tissue sarcomas and addresses key considerations surrounding chemo­therapy in the context of overall patient management.

BONE SARCOMAS

Because most bone sarcomas occur in pediatric patients and young adults, studies of chemotherapy in this disease have often enrolled predominantly young subjects. As a result, very limited data are available in older adults. Single-institution experiences indicate that adults with bone sarcomas have inferior outcomes compared with their pediatric and adolescent counterparts,1 but the literature on these tumors in adults is scant. Therefore, the following discussion on chemotherapy for bone sarcomas incorporates data from trials conducted predominantly in children and young adults (ie, generally younger than 30 years and with a very large majority younger than 20 years).

Chemotherapy for osteosarcoma

At present, neoadjuvant (preoperative) chemotherapy followed by definitive resection with subsequent adjuvant (postoperative) chemotherapy is the well-established approach to treatment of localized osteosarcomas. Chemo­therapy can eradicate the micrometastatic disease that is believed to be present in the majority of patients with clinically resectable cancer.2

Efficacy. Historically, prior to the institution of effective chemotherapy, metastatic disease developed in 80% to 90% of patients who underwent curative resection with or without radiation therapy, which resulted in a long-term survival rate of less than 20%.3 In the 1980s, clinical trials that randomized patients with resectable osteosarcoma to surgery alone or to surgery plus chemotherapy found that the addition of perioperative chemotherapy led to significant improvements in recurrence rates and survival.4,5 More recent randomized trials have shown that treatment of such patients with modern multiagent chemotherapy regimens results in a 5-year survival rate of approximately 70%.6 Additionally, response to neoadjuvant (preoperative) treatment has become the most important predictor of outcome, as the median survival of osteosarcoma patients who have greater than 90% necrosis in the resected specimen following neoadjuvant chemotherapy is about 90% at 5 years.7,8

Toxicity. Current chemotherapy regimens are based on high doses of methotrexate and leucovorin in combination with doxorubicin, ifosfamide, and platinum. Long-term effects of such regimens include the following3:

  • Azospermia (in 100% of patients who received a total ifosfamide dose > 75 g/m2)
  • Subclinical renal impairment (in 48% of patients treated with high doses of ifosfamide)
  • Hearing impairment (in 40% of patients treated with cisplatin)
  • Second malignancies (in 2.1%)
  • Cardiomyopathy (in 1.7%).3

In light of this, the development of equally effective but less intensive regimens for patients whose disease carries a better prognosis is highly desirable. Ongoing clinical trials are investigating this strategy.

Metastatic disease. Metastatic osteosarcoma is found in approximately 20% of patients at the time of diagnosis. Sarcoma mainly spreads hematogenously, and the lungs are the most common initial site of metastases, being affected in more than 60% of patients who develop metastatic disease.9 Patients with metachronous lung lesions are initially considered for aggressive treatment with neoadjuvant chemo­therapy and subsequent resection of clinically apparent disease, which results in event-free survival rates of 20% to 30%.3

Patients with disease limited to the primary tumor and no more than one or two bone lesions fare best. The presence of multiple metastases is associated with the poorest prognosis, as few patients with this profile live past 2 years.10 In a review of 202 pediatric and adult patients with documented metastases at the time of osteosarcoma diagnosis, the presence of more than 5 metastatic lesions (which was reported in 91 patients) was associated with a 5-year overall survival rate of 19%.9

Chemotherapy for Ewing sarcoma

Perioperative chemotherapy in patients with localized Ewing sarcoma is believed to reduce the burden of micrometastasis that is thought to be present in most patients with early-stage disease. Five-year survival rates of 50% to 72% have been reported among patients with resectable Ewing sarcoma treated perioperatively with multiagent chemotherapy.11,12 Notably, randomized trials that studied intense multiagent chemotherapy regimens (consisting of doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and dactinomycin alternating with etoposide and ifosfamide) reported the best outcomes despite significant but acceptable toxicity. In a large randomized trial involving 398 patients with resectable disease, a 5-year survival rate of 72% was achieved with the above regimen, compared with 61% in patients treated with a less intense regimen that did not contain ifosfamide and etoposide (p = .01).12

Compressing these standard regimens to an every-14-day instead of every-21-day schedule improved event-free survival at 3 years from 65% to 76% (p = .028) without any significant increase in toxicity in a randomized trial involving 568 patients.13 Data on overall survival from this trial are not yet published.

Metastatic disease. Metastatic Ewing sarcoma is found in 15% to 35% of patients with newly diagnosed disease and is treated with multiagent chemotherapy; resection of residual disease is considered in good responders.3 This approach produces objective responses to therapy, but long-term survival is rare.

Toxicity. Myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia are the most dreaded long-term complications of intensive multiagent chemotherapy for Ewing sarcoma and develop in up to 8% of patients.14 Additionally, ifosfamide can lead to hematuria (~12% incidence), encephalopathy (mild somnolence and hallucinations to coma), chronic renal impairment (6% incidence), and hemorrhagic cystitis (though administration of mesna and generous intravenous hydration can minimize this latter complication).15 Recent efforts are therefore focused on testing less-intensive regimens in patients who have good prognostic features.

Chondrosarcoma: No role for chemotherapy

Chondrosarcoma, which represents approximately 20% of all bone sarcomas and has a peak incidence in older adults (ie, in the sixth decade of life), is insensitive to chemotherapy. Radiotherapy is also of limited value and is reserved for patients treated in the palliative setting.16 Definitive management of chondrosarcoma involves adequate surgical resection alone.

 

 

SOFT-TISSUE SARCOMAS

Aside from recent advances in the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors with the small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors imatinib and sunitinib (which are beyond the scope of this article), an overall survival advantage with chemotherapy has not been demonstrated in adults with soft-tissue sarcoma.17

Resectable disease

The decision to use chemotherapy needs to be weighed against the magnitude of potential clinical benefit and the acute and chronic toxicities that can develop.

Toxicity. Chemotherapy regimens with activity against soft-tissue sarcomas often contain anthracyclines, alkylating agents, and taxanes. These agents can produce serious long-term toxicities, which is especially important in patients treated with curative intent. Doxorubicin and other anthracyclines, for example, may result in cardiomyopathy, the risk of which rises with increasing cumulative dose.18 In addition, acute myeloid leukemia may develop in 2% to 12% of patients treated with anthracyclines or alkylating agents such as ifosfamide and dacarbazine.3,19 Renal failure and an elevated risk of bladder carcinoma are uncommonly reported in patients with a history of ifosfamide treatment.15 Sensory neuropathy associated with the use of taxanes (eg, paclitaxel and docetaxel) is dose dependent and reversible in more than half of patients. However, some patients treated with high doses of these agents can have persistent symptoms of paresthesias, burning, and decreased reflexes, which can be debilitating.20

Efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy. Because chemotherapy puts patients at risk of such serious chronic toxicities, its use can be justified only if it results in significant benefit, such as prolongation of survival. A 1997 meta-analysis of 14 clinical trials evaluating adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resectable soft-tissue sarcomas found chemotherapy to have an absolute benefit of 10% in recurrence-free survival at 10 years (ie, from 45% survival to 55% survival), with a hazard ratio of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64–0.87; p = .0001) for recurrence or death.21 However, when the analysis was limited to overall survival at 10 years, the survival difference between patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and those who did not (54% vs 50%, respectively) was not statistically significant (hazard ratio = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.76–1.03, p = .12).21

The concept of adjuvant therapy has been revisited since the antisarcoma activity of ifosfamide was established. A large European trial randomized 351 patients with resected soft-tissue sarcoma either to placebo or to doxorubicin and ifosfamide given every 21 days.22 The preliminary results, reported in abstract form at the 2007 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, showed a higher 5-year survival rate in the placebo arm (69%) compared with the chemotherapy arm (64%).22 This and other trials using ifosfamide in various drug combinations showed no difference in survival, suggesting that adjuvant chemotherapy should not be considered to be standard practice outside of a clinical trial.

Efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy also has been studied in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas. A retrospective analysis found that the greatest benefit is derived in patients with primary tumors larger than 10 cm, in whom neoadjuvant chemotherapy increased 3-year disease-specific survival from 62% to 83%.23 However, differing results came from a prospective multicenter trial that randomized patients with large primary and recurrent tumors to either surgery alone or surgery preceded by three cycles of neoadjuvant doxorubicin and ifosfamide (all patients could also receive adjuvant radiation therapy, depending on grade and adequacy of resection).24 The trial suffered from slow accrual, and only 150 patients were enrolled. At 5 years, survival was similar between the groups with and without neoadjuvant chemotherapy.24 Therefore, neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not yet recommended pending results of larger randomized trials.

No clear role for recurrent disease. Local recurrence of the primary tumor after resection occurs in 10% to 50% of cases of soft-tissue sarcoma, with the specific rate depending on the primary tumor location. The highest incidence of recurrence is found in patients with retroperitoneal and head and neck sarcoma (40% and 50%, respectively), mainly because of the difficulty of obtaining clear margins. Chemotherapy has not been well studied in this setting and is of uncertain value.3

Metastatic disease

Metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas may respond to chemotherapy, but there is a lack of evidence that chemotherapy improves overall survival. Pulmonary lesions are the most common site of distant recurrence, and resection of such metastases is sometimes undertaken in well-selected patients. However, there is no level 1 evidence supporting chemotherapy in this clinical setting despite its common preoperative use. There is a paucity of randomized phase 3 trials that compare established palliative chemotherapy regimens to best supportive care. It is believed that some groups of patients do benefit, however, including those who are young and have good performance status, low tumor grade, absence of liver metastasis or pulmonary metastasis only, and a long interval between treatment of the primary tumor and development of metastatic disease.3 Some histologies, such as uterine leiomyosarcomas and facial/scalp angiosarcomas, respond better to chemotherapy.17

Drugs found to have activity against metastatic sarcoma include doxorubicin, ifosfamide, platinum agents, gemcitabine, taxanes, and dacarbazine. Used either alone or in combinations, these drugs produce responses (ie, shrink metastatic tumors) in about 13% to 33% of patients.3 Use of chemotherapy is frequently curtailed by the acute toxicity of these agents, which includes pancytopenia, transfusion requirements, febrile neutropenia, nausea, alopecia, and significant fatigue, as well as renal failure with ifosfamide or cisplatin and peripheral neuropathy with platinum agents or taxanes. Appropriate patient selection for chemo­therapy and exclusion of those who should be managed solely with best supportive care is an important challenge that oncologists often face when managing patients with metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma.

Future directions

Trabectedin (ET-743) is a novel compound with promising activity against soft-tissue sarcomas that acts by inhibiting cell-cycle transition from the G2 to M stages. The drug covalently binds to the minor grove of the DNA molecule, changing its three-dimensional structure and impairing transcription and possibly DNA repair.25 Phase 2 studies showed durable responses to trabectedin in 3% to 8% of heavily pretreated patients26–28 and in 17% of treatment-naïve patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas.25 Time to progression of up to 20 months has been reported in patients who respond or develop stable disease.3

Toxic effects of trabec­tedin include myelosuppression, fever, edema, arthralgias, hepatotoxicity, and (rarely) rhabdomyolysis. To date, these toxicities have been self-limiting. Larger clinical trials and longer follow-up is needed to assess whether this agent has any significant long-term toxicities.

Trabectedin has already been approved in Europe for treatment of chemotherapy-refractory soft-tissue sarcoma when given as a 24-hour infusion every 21 days.

More broadly, an active effort is under way to better understand the molecular derangements in a variety of soft-tissue sarcoma subtypes. The hope is that this understanding will lead to improved therapies that target aberrant proliferation, angiogenesis, and other biologic processes that drive the growth and metastasis of soft-tissue and bone sarcomas.

Surgical resection is the mainstay of treatment for musculoskeletal sarcomas, as detailed earlier in this supplement, but chemotherapy also has a proven role in the primary therapy of most bone sarcomas and a potential role for some patients with soft-tissue sarcomas. This article provides an overview of the roles of chemotherapy for patients with bone and soft-tissue sarcomas and addresses key considerations surrounding chemo­therapy in the context of overall patient management.

BONE SARCOMAS

Because most bone sarcomas occur in pediatric patients and young adults, studies of chemotherapy in this disease have often enrolled predominantly young subjects. As a result, very limited data are available in older adults. Single-institution experiences indicate that adults with bone sarcomas have inferior outcomes compared with their pediatric and adolescent counterparts,1 but the literature on these tumors in adults is scant. Therefore, the following discussion on chemotherapy for bone sarcomas incorporates data from trials conducted predominantly in children and young adults (ie, generally younger than 30 years and with a very large majority younger than 20 years).

Chemotherapy for osteosarcoma

At present, neoadjuvant (preoperative) chemotherapy followed by definitive resection with subsequent adjuvant (postoperative) chemotherapy is the well-established approach to treatment of localized osteosarcomas. Chemo­therapy can eradicate the micrometastatic disease that is believed to be present in the majority of patients with clinically resectable cancer.2

Efficacy. Historically, prior to the institution of effective chemotherapy, metastatic disease developed in 80% to 90% of patients who underwent curative resection with or without radiation therapy, which resulted in a long-term survival rate of less than 20%.3 In the 1980s, clinical trials that randomized patients with resectable osteosarcoma to surgery alone or to surgery plus chemotherapy found that the addition of perioperative chemotherapy led to significant improvements in recurrence rates and survival.4,5 More recent randomized trials have shown that treatment of such patients with modern multiagent chemotherapy regimens results in a 5-year survival rate of approximately 70%.6 Additionally, response to neoadjuvant (preoperative) treatment has become the most important predictor of outcome, as the median survival of osteosarcoma patients who have greater than 90% necrosis in the resected specimen following neoadjuvant chemotherapy is about 90% at 5 years.7,8

Toxicity. Current chemotherapy regimens are based on high doses of methotrexate and leucovorin in combination with doxorubicin, ifosfamide, and platinum. Long-term effects of such regimens include the following3:

  • Azospermia (in 100% of patients who received a total ifosfamide dose > 75 g/m2)
  • Subclinical renal impairment (in 48% of patients treated with high doses of ifosfamide)
  • Hearing impairment (in 40% of patients treated with cisplatin)
  • Second malignancies (in 2.1%)
  • Cardiomyopathy (in 1.7%).3

In light of this, the development of equally effective but less intensive regimens for patients whose disease carries a better prognosis is highly desirable. Ongoing clinical trials are investigating this strategy.

Metastatic disease. Metastatic osteosarcoma is found in approximately 20% of patients at the time of diagnosis. Sarcoma mainly spreads hematogenously, and the lungs are the most common initial site of metastases, being affected in more than 60% of patients who develop metastatic disease.9 Patients with metachronous lung lesions are initially considered for aggressive treatment with neoadjuvant chemo­therapy and subsequent resection of clinically apparent disease, which results in event-free survival rates of 20% to 30%.3

Patients with disease limited to the primary tumor and no more than one or two bone lesions fare best. The presence of multiple metastases is associated with the poorest prognosis, as few patients with this profile live past 2 years.10 In a review of 202 pediatric and adult patients with documented metastases at the time of osteosarcoma diagnosis, the presence of more than 5 metastatic lesions (which was reported in 91 patients) was associated with a 5-year overall survival rate of 19%.9

Chemotherapy for Ewing sarcoma

Perioperative chemotherapy in patients with localized Ewing sarcoma is believed to reduce the burden of micrometastasis that is thought to be present in most patients with early-stage disease. Five-year survival rates of 50% to 72% have been reported among patients with resectable Ewing sarcoma treated perioperatively with multiagent chemotherapy.11,12 Notably, randomized trials that studied intense multiagent chemotherapy regimens (consisting of doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and dactinomycin alternating with etoposide and ifosfamide) reported the best outcomes despite significant but acceptable toxicity. In a large randomized trial involving 398 patients with resectable disease, a 5-year survival rate of 72% was achieved with the above regimen, compared with 61% in patients treated with a less intense regimen that did not contain ifosfamide and etoposide (p = .01).12

Compressing these standard regimens to an every-14-day instead of every-21-day schedule improved event-free survival at 3 years from 65% to 76% (p = .028) without any significant increase in toxicity in a randomized trial involving 568 patients.13 Data on overall survival from this trial are not yet published.

Metastatic disease. Metastatic Ewing sarcoma is found in 15% to 35% of patients with newly diagnosed disease and is treated with multiagent chemotherapy; resection of residual disease is considered in good responders.3 This approach produces objective responses to therapy, but long-term survival is rare.

Toxicity. Myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia are the most dreaded long-term complications of intensive multiagent chemotherapy for Ewing sarcoma and develop in up to 8% of patients.14 Additionally, ifosfamide can lead to hematuria (~12% incidence), encephalopathy (mild somnolence and hallucinations to coma), chronic renal impairment (6% incidence), and hemorrhagic cystitis (though administration of mesna and generous intravenous hydration can minimize this latter complication).15 Recent efforts are therefore focused on testing less-intensive regimens in patients who have good prognostic features.

Chondrosarcoma: No role for chemotherapy

Chondrosarcoma, which represents approximately 20% of all bone sarcomas and has a peak incidence in older adults (ie, in the sixth decade of life), is insensitive to chemotherapy. Radiotherapy is also of limited value and is reserved for patients treated in the palliative setting.16 Definitive management of chondrosarcoma involves adequate surgical resection alone.

 

 

SOFT-TISSUE SARCOMAS

Aside from recent advances in the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors with the small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors imatinib and sunitinib (which are beyond the scope of this article), an overall survival advantage with chemotherapy has not been demonstrated in adults with soft-tissue sarcoma.17

Resectable disease

The decision to use chemotherapy needs to be weighed against the magnitude of potential clinical benefit and the acute and chronic toxicities that can develop.

Toxicity. Chemotherapy regimens with activity against soft-tissue sarcomas often contain anthracyclines, alkylating agents, and taxanes. These agents can produce serious long-term toxicities, which is especially important in patients treated with curative intent. Doxorubicin and other anthracyclines, for example, may result in cardiomyopathy, the risk of which rises with increasing cumulative dose.18 In addition, acute myeloid leukemia may develop in 2% to 12% of patients treated with anthracyclines or alkylating agents such as ifosfamide and dacarbazine.3,19 Renal failure and an elevated risk of bladder carcinoma are uncommonly reported in patients with a history of ifosfamide treatment.15 Sensory neuropathy associated with the use of taxanes (eg, paclitaxel and docetaxel) is dose dependent and reversible in more than half of patients. However, some patients treated with high doses of these agents can have persistent symptoms of paresthesias, burning, and decreased reflexes, which can be debilitating.20

Efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy. Because chemotherapy puts patients at risk of such serious chronic toxicities, its use can be justified only if it results in significant benefit, such as prolongation of survival. A 1997 meta-analysis of 14 clinical trials evaluating adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resectable soft-tissue sarcomas found chemotherapy to have an absolute benefit of 10% in recurrence-free survival at 10 years (ie, from 45% survival to 55% survival), with a hazard ratio of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64–0.87; p = .0001) for recurrence or death.21 However, when the analysis was limited to overall survival at 10 years, the survival difference between patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and those who did not (54% vs 50%, respectively) was not statistically significant (hazard ratio = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.76–1.03, p = .12).21

The concept of adjuvant therapy has been revisited since the antisarcoma activity of ifosfamide was established. A large European trial randomized 351 patients with resected soft-tissue sarcoma either to placebo or to doxorubicin and ifosfamide given every 21 days.22 The preliminary results, reported in abstract form at the 2007 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, showed a higher 5-year survival rate in the placebo arm (69%) compared with the chemotherapy arm (64%).22 This and other trials using ifosfamide in various drug combinations showed no difference in survival, suggesting that adjuvant chemotherapy should not be considered to be standard practice outside of a clinical trial.

Efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy also has been studied in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas. A retrospective analysis found that the greatest benefit is derived in patients with primary tumors larger than 10 cm, in whom neoadjuvant chemotherapy increased 3-year disease-specific survival from 62% to 83%.23 However, differing results came from a prospective multicenter trial that randomized patients with large primary and recurrent tumors to either surgery alone or surgery preceded by three cycles of neoadjuvant doxorubicin and ifosfamide (all patients could also receive adjuvant radiation therapy, depending on grade and adequacy of resection).24 The trial suffered from slow accrual, and only 150 patients were enrolled. At 5 years, survival was similar between the groups with and without neoadjuvant chemotherapy.24 Therefore, neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not yet recommended pending results of larger randomized trials.

No clear role for recurrent disease. Local recurrence of the primary tumor after resection occurs in 10% to 50% of cases of soft-tissue sarcoma, with the specific rate depending on the primary tumor location. The highest incidence of recurrence is found in patients with retroperitoneal and head and neck sarcoma (40% and 50%, respectively), mainly because of the difficulty of obtaining clear margins. Chemotherapy has not been well studied in this setting and is of uncertain value.3

Metastatic disease

Metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas may respond to chemotherapy, but there is a lack of evidence that chemotherapy improves overall survival. Pulmonary lesions are the most common site of distant recurrence, and resection of such metastases is sometimes undertaken in well-selected patients. However, there is no level 1 evidence supporting chemotherapy in this clinical setting despite its common preoperative use. There is a paucity of randomized phase 3 trials that compare established palliative chemotherapy regimens to best supportive care. It is believed that some groups of patients do benefit, however, including those who are young and have good performance status, low tumor grade, absence of liver metastasis or pulmonary metastasis only, and a long interval between treatment of the primary tumor and development of metastatic disease.3 Some histologies, such as uterine leiomyosarcomas and facial/scalp angiosarcomas, respond better to chemotherapy.17

Drugs found to have activity against metastatic sarcoma include doxorubicin, ifosfamide, platinum agents, gemcitabine, taxanes, and dacarbazine. Used either alone or in combinations, these drugs produce responses (ie, shrink metastatic tumors) in about 13% to 33% of patients.3 Use of chemotherapy is frequently curtailed by the acute toxicity of these agents, which includes pancytopenia, transfusion requirements, febrile neutropenia, nausea, alopecia, and significant fatigue, as well as renal failure with ifosfamide or cisplatin and peripheral neuropathy with platinum agents or taxanes. Appropriate patient selection for chemo­therapy and exclusion of those who should be managed solely with best supportive care is an important challenge that oncologists often face when managing patients with metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma.

Future directions

Trabectedin (ET-743) is a novel compound with promising activity against soft-tissue sarcomas that acts by inhibiting cell-cycle transition from the G2 to M stages. The drug covalently binds to the minor grove of the DNA molecule, changing its three-dimensional structure and impairing transcription and possibly DNA repair.25 Phase 2 studies showed durable responses to trabectedin in 3% to 8% of heavily pretreated patients26–28 and in 17% of treatment-naïve patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas.25 Time to progression of up to 20 months has been reported in patients who respond or develop stable disease.3

Toxic effects of trabec­tedin include myelosuppression, fever, edema, arthralgias, hepatotoxicity, and (rarely) rhabdomyolysis. To date, these toxicities have been self-limiting. Larger clinical trials and longer follow-up is needed to assess whether this agent has any significant long-term toxicities.

Trabectedin has already been approved in Europe for treatment of chemotherapy-refractory soft-tissue sarcoma when given as a 24-hour infusion every 21 days.

More broadly, an active effort is under way to better understand the molecular derangements in a variety of soft-tissue sarcoma subtypes. The hope is that this understanding will lead to improved therapies that target aberrant proliferation, angiogenesis, and other biologic processes that drive the growth and metastasis of soft-tissue and bone sarcomas.

References
  1. Meyers PA, Heller G, Healey J, et al. Chemotherapy for nonmetastatic osteogenic sarcoma: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering experience. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10:5–15.
  2. Bruland OS, Høifødt H, Saeter G, Smeland S, Fodstad O. Hematogenous micrometastases in osteosarcoma patients. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11:4666–4673.
  3. Pazdur R, Wagman LD, Camphausen KA, Hoskins WJ, eds. Cancer Management: A Multidisciplinary Approach. 11th ed. Manhasset, NY: CMP Medica; 2009.
  4. Link MP, Goorin AM, Miser AW, et al. The effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on relapse-free survival in patients with osteosarcoma of the extremity. N Engl J Med 1986; 314:1600–1606.
  5. Eilber F, Giuliano A, Eckardt J, Patterson K, Moseley S, Goodnight J. Adjuvant chemotherapy for osteosarcoma: a randomized prospective trial. J Clin Oncol 1987; 5:21–26.
  6. Meyers PA, Schwartz CL, Krailo M, et al. Osteosarcoma: a randomized, prospective trial of the addition of ifosfamide and/or muramyl tripeptide to cisplatin, doxorubicin, and high-dose methotrexate. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:2004–2011.
  7. Winkler K, Beron G, Delling G, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy of osteosarcomas: results of a randomized cooperative trial (COSS-82) with salvage chemotherapy based on histological tumor response. J Clin Oncol 1988; 6:329–337.
  8. Bramwell VH, Steward WP, Nooij M, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with doxorubicin and cisplatin in malignant fibrous histiocytoma of bone: a European Osteosarcoma Intergroup study. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17:3260–3269.
  9. Kager L, Zoubek A, Pötschger U, et al. Primary metastatic osteosarcoma: presentation and outcome of patients treated on Neoadjuvant Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group protocols. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:2011–2018.
  10. Longhi A, Fabbri N, Donati D, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with synchronous multifocal osteosarcoma: results in eleven cases. J Chemother 2001; 13:324–330.
  11. Nesbit ME Jr, Gehan EA, Burgert EO Jr, et al. Multimodal therapy for the management of primary, nonmetastatic Ewing’s sarcoma of bone: a long-term follow-up of the First Intergroup study. J Clin Oncol 1990; 8:1664–1674.
  12. Grier HE, Krailo MD, Tarbell NJ, et al. Addition of ifosfamide and etoposide to standard chemotherapy for Ewing’s sarcoma and primitive neuroectodermal tumor of bone. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:694–701.
  13. Womer RB, West DC, Krailo MD, et al; for the Children’s Oncology Group AEWS0031 Committee. Randomized comparison of every-two-week v. every-three-week chemotherapy in Ewing sarcoma family tumors. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26(May 20 suppl):10504. Abstract.
  14. Rodriguez-Galindo C, Poquette CA, Marina NM, et al. Hematologic abnormalities and acute myeloid leukemia in children and adolescents administered intensified chemotherapy for the Ewing sarcoma family of tumors. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2000; 22:321–329.
  15. Brade WP, Herdrich, K, Kachel-Fischer U, Araujo CE. Dosing and side-effects of ifosfamide plus mesna. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1991; 117(suppl 4):S164–S186.
  16. Healey JH, Lane JM. Chondrosarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986; 204:119–129.
  17. Clark MA, Fisher C, Judson I, Thomas JM. Soft-tissue sarcomas in adults. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:701–711.
  18. Alexander J, Dainiak N, Berger HJ, et al. Serial assessment of doxorubicin cardiotoxicity with quantitative radionuclide angiocardiography. N Engl J Med 1979; 300:278–283.
  19. Felix CA. Secondary leukemias induced by topoisomerase-targeted drugs. Biochim Biophys Acta 1998; 1400:233–255.
  20. Postma TJ, Vermorken JB, Liefting AJ, Pinedo HM, Heimans JJ. Paclitaxel-induced neuropathy. Ann Oncol 1995; 6:489–494.
  21. Sarcoma Meta-analysis Collaboration. Adjuvant chemotherapy for localised resectable soft-tissue sarcoma of adults: meta-analysis of individual data. Lancet 1997; 350:1647–1654.
  22. Woll PJ, van Glabbeke M, Hohenberger P, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) with doxorubicin and ifosfamide in resected soft tissue sarcoma (STS): interim analysis of a randomised phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25(June 20 suppl):10008. Abstract.
  23. Grobmyer SR, Maki RG, Demetri GD, et al. Neo-adjuvant chemo­therapy for primary high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcoma. Ann Oncol 2004; 15:1667–1672.
  24. Gortzak E, Azzarelli A, Buesa J, et al. A randomised phase II study on neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for ‘high-risk’ adult soft-tissue sarcoma. Eur J Cancer 2001; 37:1096–1103.
  25. Garcia-Carbonero R, Supko JG, Maki RG, et al. Ecteinascidin-743 (ET-743) for chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas: multicenter phase II and pharmacokinetic study. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:5484–5492.
  26. Yovine A, Riofrio M, Blay JY, et al. Phase II study of ectein­ascidin-743 in advanced pretreated soft tissue sarcoma patients. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:890–899.
  27. Garcia-Carbonero R, Supko JG, Manola J, et al. Phase II and pharmacokinetic study of ecteinascidin 743 in patients with progressive sarcomas of soft tissues refractory to chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:1480–1490.
  28. Le Cesne A, Blay JY, Judson I, et al. Phase II study of ET-743 in advanced soft tissue sarcomas: a European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) soft tissue and bone sarcoma group trial. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:576–584.
References
  1. Meyers PA, Heller G, Healey J, et al. Chemotherapy for nonmetastatic osteogenic sarcoma: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering experience. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10:5–15.
  2. Bruland OS, Høifødt H, Saeter G, Smeland S, Fodstad O. Hematogenous micrometastases in osteosarcoma patients. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11:4666–4673.
  3. Pazdur R, Wagman LD, Camphausen KA, Hoskins WJ, eds. Cancer Management: A Multidisciplinary Approach. 11th ed. Manhasset, NY: CMP Medica; 2009.
  4. Link MP, Goorin AM, Miser AW, et al. The effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on relapse-free survival in patients with osteosarcoma of the extremity. N Engl J Med 1986; 314:1600–1606.
  5. Eilber F, Giuliano A, Eckardt J, Patterson K, Moseley S, Goodnight J. Adjuvant chemotherapy for osteosarcoma: a randomized prospective trial. J Clin Oncol 1987; 5:21–26.
  6. Meyers PA, Schwartz CL, Krailo M, et al. Osteosarcoma: a randomized, prospective trial of the addition of ifosfamide and/or muramyl tripeptide to cisplatin, doxorubicin, and high-dose methotrexate. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:2004–2011.
  7. Winkler K, Beron G, Delling G, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy of osteosarcomas: results of a randomized cooperative trial (COSS-82) with salvage chemotherapy based on histological tumor response. J Clin Oncol 1988; 6:329–337.
  8. Bramwell VH, Steward WP, Nooij M, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with doxorubicin and cisplatin in malignant fibrous histiocytoma of bone: a European Osteosarcoma Intergroup study. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17:3260–3269.
  9. Kager L, Zoubek A, Pötschger U, et al. Primary metastatic osteosarcoma: presentation and outcome of patients treated on Neoadjuvant Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group protocols. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:2011–2018.
  10. Longhi A, Fabbri N, Donati D, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with synchronous multifocal osteosarcoma: results in eleven cases. J Chemother 2001; 13:324–330.
  11. Nesbit ME Jr, Gehan EA, Burgert EO Jr, et al. Multimodal therapy for the management of primary, nonmetastatic Ewing’s sarcoma of bone: a long-term follow-up of the First Intergroup study. J Clin Oncol 1990; 8:1664–1674.
  12. Grier HE, Krailo MD, Tarbell NJ, et al. Addition of ifosfamide and etoposide to standard chemotherapy for Ewing’s sarcoma and primitive neuroectodermal tumor of bone. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:694–701.
  13. Womer RB, West DC, Krailo MD, et al; for the Children’s Oncology Group AEWS0031 Committee. Randomized comparison of every-two-week v. every-three-week chemotherapy in Ewing sarcoma family tumors. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26(May 20 suppl):10504. Abstract.
  14. Rodriguez-Galindo C, Poquette CA, Marina NM, et al. Hematologic abnormalities and acute myeloid leukemia in children and adolescents administered intensified chemotherapy for the Ewing sarcoma family of tumors. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2000; 22:321–329.
  15. Brade WP, Herdrich, K, Kachel-Fischer U, Araujo CE. Dosing and side-effects of ifosfamide plus mesna. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1991; 117(suppl 4):S164–S186.
  16. Healey JH, Lane JM. Chondrosarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986; 204:119–129.
  17. Clark MA, Fisher C, Judson I, Thomas JM. Soft-tissue sarcomas in adults. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:701–711.
  18. Alexander J, Dainiak N, Berger HJ, et al. Serial assessment of doxorubicin cardiotoxicity with quantitative radionuclide angiocardiography. N Engl J Med 1979; 300:278–283.
  19. Felix CA. Secondary leukemias induced by topoisomerase-targeted drugs. Biochim Biophys Acta 1998; 1400:233–255.
  20. Postma TJ, Vermorken JB, Liefting AJ, Pinedo HM, Heimans JJ. Paclitaxel-induced neuropathy. Ann Oncol 1995; 6:489–494.
  21. Sarcoma Meta-analysis Collaboration. Adjuvant chemotherapy for localised resectable soft-tissue sarcoma of adults: meta-analysis of individual data. Lancet 1997; 350:1647–1654.
  22. Woll PJ, van Glabbeke M, Hohenberger P, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) with doxorubicin and ifosfamide in resected soft tissue sarcoma (STS): interim analysis of a randomised phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25(June 20 suppl):10008. Abstract.
  23. Grobmyer SR, Maki RG, Demetri GD, et al. Neo-adjuvant chemo­therapy for primary high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcoma. Ann Oncol 2004; 15:1667–1672.
  24. Gortzak E, Azzarelli A, Buesa J, et al. A randomised phase II study on neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for ‘high-risk’ adult soft-tissue sarcoma. Eur J Cancer 2001; 37:1096–1103.
  25. Garcia-Carbonero R, Supko JG, Maki RG, et al. Ecteinascidin-743 (ET-743) for chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas: multicenter phase II and pharmacokinetic study. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:5484–5492.
  26. Yovine A, Riofrio M, Blay JY, et al. Phase II study of ectein­ascidin-743 in advanced pretreated soft tissue sarcoma patients. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:890–899.
  27. Garcia-Carbonero R, Supko JG, Manola J, et al. Phase II and pharmacokinetic study of ecteinascidin 743 in patients with progressive sarcomas of soft tissues refractory to chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:1480–1490.
  28. Le Cesne A, Blay JY, Judson I, et al. Phase II study of ET-743 in advanced soft tissue sarcomas: a European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) soft tissue and bone sarcoma group trial. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:576–584.
Page Number
S23-S26
Page Number
S23-S26
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Use of chemotherapy for patients with bone and soft-tissue sarcomas
Display Headline
Use of chemotherapy for patients with bone and soft-tissue sarcomas
Citation Override
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicin 2010 March;77(suppl 1):S23-S26
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

Use of radiation therapy for patients with soft-tissue and bone sarcomas

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 10/02/2018 - 11:40
Display Headline
Use of radiation therapy for patients with soft-tissue and bone sarcomas

While radiation therapy (RT) has an integral role in the management of soft-tissue sarcoma, it has a limited role in that of bone sarcoma, with few exceptions (ie, Ewing sarcoma). In keeping with the rarity of these tumors, it has been demonstrated that patients treated at high-volume centers have significantly better survival and functional outcomes.1–3 Accordingly, treatment should be delivered by a multidisciplinary team including orthopedic, medical, and radiation oncologists, as well as plastic and reconstructive surgeons, physical therapy specialists, and pathologists and radiologists with expertise in musculoskeletal sarcomas.4 As the preceding articles in this supplement have addressed the major modalities in the treatment of sarcomas other than RT, this article will focus on how RT fits into the overall management mix, with a focus on soft-tissue sarcomas, where it figures most prominently.

BONE SARCOMAS: A LIMITED ROLE FOR RADIATION

The role of RT in the management of bone sarcomas is limited. Its primary application appears to be in Ewing sarcoma, for which curative treatment requires combined local and systemic therapy. For definitive therapy, limb-salvage surgery is preferable over amputation, but amputation may be an option for younger patients with lesions of the fibula, tibia, and foot. Based on the available data, postoperative RT is probably of benefit for all patients with Ewing sarcoma with close margins and/or those with a poor histologic response.5 Further discussion of Ewing sarcoma management is beyond the scope of this article (see the second and fifth articles in this supplement).

For osteosarcoma, the current standard of care is surgical resection combined with neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy. RT had been used years ago, prior to the advent of effective chemotherapy regimens, but its use for osteosarcoma has now been relegated to a few select situations. These include lesions not amenable to surgical resection and reconstruction, cases in which the patient refuses surgery, cases where there are positive margins after resection, and cases where palliation is needed for symptomatic lesions.

SOFT-TISSUE SARCOMAS: RADIATION HAS A CLEAR ADJUVANT ROLE

The primary management of localized soft-tissue sarcomas is surgical resection to achieve a negative margin when feasible. Historically, local excision of soft-tissue sarcomas resulted in local failure rates of 50% to 70%, even when a margin of normal tissue around the tumor was excised. As a result, amputation became standard treatment.6 In a landmark National Cancer Institute study 3 decades ago, patients were randomized to amputation or to limb-sparing surgery with the addition of RT.7 Notably, disease-free and overall survival were not compromised by limb-sparing surgery plus RT, demonstrating that although lesser surgery in the absence of RT may be insufficient, limb-sparing surgery with RT was equal to amputation. Consequently, limb-sparing approaches have become the favored surgery for the majority of cases of soft-tissue sarcoma, as advocated in a consensus statement from the National Institutes of Health.1

Indications vary by lesion grade

In general, adjuvant RT is recommended for all intermediate- and high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma lesions. A potential exception is a superficial tumor smaller than 5 cm with widely negative margins after resection. For low-grade lesions, re-excision is favored over adjuvant RT for positive or close margins, and RT is avoided in the setting of negative margins.

Optimal timing of radiation remains unclear

The optimal timing of adjuvant RT—preoperative versus postoperative—remains unknown. The relative advantages of preoperative RT include smaller and well-defined treatment volume, ability to use a lower dose, lack of tissue hypoxia, increased tumor resectability (smaller surgery), and improved limb function with less late fibrosis and edema. The disadvantages include inability to precisely stage patients and higher risk of acute wound-healing complications.

The National Cancer Institute of Canada compared outcomes with preoperative versus postoperative RT among 190 patients with soft-tissue sarcoma in a prospective randomized trial.8 Patients were stratified by tumor size (≤ 10 cm or > 10cm) and then randomized to preoperative RT (50 Gy in 25 fractions) or postoperative RT (66 Gy in 33 fractions).8 There was no difference between the groups in local control, distant control, or survival rates, but a higher rate of late complications, including fibrosis and edema, was observed with postoperative RT.8,9 On the other hand, the incidence of wound complications was higher in the preoperative group (35%) than in the postoperative group (17%).8

Likewise, the optimal sequencing and benefits of systemic therapy (chemotherapy) with relation to local therapy (surgery with pre- or postoperative RT) remain unclear. More than a dozen individual randomized trials of adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as a meta-analysis of 14 trials of doxorubicin-based adjuvant chemotherapy, have failed to demonstrate significant improvement in overall survival in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas.10 With regard to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for soft-tissue sarcomas, there are studies suggesting improvement in local control but no consistent survival benefit.11 Chemotherapy may yield a benefit in select cases, as detailed elsewhere in this supplement.

MECHANISMS OF ACTION: DIRECT AND INDIRECT

In simplified terms, radiation kills cancer cells through two basic mechanisms: indirect and direct.

The indirect effect (the most common mechanism) results from the generation of free radicals in the intracellular medium via ionization by photons. Free radicals, in turn, deposit large amounts of energy that damage DNA or some other vital component of the cell, resulting in cell death.

The direct effect is a consequence of photons themselves interacting directly with the cell in a lethal manner.

The goal of RT is to kill tumor cells selectively, without irreversibly injuring adjacent normal tissue. This is done by exploiting two abnormal aspects of tumor behavior: decreased ability for repair and increased susceptibility to ionizing radiation damage. Tumors are generally less able than normal tissue to repair DNA damage, owing to defective repair mechanisms. Tumor cells are also comparatively more radiosensitive than normal tissues, as they are more frequently in radiosensitive cell-cycle phases. Thus, dividing the radiation dose into a number of treatment fractions provides two advantages that further exploit the biologic differences between tumor and normal tissue: it allows DNA repair to take place within the normal tissues, and it allows proliferating tumor cells to redistribute through the cell cycle and move into the more radiosensitive phases.

 

 

TREATMENT PLANNING

Treatment simulation

Following initial consultation with a radiation oncologist, the eligible patient undergoes a simulation, or a treatment planning session in which he or she is positioned so as to allow treatment to be carefully designed and subsequently delivered with precision. This typically requires fabrication of a customized immobilization device to allow for consistent positioning over the treatment course. Sarcomas require that special care be taken to properly immobilize both the proximal and distal joints. Additionally, radiopaque wires are used to delineate the anatomic boundaries of the tumor or scar. Computed tomographic (CT) scans are then obtained to enable image-based three-dimensional treatment planning. The patient setup is photographed, and setup indicators are recorded and marked on the patient’s skin, some with freckle-size tattoos and some with indelible marker.

The treatment fields are then designed on the CT-simulation data set with the aid of virtual reality–type techniques. In addition to delineation of tumor volumes, three-dimensional treatment planning is used to contour all nearby normal structures on each slice. The resulting structures can then be used to specify dose constraints and help determine the optimal beam geometries to ensure proper tumor coverage and minimize the potential for side effects by reducing the dose to organs at risk. In the case of sarcomas, several strategies for reducing the risk of side effects are especially relevant: (1) carefully sparing a portion of the circumference of uninvolved bone to minimize the risk of fractures; (2) carefully sparing a strip of normal tissue to minimize edema by permitting undisrupted lymphatic drainage from the extremity; and (3) keeping dosing to joint spaces and other adjacent organs below tissue tolerances as defined by Emami et al.12

Determining target volume

The target volume for RT is determined on the basis of physical examination, radiologic studies, anatomical considerations, and the natural history of the sarcoma.

In the preoperative setting, longitudinal margins of 5 cm beyond the tumor and tumor-associated edema and radial margins of 2 cm are treated to 50 Gy in 25 fractions. Surgery is undertaken approximately 4 weeks after completion of RT to allow for repair in normal tissues and minimize operative and postoperative complications. Following surgery, an RT boost may be added for positive margins (16 Gy) or gross residual disease (25 Gy).

In the postoperative setting, details on the extent of dissection or observations from the surgeons themselves must be considered. Information regarding the surgical approach must be noted and can influence the effectiveness of postoperative RT as well as the incidence of late side effects. When experienced surgeons are involved, scars and drain sites, which are at risk for subclinical disease, can be planned so that their inclusion in the RT portal allows for sparing a strip of skin to minimize complications. Surgical clip placement at the boundaries of the tumor bed also facilitates RT planning.13 Finally, prophylactic bone stabilization may reduce the risk of subsequent fracture in cases where circumferential bone radiation in high-risk sites is anticipated.

Recommendations on the volume that must be treated vary among different authorities. Some advocate treating the entire compartment because of the risk for microscopic seeding.14 Others recommend margins around the tumor or tumor bed ranging from less than 5 cm up to 15 cm.15 Most often the postoperative approach is to include the resection bed with a 2-cm radial margin, the incision, and any drain sites in the initial treatment volume and to base the longitudinal margin on the grade and size of the primary tumor (5–15 cm). This volume is treated to 50 Gy in 25 fractions followed by two sequential reductions in field size, with the total dose determined by the extent of resection: 60 Gy for negative margins, 66 Gy for microscopically positive margins, and 75 Gy for gross residual disease.

TREATMENT DELIVERY

Once treatment planning is completed, treatments begin and are given daily Monday through Friday. Each day, the patient is positioned in the immobilization device, the field measurements are set, and positioning is checked with measurement tools and external marking of the field borders on the skin. Daily image guidance techniques may be used to increase setup reproducibility. Typical treatment times, including set­up and actual delivery, are roughly 20 to 30 minutes daily.

While external beam RT is most commonly delivered as described above, brachytherapy, or intraoperative electron beam techniques, as well as proton or other charged-particle therapies, are also applied in selected cases.16–18

SIDE EFFECTS

Side effects of RT in the setting of sarcomas can be divided according to their onset—ie, acute versus delayed.

Acute effects. Skin changes ranging from erythema to moist desquamation in the skin overlying the high-dose volume are common. Major wound complications (delayed wound healing or need for surgical intervention) occur in approximately 17% of patients after surgical resection with postoperative RT, and perhaps more commonly (35%) with preoperative RT,8 though these rates vary widely in the literature. Another frequently reported acute side effect is fatigue.

Delayed sequelae after conservative resection and RT of extremity lesions include a reduction in range of motion secondary to joint contracture, edema, and fibrosis, as well as pain and bone fractures, all of which can significantly limit function of the preserved limb. In centers treating high volumes of patients with soft-tissue sarcoma, the incidence of moderate to severe late effects is less than 10%.19 In contrast to acute wound complications, a higher rate of late complications, including fibrosis and edema, have been observed with postoperative RT relative to preoperative RT.9 When necessary, high-dose RT does not appear to compromise the viability of skin grafts used to repair defects after sarcoma surgery if adequate time is allowed for healing.20

Regardless of the management approach, intensive rehabilitation led by physical therapy specialists is imperative in minimizing disabilities after treatment of soft-tissue sarcomas.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes of patients with musculoskeletal sarcomas are optimized at specialized sarcoma centers. For patients with soft-tissue sarcomas, effectively implementing an approach that combines conservative surgery and RT—and, in select cases, chemotherapy—achieves excellent local control rates while minimizing morbidity and maximizing long-term extremity function relative to aggressive surgery alone.

References
  1. Consensus conference. Limb-sparing treatment of adult soft-tissue sarcomas and osteosarcomas. JAMA 1985; 254:1791–1794.
  2. Gutierrez JC, Perez EA, Moffat FL, et al. Should soft tissue sarcomas be treated at high-volume centers? An analysis of 4,205 patients. Ann Surg 2007; 245:952–958.
  3. Halperin EC, Perez CA, Brady LW, eds. Perez and Brady’s Principles and Practice of Radiation Oncology. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
  4. Glencross J, Balasubramanian SP, Bacon J, Robinson MH, Reed MW. An audit of the management of soft tissue sarcoma within a health region in the UK. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003; 29:670–675.
  5. Dunst J, Schuck A. Role of radiotherapy in Ewing tumors. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2004; 42:465–470.
  6. Schwartz SI, Brunicardi FC, eds. Schwartz’s Principles of Surgery. 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Medical Pub. Division; 2010.
  7. Rosenberg SA, Tepper J, Glatstein E, et al. The treatment of soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities: prospective randomized evaluations of (1) limb-sparing surgery plus radiation therapy compared with amputation and (2) the role of adjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg 1982; 196:305–315.
  8. O’Sullivan B, Davis AM, Turcotte R, et al. Preoperative versus postoperative radiotherapy in soft-tissue sarcoma of the limbs: a randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 359:2235–2241.
  9. Davis AM, O’Sullivan B, Turcotte R, et al. Late radiation morbidity following randomization to preoperative versus postoperative radiotherapy in extremity soft tissue sarcoma. Radiother Oncol 2005; 75:48–53.
  10. Sarcoma Meta-analysis Collaboration. Adjuvant chemotherapy for localised respectable soft-tissue sarcoma of adults: meta-analysis of individual data. Lancet 1997; 350:1647–1654.
  11. Eilber FC, Tap WD, Nelson SD, Eckardt JJ, Eilber FR. Advances in chemotherapy for patients with extremity soft tissue sarcoma. Orthop Clin North Am 2006; 37:15–22.
  12. Emami B, Lyman J, Brown A, et al. Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991; 21:109–122.
  13. Tepper J, Rosenberg SA, Glatstein E. Radiation therapy technique in soft tissue sarcomas of the extremity: policies of treatment at the National Cancer Institute. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1982; 8:263–273.
  14. DeVita VT Jr, Lawrence TS, Rosenberg SA, eds. DeVita, Hellman, and Rosenberg’s Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
  15. Suit HD, Spiro I. Role of radiation in the management of adult patients with sarcoma of soft tissue. Semin Surg Oncol 1994; 10:347–356.
  16. DeLaney TF, Trofimov AV, Engelsman M, Suit HD. Advanced-technology radiation therapy in the management of bone and soft tissue sarcomas. Cancer Control 2005; 12:27–35.
  17. DeLaney TF, Liebsch NJ, Pedlow FX, et al. Phase II study of high-dose photon/proton radiotherapy in the management of spine sarcomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 74:732–739.
  18. Ishigami N, Suzuki K, Takahashi T, et al. Intimal sarcoma of aortic arch treated with proton therapy following surgery. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 2008; 16:e12–e14.
  19. Pollack A, Zagars GK, Goswitz MS, et al. Preoperative vs. postoperative radiotherapy in the treatment of soft tissue sarcomas: a matter of presentation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 42:563–572.
  20. Lawrence WT, Zabell A, McDonald HD. The tolerance of skin grafts to postoperative radiation therapy in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma. Ann Plast Surg 1986; 16:204–210.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Lawrence J. Sheplan, MD
Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Justin J. Juliano, MD
Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Correspondence: Justin Juliano, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, T28, Cleveland, OH 44195; [email protected]

Both authors reported that they have no financial interests or relationships that pose a potential conflict of interest with this article.

Publications
Page Number
S27-S29
Author and Disclosure Information

Lawrence J. Sheplan, MD
Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Justin J. Juliano, MD
Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Correspondence: Justin Juliano, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, T28, Cleveland, OH 44195; [email protected]

Both authors reported that they have no financial interests or relationships that pose a potential conflict of interest with this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Lawrence J. Sheplan, MD
Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Justin J. Juliano, MD
Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Correspondence: Justin Juliano, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, T28, Cleveland, OH 44195; [email protected]

Both authors reported that they have no financial interests or relationships that pose a potential conflict of interest with this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

While radiation therapy (RT) has an integral role in the management of soft-tissue sarcoma, it has a limited role in that of bone sarcoma, with few exceptions (ie, Ewing sarcoma). In keeping with the rarity of these tumors, it has been demonstrated that patients treated at high-volume centers have significantly better survival and functional outcomes.1–3 Accordingly, treatment should be delivered by a multidisciplinary team including orthopedic, medical, and radiation oncologists, as well as plastic and reconstructive surgeons, physical therapy specialists, and pathologists and radiologists with expertise in musculoskeletal sarcomas.4 As the preceding articles in this supplement have addressed the major modalities in the treatment of sarcomas other than RT, this article will focus on how RT fits into the overall management mix, with a focus on soft-tissue sarcomas, where it figures most prominently.

BONE SARCOMAS: A LIMITED ROLE FOR RADIATION

The role of RT in the management of bone sarcomas is limited. Its primary application appears to be in Ewing sarcoma, for which curative treatment requires combined local and systemic therapy. For definitive therapy, limb-salvage surgery is preferable over amputation, but amputation may be an option for younger patients with lesions of the fibula, tibia, and foot. Based on the available data, postoperative RT is probably of benefit for all patients with Ewing sarcoma with close margins and/or those with a poor histologic response.5 Further discussion of Ewing sarcoma management is beyond the scope of this article (see the second and fifth articles in this supplement).

For osteosarcoma, the current standard of care is surgical resection combined with neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy. RT had been used years ago, prior to the advent of effective chemotherapy regimens, but its use for osteosarcoma has now been relegated to a few select situations. These include lesions not amenable to surgical resection and reconstruction, cases in which the patient refuses surgery, cases where there are positive margins after resection, and cases where palliation is needed for symptomatic lesions.

SOFT-TISSUE SARCOMAS: RADIATION HAS A CLEAR ADJUVANT ROLE

The primary management of localized soft-tissue sarcomas is surgical resection to achieve a negative margin when feasible. Historically, local excision of soft-tissue sarcomas resulted in local failure rates of 50% to 70%, even when a margin of normal tissue around the tumor was excised. As a result, amputation became standard treatment.6 In a landmark National Cancer Institute study 3 decades ago, patients were randomized to amputation or to limb-sparing surgery with the addition of RT.7 Notably, disease-free and overall survival were not compromised by limb-sparing surgery plus RT, demonstrating that although lesser surgery in the absence of RT may be insufficient, limb-sparing surgery with RT was equal to amputation. Consequently, limb-sparing approaches have become the favored surgery for the majority of cases of soft-tissue sarcoma, as advocated in a consensus statement from the National Institutes of Health.1

Indications vary by lesion grade

In general, adjuvant RT is recommended for all intermediate- and high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma lesions. A potential exception is a superficial tumor smaller than 5 cm with widely negative margins after resection. For low-grade lesions, re-excision is favored over adjuvant RT for positive or close margins, and RT is avoided in the setting of negative margins.

Optimal timing of radiation remains unclear

The optimal timing of adjuvant RT—preoperative versus postoperative—remains unknown. The relative advantages of preoperative RT include smaller and well-defined treatment volume, ability to use a lower dose, lack of tissue hypoxia, increased tumor resectability (smaller surgery), and improved limb function with less late fibrosis and edema. The disadvantages include inability to precisely stage patients and higher risk of acute wound-healing complications.

The National Cancer Institute of Canada compared outcomes with preoperative versus postoperative RT among 190 patients with soft-tissue sarcoma in a prospective randomized trial.8 Patients were stratified by tumor size (≤ 10 cm or > 10cm) and then randomized to preoperative RT (50 Gy in 25 fractions) or postoperative RT (66 Gy in 33 fractions).8 There was no difference between the groups in local control, distant control, or survival rates, but a higher rate of late complications, including fibrosis and edema, was observed with postoperative RT.8,9 On the other hand, the incidence of wound complications was higher in the preoperative group (35%) than in the postoperative group (17%).8

Likewise, the optimal sequencing and benefits of systemic therapy (chemotherapy) with relation to local therapy (surgery with pre- or postoperative RT) remain unclear. More than a dozen individual randomized trials of adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as a meta-analysis of 14 trials of doxorubicin-based adjuvant chemotherapy, have failed to demonstrate significant improvement in overall survival in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas.10 With regard to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for soft-tissue sarcomas, there are studies suggesting improvement in local control but no consistent survival benefit.11 Chemotherapy may yield a benefit in select cases, as detailed elsewhere in this supplement.

MECHANISMS OF ACTION: DIRECT AND INDIRECT

In simplified terms, radiation kills cancer cells through two basic mechanisms: indirect and direct.

The indirect effect (the most common mechanism) results from the generation of free radicals in the intracellular medium via ionization by photons. Free radicals, in turn, deposit large amounts of energy that damage DNA or some other vital component of the cell, resulting in cell death.

The direct effect is a consequence of photons themselves interacting directly with the cell in a lethal manner.

The goal of RT is to kill tumor cells selectively, without irreversibly injuring adjacent normal tissue. This is done by exploiting two abnormal aspects of tumor behavior: decreased ability for repair and increased susceptibility to ionizing radiation damage. Tumors are generally less able than normal tissue to repair DNA damage, owing to defective repair mechanisms. Tumor cells are also comparatively more radiosensitive than normal tissues, as they are more frequently in radiosensitive cell-cycle phases. Thus, dividing the radiation dose into a number of treatment fractions provides two advantages that further exploit the biologic differences between tumor and normal tissue: it allows DNA repair to take place within the normal tissues, and it allows proliferating tumor cells to redistribute through the cell cycle and move into the more radiosensitive phases.

 

 

TREATMENT PLANNING

Treatment simulation

Following initial consultation with a radiation oncologist, the eligible patient undergoes a simulation, or a treatment planning session in which he or she is positioned so as to allow treatment to be carefully designed and subsequently delivered with precision. This typically requires fabrication of a customized immobilization device to allow for consistent positioning over the treatment course. Sarcomas require that special care be taken to properly immobilize both the proximal and distal joints. Additionally, radiopaque wires are used to delineate the anatomic boundaries of the tumor or scar. Computed tomographic (CT) scans are then obtained to enable image-based three-dimensional treatment planning. The patient setup is photographed, and setup indicators are recorded and marked on the patient’s skin, some with freckle-size tattoos and some with indelible marker.

The treatment fields are then designed on the CT-simulation data set with the aid of virtual reality–type techniques. In addition to delineation of tumor volumes, three-dimensional treatment planning is used to contour all nearby normal structures on each slice. The resulting structures can then be used to specify dose constraints and help determine the optimal beam geometries to ensure proper tumor coverage and minimize the potential for side effects by reducing the dose to organs at risk. In the case of sarcomas, several strategies for reducing the risk of side effects are especially relevant: (1) carefully sparing a portion of the circumference of uninvolved bone to minimize the risk of fractures; (2) carefully sparing a strip of normal tissue to minimize edema by permitting undisrupted lymphatic drainage from the extremity; and (3) keeping dosing to joint spaces and other adjacent organs below tissue tolerances as defined by Emami et al.12

Determining target volume

The target volume for RT is determined on the basis of physical examination, radiologic studies, anatomical considerations, and the natural history of the sarcoma.

In the preoperative setting, longitudinal margins of 5 cm beyond the tumor and tumor-associated edema and radial margins of 2 cm are treated to 50 Gy in 25 fractions. Surgery is undertaken approximately 4 weeks after completion of RT to allow for repair in normal tissues and minimize operative and postoperative complications. Following surgery, an RT boost may be added for positive margins (16 Gy) or gross residual disease (25 Gy).

In the postoperative setting, details on the extent of dissection or observations from the surgeons themselves must be considered. Information regarding the surgical approach must be noted and can influence the effectiveness of postoperative RT as well as the incidence of late side effects. When experienced surgeons are involved, scars and drain sites, which are at risk for subclinical disease, can be planned so that their inclusion in the RT portal allows for sparing a strip of skin to minimize complications. Surgical clip placement at the boundaries of the tumor bed also facilitates RT planning.13 Finally, prophylactic bone stabilization may reduce the risk of subsequent fracture in cases where circumferential bone radiation in high-risk sites is anticipated.

Recommendations on the volume that must be treated vary among different authorities. Some advocate treating the entire compartment because of the risk for microscopic seeding.14 Others recommend margins around the tumor or tumor bed ranging from less than 5 cm up to 15 cm.15 Most often the postoperative approach is to include the resection bed with a 2-cm radial margin, the incision, and any drain sites in the initial treatment volume and to base the longitudinal margin on the grade and size of the primary tumor (5–15 cm). This volume is treated to 50 Gy in 25 fractions followed by two sequential reductions in field size, with the total dose determined by the extent of resection: 60 Gy for negative margins, 66 Gy for microscopically positive margins, and 75 Gy for gross residual disease.

TREATMENT DELIVERY

Once treatment planning is completed, treatments begin and are given daily Monday through Friday. Each day, the patient is positioned in the immobilization device, the field measurements are set, and positioning is checked with measurement tools and external marking of the field borders on the skin. Daily image guidance techniques may be used to increase setup reproducibility. Typical treatment times, including set­up and actual delivery, are roughly 20 to 30 minutes daily.

While external beam RT is most commonly delivered as described above, brachytherapy, or intraoperative electron beam techniques, as well as proton or other charged-particle therapies, are also applied in selected cases.16–18

SIDE EFFECTS

Side effects of RT in the setting of sarcomas can be divided according to their onset—ie, acute versus delayed.

Acute effects. Skin changes ranging from erythema to moist desquamation in the skin overlying the high-dose volume are common. Major wound complications (delayed wound healing or need for surgical intervention) occur in approximately 17% of patients after surgical resection with postoperative RT, and perhaps more commonly (35%) with preoperative RT,8 though these rates vary widely in the literature. Another frequently reported acute side effect is fatigue.

Delayed sequelae after conservative resection and RT of extremity lesions include a reduction in range of motion secondary to joint contracture, edema, and fibrosis, as well as pain and bone fractures, all of which can significantly limit function of the preserved limb. In centers treating high volumes of patients with soft-tissue sarcoma, the incidence of moderate to severe late effects is less than 10%.19 In contrast to acute wound complications, a higher rate of late complications, including fibrosis and edema, have been observed with postoperative RT relative to preoperative RT.9 When necessary, high-dose RT does not appear to compromise the viability of skin grafts used to repair defects after sarcoma surgery if adequate time is allowed for healing.20

Regardless of the management approach, intensive rehabilitation led by physical therapy specialists is imperative in minimizing disabilities after treatment of soft-tissue sarcomas.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes of patients with musculoskeletal sarcomas are optimized at specialized sarcoma centers. For patients with soft-tissue sarcomas, effectively implementing an approach that combines conservative surgery and RT—and, in select cases, chemotherapy—achieves excellent local control rates while minimizing morbidity and maximizing long-term extremity function relative to aggressive surgery alone.

While radiation therapy (RT) has an integral role in the management of soft-tissue sarcoma, it has a limited role in that of bone sarcoma, with few exceptions (ie, Ewing sarcoma). In keeping with the rarity of these tumors, it has been demonstrated that patients treated at high-volume centers have significantly better survival and functional outcomes.1–3 Accordingly, treatment should be delivered by a multidisciplinary team including orthopedic, medical, and radiation oncologists, as well as plastic and reconstructive surgeons, physical therapy specialists, and pathologists and radiologists with expertise in musculoskeletal sarcomas.4 As the preceding articles in this supplement have addressed the major modalities in the treatment of sarcomas other than RT, this article will focus on how RT fits into the overall management mix, with a focus on soft-tissue sarcomas, where it figures most prominently.

BONE SARCOMAS: A LIMITED ROLE FOR RADIATION

The role of RT in the management of bone sarcomas is limited. Its primary application appears to be in Ewing sarcoma, for which curative treatment requires combined local and systemic therapy. For definitive therapy, limb-salvage surgery is preferable over amputation, but amputation may be an option for younger patients with lesions of the fibula, tibia, and foot. Based on the available data, postoperative RT is probably of benefit for all patients with Ewing sarcoma with close margins and/or those with a poor histologic response.5 Further discussion of Ewing sarcoma management is beyond the scope of this article (see the second and fifth articles in this supplement).

For osteosarcoma, the current standard of care is surgical resection combined with neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy. RT had been used years ago, prior to the advent of effective chemotherapy regimens, but its use for osteosarcoma has now been relegated to a few select situations. These include lesions not amenable to surgical resection and reconstruction, cases in which the patient refuses surgery, cases where there are positive margins after resection, and cases where palliation is needed for symptomatic lesions.

SOFT-TISSUE SARCOMAS: RADIATION HAS A CLEAR ADJUVANT ROLE

The primary management of localized soft-tissue sarcomas is surgical resection to achieve a negative margin when feasible. Historically, local excision of soft-tissue sarcomas resulted in local failure rates of 50% to 70%, even when a margin of normal tissue around the tumor was excised. As a result, amputation became standard treatment.6 In a landmark National Cancer Institute study 3 decades ago, patients were randomized to amputation or to limb-sparing surgery with the addition of RT.7 Notably, disease-free and overall survival were not compromised by limb-sparing surgery plus RT, demonstrating that although lesser surgery in the absence of RT may be insufficient, limb-sparing surgery with RT was equal to amputation. Consequently, limb-sparing approaches have become the favored surgery for the majority of cases of soft-tissue sarcoma, as advocated in a consensus statement from the National Institutes of Health.1

Indications vary by lesion grade

In general, adjuvant RT is recommended for all intermediate- and high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma lesions. A potential exception is a superficial tumor smaller than 5 cm with widely negative margins after resection. For low-grade lesions, re-excision is favored over adjuvant RT for positive or close margins, and RT is avoided in the setting of negative margins.

Optimal timing of radiation remains unclear

The optimal timing of adjuvant RT—preoperative versus postoperative—remains unknown. The relative advantages of preoperative RT include smaller and well-defined treatment volume, ability to use a lower dose, lack of tissue hypoxia, increased tumor resectability (smaller surgery), and improved limb function with less late fibrosis and edema. The disadvantages include inability to precisely stage patients and higher risk of acute wound-healing complications.

The National Cancer Institute of Canada compared outcomes with preoperative versus postoperative RT among 190 patients with soft-tissue sarcoma in a prospective randomized trial.8 Patients were stratified by tumor size (≤ 10 cm or > 10cm) and then randomized to preoperative RT (50 Gy in 25 fractions) or postoperative RT (66 Gy in 33 fractions).8 There was no difference between the groups in local control, distant control, or survival rates, but a higher rate of late complications, including fibrosis and edema, was observed with postoperative RT.8,9 On the other hand, the incidence of wound complications was higher in the preoperative group (35%) than in the postoperative group (17%).8

Likewise, the optimal sequencing and benefits of systemic therapy (chemotherapy) with relation to local therapy (surgery with pre- or postoperative RT) remain unclear. More than a dozen individual randomized trials of adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as a meta-analysis of 14 trials of doxorubicin-based adjuvant chemotherapy, have failed to demonstrate significant improvement in overall survival in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas.10 With regard to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for soft-tissue sarcomas, there are studies suggesting improvement in local control but no consistent survival benefit.11 Chemotherapy may yield a benefit in select cases, as detailed elsewhere in this supplement.

MECHANISMS OF ACTION: DIRECT AND INDIRECT

In simplified terms, radiation kills cancer cells through two basic mechanisms: indirect and direct.

The indirect effect (the most common mechanism) results from the generation of free radicals in the intracellular medium via ionization by photons. Free radicals, in turn, deposit large amounts of energy that damage DNA or some other vital component of the cell, resulting in cell death.

The direct effect is a consequence of photons themselves interacting directly with the cell in a lethal manner.

The goal of RT is to kill tumor cells selectively, without irreversibly injuring adjacent normal tissue. This is done by exploiting two abnormal aspects of tumor behavior: decreased ability for repair and increased susceptibility to ionizing radiation damage. Tumors are generally less able than normal tissue to repair DNA damage, owing to defective repair mechanisms. Tumor cells are also comparatively more radiosensitive than normal tissues, as they are more frequently in radiosensitive cell-cycle phases. Thus, dividing the radiation dose into a number of treatment fractions provides two advantages that further exploit the biologic differences between tumor and normal tissue: it allows DNA repair to take place within the normal tissues, and it allows proliferating tumor cells to redistribute through the cell cycle and move into the more radiosensitive phases.

 

 

TREATMENT PLANNING

Treatment simulation

Following initial consultation with a radiation oncologist, the eligible patient undergoes a simulation, or a treatment planning session in which he or she is positioned so as to allow treatment to be carefully designed and subsequently delivered with precision. This typically requires fabrication of a customized immobilization device to allow for consistent positioning over the treatment course. Sarcomas require that special care be taken to properly immobilize both the proximal and distal joints. Additionally, radiopaque wires are used to delineate the anatomic boundaries of the tumor or scar. Computed tomographic (CT) scans are then obtained to enable image-based three-dimensional treatment planning. The patient setup is photographed, and setup indicators are recorded and marked on the patient’s skin, some with freckle-size tattoos and some with indelible marker.

The treatment fields are then designed on the CT-simulation data set with the aid of virtual reality–type techniques. In addition to delineation of tumor volumes, three-dimensional treatment planning is used to contour all nearby normal structures on each slice. The resulting structures can then be used to specify dose constraints and help determine the optimal beam geometries to ensure proper tumor coverage and minimize the potential for side effects by reducing the dose to organs at risk. In the case of sarcomas, several strategies for reducing the risk of side effects are especially relevant: (1) carefully sparing a portion of the circumference of uninvolved bone to minimize the risk of fractures; (2) carefully sparing a strip of normal tissue to minimize edema by permitting undisrupted lymphatic drainage from the extremity; and (3) keeping dosing to joint spaces and other adjacent organs below tissue tolerances as defined by Emami et al.12

Determining target volume

The target volume for RT is determined on the basis of physical examination, radiologic studies, anatomical considerations, and the natural history of the sarcoma.

In the preoperative setting, longitudinal margins of 5 cm beyond the tumor and tumor-associated edema and radial margins of 2 cm are treated to 50 Gy in 25 fractions. Surgery is undertaken approximately 4 weeks after completion of RT to allow for repair in normal tissues and minimize operative and postoperative complications. Following surgery, an RT boost may be added for positive margins (16 Gy) or gross residual disease (25 Gy).

In the postoperative setting, details on the extent of dissection or observations from the surgeons themselves must be considered. Information regarding the surgical approach must be noted and can influence the effectiveness of postoperative RT as well as the incidence of late side effects. When experienced surgeons are involved, scars and drain sites, which are at risk for subclinical disease, can be planned so that their inclusion in the RT portal allows for sparing a strip of skin to minimize complications. Surgical clip placement at the boundaries of the tumor bed also facilitates RT planning.13 Finally, prophylactic bone stabilization may reduce the risk of subsequent fracture in cases where circumferential bone radiation in high-risk sites is anticipated.

Recommendations on the volume that must be treated vary among different authorities. Some advocate treating the entire compartment because of the risk for microscopic seeding.14 Others recommend margins around the tumor or tumor bed ranging from less than 5 cm up to 15 cm.15 Most often the postoperative approach is to include the resection bed with a 2-cm radial margin, the incision, and any drain sites in the initial treatment volume and to base the longitudinal margin on the grade and size of the primary tumor (5–15 cm). This volume is treated to 50 Gy in 25 fractions followed by two sequential reductions in field size, with the total dose determined by the extent of resection: 60 Gy for negative margins, 66 Gy for microscopically positive margins, and 75 Gy for gross residual disease.

TREATMENT DELIVERY

Once treatment planning is completed, treatments begin and are given daily Monday through Friday. Each day, the patient is positioned in the immobilization device, the field measurements are set, and positioning is checked with measurement tools and external marking of the field borders on the skin. Daily image guidance techniques may be used to increase setup reproducibility. Typical treatment times, including set­up and actual delivery, are roughly 20 to 30 minutes daily.

While external beam RT is most commonly delivered as described above, brachytherapy, or intraoperative electron beam techniques, as well as proton or other charged-particle therapies, are also applied in selected cases.16–18

SIDE EFFECTS

Side effects of RT in the setting of sarcomas can be divided according to their onset—ie, acute versus delayed.

Acute effects. Skin changes ranging from erythema to moist desquamation in the skin overlying the high-dose volume are common. Major wound complications (delayed wound healing or need for surgical intervention) occur in approximately 17% of patients after surgical resection with postoperative RT, and perhaps more commonly (35%) with preoperative RT,8 though these rates vary widely in the literature. Another frequently reported acute side effect is fatigue.

Delayed sequelae after conservative resection and RT of extremity lesions include a reduction in range of motion secondary to joint contracture, edema, and fibrosis, as well as pain and bone fractures, all of which can significantly limit function of the preserved limb. In centers treating high volumes of patients with soft-tissue sarcoma, the incidence of moderate to severe late effects is less than 10%.19 In contrast to acute wound complications, a higher rate of late complications, including fibrosis and edema, have been observed with postoperative RT relative to preoperative RT.9 When necessary, high-dose RT does not appear to compromise the viability of skin grafts used to repair defects after sarcoma surgery if adequate time is allowed for healing.20

Regardless of the management approach, intensive rehabilitation led by physical therapy specialists is imperative in minimizing disabilities after treatment of soft-tissue sarcomas.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes of patients with musculoskeletal sarcomas are optimized at specialized sarcoma centers. For patients with soft-tissue sarcomas, effectively implementing an approach that combines conservative surgery and RT—and, in select cases, chemotherapy—achieves excellent local control rates while minimizing morbidity and maximizing long-term extremity function relative to aggressive surgery alone.

References
  1. Consensus conference. Limb-sparing treatment of adult soft-tissue sarcomas and osteosarcomas. JAMA 1985; 254:1791–1794.
  2. Gutierrez JC, Perez EA, Moffat FL, et al. Should soft tissue sarcomas be treated at high-volume centers? An analysis of 4,205 patients. Ann Surg 2007; 245:952–958.
  3. Halperin EC, Perez CA, Brady LW, eds. Perez and Brady’s Principles and Practice of Radiation Oncology. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
  4. Glencross J, Balasubramanian SP, Bacon J, Robinson MH, Reed MW. An audit of the management of soft tissue sarcoma within a health region in the UK. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003; 29:670–675.
  5. Dunst J, Schuck A. Role of radiotherapy in Ewing tumors. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2004; 42:465–470.
  6. Schwartz SI, Brunicardi FC, eds. Schwartz’s Principles of Surgery. 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Medical Pub. Division; 2010.
  7. Rosenberg SA, Tepper J, Glatstein E, et al. The treatment of soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities: prospective randomized evaluations of (1) limb-sparing surgery plus radiation therapy compared with amputation and (2) the role of adjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg 1982; 196:305–315.
  8. O’Sullivan B, Davis AM, Turcotte R, et al. Preoperative versus postoperative radiotherapy in soft-tissue sarcoma of the limbs: a randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 359:2235–2241.
  9. Davis AM, O’Sullivan B, Turcotte R, et al. Late radiation morbidity following randomization to preoperative versus postoperative radiotherapy in extremity soft tissue sarcoma. Radiother Oncol 2005; 75:48–53.
  10. Sarcoma Meta-analysis Collaboration. Adjuvant chemotherapy for localised respectable soft-tissue sarcoma of adults: meta-analysis of individual data. Lancet 1997; 350:1647–1654.
  11. Eilber FC, Tap WD, Nelson SD, Eckardt JJ, Eilber FR. Advances in chemotherapy for patients with extremity soft tissue sarcoma. Orthop Clin North Am 2006; 37:15–22.
  12. Emami B, Lyman J, Brown A, et al. Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991; 21:109–122.
  13. Tepper J, Rosenberg SA, Glatstein E. Radiation therapy technique in soft tissue sarcomas of the extremity: policies of treatment at the National Cancer Institute. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1982; 8:263–273.
  14. DeVita VT Jr, Lawrence TS, Rosenberg SA, eds. DeVita, Hellman, and Rosenberg’s Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
  15. Suit HD, Spiro I. Role of radiation in the management of adult patients with sarcoma of soft tissue. Semin Surg Oncol 1994; 10:347–356.
  16. DeLaney TF, Trofimov AV, Engelsman M, Suit HD. Advanced-technology radiation therapy in the management of bone and soft tissue sarcomas. Cancer Control 2005; 12:27–35.
  17. DeLaney TF, Liebsch NJ, Pedlow FX, et al. Phase II study of high-dose photon/proton radiotherapy in the management of spine sarcomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 74:732–739.
  18. Ishigami N, Suzuki K, Takahashi T, et al. Intimal sarcoma of aortic arch treated with proton therapy following surgery. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 2008; 16:e12–e14.
  19. Pollack A, Zagars GK, Goswitz MS, et al. Preoperative vs. postoperative radiotherapy in the treatment of soft tissue sarcomas: a matter of presentation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 42:563–572.
  20. Lawrence WT, Zabell A, McDonald HD. The tolerance of skin grafts to postoperative radiation therapy in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma. Ann Plast Surg 1986; 16:204–210.
References
  1. Consensus conference. Limb-sparing treatment of adult soft-tissue sarcomas and osteosarcomas. JAMA 1985; 254:1791–1794.
  2. Gutierrez JC, Perez EA, Moffat FL, et al. Should soft tissue sarcomas be treated at high-volume centers? An analysis of 4,205 patients. Ann Surg 2007; 245:952–958.
  3. Halperin EC, Perez CA, Brady LW, eds. Perez and Brady’s Principles and Practice of Radiation Oncology. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
  4. Glencross J, Balasubramanian SP, Bacon J, Robinson MH, Reed MW. An audit of the management of soft tissue sarcoma within a health region in the UK. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003; 29:670–675.
  5. Dunst J, Schuck A. Role of radiotherapy in Ewing tumors. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2004; 42:465–470.
  6. Schwartz SI, Brunicardi FC, eds. Schwartz’s Principles of Surgery. 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Medical Pub. Division; 2010.
  7. Rosenberg SA, Tepper J, Glatstein E, et al. The treatment of soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities: prospective randomized evaluations of (1) limb-sparing surgery plus radiation therapy compared with amputation and (2) the role of adjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg 1982; 196:305–315.
  8. O’Sullivan B, Davis AM, Turcotte R, et al. Preoperative versus postoperative radiotherapy in soft-tissue sarcoma of the limbs: a randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 359:2235–2241.
  9. Davis AM, O’Sullivan B, Turcotte R, et al. Late radiation morbidity following randomization to preoperative versus postoperative radiotherapy in extremity soft tissue sarcoma. Radiother Oncol 2005; 75:48–53.
  10. Sarcoma Meta-analysis Collaboration. Adjuvant chemotherapy for localised respectable soft-tissue sarcoma of adults: meta-analysis of individual data. Lancet 1997; 350:1647–1654.
  11. Eilber FC, Tap WD, Nelson SD, Eckardt JJ, Eilber FR. Advances in chemotherapy for patients with extremity soft tissue sarcoma. Orthop Clin North Am 2006; 37:15–22.
  12. Emami B, Lyman J, Brown A, et al. Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991; 21:109–122.
  13. Tepper J, Rosenberg SA, Glatstein E. Radiation therapy technique in soft tissue sarcomas of the extremity: policies of treatment at the National Cancer Institute. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1982; 8:263–273.
  14. DeVita VT Jr, Lawrence TS, Rosenberg SA, eds. DeVita, Hellman, and Rosenberg’s Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
  15. Suit HD, Spiro I. Role of radiation in the management of adult patients with sarcoma of soft tissue. Semin Surg Oncol 1994; 10:347–356.
  16. DeLaney TF, Trofimov AV, Engelsman M, Suit HD. Advanced-technology radiation therapy in the management of bone and soft tissue sarcomas. Cancer Control 2005; 12:27–35.
  17. DeLaney TF, Liebsch NJ, Pedlow FX, et al. Phase II study of high-dose photon/proton radiotherapy in the management of spine sarcomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 74:732–739.
  18. Ishigami N, Suzuki K, Takahashi T, et al. Intimal sarcoma of aortic arch treated with proton therapy following surgery. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 2008; 16:e12–e14.
  19. Pollack A, Zagars GK, Goswitz MS, et al. Preoperative vs. postoperative radiotherapy in the treatment of soft tissue sarcomas: a matter of presentation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 42:563–572.
  20. Lawrence WT, Zabell A, McDonald HD. The tolerance of skin grafts to postoperative radiation therapy in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma. Ann Plast Surg 1986; 16:204–210.
Page Number
S27-S29
Page Number
S27-S29
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Use of radiation therapy for patients with soft-tissue and bone sarcomas
Display Headline
Use of radiation therapy for patients with soft-tissue and bone sarcomas
Citation Override
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 2010 March;77(suppl 1):S27-S29
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

Palpable purpura

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/15/2018 - 09:24
Display Headline
Palpable purpura

Figure 1. Erythematous purple papules on the lower legs.
A healthy 47-year-old woman presents with a 3-day history of widespread asymptomatic lesions in the extremities, fever, arthralgias, and mild abdominal pain. A physical examination reveals a symmetric rash in the lower legs with erythematous purple papules. These papules do not blanch when pressure is applied and so are clinically compatible with palpable purpura (Figure 1). Skin biopsy shows leukocytoclastic vasculitis with immunoglobulin A (IgA) deposits in the vascular wall.

Q: Which is the most likely diagnosis?

  • Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura
  • Vitamin C deficiency (scurvy)
  • Kaposi sarcoma not related to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection
  • Henoch-Schönlein purpura
  • Polyarteritis nodosa

A: The correct answer is Henoch-Schönlein purpura.

Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura is an autoimmune disease caused by specific antibodies against platelet-membrane glycoproteins. It is characterized by thrombocytopenia not explainable by contact with toxic substances or by other causes. Along with nonpalpable purpura, other common signs are epistaxis, gingival bleeding, menorrhagia, and retinal hemorrhage.

Scurvy is an uncommon deficiency of ascorbic acid (vitamin C). The elderly and alcoholics are at higher risk, as they do not take in enough vitamin C in the diet. Patients usually show perifollicular hemorrhages of the skin and mucous membranes, typically petechial hemorrhage or ecchymosis of the gums around the upper incisors. Other cutaneous signs are follicular hyperkeratosis on the forearms, small corkscrew hairs, and sicca syndrome, which is more common in adults.

Non-HIV Kaposi sarcoma usually affects elderly patients, with pink, red, or brown papules or nodules on the legs and, less commonly, on the head and neck. Histopathologic examination shows newly formed irregular blood vessels with an inflammatory infiltrate of plasma cells and lymphocytes; immunohistochemical human herpes virus staining is usually positive.

Polyarteritis nodosa is a systemic vasculitis that affects medium or small arteries with necrotizing inflammation; renal glomeruli and arterioles, capillaries, and venules are unaffected. Skin manifestations include palpable purpura, livedo reticularis, ulcers, and distal gangrene. The condition also usually affects the kidneys, the heart, and the musculoskeletal and nervous systems.

 

 

A SYSTEMIC VASCULITIS

Henoch-Schönlein purpura is a systemic vasculitis affecting the skin, gastrointestinal tract, kidneys, and joints. Palpable purpura and joint pain are the most common and consistent presenting symptoms. The kidneys are affected in about one-third of children and in 60% of adults, and this is the major factor determining the long-term outcome.1

In our patient, laboratory testing that included a complete blood cell count, biochemical testing (including IgA levels), urinary sediment, and coagulation studies showed no abnormalities except elevations of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate and the concentration of C-reactive protein (an acute-phase reactant). These can be normal in some patients. Renal involvement was also not present.

DIAGNOSIS

The diagnosis relies on clinical manifestations. Because Henoch-Schönlein purpura is less common in adults, biopsy plays a more important role in establishing the diagnosis in this age group, and it does this by demonstrating leukocytoclastic vasculitis with a predominance of IgA deposition under immunofluorescence. Recent studies in children showed that an elevated IgA concentration along with reduced IgM levels was associated with a higher rate of severe complications.2 However, depending on the age of the biopsied lesion, IgA may not be detected.

TREATMENT DIRECTED AT SYMPTOMS

Our patient received oral corticosteroids 0.5 mg/kg per day for 20 days, and the lesions resolved by 4 weeks.

Management of Henoch-Schönlein purpura is mainly directed at the symptoms, with oral hydration and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. For severe cases, a short course of corticosteroids (0.5–1 mg/kg) may be used.

Although no controlled clinical trial has proven that Henoch-Schönlein purpura responds to corticosteroids, colchicine, or other drugs, corticosteroids are used most often, especially in patients with renal disease. Patients with severe renal insufficiency, abdominal pain, joint involvement, or bleeding should be hospitalized. Plasmapheresis3 has been used in severe cases.

HENOCH-SCHÖNLEIN PURPURA AND MALIGNANCY

During a follow-up evaluation 1 month later, our patient was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the breast. This highlights the value of a workup for cancer in adults with cutaneous vasculitis.

Cutaneous vasculitis can represent a paraneoplastic syndrome associated with a malignant tumor. The pathophysiology of this association is unclear, but one proposed mechanism is the exaggerated production of antibodies that react against tumor neoantigens, leading to the formation of immune complexes, or that occasionally recognize endothelial cells because of similarities with tumor antigens. Another theory is that abnormally high levels of inflammatory cytokines are produced by neoplastic cells or in response to decreased immune complex clearance.

Yet another theory is that hyperviscosity of the blood, seen in some cancers, increases the contact time for deposition of immune complexes and causes endothelial damage. Drugs used to treat cancer have also been reported to produce Henoch-Schönlein purpura.4

Although hematologic malignancy is three to five times more common than solid tumors in patients with small-vessel vasculitis, the disease has been associated with solid tumors of the liver, skin, colon, and breast in adults over age 40.5 An evaluation for neoplasm is therefore reasonable in adults with Henoch-Schönlein purpura, as is an evaluation for tumor recurrence or metastasis if the patient has been previously treated for a malignant tumor.

References
  1. Rieu P, Noël LH. Henoch-Schönlein nephritis in children and adults. Morphological features and clinicopathological correlations. Ann Med Interne (Paris) 1999; 150:151159.
  2. Fretzayas A, Sionti I, Moustaki M, Nicolaidou P. Clinical impact of altered immunoglobulin levels in Henoch-Schönlein purpura. Pediatr Int 2009; 51:381384.
  3. Donghi D, Schanz U, Sahrbacher U, et al. Life-threatening or organimpairing Henoch-Schönlein purpura: plasmapheresis may save lives and limit organ damage. Dermatology 2009; 219:167170.
  4. Mitsui H, Shibagaki N, Kawamura T, Matsue H, Shimada S. A clinical study of Henoch-Schönlein purpura associated with malignancy. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2009; 23:394401.
  5. Maestri A, Malacarne P, Santini A. Henoch-Schönlein syndrome associated with breast cancer. A case report. Angiology 1995; 46:625627.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Salvador Arias-Santiago, MD
Department of Dermatology, San Cecilio University Hospital, Granada, Spain

José Aneiros-Fernández, MD
Department of Pathology, San Cecilio University Hospital, Granada, Spain

María Sierra Girón-Prieto, MD
Department of Dermatology, San Cecilio University Hospital, Granada, Spain

María Antonia Fernández-Pugnaire, PhD
Department of Dermatology, San Cecilio University Hospital, Granada, Spain

Ramón Naranjo-Sintes, PhD
Department of Dermatology, San Cecilio University Hospital, Granada, Spain

Address: Salvador Arias-Santiago, MD, San Cecilio University Hospital, Av Dr Oloriz 16, Granada 18012, Spain; e-mail [email protected]

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 77(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
205-206
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Salvador Arias-Santiago, MD
Department of Dermatology, San Cecilio University Hospital, Granada, Spain

José Aneiros-Fernández, MD
Department of Pathology, San Cecilio University Hospital, Granada, Spain

María Sierra Girón-Prieto, MD
Department of Dermatology, San Cecilio University Hospital, Granada, Spain

María Antonia Fernández-Pugnaire, PhD
Department of Dermatology, San Cecilio University Hospital, Granada, Spain

Ramón Naranjo-Sintes, PhD
Department of Dermatology, San Cecilio University Hospital, Granada, Spain

Address: Salvador Arias-Santiago, MD, San Cecilio University Hospital, Av Dr Oloriz 16, Granada 18012, Spain; e-mail [email protected]

Author and Disclosure Information

Salvador Arias-Santiago, MD
Department of Dermatology, San Cecilio University Hospital, Granada, Spain

José Aneiros-Fernández, MD
Department of Pathology, San Cecilio University Hospital, Granada, Spain

María Sierra Girón-Prieto, MD
Department of Dermatology, San Cecilio University Hospital, Granada, Spain

María Antonia Fernández-Pugnaire, PhD
Department of Dermatology, San Cecilio University Hospital, Granada, Spain

Ramón Naranjo-Sintes, PhD
Department of Dermatology, San Cecilio University Hospital, Granada, Spain

Address: Salvador Arias-Santiago, MD, San Cecilio University Hospital, Av Dr Oloriz 16, Granada 18012, Spain; e-mail [email protected]

Article PDF
Article PDF

Figure 1. Erythematous purple papules on the lower legs.
A healthy 47-year-old woman presents with a 3-day history of widespread asymptomatic lesions in the extremities, fever, arthralgias, and mild abdominal pain. A physical examination reveals a symmetric rash in the lower legs with erythematous purple papules. These papules do not blanch when pressure is applied and so are clinically compatible with palpable purpura (Figure 1). Skin biopsy shows leukocytoclastic vasculitis with immunoglobulin A (IgA) deposits in the vascular wall.

Q: Which is the most likely diagnosis?

  • Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura
  • Vitamin C deficiency (scurvy)
  • Kaposi sarcoma not related to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection
  • Henoch-Schönlein purpura
  • Polyarteritis nodosa

A: The correct answer is Henoch-Schönlein purpura.

Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura is an autoimmune disease caused by specific antibodies against platelet-membrane glycoproteins. It is characterized by thrombocytopenia not explainable by contact with toxic substances or by other causes. Along with nonpalpable purpura, other common signs are epistaxis, gingival bleeding, menorrhagia, and retinal hemorrhage.

Scurvy is an uncommon deficiency of ascorbic acid (vitamin C). The elderly and alcoholics are at higher risk, as they do not take in enough vitamin C in the diet. Patients usually show perifollicular hemorrhages of the skin and mucous membranes, typically petechial hemorrhage or ecchymosis of the gums around the upper incisors. Other cutaneous signs are follicular hyperkeratosis on the forearms, small corkscrew hairs, and sicca syndrome, which is more common in adults.

Non-HIV Kaposi sarcoma usually affects elderly patients, with pink, red, or brown papules or nodules on the legs and, less commonly, on the head and neck. Histopathologic examination shows newly formed irregular blood vessels with an inflammatory infiltrate of plasma cells and lymphocytes; immunohistochemical human herpes virus staining is usually positive.

Polyarteritis nodosa is a systemic vasculitis that affects medium or small arteries with necrotizing inflammation; renal glomeruli and arterioles, capillaries, and venules are unaffected. Skin manifestations include palpable purpura, livedo reticularis, ulcers, and distal gangrene. The condition also usually affects the kidneys, the heart, and the musculoskeletal and nervous systems.

 

 

A SYSTEMIC VASCULITIS

Henoch-Schönlein purpura is a systemic vasculitis affecting the skin, gastrointestinal tract, kidneys, and joints. Palpable purpura and joint pain are the most common and consistent presenting symptoms. The kidneys are affected in about one-third of children and in 60% of adults, and this is the major factor determining the long-term outcome.1

In our patient, laboratory testing that included a complete blood cell count, biochemical testing (including IgA levels), urinary sediment, and coagulation studies showed no abnormalities except elevations of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate and the concentration of C-reactive protein (an acute-phase reactant). These can be normal in some patients. Renal involvement was also not present.

DIAGNOSIS

The diagnosis relies on clinical manifestations. Because Henoch-Schönlein purpura is less common in adults, biopsy plays a more important role in establishing the diagnosis in this age group, and it does this by demonstrating leukocytoclastic vasculitis with a predominance of IgA deposition under immunofluorescence. Recent studies in children showed that an elevated IgA concentration along with reduced IgM levels was associated with a higher rate of severe complications.2 However, depending on the age of the biopsied lesion, IgA may not be detected.

TREATMENT DIRECTED AT SYMPTOMS

Our patient received oral corticosteroids 0.5 mg/kg per day for 20 days, and the lesions resolved by 4 weeks.

Management of Henoch-Schönlein purpura is mainly directed at the symptoms, with oral hydration and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. For severe cases, a short course of corticosteroids (0.5–1 mg/kg) may be used.

Although no controlled clinical trial has proven that Henoch-Schönlein purpura responds to corticosteroids, colchicine, or other drugs, corticosteroids are used most often, especially in patients with renal disease. Patients with severe renal insufficiency, abdominal pain, joint involvement, or bleeding should be hospitalized. Plasmapheresis3 has been used in severe cases.

HENOCH-SCHÖNLEIN PURPURA AND MALIGNANCY

During a follow-up evaluation 1 month later, our patient was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the breast. This highlights the value of a workup for cancer in adults with cutaneous vasculitis.

Cutaneous vasculitis can represent a paraneoplastic syndrome associated with a malignant tumor. The pathophysiology of this association is unclear, but one proposed mechanism is the exaggerated production of antibodies that react against tumor neoantigens, leading to the formation of immune complexes, or that occasionally recognize endothelial cells because of similarities with tumor antigens. Another theory is that abnormally high levels of inflammatory cytokines are produced by neoplastic cells or in response to decreased immune complex clearance.

Yet another theory is that hyperviscosity of the blood, seen in some cancers, increases the contact time for deposition of immune complexes and causes endothelial damage. Drugs used to treat cancer have also been reported to produce Henoch-Schönlein purpura.4

Although hematologic malignancy is three to five times more common than solid tumors in patients with small-vessel vasculitis, the disease has been associated with solid tumors of the liver, skin, colon, and breast in adults over age 40.5 An evaluation for neoplasm is therefore reasonable in adults with Henoch-Schönlein purpura, as is an evaluation for tumor recurrence or metastasis if the patient has been previously treated for a malignant tumor.

Figure 1. Erythematous purple papules on the lower legs.
A healthy 47-year-old woman presents with a 3-day history of widespread asymptomatic lesions in the extremities, fever, arthralgias, and mild abdominal pain. A physical examination reveals a symmetric rash in the lower legs with erythematous purple papules. These papules do not blanch when pressure is applied and so are clinically compatible with palpable purpura (Figure 1). Skin biopsy shows leukocytoclastic vasculitis with immunoglobulin A (IgA) deposits in the vascular wall.

Q: Which is the most likely diagnosis?

  • Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura
  • Vitamin C deficiency (scurvy)
  • Kaposi sarcoma not related to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection
  • Henoch-Schönlein purpura
  • Polyarteritis nodosa

A: The correct answer is Henoch-Schönlein purpura.

Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura is an autoimmune disease caused by specific antibodies against platelet-membrane glycoproteins. It is characterized by thrombocytopenia not explainable by contact with toxic substances or by other causes. Along with nonpalpable purpura, other common signs are epistaxis, gingival bleeding, menorrhagia, and retinal hemorrhage.

Scurvy is an uncommon deficiency of ascorbic acid (vitamin C). The elderly and alcoholics are at higher risk, as they do not take in enough vitamin C in the diet. Patients usually show perifollicular hemorrhages of the skin and mucous membranes, typically petechial hemorrhage or ecchymosis of the gums around the upper incisors. Other cutaneous signs are follicular hyperkeratosis on the forearms, small corkscrew hairs, and sicca syndrome, which is more common in adults.

Non-HIV Kaposi sarcoma usually affects elderly patients, with pink, red, or brown papules or nodules on the legs and, less commonly, on the head and neck. Histopathologic examination shows newly formed irregular blood vessels with an inflammatory infiltrate of plasma cells and lymphocytes; immunohistochemical human herpes virus staining is usually positive.

Polyarteritis nodosa is a systemic vasculitis that affects medium or small arteries with necrotizing inflammation; renal glomeruli and arterioles, capillaries, and venules are unaffected. Skin manifestations include palpable purpura, livedo reticularis, ulcers, and distal gangrene. The condition also usually affects the kidneys, the heart, and the musculoskeletal and nervous systems.

 

 

A SYSTEMIC VASCULITIS

Henoch-Schönlein purpura is a systemic vasculitis affecting the skin, gastrointestinal tract, kidneys, and joints. Palpable purpura and joint pain are the most common and consistent presenting symptoms. The kidneys are affected in about one-third of children and in 60% of adults, and this is the major factor determining the long-term outcome.1

In our patient, laboratory testing that included a complete blood cell count, biochemical testing (including IgA levels), urinary sediment, and coagulation studies showed no abnormalities except elevations of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate and the concentration of C-reactive protein (an acute-phase reactant). These can be normal in some patients. Renal involvement was also not present.

DIAGNOSIS

The diagnosis relies on clinical manifestations. Because Henoch-Schönlein purpura is less common in adults, biopsy plays a more important role in establishing the diagnosis in this age group, and it does this by demonstrating leukocytoclastic vasculitis with a predominance of IgA deposition under immunofluorescence. Recent studies in children showed that an elevated IgA concentration along with reduced IgM levels was associated with a higher rate of severe complications.2 However, depending on the age of the biopsied lesion, IgA may not be detected.

TREATMENT DIRECTED AT SYMPTOMS

Our patient received oral corticosteroids 0.5 mg/kg per day for 20 days, and the lesions resolved by 4 weeks.

Management of Henoch-Schönlein purpura is mainly directed at the symptoms, with oral hydration and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. For severe cases, a short course of corticosteroids (0.5–1 mg/kg) may be used.

Although no controlled clinical trial has proven that Henoch-Schönlein purpura responds to corticosteroids, colchicine, or other drugs, corticosteroids are used most often, especially in patients with renal disease. Patients with severe renal insufficiency, abdominal pain, joint involvement, or bleeding should be hospitalized. Plasmapheresis3 has been used in severe cases.

HENOCH-SCHÖNLEIN PURPURA AND MALIGNANCY

During a follow-up evaluation 1 month later, our patient was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the breast. This highlights the value of a workup for cancer in adults with cutaneous vasculitis.

Cutaneous vasculitis can represent a paraneoplastic syndrome associated with a malignant tumor. The pathophysiology of this association is unclear, but one proposed mechanism is the exaggerated production of antibodies that react against tumor neoantigens, leading to the formation of immune complexes, or that occasionally recognize endothelial cells because of similarities with tumor antigens. Another theory is that abnormally high levels of inflammatory cytokines are produced by neoplastic cells or in response to decreased immune complex clearance.

Yet another theory is that hyperviscosity of the blood, seen in some cancers, increases the contact time for deposition of immune complexes and causes endothelial damage. Drugs used to treat cancer have also been reported to produce Henoch-Schönlein purpura.4

Although hematologic malignancy is three to five times more common than solid tumors in patients with small-vessel vasculitis, the disease has been associated with solid tumors of the liver, skin, colon, and breast in adults over age 40.5 An evaluation for neoplasm is therefore reasonable in adults with Henoch-Schönlein purpura, as is an evaluation for tumor recurrence or metastasis if the patient has been previously treated for a malignant tumor.

References
  1. Rieu P, Noël LH. Henoch-Schönlein nephritis in children and adults. Morphological features and clinicopathological correlations. Ann Med Interne (Paris) 1999; 150:151159.
  2. Fretzayas A, Sionti I, Moustaki M, Nicolaidou P. Clinical impact of altered immunoglobulin levels in Henoch-Schönlein purpura. Pediatr Int 2009; 51:381384.
  3. Donghi D, Schanz U, Sahrbacher U, et al. Life-threatening or organimpairing Henoch-Schönlein purpura: plasmapheresis may save lives and limit organ damage. Dermatology 2009; 219:167170.
  4. Mitsui H, Shibagaki N, Kawamura T, Matsue H, Shimada S. A clinical study of Henoch-Schönlein purpura associated with malignancy. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2009; 23:394401.
  5. Maestri A, Malacarne P, Santini A. Henoch-Schönlein syndrome associated with breast cancer. A case report. Angiology 1995; 46:625627.
References
  1. Rieu P, Noël LH. Henoch-Schönlein nephritis in children and adults. Morphological features and clinicopathological correlations. Ann Med Interne (Paris) 1999; 150:151159.
  2. Fretzayas A, Sionti I, Moustaki M, Nicolaidou P. Clinical impact of altered immunoglobulin levels in Henoch-Schönlein purpura. Pediatr Int 2009; 51:381384.
  3. Donghi D, Schanz U, Sahrbacher U, et al. Life-threatening or organimpairing Henoch-Schönlein purpura: plasmapheresis may save lives and limit organ damage. Dermatology 2009; 219:167170.
  4. Mitsui H, Shibagaki N, Kawamura T, Matsue H, Shimada S. A clinical study of Henoch-Schönlein purpura associated with malignancy. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2009; 23:394401.
  5. Maestri A, Malacarne P, Santini A. Henoch-Schönlein syndrome associated with breast cancer. A case report. Angiology 1995; 46:625627.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 77(3)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 77(3)
Page Number
205-206
Page Number
205-206
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Palpable purpura
Display Headline
Palpable purpura
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

When and how to evaluate mildly elevated liver enzymes in apparently healthy patients

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/15/2018 - 09:03
Display Headline
When and how to evaluate mildly elevated liver enzymes in apparently healthy patients

In seemingly healthy patients, abnormal liver enzyme levels challenge even the most experienced clinicians in deciding what further evaluation to pursue, if any. Automated laboratory testing has made serum liver enzyme levels very easy to obtain, leading to an increase in testing and also in the number of incidental abnormal findings. An estimated 1% to 9% of people who have no symptoms have high liver enzyme levels when screened with standard biochemistry panels.1,2 A US survey2 showed elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) in 8.9% of surveyed people from 1999 to 2002, an increase from previous reports.

An extensive evaluation can be costly, anxiety-provoking, and risky, especially if it leads to unnecessary invasive procedures such as liver biopsy or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Not all people with a single, isolated, mildly elevated liver enzyme value have underlying liver disease, nor do they require an extensive evaluation. Factors to consider when deciding whether to evaluate include:

  • The patient’s overall health, including chronic illness
  • The duration and pattern of enzyme elevation
  • Patient characteristics such as age, a personal or family history of liver, lung, or neurologic disease, risk factors for viral hepatitis, amount of alcohol consumption, use of prescribed or over-the-counter drugs or dietary supplements
  • The costs and risks associated with additional evaluation.

This article reviews the most likely causes of elevated aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, and gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels. It also provides an algorithm for evaluating mildly abnormal liver enzyme values in apparently healthy people. Patients with signs of hepatic decompensation need a more concise and urgent evaluation.

PATTERNS OF LIVER ENZYME ELEVATION

“Liver function test” is commonly used to describe liver enzyme measurements, but the term should be reserved for tests of the functional hepatic reserve—traditionally, the albumin level and the prothrombin time.3

On the other hand, elevated serum liver enzymes (aminotransferases, alkaline phosphatase, and GGT) can reflect abnormalities in liver cells or in the bile duct. For example, predominant elevation of aminotransferases typically indicates hepatocellular injury, whereas elevated alkaline phosphatase and GGT indicates cholestatic injury. Elevated alkaline phosphatase and aminotransferases can indicate a mixed pattern of injury.

High AST, ALT suggest liver cell damage

Both aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and ALT are normally present in serum at low levels, usually less than 30 to 40 U/L. Although the actual values may differ from laboratory to laboratory, normal serum levels are usually less than 40 U/L for AST and less than 50 U/L for ALT. On the other hand, some experts have suggested lowering the upper limit of normal because of the increasing rate of obesity and associated nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which may not be detected using the traditional, higher normal values. Acceptance is growing for using ALT levels less than 40 U/L in men and less than 31 U/L in women, and AST levels less than 37 U/L in men and less than 31 U/L in women, as normal thresholds.

Although ALT is present in several organs and in muscle, the highest levels are in the liver, which makes this enzyme a more specific indicator of liver injury. Both AST and ALT are released into the blood in greater amounts when hepatocytes are damaged.

Alkaline phosphatase suggests cholestasis

Alkaline phosphatase comes mostly from the liver and bone. In general, normal serum alkaline phosphatase levels in adults range between 20 and 120 U/L. When bone disease is excluded, an elevation suggests biliary obstruction, injury to the bile duct epithelium, or cholestasis. Additionally, there are rare cases of benign familial elevation of serum alkaline phosphatase, mainly of intestinal origin.

GGT is not specific

GGT is present in hepatocytes and biliary epithelial cells. The normal range is 0 U/L to 50 U/L in men, and 0 U/L to 35 U/L in women. GGT elevation is the most sensitive marker of hepatobiliary disease. However, its routine clinical use is not recommended, as it cannot by itself indicate a specific cause of liver disease, although measuring the GGT level can help determine a hepatic origin for an isolated elevation of alkaline phosphatase.

 

 

RISK FACTORS GUIDE THE WORKUP OF ELEVATED ENZYMES

Before beginning an extensive evaluation of an elevated liver enzyme, a brief review of liver diseases and how they are associated with specific liver enzyme elevations is useful (Table 1). This information and clinical data obtained from the history and physical examination provide important clues to guide further investigation.

Chronic viral hepatitis

Prevalence. Hepatitis C virus infection affects an estimated 1.8% of the general population, but the rate is much higher in people with known risk factors (see below), and those with ALT levels greater than 40 U/L.

Hepatitis B virus infection is somewhat less common: between 0.2% and 0.9% of the general US population have positive results on tests for hepatitis B surface antigen. However, the prevalence of this antigen in the United States can be as high as 20% in patients who have emigrated from endemic areas of the world. The risk factors described below dramatically increase the prevalence of both viruses.

Risk factors. Risk factors include bloodproduct transfusions (especially before 1992), intravenous drug use, intranasal cocaine use, hemodialysis, organ transplantation, and birth in an endemic region. Although both viruses can be transmitted sexually, hepatitis B is more readily transmitted by this route than hepatitis C. Worldwide, transmission of hepatitis B virus usually occurs shortly after birth or at a young age.

Comments. Most patients with chronic viral hepatitis have no symptoms or only mild symptoms and minimally elevated ALT and AST levels, ie, two to five times higher than the upper limit of normal. Given the relatively high prevalence of hepatitis C, serologic testing for it should be done early in the evaluation of chronically elevated liver enzyme levels.4,5

Hereditary hemochromatosis

Prevalence. The prevalence of the major HFE-gene mutations that cause hereditary hemochromatosis is 0.25% to 0.5% in people of northern European descent. In northern Europe, about 1 person in 10 is heterozygous and 1 in 200 to 400 is homozygous for the mutated gene.

Risk factors. Northern European ancestry is the primary risk factor. In men, the onset of disease is usually in the third and fourth decades of life, while menses protects women until menopause. From 83% to 85% of people with clinically defined hemochromatosis are homozygous for the C282Y mutation in the HFE gene.

Comments. Hereditary hemochromatosis should be considered early in the evaluation of men of northern European descent. Patients usually have no symptoms until iron overload causes significant end-organ damage. Phlebotomy can be an effective treatment for this potentially fatal disease.6

Alcoholic liver disease

Risk factors. The degree of alcohol-related liver disease depends on a variety of factors, including the volume and duration of alcohol ingestion, the type of liver disease, genetics, and the coexistence of viral hepatitis and obesity.

Alcohol-related liver disease can range from simple fatty liver to alcoholic hepatitis with or without cirrhosis. Cirrhosis develops in only 20% to 30% of patients who consume a substantial amount of alcohol, defined as more than a decade of 60 g/day to 80 g/day of alcohol in men and as little as 20 g/day in women. (A standard drink, ie, a 12-ounce beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, or 1.5 ounces of distilled spirits, contains 12 g of alcohol.) Factors that potentiate alcohol’s harmful effects include female sex, chronic viral hepatitis (especially hepatitis C), obesity, hereditary hemochromatosis, and use of drugs such as methotrexate (Trexall) and acetaminophen (Tylenol).

Comments. Although cirrhosis affects fewer than one-third of long-term heavy drinkers, early detection and treatment can potentially reduce morbidity and prevent early death. Alcoholic liver disease should be suspected in patients with elevated ALT and AST levels (if the AST level is two to three times higher than normal7) and with a history of excessive alcohol use.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

Prevalence. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is a spectrum that ranges from simple steatosis to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis to cirrhosis. Its prevalence in the general US population is about 25%, but is much higher in groups at risk, such as patients with type 2 diabetes (50% to 60%), and morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery (90% to 95%).

On the other hand, the prevalence of the potentially progressive form of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, ie, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, is estimated to be 3% to 5%. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is perhaps the most common cause of mildly elevated liver enzymes in the United States.

Risk factors. The major risk factors for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease are the components of the metabolic syndrome—ie, abdominal obesity, diabetes (insulin resistance), hyperlipidemia, and hypertension—and the use of certain medications (Table 2).

Comments. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and steatonecrosis describe a potentially progressive form of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Although these disorders are histologically indistinguishable from alcohol-induced liver disease, their mechanism is related to insulin resistance, abnormalities of lipid metabolism, increased hepatic lipid peroxidation, activated fibrocytes, and abnormal patterns of adipokine and cytokine production related to visceral obesity. Results from a few natural history studies suggest that simple steatosis has a benign course, whereas nonalcoholic steatohepatitis can progress to cirrhosis in 10% to 20% of patients.8

Treatment of diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia has potential benefit and should be undertaken regardless of liver test abnormalities in any patient with underlying nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Autoimmune hepatitis

Prevalence. The prevalence of autoimmune hepatitis varies, depending on geographic location and on the extent of viral hepatitis in the community. In Hong Kong, only 1% of all people with chronic hepatitis have autoimmune hepatitis. By contrast, in Germany and Austria, 34% and 62% of patients with chronic hepatitis may have autoimmune hepatitis.9 In North America, the prevalence of autoimmune hepatitis in patients with chronic liver disease is estimated to be 11% to 23%, and the incidence is about 0.68 per 100,000 individuals per year. In addition to underlying genetic differences, detection bias can explain the variability in prevalence rates.

Risk factors. Autoimmune hepatitis occurs predominantly in women and can be associated with other autoimmune disorders.

Comments. The diagnosis of autoimmune hepatitis is suggested by exclusion of viral causes of chronic hepatitis, by pathologic findings, and by the presence of autoimmune markers such as antinuclear antibody, smooth muscle antibody, and liver-kidney microsomal antibody. Hypergammaglobulinemia is present in most patients, and serum protein electrophoresis may be helpful as part of the initial evaluation of autoimmune hepatitis.

Liver biopsy is usually needed to confirm the diagnosis and to stage the extent of fibrosis. The International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group Scoring System is based on clinical, laboratory, and pathologic data and can be very helpful in establishing the diagnosis.

Treatment of autoimmune hepatitis with immunosuppression is effective. Most patients may need long-term maintenance treatment.

 

 

Wilson disease

Prevalence. The estimated prevalence of Wilson disease is 1 in 40,000 to 1 in 100,000. It has been reported in most populations worldwide.

Risk factors. Anyone under age 40 with abnormal liver enzyme levels (including mild elevations) should be evaluated for Wilson disease, even in the absence of neurologic or ocular findings. However, such routine screening is rarely helpful in patients over age 50. Genetic testing is of limited value because of the large number of potential mutations of the ATP7B gene, the gene responsible for Wilson disease. However, if a a person is known to have Wilson disease, genetic screening of family members is useful.

Comments. Effective therapy is available (ie, d-penicillamine, trientine, zinc). For Wilson disease, alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency, and genetic hemochromatosis, establishing the diagnosis is not only important to the individual patient; it also may prompt the screening of asymptomatic members of the proband’s family.10–12

Alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency

Prevalence. Alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency is present in 1 of every 1,600 to 1,800 live births.11

Risk factors. Patients with emphysema or with a young sibling with liver failure should undergo an investigation for alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency, consisting of a measurement of the alpha-1-antitrypsin level and an assessment for the PiZZ genotype (the most severe form, because homozygous for the abnormal Z allele).

Comments. Although alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency is a common cause of liver disease in the very young, it is important to remember that a small number of these patients develop end-stage liver disease in adulthood. Liver transplantation is the only effective treatment for end-stage liver disease associated with alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency.

Primary biliary cirrhosis

Prevalence. In one study of urban-dwelling women in northeast England, the prevalence of primary biliary cirrhosis was estimated at 0.10%.13

Risk factors. Like autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cirrhosis mainly affects women and can be associated with other autoimmune disorders.

Comments. A cholestatic pattern of injury is predominant in primary biliary cirrhosis. Treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis with the cytoprotective agent ursodeoxycholic acid improves liver enzyme levels, may lead to histologic improvement and increased survival, and may also delay the need for liver transplantation. 9,13

Drug- and toxin-related liver diseases

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and penicillin-derived antibiotics are the drugs that most commonly cause abnormal serum liver enzyme levels. The mechanisms of druginduced liver disease include induction of hepatic enzymes (antiepileptic drugs), allergic reactions, autoimmunity (nitrofurantoin [Furadantin, Macrobid]), idiosyncratic reactions, and veno-occlusive injury.14 Drugs that are potentially hepatotoxic are listed in Table 2 and are classified as causing hepatocellular damage, cholestatic damage, or steatosis.

MILD ENZYME ELEVATIONS AS INDICATORS OF SPECIFIC DISEASES

Mildly elevated liver enzymes are common and potentially important, yet very few welldesigned prospective studies have addressed the issue of what should be done once they are identified. Most current data are from small retrospective studies that lack accurate information on the important causes of liver diseases such as hepatitis C and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

Despite these shortcomings, the literature delineates the three patterns of mild liver enzyme elevations discussed earlier: hepatocellular injury pattern (elevated ALT or AST), cholestatic pattern (elevated alkaline phosphatase or GGT, or both), and mixed pattern (elevation of ALT, AST, and alkaline phosphatase). The following paragraphs focus on the causes of elevation of specific liver enzymes.

AMINOTRANSFERASE ELEVATION

Causes

Aminotransferases are commonly used markers of hepatocyte injury. AST is present in blood cells and many tissues, including liver, muscle, brain, pancreas, and lung. ALT is a cytosolic enzyme found primarily in hepatocytes, making it a more specific indicator of liver disease.

Acute viral hepatitis, toxins, and liver ischemia can markedly raise serum aminotransferase levels (often into the thousands of units per liter). On the other hand, these enzymes are only mildly elevated (< 300 U/L) in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, chronic hepatitis, cholestatic liver conditions, drug-induced hepatotoxicity, and liver tumors.

Because AST is a mitochondrial enzyme and is affected by alcohol ingestion, an AST level more than twice that of the ALT suggests hepatic damage due to alcohol.

Of note, aminotransferase elevation can also be due to nonhepatic causes. For example, muscle necrosis can result in mild elevation of these enzymes, especially AST, and an elevated creatine kinase can help confirm that the source is muscle tissue.

Undiagnosed celiac disease has been associated with abnormal liver enzyme levels when all other causes have been ruled out, but the mechanism is not yet understood. In this situation, ALT and AST levels typically return to normal with a gluten-free diet.15

 

 

Studies of mild aminotransferase elevations

Only a few studies have documented the results of a thorough evaluation of patients with mildly elevated aminotransferase levels:

Hultcrantz et al1 performed a full evaluation, including liver biopsy, in 149 consecutive patients with chronic, asymptomatic, mild elevations of AST or ALT. Of these patients, 63% had “fatty liver,” 20% had “chronic hepatitis,” and 17% had miscellaneous diagnoses. Whether patients in the “chronic hepatitis” group had hepatitis C was not determined because serologic testing was not available at the time.

Friedman et al16 studied 100 healthy blood donors with elevated ALT levels and found that in 33% of patients the elevation occurred once, in 36% it was intermittent, and in 28% it was persistent. In this series, 45% of patients had no diagnosis, 22% were obese (presumed to have nonalcoholic steatohepatitis), 5% had alcoholic liver disease, 3% had “resolving hepatitis,” 1% had hemochromatosis, and 1% had “cytomegalovirus hepatitis.”16 Although the patients underwent a complete history, physical examination, and serologic testing, liver biopsy was not done to confirm the clinical diagnosis.

Hay et al17 described 47 patients with chronically elevated aminotransferases (three to eight times higher than normal levels) who underwent full evaluation and liver biopsy and who had no clinical symptoms of alcoholic, viral, or drug-induced liver disease. A diagnosis of steatohepatitis was given in 10 patients, another 34 were diagnosed with “chronic hepatitis,” and 3 had miscellaneous diagnoses. Of patients with chronic hepatitis, 16 had evidence of cirrhosis on biopsy, and 18 tested positive for at least one autoimmune marker (antinuclear antibody or smooth muscle antibody).

Daniel et al18 performed biopsy in 81 of 1,124 asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with chronically elevated aminotransferases in whom a cause was not identified via noninvasive studies. Liver biopsy showed that 67 (83%) of the 81 patients had steatosis or steatohepatitis, while 8 (10%) had normal histologic findings. Of note, 6 patients had underlying fibrosis or cirrhosis and some degree of fatty infiltration.

Together, these studies suggest that fatty liver, resulting either from alcohol use or from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, is the major cause of mildly elevated aminotransferases. Two major drawbacks of the earlier studies include the lack of data on the hepatitis C serologic status of patients with the diagnosis of “chronic hepatitis” and the lack of a uniform approach to the pathologic diagnosis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. With serologic testing for hepatitis C virus infection now widely available, it is possible that a substantial portion of patients with “chronic hepatitis“ can further be classified as having chronic hepatitis C infection.

Workup of aminotransferase elevations

Figure 1. Algorithm for the evaluation of elevated aminotransferase levels. Black arrows indicate the diagnostic pathway, and red arrows indicate the steps in staging the liver disease.
Figure 1 shows an algorithm for evaluating patients with elevated aminotransferase levels on an initial examination. The first step is to confirm the abnormality by repeating the blood test. If an enzyme elevation is confirmed, further investigation is warranted. A directed history and physical examination can provide crucial clues in the preliminary workup. The history may disclose risk factors for:

  • Viral hepatitis (intravenous drug use, intranasal cocaine use, native of an endemic area of the world, unsafe sexual activity, blood product transfusions)
  • Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (components of the metabolic syndrome, including visceral obesity)
  • Alcoholic liver disease (smaller amounts are needed to cause liver disease in women)
  • Medication exposure (prescription, overthe-counter, and herbal medications)
  • Genetic liver disorders (family history of liver disease)
  • Possible coexisting disease (diabetes and obesity in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, neurologic disorders in Wilson disease, emphysema in alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency, thyroid disease in autoimmune hepatitis and primary biliary cirrhosis, and diabetes and impotence in genetic hemochromatosis).

Although the physical signs of chronic liver disease (eg, spider angiomata, palmar erythema, caput medusae, and gynecomastia) are nonspecific and are usually observed in advanced liver disease, some physical findings suggest potential causes (eg, Kayser-Fleischer rings on slit-lamp examination for Wilson disease, hypertrophy of the second and third metacarpophalangeal joints for hemochromatosis). Iron studies for middleaged men, autoimmune markers for women, and screening for Wilson disease in young patients are helpful when the clinical information points to one of these entities as a potential diagnosis.

If medication or alcohol is a suspected cause, aminotransferase levels should be repeated after 6 to 8 weeks of abstinence. If nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is suspected, testing should be repeated after treating the potential risk factor (eg, obesity, diabetes, hyperlipidemia), but the levels may remain elevated for a period of time. An imaging study (ultrasonography, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging) may be helpful; eg, abdominal ultrasonography may show increased hepatic echogenicity, suggesting increased fatty infiltration, in addition to excluding most hepatic tumors.

Figure 2. Algorithm for the evaluation of elevated alkaline phosphatase levels. Black arrows indicate the diagnostic pathway, and red arrows indicate the steps in staging the liver disease.
If the clinical data obtained from the history or physical examination raise clinical suspicion for a particular disease, a disease-specific marker (Figure 1 and Figure 2) can further support the potential diagnosis. Note that liver biopsy can help establish the diagnosis for many liver disorders and is the best method currently available to establish cirrhosis, with important prognostic implications.19

If the history and physical do not suggest a specific condition, serologic testing for hepatitis C should be done. If negative, other testing can be helpful (iron studies in men, autoimmune markers in women, ceruloplasmin and slit-lamp examination in young patients). If the preliminary workup remains negative and the aminotransferase levels remain elevated for 6 months (ie, chronic elevation), liver biopsy may establish the diagnosis. Features in the biopsy specimens may further confirm the diagnosis: eg, globules positive on periodic acid-Schiff testing in alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency; hepatic iron index for hemochromatosis; hepatic copper content for Wilson disease.

 

 

ALKALINE PHOSPHATASE ELEVATION

Causes

Alkaline phosphatase is active in many organs, mainly the liver and bones, but is also found in the small bowel, kidneys, and placenta. Diseases of the hepatobiliary system can cause moderate to marked elevations of alkaline phosphatase. Conditions with bone involvement, such as Paget disease of the bone, sarcoma, metastatic disease, hyperparathyroidism, and rickets, can raise alkaline phosphatase levels. Elevated GGT in conjunction with elevated alkaline phosphatase usually points to hepatobiliary injury. Clinically, isoenzyme fractionation of alkaline phosphatase may help distinguish the source of the elevation, but this is often not needed if the GGT is also elevated.

Hepatobiliary causes of alkaline phosphatase elevation can be divided into four categories:

  • Chronic inflammation involving the bile ducts (eg, as in primary biliary cirrhosis and primary sclerosing cholangitis)
  • Infiltrative process (eg, neoplasm, tuberculosis, sarcoidosis)
  • Cholestatic disorders (eg, drug hepatotoxicity)
  • Biliary obstruction (eg, in neoplasia or cholelithiasis).

Only a few studies have investigated the significance of a mild, isolated elevation of alkaline phosphatase. Lieberman and Phillips20 evaluated 87 patients and found that the abnormality resolved completely in less than 3 months in 28 patients, and resolved in 3 to 12 months in another 17 patients. Of the other 42 patients, 24 did not undergo further evaluation because they had significant coexisting disease. Of the remaining 18 patients, 5 had phenytoin-related hepatotoxicity, 3 had congestive heart failure, 3 had metabolic bone disease, 2 had hepatobiliary disease, and 1 had metastatic bone disease; in 4 patients, no explanation was determined. Follow-up was 1.5 to 3 years.

Workup of alkaline phosphatase elevation

An isolated elevated alkaline phosphatase level should always be confirmed and a hepatic origin suspected if the GGT level is also elevated (Figure 2).

A history of recent drug exposure usually points to drug hepatotoxicity as the source of this abnormality. Similarly, other information from the history can point to a potential underlying pathologic process causing the rise in alkaline phosphatase. For example, a history of ulcerative colitis suggests primary sclerosing cholangitis, and a history of previous cancer or sarcoidosis suggests liver involvement.

As part of the initial evaluation, an imaging study (eg, ultrasonography) can exclude biliary obstruction or suggest an infiltrative process.

If a drug is the suspected cause, the alkaline phosphatase level should be repeated after the patient has abstained from the drug for 6 to 8 weeks. If the initial examination suggests a specific disease, disease-specific markers (eg, antimitochondrial antibody for primary biliary cirrhosis, or viral serology) can confirm the suspected diagnosis. If the disease-specific markers are negative and the alkaline phosphatase level does not return to normal, further studies should be considered, including liver biopsy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Given the invasive nature of biopsy and pancreatography, an expert consultation should be done before ordering these tests.

GGT ELEVATION

GGT is a membrane enzyme that is a marker of hepatobiliary disease. Elevations usually parallel the elevation of alkaline phosphatase, confirming a hepatic source for the latter. GGT is the most sensitive marker of biliary tract disease but is not very specific. Alcohol and drugs (eg, phenytoin, phenobarbital) induce GGT. In one study,21 GGT was elevated in 52% of patients without known liver disease. The GGT level can be used to monitor abstinence from alcohol in patients with alcoholic liver disease.21

Workup of GGT elevation

Because GGT lacks specificity as a marker and is highly inducible, an extensive evaluation of an isolated GGT elevation in an otherwise asymptomatic patient is not warranted.

WHEN TO CONSULT

Many of the evaluations discussed in this paper and elsewhere22–27 can be carried out by primary care providers following a systematic approach. Input from a gastroenterologist or hepatologist can be valuable if the initial workup fails to establish the diagnosis, as well as in assuring that the most effective therapy for a specific disease is initiated. Reassurance, patient education, and a systematic approach for evaluating these abnormalities can identify most treatable causes of liver disease in the most cost-effective and efficient manner.

References
  1. Hultcrantz R, Glaumann H, Lindberg G, Nilsson LH. Liver investigation in 149 asymptomatic patients with moderately elevated activities of serum aminotransferases. Scand J Gastroenterol 1986; 21:109113.
  2. Ioanou GN, Boyko EJ, Lee SP. The prevalence and predictors of elevated serum aminotransferase activity in the United States in 1999–2002. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101:7682.
  3. Flora KD, Keeffe EB. Evaluation of mildly abnormal liver tests in asymptomatic patients. J Insur Med 1990; 22:264267.
  4. Alter HJ. To C or not to C: these are the questions. Blood 1995; 85:16811695.
  5. Everhart JE, editor. Digestive diseases in the United States: epidemiology and impact. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1994; NIH Publication No. 94–1447.
  6. Bacon BR, Tavill AS. Hemochromatosis and the iron overload syndromes. In:Zakim D, Boyer TD, editors. Hepatology. A Textbook of Liver Disease, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1996:14391472.
  7. Lieber CS. Alcoholic liver disease. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 1994; 10:319330.
  8. Seth SG, Gordon FD, Chopra S. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126:137145.
  9. Czaja A. Autoimmune liver disease. In: Zakim D, Boyer TD, editors. Hepatolology: A Textbook of Liver Disease, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1996:12591292.
  10. Bull PC, Cox DW. Wilson disease and Menkes disease: new handles on heavy-metal transport. Trends Genet 1994; 10:246252.
  11. Perlmutter DH. Clinical manifestations of alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 1995; 24:2743.
  12. Olivarez L, Caggana M, Pass KA, Ferguson P, Brewer GJ. Estimate of the frequency of Wilson’s disease in the US Caucasian population: a mutation analysis approach. Ann Hum Genet 2001; 65:459463.
  13. Metcalf JV, Howel D, James OF, Bhopal R. Primary biliary cirrhosis: epidemiology helping the clinician. BMJ 1996; 312:11811182.
  14. Farrell GC. Liver disease caused by drugs, anesthetics, and toxins. In:Feldman M, Friedman LS, Sleisenger MH, editors. Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease, 7th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 2002;14031447.
  15. Abdo A, Meddings J, Swain M. Liver abnormalities in celiac disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 2:107112.
  16. Friedman LS, Dienstag JL, Watkins E, et al. Evaluation of blood donors with elevated serum alanine aminotransferase. Ann Intern Med 1987; 107:137144.
  17. Hay JE, Czaja AJ, Rakela J, Ludwig J. The nature of unexplained chronic aminotransferase elevations of a mild to moderate degree in asymptomatic patients. Hepatology 1989; 9:193197.
  18. Daniel S, Ben-Menachem T, Vasudevan G, Ma CK, Blumenkehl M. Prospective evaluation of unexplained chronic liver transaminase abnormalities in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94:30103014.
  19. Van Ness MM, Diehl AM. Is liver biopsy useful in the evaluation of patients with chronically elevated liver enzymes? Ann Intern Med 1989; 111:473478.
  20. Lieberman D, Phillips D. “Isolated” elevation of alkaline phosphatase: significance in hospitalized patients. J Clin Gastroenterol 1990; 12:415419.
  21. Margarian GJ, Lucas LM, Kumar KL. Clinical significance in alcoholic patients of commonly encountered laboratory test results. West J Med 1992; 156:287294.
  22. Fregia A, Jensen DM. Evaluation of abnromal liver tests. Compr Ther 1994; 20:5054.
  23. Goddard CJ, Warens TW. Raised liver enzymes in asymptomatic patients: investigation and outcome. Dig Dis 1992; 10:218226.
  24. Gitlin N. The differential of elevated liver enzymes. Contemporary Internal Medicine 1993:4456.
  25. Keefe EB. Diagnostic approach to mild elevation of liver enzyme levels. Gastrointestinal Diseases Today 1994; 3:19.
  26. Pratt DS, Kaplan MM. Evaluation of abnormal liver-enzyme results in asymptomatic patients. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:12661271.
  27. American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement: evaluation of liver chemistry tests. Gastroenterology 2002; 123:13641366.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

George Aragon, MD
Center for Liver Diseases, Inova Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, VA; Department of Gastroenterology, George Washington University, Washington, DC

Zobair M. Younossi, MD, MPH
Center for Liver Diseases, Inova Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, VA

Address: Zobair M. Younossi, MD, MPH, Center for Liver Diseases, Inova Fairfax Hospital, 3300 Gallows Road, Falls Church, VA 22042; e-mail [email protected]

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 77(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
195-204
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

George Aragon, MD
Center for Liver Diseases, Inova Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, VA; Department of Gastroenterology, George Washington University, Washington, DC

Zobair M. Younossi, MD, MPH
Center for Liver Diseases, Inova Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, VA

Address: Zobair M. Younossi, MD, MPH, Center for Liver Diseases, Inova Fairfax Hospital, 3300 Gallows Road, Falls Church, VA 22042; e-mail [email protected]

Author and Disclosure Information

George Aragon, MD
Center for Liver Diseases, Inova Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, VA; Department of Gastroenterology, George Washington University, Washington, DC

Zobair M. Younossi, MD, MPH
Center for Liver Diseases, Inova Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, VA

Address: Zobair M. Younossi, MD, MPH, Center for Liver Diseases, Inova Fairfax Hospital, 3300 Gallows Road, Falls Church, VA 22042; e-mail [email protected]

Article PDF
Article PDF

In seemingly healthy patients, abnormal liver enzyme levels challenge even the most experienced clinicians in deciding what further evaluation to pursue, if any. Automated laboratory testing has made serum liver enzyme levels very easy to obtain, leading to an increase in testing and also in the number of incidental abnormal findings. An estimated 1% to 9% of people who have no symptoms have high liver enzyme levels when screened with standard biochemistry panels.1,2 A US survey2 showed elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) in 8.9% of surveyed people from 1999 to 2002, an increase from previous reports.

An extensive evaluation can be costly, anxiety-provoking, and risky, especially if it leads to unnecessary invasive procedures such as liver biopsy or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Not all people with a single, isolated, mildly elevated liver enzyme value have underlying liver disease, nor do they require an extensive evaluation. Factors to consider when deciding whether to evaluate include:

  • The patient’s overall health, including chronic illness
  • The duration and pattern of enzyme elevation
  • Patient characteristics such as age, a personal or family history of liver, lung, or neurologic disease, risk factors for viral hepatitis, amount of alcohol consumption, use of prescribed or over-the-counter drugs or dietary supplements
  • The costs and risks associated with additional evaluation.

This article reviews the most likely causes of elevated aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, and gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels. It also provides an algorithm for evaluating mildly abnormal liver enzyme values in apparently healthy people. Patients with signs of hepatic decompensation need a more concise and urgent evaluation.

PATTERNS OF LIVER ENZYME ELEVATION

“Liver function test” is commonly used to describe liver enzyme measurements, but the term should be reserved for tests of the functional hepatic reserve—traditionally, the albumin level and the prothrombin time.3

On the other hand, elevated serum liver enzymes (aminotransferases, alkaline phosphatase, and GGT) can reflect abnormalities in liver cells or in the bile duct. For example, predominant elevation of aminotransferases typically indicates hepatocellular injury, whereas elevated alkaline phosphatase and GGT indicates cholestatic injury. Elevated alkaline phosphatase and aminotransferases can indicate a mixed pattern of injury.

High AST, ALT suggest liver cell damage

Both aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and ALT are normally present in serum at low levels, usually less than 30 to 40 U/L. Although the actual values may differ from laboratory to laboratory, normal serum levels are usually less than 40 U/L for AST and less than 50 U/L for ALT. On the other hand, some experts have suggested lowering the upper limit of normal because of the increasing rate of obesity and associated nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which may not be detected using the traditional, higher normal values. Acceptance is growing for using ALT levels less than 40 U/L in men and less than 31 U/L in women, and AST levels less than 37 U/L in men and less than 31 U/L in women, as normal thresholds.

Although ALT is present in several organs and in muscle, the highest levels are in the liver, which makes this enzyme a more specific indicator of liver injury. Both AST and ALT are released into the blood in greater amounts when hepatocytes are damaged.

Alkaline phosphatase suggests cholestasis

Alkaline phosphatase comes mostly from the liver and bone. In general, normal serum alkaline phosphatase levels in adults range between 20 and 120 U/L. When bone disease is excluded, an elevation suggests biliary obstruction, injury to the bile duct epithelium, or cholestasis. Additionally, there are rare cases of benign familial elevation of serum alkaline phosphatase, mainly of intestinal origin.

GGT is not specific

GGT is present in hepatocytes and biliary epithelial cells. The normal range is 0 U/L to 50 U/L in men, and 0 U/L to 35 U/L in women. GGT elevation is the most sensitive marker of hepatobiliary disease. However, its routine clinical use is not recommended, as it cannot by itself indicate a specific cause of liver disease, although measuring the GGT level can help determine a hepatic origin for an isolated elevation of alkaline phosphatase.

 

 

RISK FACTORS GUIDE THE WORKUP OF ELEVATED ENZYMES

Before beginning an extensive evaluation of an elevated liver enzyme, a brief review of liver diseases and how they are associated with specific liver enzyme elevations is useful (Table 1). This information and clinical data obtained from the history and physical examination provide important clues to guide further investigation.

Chronic viral hepatitis

Prevalence. Hepatitis C virus infection affects an estimated 1.8% of the general population, but the rate is much higher in people with known risk factors (see below), and those with ALT levels greater than 40 U/L.

Hepatitis B virus infection is somewhat less common: between 0.2% and 0.9% of the general US population have positive results on tests for hepatitis B surface antigen. However, the prevalence of this antigen in the United States can be as high as 20% in patients who have emigrated from endemic areas of the world. The risk factors described below dramatically increase the prevalence of both viruses.

Risk factors. Risk factors include bloodproduct transfusions (especially before 1992), intravenous drug use, intranasal cocaine use, hemodialysis, organ transplantation, and birth in an endemic region. Although both viruses can be transmitted sexually, hepatitis B is more readily transmitted by this route than hepatitis C. Worldwide, transmission of hepatitis B virus usually occurs shortly after birth or at a young age.

Comments. Most patients with chronic viral hepatitis have no symptoms or only mild symptoms and minimally elevated ALT and AST levels, ie, two to five times higher than the upper limit of normal. Given the relatively high prevalence of hepatitis C, serologic testing for it should be done early in the evaluation of chronically elevated liver enzyme levels.4,5

Hereditary hemochromatosis

Prevalence. The prevalence of the major HFE-gene mutations that cause hereditary hemochromatosis is 0.25% to 0.5% in people of northern European descent. In northern Europe, about 1 person in 10 is heterozygous and 1 in 200 to 400 is homozygous for the mutated gene.

Risk factors. Northern European ancestry is the primary risk factor. In men, the onset of disease is usually in the third and fourth decades of life, while menses protects women until menopause. From 83% to 85% of people with clinically defined hemochromatosis are homozygous for the C282Y mutation in the HFE gene.

Comments. Hereditary hemochromatosis should be considered early in the evaluation of men of northern European descent. Patients usually have no symptoms until iron overload causes significant end-organ damage. Phlebotomy can be an effective treatment for this potentially fatal disease.6

Alcoholic liver disease

Risk factors. The degree of alcohol-related liver disease depends on a variety of factors, including the volume and duration of alcohol ingestion, the type of liver disease, genetics, and the coexistence of viral hepatitis and obesity.

Alcohol-related liver disease can range from simple fatty liver to alcoholic hepatitis with or without cirrhosis. Cirrhosis develops in only 20% to 30% of patients who consume a substantial amount of alcohol, defined as more than a decade of 60 g/day to 80 g/day of alcohol in men and as little as 20 g/day in women. (A standard drink, ie, a 12-ounce beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, or 1.5 ounces of distilled spirits, contains 12 g of alcohol.) Factors that potentiate alcohol’s harmful effects include female sex, chronic viral hepatitis (especially hepatitis C), obesity, hereditary hemochromatosis, and use of drugs such as methotrexate (Trexall) and acetaminophen (Tylenol).

Comments. Although cirrhosis affects fewer than one-third of long-term heavy drinkers, early detection and treatment can potentially reduce morbidity and prevent early death. Alcoholic liver disease should be suspected in patients with elevated ALT and AST levels (if the AST level is two to three times higher than normal7) and with a history of excessive alcohol use.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

Prevalence. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is a spectrum that ranges from simple steatosis to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis to cirrhosis. Its prevalence in the general US population is about 25%, but is much higher in groups at risk, such as patients with type 2 diabetes (50% to 60%), and morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery (90% to 95%).

On the other hand, the prevalence of the potentially progressive form of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, ie, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, is estimated to be 3% to 5%. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is perhaps the most common cause of mildly elevated liver enzymes in the United States.

Risk factors. The major risk factors for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease are the components of the metabolic syndrome—ie, abdominal obesity, diabetes (insulin resistance), hyperlipidemia, and hypertension—and the use of certain medications (Table 2).

Comments. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and steatonecrosis describe a potentially progressive form of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Although these disorders are histologically indistinguishable from alcohol-induced liver disease, their mechanism is related to insulin resistance, abnormalities of lipid metabolism, increased hepatic lipid peroxidation, activated fibrocytes, and abnormal patterns of adipokine and cytokine production related to visceral obesity. Results from a few natural history studies suggest that simple steatosis has a benign course, whereas nonalcoholic steatohepatitis can progress to cirrhosis in 10% to 20% of patients.8

Treatment of diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia has potential benefit and should be undertaken regardless of liver test abnormalities in any patient with underlying nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Autoimmune hepatitis

Prevalence. The prevalence of autoimmune hepatitis varies, depending on geographic location and on the extent of viral hepatitis in the community. In Hong Kong, only 1% of all people with chronic hepatitis have autoimmune hepatitis. By contrast, in Germany and Austria, 34% and 62% of patients with chronic hepatitis may have autoimmune hepatitis.9 In North America, the prevalence of autoimmune hepatitis in patients with chronic liver disease is estimated to be 11% to 23%, and the incidence is about 0.68 per 100,000 individuals per year. In addition to underlying genetic differences, detection bias can explain the variability in prevalence rates.

Risk factors. Autoimmune hepatitis occurs predominantly in women and can be associated with other autoimmune disorders.

Comments. The diagnosis of autoimmune hepatitis is suggested by exclusion of viral causes of chronic hepatitis, by pathologic findings, and by the presence of autoimmune markers such as antinuclear antibody, smooth muscle antibody, and liver-kidney microsomal antibody. Hypergammaglobulinemia is present in most patients, and serum protein electrophoresis may be helpful as part of the initial evaluation of autoimmune hepatitis.

Liver biopsy is usually needed to confirm the diagnosis and to stage the extent of fibrosis. The International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group Scoring System is based on clinical, laboratory, and pathologic data and can be very helpful in establishing the diagnosis.

Treatment of autoimmune hepatitis with immunosuppression is effective. Most patients may need long-term maintenance treatment.

 

 

Wilson disease

Prevalence. The estimated prevalence of Wilson disease is 1 in 40,000 to 1 in 100,000. It has been reported in most populations worldwide.

Risk factors. Anyone under age 40 with abnormal liver enzyme levels (including mild elevations) should be evaluated for Wilson disease, even in the absence of neurologic or ocular findings. However, such routine screening is rarely helpful in patients over age 50. Genetic testing is of limited value because of the large number of potential mutations of the ATP7B gene, the gene responsible for Wilson disease. However, if a a person is known to have Wilson disease, genetic screening of family members is useful.

Comments. Effective therapy is available (ie, d-penicillamine, trientine, zinc). For Wilson disease, alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency, and genetic hemochromatosis, establishing the diagnosis is not only important to the individual patient; it also may prompt the screening of asymptomatic members of the proband’s family.10–12

Alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency

Prevalence. Alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency is present in 1 of every 1,600 to 1,800 live births.11

Risk factors. Patients with emphysema or with a young sibling with liver failure should undergo an investigation for alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency, consisting of a measurement of the alpha-1-antitrypsin level and an assessment for the PiZZ genotype (the most severe form, because homozygous for the abnormal Z allele).

Comments. Although alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency is a common cause of liver disease in the very young, it is important to remember that a small number of these patients develop end-stage liver disease in adulthood. Liver transplantation is the only effective treatment for end-stage liver disease associated with alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency.

Primary biliary cirrhosis

Prevalence. In one study of urban-dwelling women in northeast England, the prevalence of primary biliary cirrhosis was estimated at 0.10%.13

Risk factors. Like autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cirrhosis mainly affects women and can be associated with other autoimmune disorders.

Comments. A cholestatic pattern of injury is predominant in primary biliary cirrhosis. Treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis with the cytoprotective agent ursodeoxycholic acid improves liver enzyme levels, may lead to histologic improvement and increased survival, and may also delay the need for liver transplantation. 9,13

Drug- and toxin-related liver diseases

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and penicillin-derived antibiotics are the drugs that most commonly cause abnormal serum liver enzyme levels. The mechanisms of druginduced liver disease include induction of hepatic enzymes (antiepileptic drugs), allergic reactions, autoimmunity (nitrofurantoin [Furadantin, Macrobid]), idiosyncratic reactions, and veno-occlusive injury.14 Drugs that are potentially hepatotoxic are listed in Table 2 and are classified as causing hepatocellular damage, cholestatic damage, or steatosis.

MILD ENZYME ELEVATIONS AS INDICATORS OF SPECIFIC DISEASES

Mildly elevated liver enzymes are common and potentially important, yet very few welldesigned prospective studies have addressed the issue of what should be done once they are identified. Most current data are from small retrospective studies that lack accurate information on the important causes of liver diseases such as hepatitis C and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

Despite these shortcomings, the literature delineates the three patterns of mild liver enzyme elevations discussed earlier: hepatocellular injury pattern (elevated ALT or AST), cholestatic pattern (elevated alkaline phosphatase or GGT, or both), and mixed pattern (elevation of ALT, AST, and alkaline phosphatase). The following paragraphs focus on the causes of elevation of specific liver enzymes.

AMINOTRANSFERASE ELEVATION

Causes

Aminotransferases are commonly used markers of hepatocyte injury. AST is present in blood cells and many tissues, including liver, muscle, brain, pancreas, and lung. ALT is a cytosolic enzyme found primarily in hepatocytes, making it a more specific indicator of liver disease.

Acute viral hepatitis, toxins, and liver ischemia can markedly raise serum aminotransferase levels (often into the thousands of units per liter). On the other hand, these enzymes are only mildly elevated (< 300 U/L) in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, chronic hepatitis, cholestatic liver conditions, drug-induced hepatotoxicity, and liver tumors.

Because AST is a mitochondrial enzyme and is affected by alcohol ingestion, an AST level more than twice that of the ALT suggests hepatic damage due to alcohol.

Of note, aminotransferase elevation can also be due to nonhepatic causes. For example, muscle necrosis can result in mild elevation of these enzymes, especially AST, and an elevated creatine kinase can help confirm that the source is muscle tissue.

Undiagnosed celiac disease has been associated with abnormal liver enzyme levels when all other causes have been ruled out, but the mechanism is not yet understood. In this situation, ALT and AST levels typically return to normal with a gluten-free diet.15

 

 

Studies of mild aminotransferase elevations

Only a few studies have documented the results of a thorough evaluation of patients with mildly elevated aminotransferase levels:

Hultcrantz et al1 performed a full evaluation, including liver biopsy, in 149 consecutive patients with chronic, asymptomatic, mild elevations of AST or ALT. Of these patients, 63% had “fatty liver,” 20% had “chronic hepatitis,” and 17% had miscellaneous diagnoses. Whether patients in the “chronic hepatitis” group had hepatitis C was not determined because serologic testing was not available at the time.

Friedman et al16 studied 100 healthy blood donors with elevated ALT levels and found that in 33% of patients the elevation occurred once, in 36% it was intermittent, and in 28% it was persistent. In this series, 45% of patients had no diagnosis, 22% were obese (presumed to have nonalcoholic steatohepatitis), 5% had alcoholic liver disease, 3% had “resolving hepatitis,” 1% had hemochromatosis, and 1% had “cytomegalovirus hepatitis.”16 Although the patients underwent a complete history, physical examination, and serologic testing, liver biopsy was not done to confirm the clinical diagnosis.

Hay et al17 described 47 patients with chronically elevated aminotransferases (three to eight times higher than normal levels) who underwent full evaluation and liver biopsy and who had no clinical symptoms of alcoholic, viral, or drug-induced liver disease. A diagnosis of steatohepatitis was given in 10 patients, another 34 were diagnosed with “chronic hepatitis,” and 3 had miscellaneous diagnoses. Of patients with chronic hepatitis, 16 had evidence of cirrhosis on biopsy, and 18 tested positive for at least one autoimmune marker (antinuclear antibody or smooth muscle antibody).

Daniel et al18 performed biopsy in 81 of 1,124 asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with chronically elevated aminotransferases in whom a cause was not identified via noninvasive studies. Liver biopsy showed that 67 (83%) of the 81 patients had steatosis or steatohepatitis, while 8 (10%) had normal histologic findings. Of note, 6 patients had underlying fibrosis or cirrhosis and some degree of fatty infiltration.

Together, these studies suggest that fatty liver, resulting either from alcohol use or from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, is the major cause of mildly elevated aminotransferases. Two major drawbacks of the earlier studies include the lack of data on the hepatitis C serologic status of patients with the diagnosis of “chronic hepatitis” and the lack of a uniform approach to the pathologic diagnosis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. With serologic testing for hepatitis C virus infection now widely available, it is possible that a substantial portion of patients with “chronic hepatitis“ can further be classified as having chronic hepatitis C infection.

Workup of aminotransferase elevations

Figure 1. Algorithm for the evaluation of elevated aminotransferase levels. Black arrows indicate the diagnostic pathway, and red arrows indicate the steps in staging the liver disease.
Figure 1 shows an algorithm for evaluating patients with elevated aminotransferase levels on an initial examination. The first step is to confirm the abnormality by repeating the blood test. If an enzyme elevation is confirmed, further investigation is warranted. A directed history and physical examination can provide crucial clues in the preliminary workup. The history may disclose risk factors for:

  • Viral hepatitis (intravenous drug use, intranasal cocaine use, native of an endemic area of the world, unsafe sexual activity, blood product transfusions)
  • Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (components of the metabolic syndrome, including visceral obesity)
  • Alcoholic liver disease (smaller amounts are needed to cause liver disease in women)
  • Medication exposure (prescription, overthe-counter, and herbal medications)
  • Genetic liver disorders (family history of liver disease)
  • Possible coexisting disease (diabetes and obesity in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, neurologic disorders in Wilson disease, emphysema in alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency, thyroid disease in autoimmune hepatitis and primary biliary cirrhosis, and diabetes and impotence in genetic hemochromatosis).

Although the physical signs of chronic liver disease (eg, spider angiomata, palmar erythema, caput medusae, and gynecomastia) are nonspecific and are usually observed in advanced liver disease, some physical findings suggest potential causes (eg, Kayser-Fleischer rings on slit-lamp examination for Wilson disease, hypertrophy of the second and third metacarpophalangeal joints for hemochromatosis). Iron studies for middleaged men, autoimmune markers for women, and screening for Wilson disease in young patients are helpful when the clinical information points to one of these entities as a potential diagnosis.

If medication or alcohol is a suspected cause, aminotransferase levels should be repeated after 6 to 8 weeks of abstinence. If nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is suspected, testing should be repeated after treating the potential risk factor (eg, obesity, diabetes, hyperlipidemia), but the levels may remain elevated for a period of time. An imaging study (ultrasonography, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging) may be helpful; eg, abdominal ultrasonography may show increased hepatic echogenicity, suggesting increased fatty infiltration, in addition to excluding most hepatic tumors.

Figure 2. Algorithm for the evaluation of elevated alkaline phosphatase levels. Black arrows indicate the diagnostic pathway, and red arrows indicate the steps in staging the liver disease.
If the clinical data obtained from the history or physical examination raise clinical suspicion for a particular disease, a disease-specific marker (Figure 1 and Figure 2) can further support the potential diagnosis. Note that liver biopsy can help establish the diagnosis for many liver disorders and is the best method currently available to establish cirrhosis, with important prognostic implications.19

If the history and physical do not suggest a specific condition, serologic testing for hepatitis C should be done. If negative, other testing can be helpful (iron studies in men, autoimmune markers in women, ceruloplasmin and slit-lamp examination in young patients). If the preliminary workup remains negative and the aminotransferase levels remain elevated for 6 months (ie, chronic elevation), liver biopsy may establish the diagnosis. Features in the biopsy specimens may further confirm the diagnosis: eg, globules positive on periodic acid-Schiff testing in alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency; hepatic iron index for hemochromatosis; hepatic copper content for Wilson disease.

 

 

ALKALINE PHOSPHATASE ELEVATION

Causes

Alkaline phosphatase is active in many organs, mainly the liver and bones, but is also found in the small bowel, kidneys, and placenta. Diseases of the hepatobiliary system can cause moderate to marked elevations of alkaline phosphatase. Conditions with bone involvement, such as Paget disease of the bone, sarcoma, metastatic disease, hyperparathyroidism, and rickets, can raise alkaline phosphatase levels. Elevated GGT in conjunction with elevated alkaline phosphatase usually points to hepatobiliary injury. Clinically, isoenzyme fractionation of alkaline phosphatase may help distinguish the source of the elevation, but this is often not needed if the GGT is also elevated.

Hepatobiliary causes of alkaline phosphatase elevation can be divided into four categories:

  • Chronic inflammation involving the bile ducts (eg, as in primary biliary cirrhosis and primary sclerosing cholangitis)
  • Infiltrative process (eg, neoplasm, tuberculosis, sarcoidosis)
  • Cholestatic disorders (eg, drug hepatotoxicity)
  • Biliary obstruction (eg, in neoplasia or cholelithiasis).

Only a few studies have investigated the significance of a mild, isolated elevation of alkaline phosphatase. Lieberman and Phillips20 evaluated 87 patients and found that the abnormality resolved completely in less than 3 months in 28 patients, and resolved in 3 to 12 months in another 17 patients. Of the other 42 patients, 24 did not undergo further evaluation because they had significant coexisting disease. Of the remaining 18 patients, 5 had phenytoin-related hepatotoxicity, 3 had congestive heart failure, 3 had metabolic bone disease, 2 had hepatobiliary disease, and 1 had metastatic bone disease; in 4 patients, no explanation was determined. Follow-up was 1.5 to 3 years.

Workup of alkaline phosphatase elevation

An isolated elevated alkaline phosphatase level should always be confirmed and a hepatic origin suspected if the GGT level is also elevated (Figure 2).

A history of recent drug exposure usually points to drug hepatotoxicity as the source of this abnormality. Similarly, other information from the history can point to a potential underlying pathologic process causing the rise in alkaline phosphatase. For example, a history of ulcerative colitis suggests primary sclerosing cholangitis, and a history of previous cancer or sarcoidosis suggests liver involvement.

As part of the initial evaluation, an imaging study (eg, ultrasonography) can exclude biliary obstruction or suggest an infiltrative process.

If a drug is the suspected cause, the alkaline phosphatase level should be repeated after the patient has abstained from the drug for 6 to 8 weeks. If the initial examination suggests a specific disease, disease-specific markers (eg, antimitochondrial antibody for primary biliary cirrhosis, or viral serology) can confirm the suspected diagnosis. If the disease-specific markers are negative and the alkaline phosphatase level does not return to normal, further studies should be considered, including liver biopsy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Given the invasive nature of biopsy and pancreatography, an expert consultation should be done before ordering these tests.

GGT ELEVATION

GGT is a membrane enzyme that is a marker of hepatobiliary disease. Elevations usually parallel the elevation of alkaline phosphatase, confirming a hepatic source for the latter. GGT is the most sensitive marker of biliary tract disease but is not very specific. Alcohol and drugs (eg, phenytoin, phenobarbital) induce GGT. In one study,21 GGT was elevated in 52% of patients without known liver disease. The GGT level can be used to monitor abstinence from alcohol in patients with alcoholic liver disease.21

Workup of GGT elevation

Because GGT lacks specificity as a marker and is highly inducible, an extensive evaluation of an isolated GGT elevation in an otherwise asymptomatic patient is not warranted.

WHEN TO CONSULT

Many of the evaluations discussed in this paper and elsewhere22–27 can be carried out by primary care providers following a systematic approach. Input from a gastroenterologist or hepatologist can be valuable if the initial workup fails to establish the diagnosis, as well as in assuring that the most effective therapy for a specific disease is initiated. Reassurance, patient education, and a systematic approach for evaluating these abnormalities can identify most treatable causes of liver disease in the most cost-effective and efficient manner.

In seemingly healthy patients, abnormal liver enzyme levels challenge even the most experienced clinicians in deciding what further evaluation to pursue, if any. Automated laboratory testing has made serum liver enzyme levels very easy to obtain, leading to an increase in testing and also in the number of incidental abnormal findings. An estimated 1% to 9% of people who have no symptoms have high liver enzyme levels when screened with standard biochemistry panels.1,2 A US survey2 showed elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) in 8.9% of surveyed people from 1999 to 2002, an increase from previous reports.

An extensive evaluation can be costly, anxiety-provoking, and risky, especially if it leads to unnecessary invasive procedures such as liver biopsy or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Not all people with a single, isolated, mildly elevated liver enzyme value have underlying liver disease, nor do they require an extensive evaluation. Factors to consider when deciding whether to evaluate include:

  • The patient’s overall health, including chronic illness
  • The duration and pattern of enzyme elevation
  • Patient characteristics such as age, a personal or family history of liver, lung, or neurologic disease, risk factors for viral hepatitis, amount of alcohol consumption, use of prescribed or over-the-counter drugs or dietary supplements
  • The costs and risks associated with additional evaluation.

This article reviews the most likely causes of elevated aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, and gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels. It also provides an algorithm for evaluating mildly abnormal liver enzyme values in apparently healthy people. Patients with signs of hepatic decompensation need a more concise and urgent evaluation.

PATTERNS OF LIVER ENZYME ELEVATION

“Liver function test” is commonly used to describe liver enzyme measurements, but the term should be reserved for tests of the functional hepatic reserve—traditionally, the albumin level and the prothrombin time.3

On the other hand, elevated serum liver enzymes (aminotransferases, alkaline phosphatase, and GGT) can reflect abnormalities in liver cells or in the bile duct. For example, predominant elevation of aminotransferases typically indicates hepatocellular injury, whereas elevated alkaline phosphatase and GGT indicates cholestatic injury. Elevated alkaline phosphatase and aminotransferases can indicate a mixed pattern of injury.

High AST, ALT suggest liver cell damage

Both aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and ALT are normally present in serum at low levels, usually less than 30 to 40 U/L. Although the actual values may differ from laboratory to laboratory, normal serum levels are usually less than 40 U/L for AST and less than 50 U/L for ALT. On the other hand, some experts have suggested lowering the upper limit of normal because of the increasing rate of obesity and associated nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which may not be detected using the traditional, higher normal values. Acceptance is growing for using ALT levels less than 40 U/L in men and less than 31 U/L in women, and AST levels less than 37 U/L in men and less than 31 U/L in women, as normal thresholds.

Although ALT is present in several organs and in muscle, the highest levels are in the liver, which makes this enzyme a more specific indicator of liver injury. Both AST and ALT are released into the blood in greater amounts when hepatocytes are damaged.

Alkaline phosphatase suggests cholestasis

Alkaline phosphatase comes mostly from the liver and bone. In general, normal serum alkaline phosphatase levels in adults range between 20 and 120 U/L. When bone disease is excluded, an elevation suggests biliary obstruction, injury to the bile duct epithelium, or cholestasis. Additionally, there are rare cases of benign familial elevation of serum alkaline phosphatase, mainly of intestinal origin.

GGT is not specific

GGT is present in hepatocytes and biliary epithelial cells. The normal range is 0 U/L to 50 U/L in men, and 0 U/L to 35 U/L in women. GGT elevation is the most sensitive marker of hepatobiliary disease. However, its routine clinical use is not recommended, as it cannot by itself indicate a specific cause of liver disease, although measuring the GGT level can help determine a hepatic origin for an isolated elevation of alkaline phosphatase.

 

 

RISK FACTORS GUIDE THE WORKUP OF ELEVATED ENZYMES

Before beginning an extensive evaluation of an elevated liver enzyme, a brief review of liver diseases and how they are associated with specific liver enzyme elevations is useful (Table 1). This information and clinical data obtained from the history and physical examination provide important clues to guide further investigation.

Chronic viral hepatitis

Prevalence. Hepatitis C virus infection affects an estimated 1.8% of the general population, but the rate is much higher in people with known risk factors (see below), and those with ALT levels greater than 40 U/L.

Hepatitis B virus infection is somewhat less common: between 0.2% and 0.9% of the general US population have positive results on tests for hepatitis B surface antigen. However, the prevalence of this antigen in the United States can be as high as 20% in patients who have emigrated from endemic areas of the world. The risk factors described below dramatically increase the prevalence of both viruses.

Risk factors. Risk factors include bloodproduct transfusions (especially before 1992), intravenous drug use, intranasal cocaine use, hemodialysis, organ transplantation, and birth in an endemic region. Although both viruses can be transmitted sexually, hepatitis B is more readily transmitted by this route than hepatitis C. Worldwide, transmission of hepatitis B virus usually occurs shortly after birth or at a young age.

Comments. Most patients with chronic viral hepatitis have no symptoms or only mild symptoms and minimally elevated ALT and AST levels, ie, two to five times higher than the upper limit of normal. Given the relatively high prevalence of hepatitis C, serologic testing for it should be done early in the evaluation of chronically elevated liver enzyme levels.4,5

Hereditary hemochromatosis

Prevalence. The prevalence of the major HFE-gene mutations that cause hereditary hemochromatosis is 0.25% to 0.5% in people of northern European descent. In northern Europe, about 1 person in 10 is heterozygous and 1 in 200 to 400 is homozygous for the mutated gene.

Risk factors. Northern European ancestry is the primary risk factor. In men, the onset of disease is usually in the third and fourth decades of life, while menses protects women until menopause. From 83% to 85% of people with clinically defined hemochromatosis are homozygous for the C282Y mutation in the HFE gene.

Comments. Hereditary hemochromatosis should be considered early in the evaluation of men of northern European descent. Patients usually have no symptoms until iron overload causes significant end-organ damage. Phlebotomy can be an effective treatment for this potentially fatal disease.6

Alcoholic liver disease

Risk factors. The degree of alcohol-related liver disease depends on a variety of factors, including the volume and duration of alcohol ingestion, the type of liver disease, genetics, and the coexistence of viral hepatitis and obesity.

Alcohol-related liver disease can range from simple fatty liver to alcoholic hepatitis with or without cirrhosis. Cirrhosis develops in only 20% to 30% of patients who consume a substantial amount of alcohol, defined as more than a decade of 60 g/day to 80 g/day of alcohol in men and as little as 20 g/day in women. (A standard drink, ie, a 12-ounce beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, or 1.5 ounces of distilled spirits, contains 12 g of alcohol.) Factors that potentiate alcohol’s harmful effects include female sex, chronic viral hepatitis (especially hepatitis C), obesity, hereditary hemochromatosis, and use of drugs such as methotrexate (Trexall) and acetaminophen (Tylenol).

Comments. Although cirrhosis affects fewer than one-third of long-term heavy drinkers, early detection and treatment can potentially reduce morbidity and prevent early death. Alcoholic liver disease should be suspected in patients with elevated ALT and AST levels (if the AST level is two to three times higher than normal7) and with a history of excessive alcohol use.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

Prevalence. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is a spectrum that ranges from simple steatosis to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis to cirrhosis. Its prevalence in the general US population is about 25%, but is much higher in groups at risk, such as patients with type 2 diabetes (50% to 60%), and morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery (90% to 95%).

On the other hand, the prevalence of the potentially progressive form of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, ie, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, is estimated to be 3% to 5%. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is perhaps the most common cause of mildly elevated liver enzymes in the United States.

Risk factors. The major risk factors for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease are the components of the metabolic syndrome—ie, abdominal obesity, diabetes (insulin resistance), hyperlipidemia, and hypertension—and the use of certain medications (Table 2).

Comments. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and steatonecrosis describe a potentially progressive form of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Although these disorders are histologically indistinguishable from alcohol-induced liver disease, their mechanism is related to insulin resistance, abnormalities of lipid metabolism, increased hepatic lipid peroxidation, activated fibrocytes, and abnormal patterns of adipokine and cytokine production related to visceral obesity. Results from a few natural history studies suggest that simple steatosis has a benign course, whereas nonalcoholic steatohepatitis can progress to cirrhosis in 10% to 20% of patients.8

Treatment of diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia has potential benefit and should be undertaken regardless of liver test abnormalities in any patient with underlying nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Autoimmune hepatitis

Prevalence. The prevalence of autoimmune hepatitis varies, depending on geographic location and on the extent of viral hepatitis in the community. In Hong Kong, only 1% of all people with chronic hepatitis have autoimmune hepatitis. By contrast, in Germany and Austria, 34% and 62% of patients with chronic hepatitis may have autoimmune hepatitis.9 In North America, the prevalence of autoimmune hepatitis in patients with chronic liver disease is estimated to be 11% to 23%, and the incidence is about 0.68 per 100,000 individuals per year. In addition to underlying genetic differences, detection bias can explain the variability in prevalence rates.

Risk factors. Autoimmune hepatitis occurs predominantly in women and can be associated with other autoimmune disorders.

Comments. The diagnosis of autoimmune hepatitis is suggested by exclusion of viral causes of chronic hepatitis, by pathologic findings, and by the presence of autoimmune markers such as antinuclear antibody, smooth muscle antibody, and liver-kidney microsomal antibody. Hypergammaglobulinemia is present in most patients, and serum protein electrophoresis may be helpful as part of the initial evaluation of autoimmune hepatitis.

Liver biopsy is usually needed to confirm the diagnosis and to stage the extent of fibrosis. The International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group Scoring System is based on clinical, laboratory, and pathologic data and can be very helpful in establishing the diagnosis.

Treatment of autoimmune hepatitis with immunosuppression is effective. Most patients may need long-term maintenance treatment.

 

 

Wilson disease

Prevalence. The estimated prevalence of Wilson disease is 1 in 40,000 to 1 in 100,000. It has been reported in most populations worldwide.

Risk factors. Anyone under age 40 with abnormal liver enzyme levels (including mild elevations) should be evaluated for Wilson disease, even in the absence of neurologic or ocular findings. However, such routine screening is rarely helpful in patients over age 50. Genetic testing is of limited value because of the large number of potential mutations of the ATP7B gene, the gene responsible for Wilson disease. However, if a a person is known to have Wilson disease, genetic screening of family members is useful.

Comments. Effective therapy is available (ie, d-penicillamine, trientine, zinc). For Wilson disease, alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency, and genetic hemochromatosis, establishing the diagnosis is not only important to the individual patient; it also may prompt the screening of asymptomatic members of the proband’s family.10–12

Alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency

Prevalence. Alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency is present in 1 of every 1,600 to 1,800 live births.11

Risk factors. Patients with emphysema or with a young sibling with liver failure should undergo an investigation for alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency, consisting of a measurement of the alpha-1-antitrypsin level and an assessment for the PiZZ genotype (the most severe form, because homozygous for the abnormal Z allele).

Comments. Although alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency is a common cause of liver disease in the very young, it is important to remember that a small number of these patients develop end-stage liver disease in adulthood. Liver transplantation is the only effective treatment for end-stage liver disease associated with alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency.

Primary biliary cirrhosis

Prevalence. In one study of urban-dwelling women in northeast England, the prevalence of primary biliary cirrhosis was estimated at 0.10%.13

Risk factors. Like autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cirrhosis mainly affects women and can be associated with other autoimmune disorders.

Comments. A cholestatic pattern of injury is predominant in primary biliary cirrhosis. Treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis with the cytoprotective agent ursodeoxycholic acid improves liver enzyme levels, may lead to histologic improvement and increased survival, and may also delay the need for liver transplantation. 9,13

Drug- and toxin-related liver diseases

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and penicillin-derived antibiotics are the drugs that most commonly cause abnormal serum liver enzyme levels. The mechanisms of druginduced liver disease include induction of hepatic enzymes (antiepileptic drugs), allergic reactions, autoimmunity (nitrofurantoin [Furadantin, Macrobid]), idiosyncratic reactions, and veno-occlusive injury.14 Drugs that are potentially hepatotoxic are listed in Table 2 and are classified as causing hepatocellular damage, cholestatic damage, or steatosis.

MILD ENZYME ELEVATIONS AS INDICATORS OF SPECIFIC DISEASES

Mildly elevated liver enzymes are common and potentially important, yet very few welldesigned prospective studies have addressed the issue of what should be done once they are identified. Most current data are from small retrospective studies that lack accurate information on the important causes of liver diseases such as hepatitis C and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

Despite these shortcomings, the literature delineates the three patterns of mild liver enzyme elevations discussed earlier: hepatocellular injury pattern (elevated ALT or AST), cholestatic pattern (elevated alkaline phosphatase or GGT, or both), and mixed pattern (elevation of ALT, AST, and alkaline phosphatase). The following paragraphs focus on the causes of elevation of specific liver enzymes.

AMINOTRANSFERASE ELEVATION

Causes

Aminotransferases are commonly used markers of hepatocyte injury. AST is present in blood cells and many tissues, including liver, muscle, brain, pancreas, and lung. ALT is a cytosolic enzyme found primarily in hepatocytes, making it a more specific indicator of liver disease.

Acute viral hepatitis, toxins, and liver ischemia can markedly raise serum aminotransferase levels (often into the thousands of units per liter). On the other hand, these enzymes are only mildly elevated (< 300 U/L) in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, chronic hepatitis, cholestatic liver conditions, drug-induced hepatotoxicity, and liver tumors.

Because AST is a mitochondrial enzyme and is affected by alcohol ingestion, an AST level more than twice that of the ALT suggests hepatic damage due to alcohol.

Of note, aminotransferase elevation can also be due to nonhepatic causes. For example, muscle necrosis can result in mild elevation of these enzymes, especially AST, and an elevated creatine kinase can help confirm that the source is muscle tissue.

Undiagnosed celiac disease has been associated with abnormal liver enzyme levels when all other causes have been ruled out, but the mechanism is not yet understood. In this situation, ALT and AST levels typically return to normal with a gluten-free diet.15

 

 

Studies of mild aminotransferase elevations

Only a few studies have documented the results of a thorough evaluation of patients with mildly elevated aminotransferase levels:

Hultcrantz et al1 performed a full evaluation, including liver biopsy, in 149 consecutive patients with chronic, asymptomatic, mild elevations of AST or ALT. Of these patients, 63% had “fatty liver,” 20% had “chronic hepatitis,” and 17% had miscellaneous diagnoses. Whether patients in the “chronic hepatitis” group had hepatitis C was not determined because serologic testing was not available at the time.

Friedman et al16 studied 100 healthy blood donors with elevated ALT levels and found that in 33% of patients the elevation occurred once, in 36% it was intermittent, and in 28% it was persistent. In this series, 45% of patients had no diagnosis, 22% were obese (presumed to have nonalcoholic steatohepatitis), 5% had alcoholic liver disease, 3% had “resolving hepatitis,” 1% had hemochromatosis, and 1% had “cytomegalovirus hepatitis.”16 Although the patients underwent a complete history, physical examination, and serologic testing, liver biopsy was not done to confirm the clinical diagnosis.

Hay et al17 described 47 patients with chronically elevated aminotransferases (three to eight times higher than normal levels) who underwent full evaluation and liver biopsy and who had no clinical symptoms of alcoholic, viral, or drug-induced liver disease. A diagnosis of steatohepatitis was given in 10 patients, another 34 were diagnosed with “chronic hepatitis,” and 3 had miscellaneous diagnoses. Of patients with chronic hepatitis, 16 had evidence of cirrhosis on biopsy, and 18 tested positive for at least one autoimmune marker (antinuclear antibody or smooth muscle antibody).

Daniel et al18 performed biopsy in 81 of 1,124 asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with chronically elevated aminotransferases in whom a cause was not identified via noninvasive studies. Liver biopsy showed that 67 (83%) of the 81 patients had steatosis or steatohepatitis, while 8 (10%) had normal histologic findings. Of note, 6 patients had underlying fibrosis or cirrhosis and some degree of fatty infiltration.

Together, these studies suggest that fatty liver, resulting either from alcohol use or from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, is the major cause of mildly elevated aminotransferases. Two major drawbacks of the earlier studies include the lack of data on the hepatitis C serologic status of patients with the diagnosis of “chronic hepatitis” and the lack of a uniform approach to the pathologic diagnosis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. With serologic testing for hepatitis C virus infection now widely available, it is possible that a substantial portion of patients with “chronic hepatitis“ can further be classified as having chronic hepatitis C infection.

Workup of aminotransferase elevations

Figure 1. Algorithm for the evaluation of elevated aminotransferase levels. Black arrows indicate the diagnostic pathway, and red arrows indicate the steps in staging the liver disease.
Figure 1 shows an algorithm for evaluating patients with elevated aminotransferase levels on an initial examination. The first step is to confirm the abnormality by repeating the blood test. If an enzyme elevation is confirmed, further investigation is warranted. A directed history and physical examination can provide crucial clues in the preliminary workup. The history may disclose risk factors for:

  • Viral hepatitis (intravenous drug use, intranasal cocaine use, native of an endemic area of the world, unsafe sexual activity, blood product transfusions)
  • Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (components of the metabolic syndrome, including visceral obesity)
  • Alcoholic liver disease (smaller amounts are needed to cause liver disease in women)
  • Medication exposure (prescription, overthe-counter, and herbal medications)
  • Genetic liver disorders (family history of liver disease)
  • Possible coexisting disease (diabetes and obesity in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, neurologic disorders in Wilson disease, emphysema in alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency, thyroid disease in autoimmune hepatitis and primary biliary cirrhosis, and diabetes and impotence in genetic hemochromatosis).

Although the physical signs of chronic liver disease (eg, spider angiomata, palmar erythema, caput medusae, and gynecomastia) are nonspecific and are usually observed in advanced liver disease, some physical findings suggest potential causes (eg, Kayser-Fleischer rings on slit-lamp examination for Wilson disease, hypertrophy of the second and third metacarpophalangeal joints for hemochromatosis). Iron studies for middleaged men, autoimmune markers for women, and screening for Wilson disease in young patients are helpful when the clinical information points to one of these entities as a potential diagnosis.

If medication or alcohol is a suspected cause, aminotransferase levels should be repeated after 6 to 8 weeks of abstinence. If nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is suspected, testing should be repeated after treating the potential risk factor (eg, obesity, diabetes, hyperlipidemia), but the levels may remain elevated for a period of time. An imaging study (ultrasonography, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging) may be helpful; eg, abdominal ultrasonography may show increased hepatic echogenicity, suggesting increased fatty infiltration, in addition to excluding most hepatic tumors.

Figure 2. Algorithm for the evaluation of elevated alkaline phosphatase levels. Black arrows indicate the diagnostic pathway, and red arrows indicate the steps in staging the liver disease.
If the clinical data obtained from the history or physical examination raise clinical suspicion for a particular disease, a disease-specific marker (Figure 1 and Figure 2) can further support the potential diagnosis. Note that liver biopsy can help establish the diagnosis for many liver disorders and is the best method currently available to establish cirrhosis, with important prognostic implications.19

If the history and physical do not suggest a specific condition, serologic testing for hepatitis C should be done. If negative, other testing can be helpful (iron studies in men, autoimmune markers in women, ceruloplasmin and slit-lamp examination in young patients). If the preliminary workup remains negative and the aminotransferase levels remain elevated for 6 months (ie, chronic elevation), liver biopsy may establish the diagnosis. Features in the biopsy specimens may further confirm the diagnosis: eg, globules positive on periodic acid-Schiff testing in alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency; hepatic iron index for hemochromatosis; hepatic copper content for Wilson disease.

 

 

ALKALINE PHOSPHATASE ELEVATION

Causes

Alkaline phosphatase is active in many organs, mainly the liver and bones, but is also found in the small bowel, kidneys, and placenta. Diseases of the hepatobiliary system can cause moderate to marked elevations of alkaline phosphatase. Conditions with bone involvement, such as Paget disease of the bone, sarcoma, metastatic disease, hyperparathyroidism, and rickets, can raise alkaline phosphatase levels. Elevated GGT in conjunction with elevated alkaline phosphatase usually points to hepatobiliary injury. Clinically, isoenzyme fractionation of alkaline phosphatase may help distinguish the source of the elevation, but this is often not needed if the GGT is also elevated.

Hepatobiliary causes of alkaline phosphatase elevation can be divided into four categories:

  • Chronic inflammation involving the bile ducts (eg, as in primary biliary cirrhosis and primary sclerosing cholangitis)
  • Infiltrative process (eg, neoplasm, tuberculosis, sarcoidosis)
  • Cholestatic disorders (eg, drug hepatotoxicity)
  • Biliary obstruction (eg, in neoplasia or cholelithiasis).

Only a few studies have investigated the significance of a mild, isolated elevation of alkaline phosphatase. Lieberman and Phillips20 evaluated 87 patients and found that the abnormality resolved completely in less than 3 months in 28 patients, and resolved in 3 to 12 months in another 17 patients. Of the other 42 patients, 24 did not undergo further evaluation because they had significant coexisting disease. Of the remaining 18 patients, 5 had phenytoin-related hepatotoxicity, 3 had congestive heart failure, 3 had metabolic bone disease, 2 had hepatobiliary disease, and 1 had metastatic bone disease; in 4 patients, no explanation was determined. Follow-up was 1.5 to 3 years.

Workup of alkaline phosphatase elevation

An isolated elevated alkaline phosphatase level should always be confirmed and a hepatic origin suspected if the GGT level is also elevated (Figure 2).

A history of recent drug exposure usually points to drug hepatotoxicity as the source of this abnormality. Similarly, other information from the history can point to a potential underlying pathologic process causing the rise in alkaline phosphatase. For example, a history of ulcerative colitis suggests primary sclerosing cholangitis, and a history of previous cancer or sarcoidosis suggests liver involvement.

As part of the initial evaluation, an imaging study (eg, ultrasonography) can exclude biliary obstruction or suggest an infiltrative process.

If a drug is the suspected cause, the alkaline phosphatase level should be repeated after the patient has abstained from the drug for 6 to 8 weeks. If the initial examination suggests a specific disease, disease-specific markers (eg, antimitochondrial antibody for primary biliary cirrhosis, or viral serology) can confirm the suspected diagnosis. If the disease-specific markers are negative and the alkaline phosphatase level does not return to normal, further studies should be considered, including liver biopsy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Given the invasive nature of biopsy and pancreatography, an expert consultation should be done before ordering these tests.

GGT ELEVATION

GGT is a membrane enzyme that is a marker of hepatobiliary disease. Elevations usually parallel the elevation of alkaline phosphatase, confirming a hepatic source for the latter. GGT is the most sensitive marker of biliary tract disease but is not very specific. Alcohol and drugs (eg, phenytoin, phenobarbital) induce GGT. In one study,21 GGT was elevated in 52% of patients without known liver disease. The GGT level can be used to monitor abstinence from alcohol in patients with alcoholic liver disease.21

Workup of GGT elevation

Because GGT lacks specificity as a marker and is highly inducible, an extensive evaluation of an isolated GGT elevation in an otherwise asymptomatic patient is not warranted.

WHEN TO CONSULT

Many of the evaluations discussed in this paper and elsewhere22–27 can be carried out by primary care providers following a systematic approach. Input from a gastroenterologist or hepatologist can be valuable if the initial workup fails to establish the diagnosis, as well as in assuring that the most effective therapy for a specific disease is initiated. Reassurance, patient education, and a systematic approach for evaluating these abnormalities can identify most treatable causes of liver disease in the most cost-effective and efficient manner.

References
  1. Hultcrantz R, Glaumann H, Lindberg G, Nilsson LH. Liver investigation in 149 asymptomatic patients with moderately elevated activities of serum aminotransferases. Scand J Gastroenterol 1986; 21:109113.
  2. Ioanou GN, Boyko EJ, Lee SP. The prevalence and predictors of elevated serum aminotransferase activity in the United States in 1999–2002. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101:7682.
  3. Flora KD, Keeffe EB. Evaluation of mildly abnormal liver tests in asymptomatic patients. J Insur Med 1990; 22:264267.
  4. Alter HJ. To C or not to C: these are the questions. Blood 1995; 85:16811695.
  5. Everhart JE, editor. Digestive diseases in the United States: epidemiology and impact. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1994; NIH Publication No. 94–1447.
  6. Bacon BR, Tavill AS. Hemochromatosis and the iron overload syndromes. In:Zakim D, Boyer TD, editors. Hepatology. A Textbook of Liver Disease, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1996:14391472.
  7. Lieber CS. Alcoholic liver disease. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 1994; 10:319330.
  8. Seth SG, Gordon FD, Chopra S. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126:137145.
  9. Czaja A. Autoimmune liver disease. In: Zakim D, Boyer TD, editors. Hepatolology: A Textbook of Liver Disease, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1996:12591292.
  10. Bull PC, Cox DW. Wilson disease and Menkes disease: new handles on heavy-metal transport. Trends Genet 1994; 10:246252.
  11. Perlmutter DH. Clinical manifestations of alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 1995; 24:2743.
  12. Olivarez L, Caggana M, Pass KA, Ferguson P, Brewer GJ. Estimate of the frequency of Wilson’s disease in the US Caucasian population: a mutation analysis approach. Ann Hum Genet 2001; 65:459463.
  13. Metcalf JV, Howel D, James OF, Bhopal R. Primary biliary cirrhosis: epidemiology helping the clinician. BMJ 1996; 312:11811182.
  14. Farrell GC. Liver disease caused by drugs, anesthetics, and toxins. In:Feldman M, Friedman LS, Sleisenger MH, editors. Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease, 7th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 2002;14031447.
  15. Abdo A, Meddings J, Swain M. Liver abnormalities in celiac disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 2:107112.
  16. Friedman LS, Dienstag JL, Watkins E, et al. Evaluation of blood donors with elevated serum alanine aminotransferase. Ann Intern Med 1987; 107:137144.
  17. Hay JE, Czaja AJ, Rakela J, Ludwig J. The nature of unexplained chronic aminotransferase elevations of a mild to moderate degree in asymptomatic patients. Hepatology 1989; 9:193197.
  18. Daniel S, Ben-Menachem T, Vasudevan G, Ma CK, Blumenkehl M. Prospective evaluation of unexplained chronic liver transaminase abnormalities in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94:30103014.
  19. Van Ness MM, Diehl AM. Is liver biopsy useful in the evaluation of patients with chronically elevated liver enzymes? Ann Intern Med 1989; 111:473478.
  20. Lieberman D, Phillips D. “Isolated” elevation of alkaline phosphatase: significance in hospitalized patients. J Clin Gastroenterol 1990; 12:415419.
  21. Margarian GJ, Lucas LM, Kumar KL. Clinical significance in alcoholic patients of commonly encountered laboratory test results. West J Med 1992; 156:287294.
  22. Fregia A, Jensen DM. Evaluation of abnromal liver tests. Compr Ther 1994; 20:5054.
  23. Goddard CJ, Warens TW. Raised liver enzymes in asymptomatic patients: investigation and outcome. Dig Dis 1992; 10:218226.
  24. Gitlin N. The differential of elevated liver enzymes. Contemporary Internal Medicine 1993:4456.
  25. Keefe EB. Diagnostic approach to mild elevation of liver enzyme levels. Gastrointestinal Diseases Today 1994; 3:19.
  26. Pratt DS, Kaplan MM. Evaluation of abnormal liver-enzyme results in asymptomatic patients. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:12661271.
  27. American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement: evaluation of liver chemistry tests. Gastroenterology 2002; 123:13641366.
References
  1. Hultcrantz R, Glaumann H, Lindberg G, Nilsson LH. Liver investigation in 149 asymptomatic patients with moderately elevated activities of serum aminotransferases. Scand J Gastroenterol 1986; 21:109113.
  2. Ioanou GN, Boyko EJ, Lee SP. The prevalence and predictors of elevated serum aminotransferase activity in the United States in 1999–2002. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101:7682.
  3. Flora KD, Keeffe EB. Evaluation of mildly abnormal liver tests in asymptomatic patients. J Insur Med 1990; 22:264267.
  4. Alter HJ. To C or not to C: these are the questions. Blood 1995; 85:16811695.
  5. Everhart JE, editor. Digestive diseases in the United States: epidemiology and impact. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1994; NIH Publication No. 94–1447.
  6. Bacon BR, Tavill AS. Hemochromatosis and the iron overload syndromes. In:Zakim D, Boyer TD, editors. Hepatology. A Textbook of Liver Disease, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1996:14391472.
  7. Lieber CS. Alcoholic liver disease. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 1994; 10:319330.
  8. Seth SG, Gordon FD, Chopra S. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126:137145.
  9. Czaja A. Autoimmune liver disease. In: Zakim D, Boyer TD, editors. Hepatolology: A Textbook of Liver Disease, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1996:12591292.
  10. Bull PC, Cox DW. Wilson disease and Menkes disease: new handles on heavy-metal transport. Trends Genet 1994; 10:246252.
  11. Perlmutter DH. Clinical manifestations of alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 1995; 24:2743.
  12. Olivarez L, Caggana M, Pass KA, Ferguson P, Brewer GJ. Estimate of the frequency of Wilson’s disease in the US Caucasian population: a mutation analysis approach. Ann Hum Genet 2001; 65:459463.
  13. Metcalf JV, Howel D, James OF, Bhopal R. Primary biliary cirrhosis: epidemiology helping the clinician. BMJ 1996; 312:11811182.
  14. Farrell GC. Liver disease caused by drugs, anesthetics, and toxins. In:Feldman M, Friedman LS, Sleisenger MH, editors. Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease, 7th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 2002;14031447.
  15. Abdo A, Meddings J, Swain M. Liver abnormalities in celiac disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 2:107112.
  16. Friedman LS, Dienstag JL, Watkins E, et al. Evaluation of blood donors with elevated serum alanine aminotransferase. Ann Intern Med 1987; 107:137144.
  17. Hay JE, Czaja AJ, Rakela J, Ludwig J. The nature of unexplained chronic aminotransferase elevations of a mild to moderate degree in asymptomatic patients. Hepatology 1989; 9:193197.
  18. Daniel S, Ben-Menachem T, Vasudevan G, Ma CK, Blumenkehl M. Prospective evaluation of unexplained chronic liver transaminase abnormalities in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94:30103014.
  19. Van Ness MM, Diehl AM. Is liver biopsy useful in the evaluation of patients with chronically elevated liver enzymes? Ann Intern Med 1989; 111:473478.
  20. Lieberman D, Phillips D. “Isolated” elevation of alkaline phosphatase: significance in hospitalized patients. J Clin Gastroenterol 1990; 12:415419.
  21. Margarian GJ, Lucas LM, Kumar KL. Clinical significance in alcoholic patients of commonly encountered laboratory test results. West J Med 1992; 156:287294.
  22. Fregia A, Jensen DM. Evaluation of abnromal liver tests. Compr Ther 1994; 20:5054.
  23. Goddard CJ, Warens TW. Raised liver enzymes in asymptomatic patients: investigation and outcome. Dig Dis 1992; 10:218226.
  24. Gitlin N. The differential of elevated liver enzymes. Contemporary Internal Medicine 1993:4456.
  25. Keefe EB. Diagnostic approach to mild elevation of liver enzyme levels. Gastrointestinal Diseases Today 1994; 3:19.
  26. Pratt DS, Kaplan MM. Evaluation of abnormal liver-enzyme results in asymptomatic patients. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:12661271.
  27. American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement: evaluation of liver chemistry tests. Gastroenterology 2002; 123:13641366.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 77(3)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 77(3)
Page Number
195-204
Page Number
195-204
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
When and how to evaluate mildly elevated liver enzymes in apparently healthy patients
Display Headline
When and how to evaluate mildly elevated liver enzymes in apparently healthy patients
Sections
Inside the Article

KEY POINTS

  • Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is the most common cause of asymptomatic elevated aminotransferase levels.
  • Suspect alcoholic liver disease when the aminotransferases are elevated and the aspartate aminotransferase level is two to three times higher than the alanine aminotransferase level, especially when gamma-glutamyl transferase levels are elevated.
  • If medications or alcohol is a suspected cause of elevated aminotransferase levels, remeasure the levels after 6 to 8 weeks of abstinence.
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Interpreting The JUPITER Trial: Statins can prevent VTE, but more study is needed

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/15/2018 - 08:38
Display Headline
Interpreting The JUPITER Trial: Statins can prevent VTE, but more study is needed

A major placebo-controlled trial has found that a statin can reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).1

We do not recommend prescribing this class of drugs for this purpose until much more research has been done, and we certainly do not recommend substituting a statin for anticoagulant therapy in a patient at risk of VTE.

Nevertheless, we are excited by the latest findings, and we find comfort in knowing that if a patient is taking a statin for an approved indication, ie, reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease in a patient with hyperlipidemia or a previous cardiovascular event, the drug will also reduce the risk of VTE.

In the pages that follow, we describe and comment on what is known about the effect of statins on the risk of VTE.

ARTERIAL AND VENOUS THROMBOSIS: HOW ARE THEY LINKED?

The causes of arterial thrombosis may not be entirely distinct from those of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, collectively referred to as VTE. Some studies have found that risk factors for arterial thrombosis overlap with those for VTE.2–4 However, other studies have shown no association between venous and arterial events.5–10

Hyperlipidemia, in particular, has been evaluated to see if it is a risk factor for VTE. As with other risk factors for arterial thrombosis, the data have been mixed, with some reports favoring an association with VTE and others not.4,5,11 Even so, preventive strategies targeting arterial risk factors have shown promise in reducing VTE events.12

Although commonly used to treat hyperlipidemia, statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) are believed to reduce the incidence of thrombosis by a number of mechanisms13:

  • Decreasing platelet aggregation
  • Inhibiting expression of tissue factor and plasminogen activator inhibitor 1
  • Increasing expression of tissue plasminogen activator
  • Increasing expression of thrombomodulin, which can activate protein C and prevent thrombin-induced platelet and factor V activation and fibrinogen clotting.

STATINS AND VTE IN OBSERVATIONAL AND CASE-CONTROL STUDIES

In view of the multiple effects of statins, several studies have looked at whether these drugs reduce the occurrence of both arterial thrombosis and VTE.14–19

Two prospective observational studies and four case-control studies found that statins reduced the risk of VTE by 20% to 60%.14–19 Interestingly, two of the case-control studies found that antiplatelet therapy did not reduce the risk of VTE.18,19

However, retrospective studies published in 200220 and 200921 found no statistically significant reduction in the incidence of VTE in statin users vs nonusers (Table 1). Observational and case-control studies, though, can have biases and confounders that may go unrecognized without rigorous prospective investigation.

THE JUPITER STUDY

The Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin (JUPITER) study primarily sought to determine if rosuvastatin (Crestor) 20 mg/day, compared with placebo, would reduce the rate of first major cardiovascular events.22 A prespecified secondary end point of the trial was VTE, making JUPITER the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to specifically test whether statins prevent VTE.1

Inclusion criteria: Normal LDL, high CRP

The study included men age 50 and older and women age 60 and older with no history of cardiovascular disease. In addition, their lowdensity lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels had to be lower than 130 mg/dL (3.4 mmol/L), their triglyceride levels had to be lower than 500 mg/dL (5.6 mmol/L), and their highsensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) levels had to be 2.0 mg/L or higher.

Since high levels of hs-CRP, a marker of inflammation, predict cardiovascular events and since statins lower hs-CRP levels, the investigators hypothesized that people with elevated hs-CRP but without hyperlipidemia might benefit from statin treatment.21

Patients were excluded if they had received lipid-lowering therapy within 6 weeks of the trial screening, had diabetes mellitus or uncontrolled hypertension, were currently using postmenopausal hormone-replacement therapy, or had had cancer within the previous 5 years, except for certain skin cancers.

Candidates who complied well during a 4-week placebo run-in phase were randomly assigned to receive either rosuvastatin 20 mg daily (an intermediate dose) or a matching placebo. In all, 17,802 people were randomized. The two assigned groups appeared to be well matched.

Patients were to come in for visits twice a year for 60 months after randomization to be assessed for symptomatic deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. New cases of VTE were confirmed by imaging studies, by the initiation of anticoagulation therapy, or by death ascribed to pulmonary embolism.

Idiopathic VTE was classified as unprovoked if it occurred in the absence of trauma, hospitalization, or surgery within 3 months before the event, and in the absence of any diagnosed cancer within 3 months before and after the event. Provoked VTE events were those that occurred in a participant with cancer or when a precipitating event was associated with trauma, hospitalization, or surgery.

 

 

Rosuvastatin prevents heart attack, stroke

On the recommendation of the trial’s independent data and safety monitoring board, JUPITER was stopped early because the trial drug showed evidence of efficacy in preventing the combined primary end point of a first major cardiovascular event—ie, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, an arterial revascularization procedure, or confirmed death from a cardiovascular cause.22 (The cardiovascular outcomes of the JUPITER study were reviewed by Shishehbor and Hazen23 in the January 2009 issue of the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine; see doi:10.3949/ccjm.75a.08105).

Formal follow-up for the trial's primary and secondary efficacy end points ended then, but data on VTE continued to be collected until each patient’s closeout visit as part of a safety monitoring protocol. The last closeout visit occurred on August 20, 2008. The primary analysis focused on events occurring up to March 30, 2008, the date the study was stopped.

Secondary end point results: Rosuvastatin prevents VTE

At a median follow-up of 1.9 years, an episode of VTE had occurred in 94 (0.53%) of the 17,802 patients—34 in the rosuvastatin group and 60 in the placebo group.1 This translates to 0.18 and 0.32 events per 100 person-years of follow-up in the rosuvastatin and placebo groups, respectively (hazard ratio for the rosuvastatin group 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–0.86, P = .007).

Forty-four cases of VTE were classified as provoked and 50 cases were categorized as unprovoked. The risk reduction was statistically significant for provoked cases (hazard ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.28–0.96, P = .03), but not for unprovoked events (hazard ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.35–1.09, P = .09).

Subgroup analysis revealed no significant association between patient characteristics and the impact of rosuvastatin on the risk of a VTE event, but, as expected, more benefit was associated with higher baseline lipid levels.

STILL TOO SOON TO ADVISE ROUTINE STATIN USE TO PREVENT VTE

While the JUPITER trial data show an apparent benefit of statin use on the rate of VTE events, advising routine use of statins to prevent VTE is premature, for three main reasons.

Many must be treated to prevent one case of VTE. The number needed to treat (NNT) with rosuvastatin for 5 years to prevent either a case of VTE or a cardiovascular event was 21, and the NNT to prevent one cardiovascular event was 25. In a review of the two most recent case-control studies investigating the effects of statins on VTE,18,19 Cushman24 calculated that the NNT to prevent one VTE event each year was 333 for those age 75 and older. Though the Jupiter data did not provide the specific incidence of VTE at 1 year, except graphically, we can estimate that the NNT to prevent one VTE event at 1 year in the study is also very high.

Practically speaking, the perceived benefits of VTE prevention require large numbers to be treated, and the net clinical gain is still largely in preventing arterial events such as heart attack and stroke rather than VTE.

Statins, though safe, can still have adverse effects. The JUPITER study found a trend (albeit nonsignificant) toward more muscle complaints and elevations on liver function testing in apparently healthy persons taking a statin.22 Although severe complications of statin therapy such as rhabdomyolysis and elevations of creatine phosphokinase are rare, patients taking a statin have a 39% higher risk of an adverse event, most commonly myalgias or abnormalities on liver function testing.25 Were statins to be given routinely to even more people than they are now, more adverse outcomes would be likely.

More study is needed. The JUPITER study did not address a high risk of VTE. In fact, the investigators provided no information as to the VTE history of those enrolled.

Clearly, statins should not be substituted for proven prophylaxis and anticoagulation without further investigation, especially for patients with recurrent deep venous thrombosis, hospitalized patients, postoperative patients, and other patients prone to VTE.

OUR VIEW

The JUPITER study is an important leap forward in adding to our knowledge of how to prevent VTE. For people with another indication for taking a statin (eg, a previous cardiovascular event, hyperlipidemia), it is helpful to know that their risk of VTE may be reduced without exposure to the risks of other kinds of conventional thromboprophylaxis.

We look forward to additional studies to elaborate on the benefits of statins in both the prevention and treatment of VTE for averagerisk and VTE-prone populations.

References
  1. Glynn RJ, Danielson E, Fonseca FA, et al. A randomized trial of rosuvastatin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:18511861.
  2. Prandoni P, Bilora F, Marchiori A, et al. An association between atherosclerosis and venous thrombosis. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:14351441.
  3. Prandoni P, Ghirarduzzi A, Prins MH, et al. Venous thromboembolism and the risk of subsequent symptomatic atherosclerosis. J Thromb Haemost 2006; 4:18911896.
  4. Braekkan SK, Mathiesen EB, Njolstad I, Wilsgaard T, Stormer J, Hansen JB. Family history of myocardial infarction is an independent risk factor for venous thromboembolism: the Tromso study. J Thromb Haemost 2008; 6:18511857.
  5. Tsai AW, Cushman M, Rosamond WD, Heckbert SR, Polak JF, Folsom AR. Cardiovascular risk factors and venous thromboembolism incidence: the longitudinal investigation of thromboembolism etiology. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162:11821189.
  6. van der Hagen PB, Folsom AR, Jenny NS, et al. Subclinical atherosclerosis and the risk of future venous thrombosis in the Cardiovascular Health Study. J Thromb Haemost 2006; 4:19031908.
  7. Reich LM, Folsom AR, Key NS, et al. Prospective study of subclinical atherosclerosis as a risk factor for venous thromboembolism. J Thromb Haemost 2006; 4:19091913.
  8. Huerta C, Johansson S, Wallander MA, Rodriguez LA. Risk of myocardial infarction and overall mortality in survivors of venous thromboembolism. Thromb J 2008; 6:10.
  9. Linnemann B, Schindewolf M, Zgouras D, Erbe M, Jarosch-Preusche M, Lindhoff-Last E. Are patients with thrombophilia and previous venous thromboembolism at higher risk to arterial thrombosis? Thromb Res 2008; 121:743750.
  10. Schwaiger J, Kiechl S, Stockner H, et al. Burden of atherosclerosis and risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with migraine. Neurology 2008; 71:937943.
  11. Linnemann B, Zgouras D, Schindewolf M, Schwonberg J, Jarosch-Preusche M, Lindhoff-Last E. Impact of sex and traditional cardiovascular risk factors on the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism: results from the German MAISTHRO Registry. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2008; 19:159165.
  12. Steffen LM, Folsom AR, Cushman M, Jacobs DR, Rosamond WD. Greater fish, fruit, and vegetable intakes are related to lower incidence of venous thromboembolism: the Longitudinal Investigation of Thromboembolism Etiology. Circulation 2007; 115:188195.
  13. Arslan F, Pasterkamp G, de Kleijn DP. Unraveling pleiotropic effects of statins: bit by bit, a slow case with perspective. Circ Res 2008; 103:334336.
  14. Grady D, Wenger NK, Herrington D, et al. Postmenopausal hormone therapy increases risk for venous thromboembolic disease. The Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132:689696.
  15. Ray JG, Mamdani M, Tsuyuki RT, Anderson DR, Yeo EL, Laupacis A. Use of statins and the subsequent development of deep vein thrombosis. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161:14051410.
  16. Doggen CJ, Lemaitre RN, Smith NL, Heckbert SR, Psaty BM. HMG CoA reductase inhibitors and the risk of venous thrombosis among postmenopausal women. J Thromb Haemost 2004; 2:700701.
  17. Lacut K, Oger E, Le Gal G, et al. Statins but not fibrates are associated with a reduced risk of venous thromboembolism: a hospitalbased case-control study. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2004; 18:477482.
  18. Ramcharan AS, Van Stralen KJ, Snoep JD, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Rosendaal FR, Doggen CJ. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, other lipid-lowering medication, antiplatelet therapy, and the risk of venous thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 7:514520.
  19. Sørensen HT, Horvath-Puho E, Sogaard KK, et al. Arterial cardiovascular events, statins, low-dose aspirin and subsequent risk of venous thromboembolism: a population-based case-control study. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 7:521528.
  20. Yang CC, Jick SS, Jick H. Statins and the risk of idiopathic venous thromboembolism. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 53:101105.
  21. Smeeth L, Douglas I, Hall AJ, Hubbard R, Evans S. Effect of statins on a wide range of health outcomes: a cohort study validated by comparison with randomized trials. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2009; 67:99109.
  22. Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FA, et al; JUPITER Study Group. Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:21952207.
  23. Shishehbor MH, Hazen SL. JUPITER to Earth: A statin helps peole with normal LDL-C and high hs-CRP, but what does it mean? Cleve Clin J Med 2009; 76:3744.
  24. Cushman M. A new indication for statins to prevent venous thromboembolism? Not yet. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 7:511513.
  25. Silva MA, Swanson AC, Gandhi PJ, Tataronis GR. Statin-related adverse events: a meta-analysis. Clin Ther 2006; 28:2635.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Alejandro Perez, MD
Section of Vascular Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic

John R. Bartholomew, MD, FACC
Head, Section of Vascular Medicine; Professor of Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine; and Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders, Cleveland Clinic

Address: John R. Bartholomew, MD, FACC, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, J3-5, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail [email protected]

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 77(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
191-194
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Alejandro Perez, MD
Section of Vascular Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic

John R. Bartholomew, MD, FACC
Head, Section of Vascular Medicine; Professor of Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine; and Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders, Cleveland Clinic

Address: John R. Bartholomew, MD, FACC, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, J3-5, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail [email protected]

Author and Disclosure Information

Alejandro Perez, MD
Section of Vascular Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic

John R. Bartholomew, MD, FACC
Head, Section of Vascular Medicine; Professor of Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine; and Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders, Cleveland Clinic

Address: John R. Bartholomew, MD, FACC, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, J3-5, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail [email protected]

Article PDF
Article PDF

A major placebo-controlled trial has found that a statin can reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).1

We do not recommend prescribing this class of drugs for this purpose until much more research has been done, and we certainly do not recommend substituting a statin for anticoagulant therapy in a patient at risk of VTE.

Nevertheless, we are excited by the latest findings, and we find comfort in knowing that if a patient is taking a statin for an approved indication, ie, reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease in a patient with hyperlipidemia or a previous cardiovascular event, the drug will also reduce the risk of VTE.

In the pages that follow, we describe and comment on what is known about the effect of statins on the risk of VTE.

ARTERIAL AND VENOUS THROMBOSIS: HOW ARE THEY LINKED?

The causes of arterial thrombosis may not be entirely distinct from those of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, collectively referred to as VTE. Some studies have found that risk factors for arterial thrombosis overlap with those for VTE.2–4 However, other studies have shown no association between venous and arterial events.5–10

Hyperlipidemia, in particular, has been evaluated to see if it is a risk factor for VTE. As with other risk factors for arterial thrombosis, the data have been mixed, with some reports favoring an association with VTE and others not.4,5,11 Even so, preventive strategies targeting arterial risk factors have shown promise in reducing VTE events.12

Although commonly used to treat hyperlipidemia, statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) are believed to reduce the incidence of thrombosis by a number of mechanisms13:

  • Decreasing platelet aggregation
  • Inhibiting expression of tissue factor and plasminogen activator inhibitor 1
  • Increasing expression of tissue plasminogen activator
  • Increasing expression of thrombomodulin, which can activate protein C and prevent thrombin-induced platelet and factor V activation and fibrinogen clotting.

STATINS AND VTE IN OBSERVATIONAL AND CASE-CONTROL STUDIES

In view of the multiple effects of statins, several studies have looked at whether these drugs reduce the occurrence of both arterial thrombosis and VTE.14–19

Two prospective observational studies and four case-control studies found that statins reduced the risk of VTE by 20% to 60%.14–19 Interestingly, two of the case-control studies found that antiplatelet therapy did not reduce the risk of VTE.18,19

However, retrospective studies published in 200220 and 200921 found no statistically significant reduction in the incidence of VTE in statin users vs nonusers (Table 1). Observational and case-control studies, though, can have biases and confounders that may go unrecognized without rigorous prospective investigation.

THE JUPITER STUDY

The Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin (JUPITER) study primarily sought to determine if rosuvastatin (Crestor) 20 mg/day, compared with placebo, would reduce the rate of first major cardiovascular events.22 A prespecified secondary end point of the trial was VTE, making JUPITER the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to specifically test whether statins prevent VTE.1

Inclusion criteria: Normal LDL, high CRP

The study included men age 50 and older and women age 60 and older with no history of cardiovascular disease. In addition, their lowdensity lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels had to be lower than 130 mg/dL (3.4 mmol/L), their triglyceride levels had to be lower than 500 mg/dL (5.6 mmol/L), and their highsensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) levels had to be 2.0 mg/L or higher.

Since high levels of hs-CRP, a marker of inflammation, predict cardiovascular events and since statins lower hs-CRP levels, the investigators hypothesized that people with elevated hs-CRP but without hyperlipidemia might benefit from statin treatment.21

Patients were excluded if they had received lipid-lowering therapy within 6 weeks of the trial screening, had diabetes mellitus or uncontrolled hypertension, were currently using postmenopausal hormone-replacement therapy, or had had cancer within the previous 5 years, except for certain skin cancers.

Candidates who complied well during a 4-week placebo run-in phase were randomly assigned to receive either rosuvastatin 20 mg daily (an intermediate dose) or a matching placebo. In all, 17,802 people were randomized. The two assigned groups appeared to be well matched.

Patients were to come in for visits twice a year for 60 months after randomization to be assessed for symptomatic deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. New cases of VTE were confirmed by imaging studies, by the initiation of anticoagulation therapy, or by death ascribed to pulmonary embolism.

Idiopathic VTE was classified as unprovoked if it occurred in the absence of trauma, hospitalization, or surgery within 3 months before the event, and in the absence of any diagnosed cancer within 3 months before and after the event. Provoked VTE events were those that occurred in a participant with cancer or when a precipitating event was associated with trauma, hospitalization, or surgery.

 

 

Rosuvastatin prevents heart attack, stroke

On the recommendation of the trial’s independent data and safety monitoring board, JUPITER was stopped early because the trial drug showed evidence of efficacy in preventing the combined primary end point of a first major cardiovascular event—ie, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, an arterial revascularization procedure, or confirmed death from a cardiovascular cause.22 (The cardiovascular outcomes of the JUPITER study were reviewed by Shishehbor and Hazen23 in the January 2009 issue of the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine; see doi:10.3949/ccjm.75a.08105).

Formal follow-up for the trial's primary and secondary efficacy end points ended then, but data on VTE continued to be collected until each patient’s closeout visit as part of a safety monitoring protocol. The last closeout visit occurred on August 20, 2008. The primary analysis focused on events occurring up to March 30, 2008, the date the study was stopped.

Secondary end point results: Rosuvastatin prevents VTE

At a median follow-up of 1.9 years, an episode of VTE had occurred in 94 (0.53%) of the 17,802 patients—34 in the rosuvastatin group and 60 in the placebo group.1 This translates to 0.18 and 0.32 events per 100 person-years of follow-up in the rosuvastatin and placebo groups, respectively (hazard ratio for the rosuvastatin group 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–0.86, P = .007).

Forty-four cases of VTE were classified as provoked and 50 cases were categorized as unprovoked. The risk reduction was statistically significant for provoked cases (hazard ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.28–0.96, P = .03), but not for unprovoked events (hazard ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.35–1.09, P = .09).

Subgroup analysis revealed no significant association between patient characteristics and the impact of rosuvastatin on the risk of a VTE event, but, as expected, more benefit was associated with higher baseline lipid levels.

STILL TOO SOON TO ADVISE ROUTINE STATIN USE TO PREVENT VTE

While the JUPITER trial data show an apparent benefit of statin use on the rate of VTE events, advising routine use of statins to prevent VTE is premature, for three main reasons.

Many must be treated to prevent one case of VTE. The number needed to treat (NNT) with rosuvastatin for 5 years to prevent either a case of VTE or a cardiovascular event was 21, and the NNT to prevent one cardiovascular event was 25. In a review of the two most recent case-control studies investigating the effects of statins on VTE,18,19 Cushman24 calculated that the NNT to prevent one VTE event each year was 333 for those age 75 and older. Though the Jupiter data did not provide the specific incidence of VTE at 1 year, except graphically, we can estimate that the NNT to prevent one VTE event at 1 year in the study is also very high.

Practically speaking, the perceived benefits of VTE prevention require large numbers to be treated, and the net clinical gain is still largely in preventing arterial events such as heart attack and stroke rather than VTE.

Statins, though safe, can still have adverse effects. The JUPITER study found a trend (albeit nonsignificant) toward more muscle complaints and elevations on liver function testing in apparently healthy persons taking a statin.22 Although severe complications of statin therapy such as rhabdomyolysis and elevations of creatine phosphokinase are rare, patients taking a statin have a 39% higher risk of an adverse event, most commonly myalgias or abnormalities on liver function testing.25 Were statins to be given routinely to even more people than they are now, more adverse outcomes would be likely.

More study is needed. The JUPITER study did not address a high risk of VTE. In fact, the investigators provided no information as to the VTE history of those enrolled.

Clearly, statins should not be substituted for proven prophylaxis and anticoagulation without further investigation, especially for patients with recurrent deep venous thrombosis, hospitalized patients, postoperative patients, and other patients prone to VTE.

OUR VIEW

The JUPITER study is an important leap forward in adding to our knowledge of how to prevent VTE. For people with another indication for taking a statin (eg, a previous cardiovascular event, hyperlipidemia), it is helpful to know that their risk of VTE may be reduced without exposure to the risks of other kinds of conventional thromboprophylaxis.

We look forward to additional studies to elaborate on the benefits of statins in both the prevention and treatment of VTE for averagerisk and VTE-prone populations.

A major placebo-controlled trial has found that a statin can reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).1

We do not recommend prescribing this class of drugs for this purpose until much more research has been done, and we certainly do not recommend substituting a statin for anticoagulant therapy in a patient at risk of VTE.

Nevertheless, we are excited by the latest findings, and we find comfort in knowing that if a patient is taking a statin for an approved indication, ie, reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease in a patient with hyperlipidemia or a previous cardiovascular event, the drug will also reduce the risk of VTE.

In the pages that follow, we describe and comment on what is known about the effect of statins on the risk of VTE.

ARTERIAL AND VENOUS THROMBOSIS: HOW ARE THEY LINKED?

The causes of arterial thrombosis may not be entirely distinct from those of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, collectively referred to as VTE. Some studies have found that risk factors for arterial thrombosis overlap with those for VTE.2–4 However, other studies have shown no association between venous and arterial events.5–10

Hyperlipidemia, in particular, has been evaluated to see if it is a risk factor for VTE. As with other risk factors for arterial thrombosis, the data have been mixed, with some reports favoring an association with VTE and others not.4,5,11 Even so, preventive strategies targeting arterial risk factors have shown promise in reducing VTE events.12

Although commonly used to treat hyperlipidemia, statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) are believed to reduce the incidence of thrombosis by a number of mechanisms13:

  • Decreasing platelet aggregation
  • Inhibiting expression of tissue factor and plasminogen activator inhibitor 1
  • Increasing expression of tissue plasminogen activator
  • Increasing expression of thrombomodulin, which can activate protein C and prevent thrombin-induced platelet and factor V activation and fibrinogen clotting.

STATINS AND VTE IN OBSERVATIONAL AND CASE-CONTROL STUDIES

In view of the multiple effects of statins, several studies have looked at whether these drugs reduce the occurrence of both arterial thrombosis and VTE.14–19

Two prospective observational studies and four case-control studies found that statins reduced the risk of VTE by 20% to 60%.14–19 Interestingly, two of the case-control studies found that antiplatelet therapy did not reduce the risk of VTE.18,19

However, retrospective studies published in 200220 and 200921 found no statistically significant reduction in the incidence of VTE in statin users vs nonusers (Table 1). Observational and case-control studies, though, can have biases and confounders that may go unrecognized without rigorous prospective investigation.

THE JUPITER STUDY

The Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin (JUPITER) study primarily sought to determine if rosuvastatin (Crestor) 20 mg/day, compared with placebo, would reduce the rate of first major cardiovascular events.22 A prespecified secondary end point of the trial was VTE, making JUPITER the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to specifically test whether statins prevent VTE.1

Inclusion criteria: Normal LDL, high CRP

The study included men age 50 and older and women age 60 and older with no history of cardiovascular disease. In addition, their lowdensity lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels had to be lower than 130 mg/dL (3.4 mmol/L), their triglyceride levels had to be lower than 500 mg/dL (5.6 mmol/L), and their highsensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) levels had to be 2.0 mg/L or higher.

Since high levels of hs-CRP, a marker of inflammation, predict cardiovascular events and since statins lower hs-CRP levels, the investigators hypothesized that people with elevated hs-CRP but without hyperlipidemia might benefit from statin treatment.21

Patients were excluded if they had received lipid-lowering therapy within 6 weeks of the trial screening, had diabetes mellitus or uncontrolled hypertension, were currently using postmenopausal hormone-replacement therapy, or had had cancer within the previous 5 years, except for certain skin cancers.

Candidates who complied well during a 4-week placebo run-in phase were randomly assigned to receive either rosuvastatin 20 mg daily (an intermediate dose) or a matching placebo. In all, 17,802 people were randomized. The two assigned groups appeared to be well matched.

Patients were to come in for visits twice a year for 60 months after randomization to be assessed for symptomatic deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. New cases of VTE were confirmed by imaging studies, by the initiation of anticoagulation therapy, or by death ascribed to pulmonary embolism.

Idiopathic VTE was classified as unprovoked if it occurred in the absence of trauma, hospitalization, or surgery within 3 months before the event, and in the absence of any diagnosed cancer within 3 months before and after the event. Provoked VTE events were those that occurred in a participant with cancer or when a precipitating event was associated with trauma, hospitalization, or surgery.

 

 

Rosuvastatin prevents heart attack, stroke

On the recommendation of the trial’s independent data and safety monitoring board, JUPITER was stopped early because the trial drug showed evidence of efficacy in preventing the combined primary end point of a first major cardiovascular event—ie, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, an arterial revascularization procedure, or confirmed death from a cardiovascular cause.22 (The cardiovascular outcomes of the JUPITER study were reviewed by Shishehbor and Hazen23 in the January 2009 issue of the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine; see doi:10.3949/ccjm.75a.08105).

Formal follow-up for the trial's primary and secondary efficacy end points ended then, but data on VTE continued to be collected until each patient’s closeout visit as part of a safety monitoring protocol. The last closeout visit occurred on August 20, 2008. The primary analysis focused on events occurring up to March 30, 2008, the date the study was stopped.

Secondary end point results: Rosuvastatin prevents VTE

At a median follow-up of 1.9 years, an episode of VTE had occurred in 94 (0.53%) of the 17,802 patients—34 in the rosuvastatin group and 60 in the placebo group.1 This translates to 0.18 and 0.32 events per 100 person-years of follow-up in the rosuvastatin and placebo groups, respectively (hazard ratio for the rosuvastatin group 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–0.86, P = .007).

Forty-four cases of VTE were classified as provoked and 50 cases were categorized as unprovoked. The risk reduction was statistically significant for provoked cases (hazard ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.28–0.96, P = .03), but not for unprovoked events (hazard ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.35–1.09, P = .09).

Subgroup analysis revealed no significant association between patient characteristics and the impact of rosuvastatin on the risk of a VTE event, but, as expected, more benefit was associated with higher baseline lipid levels.

STILL TOO SOON TO ADVISE ROUTINE STATIN USE TO PREVENT VTE

While the JUPITER trial data show an apparent benefit of statin use on the rate of VTE events, advising routine use of statins to prevent VTE is premature, for three main reasons.

Many must be treated to prevent one case of VTE. The number needed to treat (NNT) with rosuvastatin for 5 years to prevent either a case of VTE or a cardiovascular event was 21, and the NNT to prevent one cardiovascular event was 25. In a review of the two most recent case-control studies investigating the effects of statins on VTE,18,19 Cushman24 calculated that the NNT to prevent one VTE event each year was 333 for those age 75 and older. Though the Jupiter data did not provide the specific incidence of VTE at 1 year, except graphically, we can estimate that the NNT to prevent one VTE event at 1 year in the study is also very high.

Practically speaking, the perceived benefits of VTE prevention require large numbers to be treated, and the net clinical gain is still largely in preventing arterial events such as heart attack and stroke rather than VTE.

Statins, though safe, can still have adverse effects. The JUPITER study found a trend (albeit nonsignificant) toward more muscle complaints and elevations on liver function testing in apparently healthy persons taking a statin.22 Although severe complications of statin therapy such as rhabdomyolysis and elevations of creatine phosphokinase are rare, patients taking a statin have a 39% higher risk of an adverse event, most commonly myalgias or abnormalities on liver function testing.25 Were statins to be given routinely to even more people than they are now, more adverse outcomes would be likely.

More study is needed. The JUPITER study did not address a high risk of VTE. In fact, the investigators provided no information as to the VTE history of those enrolled.

Clearly, statins should not be substituted for proven prophylaxis and anticoagulation without further investigation, especially for patients with recurrent deep venous thrombosis, hospitalized patients, postoperative patients, and other patients prone to VTE.

OUR VIEW

The JUPITER study is an important leap forward in adding to our knowledge of how to prevent VTE. For people with another indication for taking a statin (eg, a previous cardiovascular event, hyperlipidemia), it is helpful to know that their risk of VTE may be reduced without exposure to the risks of other kinds of conventional thromboprophylaxis.

We look forward to additional studies to elaborate on the benefits of statins in both the prevention and treatment of VTE for averagerisk and VTE-prone populations.

References
  1. Glynn RJ, Danielson E, Fonseca FA, et al. A randomized trial of rosuvastatin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:18511861.
  2. Prandoni P, Bilora F, Marchiori A, et al. An association between atherosclerosis and venous thrombosis. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:14351441.
  3. Prandoni P, Ghirarduzzi A, Prins MH, et al. Venous thromboembolism and the risk of subsequent symptomatic atherosclerosis. J Thromb Haemost 2006; 4:18911896.
  4. Braekkan SK, Mathiesen EB, Njolstad I, Wilsgaard T, Stormer J, Hansen JB. Family history of myocardial infarction is an independent risk factor for venous thromboembolism: the Tromso study. J Thromb Haemost 2008; 6:18511857.
  5. Tsai AW, Cushman M, Rosamond WD, Heckbert SR, Polak JF, Folsom AR. Cardiovascular risk factors and venous thromboembolism incidence: the longitudinal investigation of thromboembolism etiology. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162:11821189.
  6. van der Hagen PB, Folsom AR, Jenny NS, et al. Subclinical atherosclerosis and the risk of future venous thrombosis in the Cardiovascular Health Study. J Thromb Haemost 2006; 4:19031908.
  7. Reich LM, Folsom AR, Key NS, et al. Prospective study of subclinical atherosclerosis as a risk factor for venous thromboembolism. J Thromb Haemost 2006; 4:19091913.
  8. Huerta C, Johansson S, Wallander MA, Rodriguez LA. Risk of myocardial infarction and overall mortality in survivors of venous thromboembolism. Thromb J 2008; 6:10.
  9. Linnemann B, Schindewolf M, Zgouras D, Erbe M, Jarosch-Preusche M, Lindhoff-Last E. Are patients with thrombophilia and previous venous thromboembolism at higher risk to arterial thrombosis? Thromb Res 2008; 121:743750.
  10. Schwaiger J, Kiechl S, Stockner H, et al. Burden of atherosclerosis and risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with migraine. Neurology 2008; 71:937943.
  11. Linnemann B, Zgouras D, Schindewolf M, Schwonberg J, Jarosch-Preusche M, Lindhoff-Last E. Impact of sex and traditional cardiovascular risk factors on the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism: results from the German MAISTHRO Registry. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2008; 19:159165.
  12. Steffen LM, Folsom AR, Cushman M, Jacobs DR, Rosamond WD. Greater fish, fruit, and vegetable intakes are related to lower incidence of venous thromboembolism: the Longitudinal Investigation of Thromboembolism Etiology. Circulation 2007; 115:188195.
  13. Arslan F, Pasterkamp G, de Kleijn DP. Unraveling pleiotropic effects of statins: bit by bit, a slow case with perspective. Circ Res 2008; 103:334336.
  14. Grady D, Wenger NK, Herrington D, et al. Postmenopausal hormone therapy increases risk for venous thromboembolic disease. The Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132:689696.
  15. Ray JG, Mamdani M, Tsuyuki RT, Anderson DR, Yeo EL, Laupacis A. Use of statins and the subsequent development of deep vein thrombosis. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161:14051410.
  16. Doggen CJ, Lemaitre RN, Smith NL, Heckbert SR, Psaty BM. HMG CoA reductase inhibitors and the risk of venous thrombosis among postmenopausal women. J Thromb Haemost 2004; 2:700701.
  17. Lacut K, Oger E, Le Gal G, et al. Statins but not fibrates are associated with a reduced risk of venous thromboembolism: a hospitalbased case-control study. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2004; 18:477482.
  18. Ramcharan AS, Van Stralen KJ, Snoep JD, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Rosendaal FR, Doggen CJ. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, other lipid-lowering medication, antiplatelet therapy, and the risk of venous thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 7:514520.
  19. Sørensen HT, Horvath-Puho E, Sogaard KK, et al. Arterial cardiovascular events, statins, low-dose aspirin and subsequent risk of venous thromboembolism: a population-based case-control study. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 7:521528.
  20. Yang CC, Jick SS, Jick H. Statins and the risk of idiopathic venous thromboembolism. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 53:101105.
  21. Smeeth L, Douglas I, Hall AJ, Hubbard R, Evans S. Effect of statins on a wide range of health outcomes: a cohort study validated by comparison with randomized trials. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2009; 67:99109.
  22. Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FA, et al; JUPITER Study Group. Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:21952207.
  23. Shishehbor MH, Hazen SL. JUPITER to Earth: A statin helps peole with normal LDL-C and high hs-CRP, but what does it mean? Cleve Clin J Med 2009; 76:3744.
  24. Cushman M. A new indication for statins to prevent venous thromboembolism? Not yet. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 7:511513.
  25. Silva MA, Swanson AC, Gandhi PJ, Tataronis GR. Statin-related adverse events: a meta-analysis. Clin Ther 2006; 28:2635.
References
  1. Glynn RJ, Danielson E, Fonseca FA, et al. A randomized trial of rosuvastatin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:18511861.
  2. Prandoni P, Bilora F, Marchiori A, et al. An association between atherosclerosis and venous thrombosis. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:14351441.
  3. Prandoni P, Ghirarduzzi A, Prins MH, et al. Venous thromboembolism and the risk of subsequent symptomatic atherosclerosis. J Thromb Haemost 2006; 4:18911896.
  4. Braekkan SK, Mathiesen EB, Njolstad I, Wilsgaard T, Stormer J, Hansen JB. Family history of myocardial infarction is an independent risk factor for venous thromboembolism: the Tromso study. J Thromb Haemost 2008; 6:18511857.
  5. Tsai AW, Cushman M, Rosamond WD, Heckbert SR, Polak JF, Folsom AR. Cardiovascular risk factors and venous thromboembolism incidence: the longitudinal investigation of thromboembolism etiology. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162:11821189.
  6. van der Hagen PB, Folsom AR, Jenny NS, et al. Subclinical atherosclerosis and the risk of future venous thrombosis in the Cardiovascular Health Study. J Thromb Haemost 2006; 4:19031908.
  7. Reich LM, Folsom AR, Key NS, et al. Prospective study of subclinical atherosclerosis as a risk factor for venous thromboembolism. J Thromb Haemost 2006; 4:19091913.
  8. Huerta C, Johansson S, Wallander MA, Rodriguez LA. Risk of myocardial infarction and overall mortality in survivors of venous thromboembolism. Thromb J 2008; 6:10.
  9. Linnemann B, Schindewolf M, Zgouras D, Erbe M, Jarosch-Preusche M, Lindhoff-Last E. Are patients with thrombophilia and previous venous thromboembolism at higher risk to arterial thrombosis? Thromb Res 2008; 121:743750.
  10. Schwaiger J, Kiechl S, Stockner H, et al. Burden of atherosclerosis and risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with migraine. Neurology 2008; 71:937943.
  11. Linnemann B, Zgouras D, Schindewolf M, Schwonberg J, Jarosch-Preusche M, Lindhoff-Last E. Impact of sex and traditional cardiovascular risk factors on the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism: results from the German MAISTHRO Registry. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2008; 19:159165.
  12. Steffen LM, Folsom AR, Cushman M, Jacobs DR, Rosamond WD. Greater fish, fruit, and vegetable intakes are related to lower incidence of venous thromboembolism: the Longitudinal Investigation of Thromboembolism Etiology. Circulation 2007; 115:188195.
  13. Arslan F, Pasterkamp G, de Kleijn DP. Unraveling pleiotropic effects of statins: bit by bit, a slow case with perspective. Circ Res 2008; 103:334336.
  14. Grady D, Wenger NK, Herrington D, et al. Postmenopausal hormone therapy increases risk for venous thromboembolic disease. The Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132:689696.
  15. Ray JG, Mamdani M, Tsuyuki RT, Anderson DR, Yeo EL, Laupacis A. Use of statins and the subsequent development of deep vein thrombosis. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161:14051410.
  16. Doggen CJ, Lemaitre RN, Smith NL, Heckbert SR, Psaty BM. HMG CoA reductase inhibitors and the risk of venous thrombosis among postmenopausal women. J Thromb Haemost 2004; 2:700701.
  17. Lacut K, Oger E, Le Gal G, et al. Statins but not fibrates are associated with a reduced risk of venous thromboembolism: a hospitalbased case-control study. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2004; 18:477482.
  18. Ramcharan AS, Van Stralen KJ, Snoep JD, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Rosendaal FR, Doggen CJ. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, other lipid-lowering medication, antiplatelet therapy, and the risk of venous thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 7:514520.
  19. Sørensen HT, Horvath-Puho E, Sogaard KK, et al. Arterial cardiovascular events, statins, low-dose aspirin and subsequent risk of venous thromboembolism: a population-based case-control study. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 7:521528.
  20. Yang CC, Jick SS, Jick H. Statins and the risk of idiopathic venous thromboembolism. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 53:101105.
  21. Smeeth L, Douglas I, Hall AJ, Hubbard R, Evans S. Effect of statins on a wide range of health outcomes: a cohort study validated by comparison with randomized trials. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2009; 67:99109.
  22. Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FA, et al; JUPITER Study Group. Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:21952207.
  23. Shishehbor MH, Hazen SL. JUPITER to Earth: A statin helps peole with normal LDL-C and high hs-CRP, but what does it mean? Cleve Clin J Med 2009; 76:3744.
  24. Cushman M. A new indication for statins to prevent venous thromboembolism? Not yet. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 7:511513.
  25. Silva MA, Swanson AC, Gandhi PJ, Tataronis GR. Statin-related adverse events: a meta-analysis. Clin Ther 2006; 28:2635.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 77(3)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 77(3)
Page Number
191-194
Page Number
191-194
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Interpreting The JUPITER Trial: Statins can prevent VTE, but more study is needed
Display Headline
Interpreting The JUPITER Trial: Statins can prevent VTE, but more study is needed
Sections
Inside the Article

KEY POINTS

  • Risk factors for VTE overlap with those for arterial thrombosis, although the data are mixed.
  • The statin drugs have a number of effects on factors other than lipid levels, notably on markers of inflammation and on clotting factors.
  • In the JUPITER trial, the incidence of VTE in people taking rosuvastatin (Crestor) 20 mg/day was about half that in people taking placebo. This was a relatively healthy population, and the incidence in both groups was low.
  • Further study is needed in patients at risk of VTE.
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Stenting for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: One poorly designed trial after another

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/15/2018 - 08:13
Display Headline
Stenting for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: One poorly designed trial after another

The role of stenting for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis is hotly debated among different specialties.1,2 If we may generalize a bit, interventionalists (cardiologists, interventional radiologists, vascular surgeons, and vascular medicine specialists) have been in favor of liberal use of stenting, and nephrologists often favor medical therapy alone. And as with all controversial issues, each group feels rather strongly about its position.

Because few prospective randomized trials have been completed, the management of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis has been guided by retrospective studies and case series. 3

See related article

In this issue of the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, Dr. James Simon4 provides an excellent overview of the prevalence, natural history, and clinical presentation of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. In addition, he does an admirable job of reviewing the available prospective randomized trials and providing editorial commentary about the role of the various specialists in the management of renal artery disease. And while the title of his paper says that it is “time to be less aggressive,” Dr. Simon ultimately comes to the same conclusions that we do5 on the indications for renal artery stenting (see Table 3 of Dr. Simon’s article), which are those of the multidisciplinary 2006 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the management of peripheral artery disease.3

So what then is all the controversy about? We all agree that prospective randomized trials that provide class I, level A evidence impart the only unbiased scientific information on the best treatment strategy for patients with renal artery disease. The basic controversial issue is the interpretation of these trials. We contend that the three randomized trials of stenting vs medical therapy published so far6–8 (see below) are so seriously flawed that it is impossible to make treatment decisions based on their results.

Since these trials were published in wellrespected journals, their results are often taken as gospel. However, careful review of each of these will reveal the flaws in study design and implementation.

THE DRASTIC TRIAL

In the Dutch Renal Artery Stenosis Intervention Cooperative (DRASTIC) trial,6 106 patients with renal artery stenosis and hypertension (diastolic blood pressure > 95 mm Hg) despite treatment with two antihypertensive medications were randomly assigned to either renal angioplasty (n = 56) or drug therapy (n = 50).

Authors’ conclusions

“In the treatment of patients with hypertension and renal-artery stenosis, angioplasty has little advantage over antihypertensive-drug therapy.”6

Four serious problems

As we discussed in a letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine on August 10, 2000, this study had four serious problems that invalidate its authors’ conclusions.9

The sample size was insufficient to detect a significant difference between treatment groups. In other words, the chance of a type 2 statistical error is high.

Balloon angioplasty without stenting was used as the method of revascularization. Experts now recognize that stenting is required for renal artery intervention to have a durable result.3,5

Renal artery stenosis was defined as greater than 50% stenosis. This allowed a large number of patients to enter the trial who had hemodynamically and clinically insignificant lesions. Most clinicians believe that stenosis of less than 70% is not hemodynamically important.5,10,11

Twenty-two of the 50 patients randomized to medical therapy crossed over to the angioplasty group because their blood pressure became difficult to control. In other words, 44% of the patients in the medical group underwent angioplasty, an astounding percentage in an intention-to-treat analysis comparing one therapy with another.

Despite these serious flaws, the results of DRASTIC influenced therapy for years after its publication.

 

 

THE STAR TRIAL

In the Stent Placement in Patients With Atherosclerotic Renal Artery Stenosis and Impaired Renal Function (STAR) trial,7 140 patients with a creatinine clearance of less than 80 mL/min/1.73m2, renal artery stenosis greater than 50%, and well-controlled blood pressure were randomized to either renal artery stenting plus medical therapy (n = 64) or medical therapy alone (n = 76). The primary end point was a 20% or greater decrease in creatinine clearance. Secondary end points included measures of safety and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Authors’ conclusions

“Stent placement with medical treatment had no clear effect on progression of impaired renal function but led to a small number of significant procedure-related complications. The study findings favor a conservative approach to patients with [atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis], focused on cardiovascular risk factor management and avoiding stenting.”7

Serious flaws

A number of serious flaws render this study uninterpretable.

Mild renal artery stenosis. At least 33% of the patients in the study had mild renal artery stenosis (50%–70%), and 12 (19%) of the 64 patients in the group randomized to stenting actually had stenosis of less than 50%. How can one expect there to be a benefit to stenting in patients with mild (and hemodynamically insignificant) renal artery stenosis? This is especially true when the primary end point is a change in renal function.

More than half of the patients had unilateral disease. It seems intuitive that if one were to plan a trial with a primary end point of a change in renal function, only patients with bilateral renal artery stenosis of greater than 70% or with stenosis of greater than 70% to a solitary functioning kidney would be included. One would not expect that patients with unilateral disease and a stenosis of less than 70% would derive any benefit from revascularization.

Not all “stent” patients received stents. All of the patients in the medical group received medication and there were no crossovers. However, only 46 (72%) of the 64 patients randomized to stenting actually received a stent, while 18 (28%) did not. There were two technical failures, and 12 patients should not have been randomized because they had less than 50% stenosis on angiography and thus were not stented. Yet all 64 patients were analyzed (by intention to treat) in the stent group. With these numbers, one could predict that the results would be negative.

Like DRASTIC, this trial was underpowered, meaning that the chance of a type 2 statistical error is high. In fact, the editors of the Annals of Internal Medicine, in a note accompanying the article, cautioned that the study “was underpowered to provide a definitive estimate of efficacy.”7 If the study was underpowered to answer the question at hand, why was it deemed worthy of publication?

High complication rates. The periprocedural complication and death rates were much higher than in many other reports on renal artery stenting (see details below).5

 

 

THE ASTRAL TRIAL

In the Angioplasty and Stenting for Renal Artery Lesions (ASTRAL) trial,8 the primary outcome measure was the change in renal function over time as assessed by the mean slope of the reciprocal of the serum creatinine. In this trial, 806 patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis were randomized to either stent-based revascularization combined with medical therapy or medical therapy alone.

Authors’ conclusions

“We found substantial risks but no evidence of a worthwhile clinical benefit from revascularization in patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease.”8

Despite size, flaws remain

Unlike the other trials, ASTRAL had a sample size large enough to provide an answer. However, numerous flaws in study design and implementation invalidate its results for the overall population of patients with renal artery stenosis. The major flaws in ASTRAL were:

Selection bias. For a patient to be enrolled, the treating physician had to be undecided on whether the patient should undergo revascularization or medical management alone. However, the treatment of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis is so controversial that physicians of different specialties cannot agree on the most effective treatment strategy for most patients.1,2 Therefore, to exclude patients when their physicians were sure they needed or did not need renal artery revascularization is incomprehensible and introduces considerable selection bias into the trial design.

Normal renal function at baseline. The primary outcome was a change in renal function over time. Yet 25% of patients had normal renal function at the outset of the trial. In addition, a significant number had unilateral disease, and 41% had a stenosis less than 70%. What made the investigators think that stent implantation could possibly be shown to be beneficial if they entered patients into a renal function study who had near-normal renal function, unilateral disease, and mild renal artery stenosis? These are patients whose condition would not be expected to worsen with medical therapy nor to improve with stenting. Most clinicians would not consider stenting a patient to preserve renal function if the patient has unilateral mild renal artery stenosis.

There was no core laboratory to adjudicate the interpretation of the imaging studies. To determine the degree of stenosis of an artery in an accurate and unbiased fashion, a core laboratory must be used.

The reason this is so important is that visual assessment of the degree of stenosis on angiography is not accurate and almost always overestimates the degree of stenosis.12,13 In a study assessing the physiologic importance of renal artery lesions, the lesion severity by visual estimation was 74.9% ± 11.5% (range 50%–90%), which exceeded the quantitative vascular angiographic lesion severity of 56.6% ± 10.8% (range 45%–76%).13

Therefore, in ASTRAL, some patients in the 50%–70% stenosis group (about 40% of patients entered) actually had a stenosis of less than 50%. And some patients in the group with stenosis greater than 70% had stenosis of less than 70%. This further illustrates that, for the most part, the patients in ASTRAL had mild to moderate renal artery stenosis.

A high adverse event rate. The major adverse event rate in the first 24 hours was 9%, whereas the usual rate is 2% or less.14–18 Of the 280 patients in the revascularization group for whom data on adverse events were available at 1 month, 55 (20%) suffered a serious adverse event (including two patients who died) between 24 hours and 1 month after the procedure. This is in contrast to a major complication rate of 1.99% in five reports involving 727 patients.5

The trial centers were not high-volume centers. During the 7 years of recruitment, 24 centers (42% of all participating centers) randomized between one and five patients, and 32 centers (61% of all participating centers) randomized nine patients or fewer. This means that many participating centers randomized, on average, less than one patient per year! This was not a group of high-volume operators.

 

 

WILL CORAL GIVE US THE ANSWER?

The CORAL (Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions) trial is under way.19 Enrollment was to have ended on January 31, 2010, and it will be several years before the data are available for analysis.

CORAL, a multicenter study funded in 2004 by the National Institutes of Health, will have randomized more than 900 patients with greater than 60% stenosis to optimal medical therapy alone or optimal medical therapy plus renal artery stenting. Inclusion criteria are a documented history of hypertension on two or more antihypertensive drugs or renal dysfunction, defined as stage 3 or greater chronic kidney disease based on the National Kidney Foundation classification (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 calculated by the modified Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD] formula) and stenosis of 60% or greater but less than 100%, as assessed by a core laboratory. The primary end point is survival free of cardiovascular and renal adverse events, defined as a composite of cardiovascular or renal death, stroke, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, progressive renal insufficiency, or need for permanent renal replacement therapy.

We hope this trial will give us a clear answer to the question of whether renal artery stenting is beneficial in the patient population studied. One note of caution: recruitment for this trial was difficult and slow. Thus, there were a number of protocol amendments throughout the trial in order to make recruitment easier. Hopefully, this will not be a problem when analyzing the results.

WE ALL AGREE ON THE INDICATIONS FOR STENTING

So, are we really so far apart in our thinking? And is it really “time to be less aggressive” if we follow the precepts below?

All renal arteries with stenosis do not need to be (and should not be) stented.

There must be a good clinical indicationandhemodynamically significant stenosis. This means the degree of stenosis should be more than 70% on angiography or intravascular ultrasonography.

Indications for stenting. Until more data from compelling randomized trials become available, adherence to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on indications for renal artery stenting is advised3:

  • Hypertension: class IIa, level of evidence B. Percutaneous revascularization is reasonable for patients with hemodynamically significant renal artery stenosis and accelerated hypertension, resistant hypertension, and malignant hypertension.
  • Preservation of renal function: class IIa, level of evidence B. Percutaneous revascularization is reasonable for patients with renal artery stenosis and progressive chronic kidney disease with bilateral renal artery stenosis or a stenosis to a solitary functioning kidney.
  • Congestive heart failure: class I, level of evidence B. Percutaneous revascularization is indicated for patients with hemodynamically significant renal artery stenosis (ie, > 70% stenosis on angiography or intravascular ultrasonography) and recurrent, unexplained congestive heart failure or sudden, unexplained pulmonary edema.
References
  1. Cooper CJ, Murphy TP. Is renal artery stenting the correct treatment of renal artery stenosis? The case for renal artery stenting for treatment of renal artery stenosis. Circulation 2007; 115:263269.
  2. Dworkin LD, Jamerson KA. Is renal artery stenting the correct treatment of renal artery stenosis? Case against angioplasty and stenting of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. Circulation 2007; 115:271276.
  3. Hirsch AT, Haskal ZJ, Hertzer NR, et al ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease (Lower Extremity, Renal, Mesenteric, and Abdominal Aortic): A Collaborative Report from the American Association of Vascular Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Interventional Radiology, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2006; 113:e463e654.
  4. Simon JF. Stenting atherosclerotic renal arteries: time to be less aggressive. Cleve Clin J Med 2010; 77:178189.
  5. White CJ, Olin JW. Diagnosis and management of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: improving patient selection and outcomes. Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med 2009; 6:176190.
  6. van Jaarsveld BC, Krijnen P, Pieterman H, et al The effect of balloon angioplasty on hypertension in atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis. Dutch Renal Artery Stenosis Intervention Cooperative Study Group. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:10071014.
  7. Bax L, Woittiez AJ, Kouwenberg HJ, et al Stent placement in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis and impaired renal function: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150:840841.
  8. Wheatley K, Ives N, Gray R, et al Revascularization versus medical therapy for renal-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:19531962.
  9. Tan WA, Wholey MH, Olin JW. The effect of balloon angioplasty on hypertension in atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis [letter]. N Engl J Med 2000; 343:438.
  10. Rocha-Singh KJ, Eisenhauer AC, Textor SC, et al Atherosclerotic Peripheral Vascular Disease Symposium II: intervention for renal artery disease. Circulation 2008; 118:28732878.
  11. Textor SC, Lerman L, McKusick M. The uncertain value of renal artery interventions: where are we now? JACC Cardiovasc Intervent 2009; 2:175182.
  12. Topol EJ, Nissen SE. Our preoccupation with coronary luminology. The dissociation between clinical and angiographic findings in ischemic heart disease. Circulation 1995; 92:23332342.
  13. Subramanian R, White CJ, Rosenfield K, et al Renal fractional flow reserve: a hemodynamic evaluation of moderate renal artery stenoses. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2005; 64:480486.
  14. Burket MW, Cooper CJ, Kennedy DJ, et al Renal artery angioplasty and stent placement: predictors of a favorable outcome. Am Heart J 2000; 139:6471.
  15. Dorros G, Jaff M, Mathiak L, et al Four-year follow-up of Palmaz-Schatz stent revascularization as treatment for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. Circulation 1998; 98:642647.
  16. Rocha-Singh K, Jaff MR, Rosenfield K. Evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of renal artery stenting after unsuccessful balloon angioplasty: the ASPIRE-2 study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46:776783.
  17. Tuttle KR, Chouinard RF, Webber JT, et al Treatment of atherosclerotic ostial renal artery stenosis with the intravascular stent. Am J Kidney Dis 1998; 32:611622.
  18. White CJ, Ramee SR, Collins TJ, Jenkins JS, Escobar A, Shaw D. Renal artery stent placement: utility in lesions difficult to treat with balloon angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 30:14451450.
  19. Cooper CJ, Murphy TP, Matsumoto A, et al Stent revascularization for the prevention of cardiovascular and renal events among patients with renal artery stenosis and systolic hypertension: rationale and design of the CORAL trial. Am Heart J 2006; 152:5966.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Mitchell D. Weinberg, MD
The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and The Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Center for Cardiovascular Health, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY

Jeffrey W. Olin, DO
Professor of Medicine, Director, Vascular Medicine, The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and The Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Center for Cardiovascular Health, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY

Address: Jeffrey W. Olin, DO, The Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Center for Cardiovascular Health, Mt. Sinai Medical Center, One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1033, New York, NY 10029; e-mail: [email protected]

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 77(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
164-171
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Mitchell D. Weinberg, MD
The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and The Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Center for Cardiovascular Health, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY

Jeffrey W. Olin, DO
Professor of Medicine, Director, Vascular Medicine, The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and The Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Center for Cardiovascular Health, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY

Address: Jeffrey W. Olin, DO, The Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Center for Cardiovascular Health, Mt. Sinai Medical Center, One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1033, New York, NY 10029; e-mail: [email protected]

Author and Disclosure Information

Mitchell D. Weinberg, MD
The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and The Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Center for Cardiovascular Health, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY

Jeffrey W. Olin, DO
Professor of Medicine, Director, Vascular Medicine, The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and The Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Center for Cardiovascular Health, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY

Address: Jeffrey W. Olin, DO, The Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Center for Cardiovascular Health, Mt. Sinai Medical Center, One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1033, New York, NY 10029; e-mail: [email protected]

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

The role of stenting for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis is hotly debated among different specialties.1,2 If we may generalize a bit, interventionalists (cardiologists, interventional radiologists, vascular surgeons, and vascular medicine specialists) have been in favor of liberal use of stenting, and nephrologists often favor medical therapy alone. And as with all controversial issues, each group feels rather strongly about its position.

Because few prospective randomized trials have been completed, the management of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis has been guided by retrospective studies and case series. 3

See related article

In this issue of the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, Dr. James Simon4 provides an excellent overview of the prevalence, natural history, and clinical presentation of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. In addition, he does an admirable job of reviewing the available prospective randomized trials and providing editorial commentary about the role of the various specialists in the management of renal artery disease. And while the title of his paper says that it is “time to be less aggressive,” Dr. Simon ultimately comes to the same conclusions that we do5 on the indications for renal artery stenting (see Table 3 of Dr. Simon’s article), which are those of the multidisciplinary 2006 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the management of peripheral artery disease.3

So what then is all the controversy about? We all agree that prospective randomized trials that provide class I, level A evidence impart the only unbiased scientific information on the best treatment strategy for patients with renal artery disease. The basic controversial issue is the interpretation of these trials. We contend that the three randomized trials of stenting vs medical therapy published so far6–8 (see below) are so seriously flawed that it is impossible to make treatment decisions based on their results.

Since these trials were published in wellrespected journals, their results are often taken as gospel. However, careful review of each of these will reveal the flaws in study design and implementation.

THE DRASTIC TRIAL

In the Dutch Renal Artery Stenosis Intervention Cooperative (DRASTIC) trial,6 106 patients with renal artery stenosis and hypertension (diastolic blood pressure > 95 mm Hg) despite treatment with two antihypertensive medications were randomly assigned to either renal angioplasty (n = 56) or drug therapy (n = 50).

Authors’ conclusions

“In the treatment of patients with hypertension and renal-artery stenosis, angioplasty has little advantage over antihypertensive-drug therapy.”6

Four serious problems

As we discussed in a letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine on August 10, 2000, this study had four serious problems that invalidate its authors’ conclusions.9

The sample size was insufficient to detect a significant difference between treatment groups. In other words, the chance of a type 2 statistical error is high.

Balloon angioplasty without stenting was used as the method of revascularization. Experts now recognize that stenting is required for renal artery intervention to have a durable result.3,5

Renal artery stenosis was defined as greater than 50% stenosis. This allowed a large number of patients to enter the trial who had hemodynamically and clinically insignificant lesions. Most clinicians believe that stenosis of less than 70% is not hemodynamically important.5,10,11

Twenty-two of the 50 patients randomized to medical therapy crossed over to the angioplasty group because their blood pressure became difficult to control. In other words, 44% of the patients in the medical group underwent angioplasty, an astounding percentage in an intention-to-treat analysis comparing one therapy with another.

Despite these serious flaws, the results of DRASTIC influenced therapy for years after its publication.

 

 

THE STAR TRIAL

In the Stent Placement in Patients With Atherosclerotic Renal Artery Stenosis and Impaired Renal Function (STAR) trial,7 140 patients with a creatinine clearance of less than 80 mL/min/1.73m2, renal artery stenosis greater than 50%, and well-controlled blood pressure were randomized to either renal artery stenting plus medical therapy (n = 64) or medical therapy alone (n = 76). The primary end point was a 20% or greater decrease in creatinine clearance. Secondary end points included measures of safety and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Authors’ conclusions

“Stent placement with medical treatment had no clear effect on progression of impaired renal function but led to a small number of significant procedure-related complications. The study findings favor a conservative approach to patients with [atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis], focused on cardiovascular risk factor management and avoiding stenting.”7

Serious flaws

A number of serious flaws render this study uninterpretable.

Mild renal artery stenosis. At least 33% of the patients in the study had mild renal artery stenosis (50%–70%), and 12 (19%) of the 64 patients in the group randomized to stenting actually had stenosis of less than 50%. How can one expect there to be a benefit to stenting in patients with mild (and hemodynamically insignificant) renal artery stenosis? This is especially true when the primary end point is a change in renal function.

More than half of the patients had unilateral disease. It seems intuitive that if one were to plan a trial with a primary end point of a change in renal function, only patients with bilateral renal artery stenosis of greater than 70% or with stenosis of greater than 70% to a solitary functioning kidney would be included. One would not expect that patients with unilateral disease and a stenosis of less than 70% would derive any benefit from revascularization.

Not all “stent” patients received stents. All of the patients in the medical group received medication and there were no crossovers. However, only 46 (72%) of the 64 patients randomized to stenting actually received a stent, while 18 (28%) did not. There were two technical failures, and 12 patients should not have been randomized because they had less than 50% stenosis on angiography and thus were not stented. Yet all 64 patients were analyzed (by intention to treat) in the stent group. With these numbers, one could predict that the results would be negative.

Like DRASTIC, this trial was underpowered, meaning that the chance of a type 2 statistical error is high. In fact, the editors of the Annals of Internal Medicine, in a note accompanying the article, cautioned that the study “was underpowered to provide a definitive estimate of efficacy.”7 If the study was underpowered to answer the question at hand, why was it deemed worthy of publication?

High complication rates. The periprocedural complication and death rates were much higher than in many other reports on renal artery stenting (see details below).5

 

 

THE ASTRAL TRIAL

In the Angioplasty and Stenting for Renal Artery Lesions (ASTRAL) trial,8 the primary outcome measure was the change in renal function over time as assessed by the mean slope of the reciprocal of the serum creatinine. In this trial, 806 patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis were randomized to either stent-based revascularization combined with medical therapy or medical therapy alone.

Authors’ conclusions

“We found substantial risks but no evidence of a worthwhile clinical benefit from revascularization in patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease.”8

Despite size, flaws remain

Unlike the other trials, ASTRAL had a sample size large enough to provide an answer. However, numerous flaws in study design and implementation invalidate its results for the overall population of patients with renal artery stenosis. The major flaws in ASTRAL were:

Selection bias. For a patient to be enrolled, the treating physician had to be undecided on whether the patient should undergo revascularization or medical management alone. However, the treatment of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis is so controversial that physicians of different specialties cannot agree on the most effective treatment strategy for most patients.1,2 Therefore, to exclude patients when their physicians were sure they needed or did not need renal artery revascularization is incomprehensible and introduces considerable selection bias into the trial design.

Normal renal function at baseline. The primary outcome was a change in renal function over time. Yet 25% of patients had normal renal function at the outset of the trial. In addition, a significant number had unilateral disease, and 41% had a stenosis less than 70%. What made the investigators think that stent implantation could possibly be shown to be beneficial if they entered patients into a renal function study who had near-normal renal function, unilateral disease, and mild renal artery stenosis? These are patients whose condition would not be expected to worsen with medical therapy nor to improve with stenting. Most clinicians would not consider stenting a patient to preserve renal function if the patient has unilateral mild renal artery stenosis.

There was no core laboratory to adjudicate the interpretation of the imaging studies. To determine the degree of stenosis of an artery in an accurate and unbiased fashion, a core laboratory must be used.

The reason this is so important is that visual assessment of the degree of stenosis on angiography is not accurate and almost always overestimates the degree of stenosis.12,13 In a study assessing the physiologic importance of renal artery lesions, the lesion severity by visual estimation was 74.9% ± 11.5% (range 50%–90%), which exceeded the quantitative vascular angiographic lesion severity of 56.6% ± 10.8% (range 45%–76%).13

Therefore, in ASTRAL, some patients in the 50%–70% stenosis group (about 40% of patients entered) actually had a stenosis of less than 50%. And some patients in the group with stenosis greater than 70% had stenosis of less than 70%. This further illustrates that, for the most part, the patients in ASTRAL had mild to moderate renal artery stenosis.

A high adverse event rate. The major adverse event rate in the first 24 hours was 9%, whereas the usual rate is 2% or less.14–18 Of the 280 patients in the revascularization group for whom data on adverse events were available at 1 month, 55 (20%) suffered a serious adverse event (including two patients who died) between 24 hours and 1 month after the procedure. This is in contrast to a major complication rate of 1.99% in five reports involving 727 patients.5

The trial centers were not high-volume centers. During the 7 years of recruitment, 24 centers (42% of all participating centers) randomized between one and five patients, and 32 centers (61% of all participating centers) randomized nine patients or fewer. This means that many participating centers randomized, on average, less than one patient per year! This was not a group of high-volume operators.

 

 

WILL CORAL GIVE US THE ANSWER?

The CORAL (Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions) trial is under way.19 Enrollment was to have ended on January 31, 2010, and it will be several years before the data are available for analysis.

CORAL, a multicenter study funded in 2004 by the National Institutes of Health, will have randomized more than 900 patients with greater than 60% stenosis to optimal medical therapy alone or optimal medical therapy plus renal artery stenting. Inclusion criteria are a documented history of hypertension on two or more antihypertensive drugs or renal dysfunction, defined as stage 3 or greater chronic kidney disease based on the National Kidney Foundation classification (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 calculated by the modified Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD] formula) and stenosis of 60% or greater but less than 100%, as assessed by a core laboratory. The primary end point is survival free of cardiovascular and renal adverse events, defined as a composite of cardiovascular or renal death, stroke, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, progressive renal insufficiency, or need for permanent renal replacement therapy.

We hope this trial will give us a clear answer to the question of whether renal artery stenting is beneficial in the patient population studied. One note of caution: recruitment for this trial was difficult and slow. Thus, there were a number of protocol amendments throughout the trial in order to make recruitment easier. Hopefully, this will not be a problem when analyzing the results.

WE ALL AGREE ON THE INDICATIONS FOR STENTING

So, are we really so far apart in our thinking? And is it really “time to be less aggressive” if we follow the precepts below?

All renal arteries with stenosis do not need to be (and should not be) stented.

There must be a good clinical indicationandhemodynamically significant stenosis. This means the degree of stenosis should be more than 70% on angiography or intravascular ultrasonography.

Indications for stenting. Until more data from compelling randomized trials become available, adherence to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on indications for renal artery stenting is advised3:

  • Hypertension: class IIa, level of evidence B. Percutaneous revascularization is reasonable for patients with hemodynamically significant renal artery stenosis and accelerated hypertension, resistant hypertension, and malignant hypertension.
  • Preservation of renal function: class IIa, level of evidence B. Percutaneous revascularization is reasonable for patients with renal artery stenosis and progressive chronic kidney disease with bilateral renal artery stenosis or a stenosis to a solitary functioning kidney.
  • Congestive heart failure: class I, level of evidence B. Percutaneous revascularization is indicated for patients with hemodynamically significant renal artery stenosis (ie, > 70% stenosis on angiography or intravascular ultrasonography) and recurrent, unexplained congestive heart failure or sudden, unexplained pulmonary edema.

The role of stenting for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis is hotly debated among different specialties.1,2 If we may generalize a bit, interventionalists (cardiologists, interventional radiologists, vascular surgeons, and vascular medicine specialists) have been in favor of liberal use of stenting, and nephrologists often favor medical therapy alone. And as with all controversial issues, each group feels rather strongly about its position.

Because few prospective randomized trials have been completed, the management of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis has been guided by retrospective studies and case series. 3

See related article

In this issue of the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, Dr. James Simon4 provides an excellent overview of the prevalence, natural history, and clinical presentation of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. In addition, he does an admirable job of reviewing the available prospective randomized trials and providing editorial commentary about the role of the various specialists in the management of renal artery disease. And while the title of his paper says that it is “time to be less aggressive,” Dr. Simon ultimately comes to the same conclusions that we do5 on the indications for renal artery stenting (see Table 3 of Dr. Simon’s article), which are those of the multidisciplinary 2006 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the management of peripheral artery disease.3

So what then is all the controversy about? We all agree that prospective randomized trials that provide class I, level A evidence impart the only unbiased scientific information on the best treatment strategy for patients with renal artery disease. The basic controversial issue is the interpretation of these trials. We contend that the three randomized trials of stenting vs medical therapy published so far6–8 (see below) are so seriously flawed that it is impossible to make treatment decisions based on their results.

Since these trials were published in wellrespected journals, their results are often taken as gospel. However, careful review of each of these will reveal the flaws in study design and implementation.

THE DRASTIC TRIAL

In the Dutch Renal Artery Stenosis Intervention Cooperative (DRASTIC) trial,6 106 patients with renal artery stenosis and hypertension (diastolic blood pressure > 95 mm Hg) despite treatment with two antihypertensive medications were randomly assigned to either renal angioplasty (n = 56) or drug therapy (n = 50).

Authors’ conclusions

“In the treatment of patients with hypertension and renal-artery stenosis, angioplasty has little advantage over antihypertensive-drug therapy.”6

Four serious problems

As we discussed in a letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine on August 10, 2000, this study had four serious problems that invalidate its authors’ conclusions.9

The sample size was insufficient to detect a significant difference between treatment groups. In other words, the chance of a type 2 statistical error is high.

Balloon angioplasty without stenting was used as the method of revascularization. Experts now recognize that stenting is required for renal artery intervention to have a durable result.3,5

Renal artery stenosis was defined as greater than 50% stenosis. This allowed a large number of patients to enter the trial who had hemodynamically and clinically insignificant lesions. Most clinicians believe that stenosis of less than 70% is not hemodynamically important.5,10,11

Twenty-two of the 50 patients randomized to medical therapy crossed over to the angioplasty group because their blood pressure became difficult to control. In other words, 44% of the patients in the medical group underwent angioplasty, an astounding percentage in an intention-to-treat analysis comparing one therapy with another.

Despite these serious flaws, the results of DRASTIC influenced therapy for years after its publication.

 

 

THE STAR TRIAL

In the Stent Placement in Patients With Atherosclerotic Renal Artery Stenosis and Impaired Renal Function (STAR) trial,7 140 patients with a creatinine clearance of less than 80 mL/min/1.73m2, renal artery stenosis greater than 50%, and well-controlled blood pressure were randomized to either renal artery stenting plus medical therapy (n = 64) or medical therapy alone (n = 76). The primary end point was a 20% or greater decrease in creatinine clearance. Secondary end points included measures of safety and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Authors’ conclusions

“Stent placement with medical treatment had no clear effect on progression of impaired renal function but led to a small number of significant procedure-related complications. The study findings favor a conservative approach to patients with [atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis], focused on cardiovascular risk factor management and avoiding stenting.”7

Serious flaws

A number of serious flaws render this study uninterpretable.

Mild renal artery stenosis. At least 33% of the patients in the study had mild renal artery stenosis (50%–70%), and 12 (19%) of the 64 patients in the group randomized to stenting actually had stenosis of less than 50%. How can one expect there to be a benefit to stenting in patients with mild (and hemodynamically insignificant) renal artery stenosis? This is especially true when the primary end point is a change in renal function.

More than half of the patients had unilateral disease. It seems intuitive that if one were to plan a trial with a primary end point of a change in renal function, only patients with bilateral renal artery stenosis of greater than 70% or with stenosis of greater than 70% to a solitary functioning kidney would be included. One would not expect that patients with unilateral disease and a stenosis of less than 70% would derive any benefit from revascularization.

Not all “stent” patients received stents. All of the patients in the medical group received medication and there were no crossovers. However, only 46 (72%) of the 64 patients randomized to stenting actually received a stent, while 18 (28%) did not. There were two technical failures, and 12 patients should not have been randomized because they had less than 50% stenosis on angiography and thus were not stented. Yet all 64 patients were analyzed (by intention to treat) in the stent group. With these numbers, one could predict that the results would be negative.

Like DRASTIC, this trial was underpowered, meaning that the chance of a type 2 statistical error is high. In fact, the editors of the Annals of Internal Medicine, in a note accompanying the article, cautioned that the study “was underpowered to provide a definitive estimate of efficacy.”7 If the study was underpowered to answer the question at hand, why was it deemed worthy of publication?

High complication rates. The periprocedural complication and death rates were much higher than in many other reports on renal artery stenting (see details below).5

 

 

THE ASTRAL TRIAL

In the Angioplasty and Stenting for Renal Artery Lesions (ASTRAL) trial,8 the primary outcome measure was the change in renal function over time as assessed by the mean slope of the reciprocal of the serum creatinine. In this trial, 806 patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis were randomized to either stent-based revascularization combined with medical therapy or medical therapy alone.

Authors’ conclusions

“We found substantial risks but no evidence of a worthwhile clinical benefit from revascularization in patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease.”8

Despite size, flaws remain

Unlike the other trials, ASTRAL had a sample size large enough to provide an answer. However, numerous flaws in study design and implementation invalidate its results for the overall population of patients with renal artery stenosis. The major flaws in ASTRAL were:

Selection bias. For a patient to be enrolled, the treating physician had to be undecided on whether the patient should undergo revascularization or medical management alone. However, the treatment of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis is so controversial that physicians of different specialties cannot agree on the most effective treatment strategy for most patients.1,2 Therefore, to exclude patients when their physicians were sure they needed or did not need renal artery revascularization is incomprehensible and introduces considerable selection bias into the trial design.

Normal renal function at baseline. The primary outcome was a change in renal function over time. Yet 25% of patients had normal renal function at the outset of the trial. In addition, a significant number had unilateral disease, and 41% had a stenosis less than 70%. What made the investigators think that stent implantation could possibly be shown to be beneficial if they entered patients into a renal function study who had near-normal renal function, unilateral disease, and mild renal artery stenosis? These are patients whose condition would not be expected to worsen with medical therapy nor to improve with stenting. Most clinicians would not consider stenting a patient to preserve renal function if the patient has unilateral mild renal artery stenosis.

There was no core laboratory to adjudicate the interpretation of the imaging studies. To determine the degree of stenosis of an artery in an accurate and unbiased fashion, a core laboratory must be used.

The reason this is so important is that visual assessment of the degree of stenosis on angiography is not accurate and almost always overestimates the degree of stenosis.12,13 In a study assessing the physiologic importance of renal artery lesions, the lesion severity by visual estimation was 74.9% ± 11.5% (range 50%–90%), which exceeded the quantitative vascular angiographic lesion severity of 56.6% ± 10.8% (range 45%–76%).13

Therefore, in ASTRAL, some patients in the 50%–70% stenosis group (about 40% of patients entered) actually had a stenosis of less than 50%. And some patients in the group with stenosis greater than 70% had stenosis of less than 70%. This further illustrates that, for the most part, the patients in ASTRAL had mild to moderate renal artery stenosis.

A high adverse event rate. The major adverse event rate in the first 24 hours was 9%, whereas the usual rate is 2% or less.14–18 Of the 280 patients in the revascularization group for whom data on adverse events were available at 1 month, 55 (20%) suffered a serious adverse event (including two patients who died) between 24 hours and 1 month after the procedure. This is in contrast to a major complication rate of 1.99% in five reports involving 727 patients.5

The trial centers were not high-volume centers. During the 7 years of recruitment, 24 centers (42% of all participating centers) randomized between one and five patients, and 32 centers (61% of all participating centers) randomized nine patients or fewer. This means that many participating centers randomized, on average, less than one patient per year! This was not a group of high-volume operators.

 

 

WILL CORAL GIVE US THE ANSWER?

The CORAL (Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions) trial is under way.19 Enrollment was to have ended on January 31, 2010, and it will be several years before the data are available for analysis.

CORAL, a multicenter study funded in 2004 by the National Institutes of Health, will have randomized more than 900 patients with greater than 60% stenosis to optimal medical therapy alone or optimal medical therapy plus renal artery stenting. Inclusion criteria are a documented history of hypertension on two or more antihypertensive drugs or renal dysfunction, defined as stage 3 or greater chronic kidney disease based on the National Kidney Foundation classification (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 calculated by the modified Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD] formula) and stenosis of 60% or greater but less than 100%, as assessed by a core laboratory. The primary end point is survival free of cardiovascular and renal adverse events, defined as a composite of cardiovascular or renal death, stroke, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, progressive renal insufficiency, or need for permanent renal replacement therapy.

We hope this trial will give us a clear answer to the question of whether renal artery stenting is beneficial in the patient population studied. One note of caution: recruitment for this trial was difficult and slow. Thus, there were a number of protocol amendments throughout the trial in order to make recruitment easier. Hopefully, this will not be a problem when analyzing the results.

WE ALL AGREE ON THE INDICATIONS FOR STENTING

So, are we really so far apart in our thinking? And is it really “time to be less aggressive” if we follow the precepts below?

All renal arteries with stenosis do not need to be (and should not be) stented.

There must be a good clinical indicationandhemodynamically significant stenosis. This means the degree of stenosis should be more than 70% on angiography or intravascular ultrasonography.

Indications for stenting. Until more data from compelling randomized trials become available, adherence to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on indications for renal artery stenting is advised3:

  • Hypertension: class IIa, level of evidence B. Percutaneous revascularization is reasonable for patients with hemodynamically significant renal artery stenosis and accelerated hypertension, resistant hypertension, and malignant hypertension.
  • Preservation of renal function: class IIa, level of evidence B. Percutaneous revascularization is reasonable for patients with renal artery stenosis and progressive chronic kidney disease with bilateral renal artery stenosis or a stenosis to a solitary functioning kidney.
  • Congestive heart failure: class I, level of evidence B. Percutaneous revascularization is indicated for patients with hemodynamically significant renal artery stenosis (ie, > 70% stenosis on angiography or intravascular ultrasonography) and recurrent, unexplained congestive heart failure or sudden, unexplained pulmonary edema.
References
  1. Cooper CJ, Murphy TP. Is renal artery stenting the correct treatment of renal artery stenosis? The case for renal artery stenting for treatment of renal artery stenosis. Circulation 2007; 115:263269.
  2. Dworkin LD, Jamerson KA. Is renal artery stenting the correct treatment of renal artery stenosis? Case against angioplasty and stenting of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. Circulation 2007; 115:271276.
  3. Hirsch AT, Haskal ZJ, Hertzer NR, et al ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease (Lower Extremity, Renal, Mesenteric, and Abdominal Aortic): A Collaborative Report from the American Association of Vascular Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Interventional Radiology, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2006; 113:e463e654.
  4. Simon JF. Stenting atherosclerotic renal arteries: time to be less aggressive. Cleve Clin J Med 2010; 77:178189.
  5. White CJ, Olin JW. Diagnosis and management of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: improving patient selection and outcomes. Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med 2009; 6:176190.
  6. van Jaarsveld BC, Krijnen P, Pieterman H, et al The effect of balloon angioplasty on hypertension in atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis. Dutch Renal Artery Stenosis Intervention Cooperative Study Group. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:10071014.
  7. Bax L, Woittiez AJ, Kouwenberg HJ, et al Stent placement in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis and impaired renal function: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150:840841.
  8. Wheatley K, Ives N, Gray R, et al Revascularization versus medical therapy for renal-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:19531962.
  9. Tan WA, Wholey MH, Olin JW. The effect of balloon angioplasty on hypertension in atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis [letter]. N Engl J Med 2000; 343:438.
  10. Rocha-Singh KJ, Eisenhauer AC, Textor SC, et al Atherosclerotic Peripheral Vascular Disease Symposium II: intervention for renal artery disease. Circulation 2008; 118:28732878.
  11. Textor SC, Lerman L, McKusick M. The uncertain value of renal artery interventions: where are we now? JACC Cardiovasc Intervent 2009; 2:175182.
  12. Topol EJ, Nissen SE. Our preoccupation with coronary luminology. The dissociation between clinical and angiographic findings in ischemic heart disease. Circulation 1995; 92:23332342.
  13. Subramanian R, White CJ, Rosenfield K, et al Renal fractional flow reserve: a hemodynamic evaluation of moderate renal artery stenoses. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2005; 64:480486.
  14. Burket MW, Cooper CJ, Kennedy DJ, et al Renal artery angioplasty and stent placement: predictors of a favorable outcome. Am Heart J 2000; 139:6471.
  15. Dorros G, Jaff M, Mathiak L, et al Four-year follow-up of Palmaz-Schatz stent revascularization as treatment for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. Circulation 1998; 98:642647.
  16. Rocha-Singh K, Jaff MR, Rosenfield K. Evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of renal artery stenting after unsuccessful balloon angioplasty: the ASPIRE-2 study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46:776783.
  17. Tuttle KR, Chouinard RF, Webber JT, et al Treatment of atherosclerotic ostial renal artery stenosis with the intravascular stent. Am J Kidney Dis 1998; 32:611622.
  18. White CJ, Ramee SR, Collins TJ, Jenkins JS, Escobar A, Shaw D. Renal artery stent placement: utility in lesions difficult to treat with balloon angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 30:14451450.
  19. Cooper CJ, Murphy TP, Matsumoto A, et al Stent revascularization for the prevention of cardiovascular and renal events among patients with renal artery stenosis and systolic hypertension: rationale and design of the CORAL trial. Am Heart J 2006; 152:5966.
References
  1. Cooper CJ, Murphy TP. Is renal artery stenting the correct treatment of renal artery stenosis? The case for renal artery stenting for treatment of renal artery stenosis. Circulation 2007; 115:263269.
  2. Dworkin LD, Jamerson KA. Is renal artery stenting the correct treatment of renal artery stenosis? Case against angioplasty and stenting of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. Circulation 2007; 115:271276.
  3. Hirsch AT, Haskal ZJ, Hertzer NR, et al ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease (Lower Extremity, Renal, Mesenteric, and Abdominal Aortic): A Collaborative Report from the American Association of Vascular Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Interventional Radiology, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2006; 113:e463e654.
  4. Simon JF. Stenting atherosclerotic renal arteries: time to be less aggressive. Cleve Clin J Med 2010; 77:178189.
  5. White CJ, Olin JW. Diagnosis and management of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: improving patient selection and outcomes. Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med 2009; 6:176190.
  6. van Jaarsveld BC, Krijnen P, Pieterman H, et al The effect of balloon angioplasty on hypertension in atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis. Dutch Renal Artery Stenosis Intervention Cooperative Study Group. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:10071014.
  7. Bax L, Woittiez AJ, Kouwenberg HJ, et al Stent placement in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis and impaired renal function: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150:840841.
  8. Wheatley K, Ives N, Gray R, et al Revascularization versus medical therapy for renal-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:19531962.
  9. Tan WA, Wholey MH, Olin JW. The effect of balloon angioplasty on hypertension in atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis [letter]. N Engl J Med 2000; 343:438.
  10. Rocha-Singh KJ, Eisenhauer AC, Textor SC, et al Atherosclerotic Peripheral Vascular Disease Symposium II: intervention for renal artery disease. Circulation 2008; 118:28732878.
  11. Textor SC, Lerman L, McKusick M. The uncertain value of renal artery interventions: where are we now? JACC Cardiovasc Intervent 2009; 2:175182.
  12. Topol EJ, Nissen SE. Our preoccupation with coronary luminology. The dissociation between clinical and angiographic findings in ischemic heart disease. Circulation 1995; 92:23332342.
  13. Subramanian R, White CJ, Rosenfield K, et al Renal fractional flow reserve: a hemodynamic evaluation of moderate renal artery stenoses. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2005; 64:480486.
  14. Burket MW, Cooper CJ, Kennedy DJ, et al Renal artery angioplasty and stent placement: predictors of a favorable outcome. Am Heart J 2000; 139:6471.
  15. Dorros G, Jaff M, Mathiak L, et al Four-year follow-up of Palmaz-Schatz stent revascularization as treatment for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. Circulation 1998; 98:642647.
  16. Rocha-Singh K, Jaff MR, Rosenfield K. Evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of renal artery stenting after unsuccessful balloon angioplasty: the ASPIRE-2 study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46:776783.
  17. Tuttle KR, Chouinard RF, Webber JT, et al Treatment of atherosclerotic ostial renal artery stenosis with the intravascular stent. Am J Kidney Dis 1998; 32:611622.
  18. White CJ, Ramee SR, Collins TJ, Jenkins JS, Escobar A, Shaw D. Renal artery stent placement: utility in lesions difficult to treat with balloon angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 30:14451450.
  19. Cooper CJ, Murphy TP, Matsumoto A, et al Stent revascularization for the prevention of cardiovascular and renal events among patients with renal artery stenosis and systolic hypertension: rationale and design of the CORAL trial. Am Heart J 2006; 152:5966.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 77(3)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 77(3)
Page Number
164-171
Page Number
164-171
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Stenting for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: One poorly designed trial after another
Display Headline
Stenting for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: One poorly designed trial after another
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Stenting atherosclerotic renal arteries: Time to be less aggressive

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/15/2018 - 08:28
Display Headline
Stenting atherosclerotic renal arteries: Time to be less aggressive

Author’s note: Atherosclerosis accounts for about 90% of cases of renal artery stenosis in people over age 40.1 Fibromuscular dysplasia, the other major cause, is a separate topic; in this paper “renal artery stenosis” refers to atherosclerotic disease only.

Renal artery stenosis is very common, and the number of angioplasty-stenting procedures performed every year is on the rise. Yet there is no overwhelming evidence that intervention yields clinical benefits—ie, better blood pressure control or renal function— than does medical therapy.

See related editorial

Earlier randomized controlled trials comparing angioplasty without stents and medical management showed no impressive difference in blood pressure.2,3 The data on renal function were even more questionable, with some studies suggesting that, with stenting, the chance of worsening renal function is equal to that of improvement.4

Two large randomized trials comparing renal intervention with medical therapy failed to show any benefit of intervention.5–7 A third study is under way.8

It is time to strongly reconsider the current aggressive approach to revascularization of stenotic renal arteries and take a more coordinated, critical approach.

RENAL INTERVENTIONS ON THE RISE

Renal angioplasty began replacing surgical revascularization in the 1990s, as this less-invasive procedure became more readily available and was shown to have similar clinical outcomes.9 In the last decade, stent placement during angioplasty has become standard, improving the rates of technical success.

As these procedures have become easier to perform and their radiographic outcomes have become more consistent, interventionalists have become more likely, if they see stenosis in a renal artery, to intervene and insert a stent, regardless of proven benefit. In addition, interventionalists from at least three different specialties now compete for these procedures, often by looking at the renal arteries during angiography of other vascular beds (the “drive-by”).

As a result, the number of renal interventions has been rising. Medicare received 21,660 claims for renal artery interventions (surgery or angioplasty) in 2000, compared with 13,380 in 1996—an increase of 62%. However, the number of surgeries actually decreased by 45% during this time, while the number of percutaneous procedures increased by 240%. The number of endovascular claims for renal artery stenosis by cardiologists alone rose 390%.10 Since then, the reports on intervention have been mixed, with one report citing a continued increase in 2005 to 35,000 claims,11 and another suggesting a decrease back to 1997 levels.12

HOW COMMON IS RENAL ARTERY STENOSIS?

The prevalence of renal artery stenosis depends on the definition used and the population screened. It is more common in older patients who have risk factors for other vascular diseases than in the general population.

Renal Doppler ultrasonography can detect stenosis only if the artery is narrowed by more than 60%. Hansen et al13 used ultrasonography to screen 870 people over age 65 and found a lesion (a narrowing of more than 60%) in 6.8%.

Angiography (direct, computed tomographic, or magnetic resonance) can detect less-severe stenosis. Thus, most angiographic studies define renal artery stenosis as a narrowing of more than 50%, and severe disease as a narrowing of more than 70%. Many experts believe that unilateral stenosis needs to be more than 70% to pose a risk to the kidney.14,15

Angiographic prevalence studies have been performed only in patients who were undergoing angiography for another reason such as coronary or peripheral arterial disease that inherently places them at higher risk of renal artery stenosis. For instance, renal artery stenosis is found in 11% to 28% of patients undergoing diagnostic cardiac catheterization. 16

No studies of the prevalence of renal artery stenosis have been performed in the general population. Medicare data indicate that from 1999 to 2001 the incidence of diagnosed renal artery stenosis was 3.7 per 1,000 patientyears. 17 Holley et al,18 in an autopsy series, found renal artery stenosis of greater than 50% in 27% of patients over age 50 and in 56.4% of hypertensive patients. The prevalence was 10% in normotensive patients.

WHO IS AT RISK?

Factors associated with a higher risk of finding renal artery stenosis on a radiographic study include14:

  • Older age
  • Female sex
  • Hypertension
  • Three-vessel coronary artery disease
  • Peripheral artery disease
  • Chronic kidney disease
  • Diabetes
  • Tobacco use
  • A low level of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol
  • The use of at least two cardiovascular drugs.

The prevalence of renal artery stenosis in at-risk populations ranges from 3% to 75% (Table  1).2,4,6,19,20

HOW OFTEN DOES STENOSIS PROGRESS?

The reported rates of progression of atherosclerotic renal artery lesions vary depending on the type of imaging test used and the reason for doing it.

In studies that used duplex ultrasonography, roughly half of lesions smaller than 60% grew to greater than 60% over 3 years.21,22 The risk of total occlusion of an artery was relatively low and depended on the severity of stenosis: 0.7% if the baseline stenosis was less than 60% and 2.3% to 7% if it was greater.21,22

In a seminal study in 1984, Schreiber and colleagues23 compared serial angiograms obtained a mean of 52 months apart in 85 patients who did not undergo intervention. Stenosis had progressed in 37 (44%), and to the point of total occlusion in 14 (16%). In contrast, a 1998 study found progression in 11.1% over 2.6 years, with older patients, women, and those with baseline coronary artery disease at higher risk.24

The the rates of progression differed in these two studies probably because the indications for screening were different (clinical suspicion23 vs routine screening during coronary angiography24), as was the severity of stenosis at the time of diagnosis. Also, when these studies were done, fewer people were taking statins. Thus, similar studies, if repeated, might show even lower rates of progression.

Finally, progression of renal artery stenosis has not been correlated with worsening renal function.

 

 

FOUR CLINICAL PRESENTATIONS OF RENAL ARTERY STENOSIS

Renal artery stenosis can present in one of four ways:

Clinically silent stenosis. Because renal artery stenosis is most often found in older patients, who are more likely to have essential hypertension and chronic kidney disease due to other causes, it can be an incidental finding that is completely clinically silent.16,25

Renovascular hypertension is defined as high blood pressure due to up-regulation of neurohormonal activity in response to decreased perfusion from renal artery stenosis. Renal artery stenosis is estimated to be the cause of hypertension in only 0.5% to 4.0% of hypertensive patients, or in 26% of patients with secondary hypertension.3

Ischemic nephropathy is more difficult to define because ischemia alone rarely explains the damage done to the kidneys. Activation of neurohormonal pathways and microvascular injury are thought to contribute to oxidative stress and fibrosis.26 These phenomena may explain why similar degrees of stenosis lead to varying degrees of kidney damage in different patients and why the severity of stenosis does not correlate with the degree of renal dysfunction.27

Furthermore, stenosis may lead to irreversible but stable kidney damage. It is therefore not surprising that, in studies in unselected populations (ie, studies that included patients with all presentations of renal artery stenosis, not just those more likely to benefit), up to two-thirds of renal interventions yielded no clinical benefit.25

As a result, if we define ischemic nephropathy as renal artery stenosis with renal dysfunction not attributable to another cause, we probably will overestimate the prevalence of ischemic nephropathy, leading to overly optimistic expectations about the response to revascularization.

Recurrent “flash” pulmonary edema is a less common presentation, usually occurring in patients with critical bilateral renal artery stenosis or unilateral stenosis in an artery supplying a solitary functioning kidney. Most have severe hypertension (average systolic blood pressure 174–207 mm Hg) and poor renal function.28–30

The association between pulmonary edema and bilateral renal artery stenosis was first noted in 1998 by Pickering et al,31 who in several case series showed that 82% to 92% of patients with recurrent pulmonary edema and renal artery stenosis had bilateral stenosis, compared with 20% to 65% of those with other presentations. Later case series corroborated this finding: 85% to 100% of patients with renal artery stenosis and pulmonary edema had bilateral stenosis.28–30

STENTING IS NOW STANDARD

Stenting has become standard in the endovascular treatment of renal artery stenosis.

Most atherosclerotic renal artery lesions are located in the ostium (ie, where the artery branches off from the aorta), and many are extensions of calcified aortic plaque.26,32 These hard lesions tend to rebound to their original shape more often with balloon angioplasty alone. Stenting provides the additional force needed to permanently disrupt the lesion, leading to a longer-lasting result.

Rates of technical success (dilating the artery during the intervention) are higher with stents than without them (98% vs 46%– 77%).33,34 If the lesion is ostial, this difference is even more impressive (75% vs 29%). In addition, restenosis rates at 6 months are lower with stents (14% vs 26%–48%).34

GOALS: LOWER THE BLOOD PRESSURE, SAVE THE KIDNEY

Because endovascular procedures pose some risk to the patient, it is critical to intervene only in patients most likely to respond clinically. The decision to intervene depends largely on the clinical goal, which should depend on the clinical presentation.

In renovascular hypertension, the goal should be to improve blood pressure control. In ischemic nephropathy, the goal should be to slow the decline in renal function or to improve it. Other indications for intervention include relatively rare but compelling events such as recurrent flash pulmonary edema,31 which typically resolves after intervention, and acute kidney injury after starting a reninangiotensin system inhibitor (Table 2). In the latter case, stopping the medications leads to resolution of the acute kidney injury, but intervening either prevents further problems or allows the medication to be restarted.

However, if renal artery stenosis is clinically silent, most of the evidence suggests that intervention has no benefit. Furthermore, although retrospective studies have indicated that intervention may improve survival rates,35,36 prospective studies have not. Similarly, studies have not shown that intervention generally improves cardiovascular outcomes, even though renal artery stenosis is associated with cardiovascular risk.

Hypertension plus stenosis is not necessarily renovascular hypertension

Essential hypertension and clinically silent renal artery stenosis often coexist, which is why blood pressure control often does not improve after stenting. Also, essential hypertension often coexists with renovascular hypertension.37 In this situation, stenting may not eliminate the need for antihypertensive drugs, although it may improve blood pressure control and decrease the drug burden.

Before stents came into use, several randomized controlled trials found that blood pressure was no better controlled after angioplasty, 2,3,38 except in cases of bilateral stenosis.2 This may be because stenosis tended to recur after angioplasty without stents.

The 2000 Dutch Renal Artery Stenosis Intervention Cooperative (DRASTIC) study was the first randomized controlled trial to examine the effect of angioplasty on blood pressure control in renal artery stenosis.38 It had significant design flaws. For example, many patients crossed over from the medical management group to the intervention group because their hypertension was resistant to medical therapy. Overall, intervention (balloon angioplasty without stents in 54 of 56 patients, with stents in the other 2) carried no benefit. However, in subgroup analysis, the patients who crossed over because of resistant hypertension (failure of a three-drug regimen) were more likely to benefit from angioplasty. This suggested that risk stratification should take place early on, before proceeding with revascularization.

With stents, Zeller,39 in a prospective nonrandomized study, found that the mean arterial pressure decreased by 10 mm Hg. Randomized trials (see below) have failed to demonstrate such a benefit.

 

 

Stenting may not improve renal function

Coincidental renal artery stenosis in a patient with unrelated chronic kidney disease is very hard to differentiate from true ischemic nephropathy. Furthermore, most patients with ischemic nephropathy do not benefit from revascularization, making it challenging to identify those few whose renal function may respond.

Given that patients with chronic kidney disease tend to have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, it is not surprising that 15% of them may have renal artery stenosis,4 most often incidental.

Chábová40 examined the outcomes of 68 patients who had chronic kidney disease and a renal artery lesion larger than 70% who did not undergo angioplasty. In only 10 (15%) of the patients did the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decline by more than 50% of its baseline value during the study period of 3 years. Given the retrospective nature of the study, it cannot be determined (and is rather unlikely) that ischemic nephropathy was the cause of the decline in kidney function in all 10 patients.

Figure 1.
When a patient with chronic kidney disease undergoes renal revascularization, renal function can respond in one of several ways (Figure 1). Positive responses include improvement in GFR, stabilization of declining GFR, and continued decline in GFR but at a slower rate (delaying the onset of end-stage renal disease). The worst result would be an accelerated decline in renal function, suggesting that harm was done to the kidneys. Acutely, this can be caused by contrast-related injury, atheroembolism, or reperfusion injury. Atheroembolism or stent thrombosis could cause a more lasting injury.4 If renal function was stable before the intervention, any result other than an improved GFR should not be considered a success.

In a prospective cohort study in 304 patients with chronic kidney disease and renal artery stenosis who underwent surgical revascularization, Textor4 reported that the serum creatinine level showed a meaningful improvement afterward in 28%, worsened in 19.7%, and remained unchanged in 160 52.6%. (A “meaningful” change was defined as > 1.0 mg/dL.) Findings were similar in a cohort that underwent stenting.33

Davies et al41 found that 20% of patients who underwent renal stenting had a persistent increase in serum creatinine of 0.5 mg/dL or more. These patients were nearly three times more likely (19% vs 7%) to eventually require dialysis, and they had a lower 5-year survival rate (41% vs 71%).

Zeller et al39 found that renal function improved slightly in 52% of patients who received stents. The mean decrease in serum creatinine in this group was 0.22 mg/dL. However, the other 48% had a mean increase in serum creatinine of 1.1 mg/dL.

From these data we can conclude that, in an unselected population with renal artery stenosis, stenting provides no benefit to renal function, and that the risk of a worsening of renal function after intervention is roughly equal to the likelihood of achieving any benefit.

Other predictors of improvement in renal function have been proposed, but the evidence supporting them has not been consistent. For example, although Radermacher et al42 reported that a renal resistive index (which reflects arterial stiffness downstream of the stenosis) lower than 0.8 predicted a response in renal function, this finding has not been reliably reproduced.43,44 Similarly, while several studies suggest that patients with milder renal dysfunction have a higher likelihood of a renal response,45,46 other studies suggest either that the opposite is true39 or that baseline renal function alone has no impact on outcome.47

In addition, once significant renal atrophy occurs, revascularization may not help much, since irreversible sclerosis has developed. Thus, the goal is to identify kidneys being harmed by renal artery stenosis during the ischemic phase, when the tissue is still viable.

Unfortunately, we still lack a good renal stress test—eg, analogous to the cardiac stress test—to diagnose reversible ischemia in the kidney. The captopril renal scan has that capability but is not accurate in patients with bilateral stenosis or a GFR less than 50 mL/min, severely limiting its applicability.26 Newer technologies such as blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) magnetic resonance imaging are being investigated for such a role.48

Cohort studies in patients with declining renal function

In several case series, patients whose renal function had been declining before intervention had impressive rates of better renal function afterward.33,39,47,49–54 In a prospective cohort study by Muray et al,47 a rise in serum creatinine of more than 0.1 mg/mL/month before intervention seemed to predict an improvement in renal function afterward.

One would expect that, for renal function to respond to intervention, severe bilateral stenosis or unilateral stenosis to a solitary functioning kidney would need to be present. However, this was an inconsistent finding in these case series.33,39,47,52,53 The Angioplasty and Stent for Renal Artery Lesions (ASTRAL) trial,6,7 discussed later, sheds a bit more light on this.

Stenting usually improves flash pulmonary edema

Acute pulmonary edema in the setting of bilateral renal artery stenosis seems to be a unique case in which improvement in clinical status can be expected in most patients after intervention. Blood pressure improves in 94% to 100% of patients,28,31 renal function either improves or stabilizes in 77% to 91%,28–31 and pulmonary edema resolves without recurrence in 77% to 100%.28–30

NEW RANDOMIZED TRIALS: STAR, ASTRAL, AND CORAL

Despite the lack of evidence supporting revascularization of renal artery stenosis, many interventionalists practice under the assumption that the radiographic finding of renal artery stenosis alone is an indication for renal revascularization. Only three randomized controlled trials in the modern era attempt to examine this hypothesis: STAR, ASTRAL, and CORAL.

STAR: No clear benefit

The Stent Placement and Blood Pressure and Lipid-lowering for the Prevention of Progression of Renal Dysfunction Caused by Atherosclerotic Ostial Stenosis of the Renal Artery (STAR) trial5 was a European multicenter trial that enrolled 140 patients with ostial renal artery stenosis greater than 50%, blood pressure controlled to less than 140/90 mm Hg, and creatinine clearance 15 to 80 mL/min.

Patients were randomized to undergo stenting or medical therapy alone. High blood pressure was treated according to a protocol in which angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers were relegated to second-line use. All patients received a statin, regardless of lipid levels.

At 2 years, the primary end point (a decline in creatinine clearance of 20% or greater) had been reached in 10 (16%) of the 64 patients in the stent group and 16 (22%) of the 76 patients in the medication group; the difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.33–1.61). No difference was seen in the secondary end points of the degree of blood pressure control or the rates of cardiovascular morbidity and death.5

 

 

ASTRAL: Also no clear benefit

In the international, multicenter ASTRAL trial,6,7 806 patients with at least one stenotic renal artery considered suitable for balloon angioplasty, stenting, or both7 were randomized to undergo intervention or medical management. Hypertension treatment was not specified by a protocol. The mean estimated GFR was 40 mL/min. Most patients (95%–96%) were on statin therapy. The primary outcome was the rate of decline of renal function over time. Secondary outcomes included blood pressure control, renal events, cardiovascular events, and death.

Results. At a mean follow-up of 33.6 months (range 1–4 years), no difference was noted between treatment groups in decline in renal function or blood pressure control at 1 year. Renal function worsened slightly in both groups.

The decline in renal function over time, calculated as the mean slope of the reciprocal of the serum creatinine level over time, was slightly slower in the revascularization group, but the difference was not statistically significant (−0.07 × 10−3 vs −0.13 × 10−3 L/μmol/year, P = .06). This difference did not appear until the last year of the study. There was no difference in the number of patients whose renal function improved or declined during the study.

There was no difference in the rate of any secondary outcome. The medical management group required a slightly higher number of antihypertensive drugs, reaching statistical but not clinical significance (2.97 vs 2.77 drugs, P = .03). More people in the revascularization group were taking ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. There was no difference in the number of patients on any antihypertensive therapy (97% vs 99%). Interestingly, amputations were more common in the revascularization group, occurring in 42 (12%) of the 386 patients in the revascularization group vs 29 (7%) of the 395 patients in the medical group (P = .04).

Seventeen percent of patients randomized to intervention did not have the procedure done. An as-treated analysis of the 317 (83%) patients randomized to revascularization who did receive it showed no differences in outcomes.

There were no differences in outcomes among specific, predefined subgroups based on severity of stenosis at baseline, renal length, baseline estimated GFR, baseline serum creatinine, and rate of progression of renal dysfunction before randomization.7

Comments. ASTRAL contradicts previous nonrandomized studies that suggested that rapidly declining renal function (loss of 20% in 1 year) predicts response to intervention. Considering the large number of patients with unilateral disease in the study, it would be interesting to see what effect stenting had on patients with both severe disease and declining renal function.

ASTRAL has been criticized because it lacked a central laboratory to interpret the severity of stenosis, it did not use a standardized intervention technique (5% of patients underwent angioplasty without stents, although this did not affect outcomes7), and patients were enrolled only if the clinician involved in the case was uncertain of the appropriate management.

This last issue raises the concern for selection bias toward inclusion of more difficult cases that may not respond to intervention. But these shortcomings are not serious enough to negate the fact that preliminary results from the largest randomized controlled trial to date confirm conclusions of other randomized trials, ie, that intervention in renal artery stenosis yields no benefits over medical management in most patients.

Based on the results of STAR and ASTRAL, the practice of indiscriminately revascularizing stenosed renal arteries without strong evidence that the procedure will provide a clinical benefit is no longer tenable. The challenge is to identify those few patients who will respond, and to intervene only on them. Unfortunately, none of the subgroups from ASTRAL helped characterize this population.

CORAL: A large trial is ongoing

The Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Artherosclerotic Lesions (CORAL) trial,8 an ongoing multicenter randomized controlled trial in the United States, may be of additional help.

Unlike ASTRAL, CORAL is studying patients who have difficult-to-control hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥ 155 mm Hg on two or more drugs).8 Chronic kidney disease is not an exclusion criterion unless the serum creatinine concentration is greater than 3.0 mg/dL.

CORAL is using a standardized medical protocol to control blood pressure. In addition, use of embolic protection devices during stenting is encouraged. Hopefully, the large size (a goal of 1,080 patients) and the inclusion of patients with more marked hypertension will address the utility of intervention in higher-risk populations with renal artery stenosis.

RECOMMENDED APPROACH TO INTERVENTION IN RENAL ARTERY STENOSIS

As we wait for CORAL to be completed, we have two modern-era randomized controlled trials that leave us with fewer indications for renal intervention. Table 2 lists commonly cited indications for intervention in renal artery stenosis and the evidence to support them. As most of these are based on retrospective data or have conflicting support in the literature, their utility remains in question. At this point we can safely recommend:

  • Patients with preserved or even decreased but stable renal function will not likely have a benefit in renal function after intervention.
  • Patients with resistant hypertension may benefit.
  • The best evidence supporting intervention is for bilateral stenosis with flash pulmonary edema, but the evidence is from retrospective studies.
  • Stenting in bilateral disease without another indication has no apparent benefit.
  • Declining renal function is not a guarantee of success.
  • It is unclear if patients with severe bilateral stenosis or severe stenosis to a solitary functioning kidney with declining renal function will benefit. Anecdotally, they do respond more often, but as with many other indications for intervention that have gone by the wayside, this may not bear out when studied properly.

Based on the current evidence, imperfect as it is, recommendations for a basic approach to intervention in renal artery stenosis are presented in Table 3.

As the utility of intervention narrows, the scope of practice for such interventions should narrow accordingly. Attention should now be focusing on clinical, rather than radiographic, indications for intervening on renal artery stenosis.

Therefore, the decision to intervene must not be made solely by the interventionalist. A multidisciplinary approach should be adopted that at the very least includes the input of a nephrologist well versed in renal artery stenosis. In this way, the clinical risks and benefits of renal intervention can be discussed with the patient by providers who are likely to be involved in their care should renal function or hypertension fail to improve afterward.

 

 

RISK OF ATHEROEMBOLISM

While renal stenting yields improved technical success in the treatment of renal artery stenosis, it carries with it an increasingly common risk to kidney function: atheroembolism as the stent crushes the plaque against the vessel wall. This may lead to obstruction of the renal microvasculature, increasing the risk of irreversible damage to renal function.

Atheroembolic kidney disease can manifest as progressive renal failure occurring over weeks to months, commonly misdiagnosed as permanent damage from contrast nephropathy.55

Embolic protection devices, inserted downstream of the lesion before stenting to catch any debris that may break loose, have been developed to help address this problem.

Holden et al 57 prospectively studied 63 patients with renal artery stenosis and deteriorating renal function (undefined) who underwent stenting with an embolic protection device. At 6 months after the intervention, renal function had either improved or stabilized in 97% of patients, suggesting that many of the deleterious effects of stenting on renal function are related to atheroembolism.

The Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Renal Artery Stenting With or Without Distal Protection (RESIST) trial, in which renal dysfunction was mild and the GFR was not declining (average estimated GFR 59.3 mL/min), found contrary results.57 In a two-by-two factorial study, patients were randomized to undergo stenting alone, stenting with the antiplatelet agent abciximab (ReoPro), stenting with an embolic protection device, or stenting with both abciximab and an embolic protection device. Interestingly, renal function declined in the first three groups, but remained stable in the group that received both abciximab and an embolic protection device.

ANTIPLATELET THERAPY AFTER RENAL STENTING: HOW LONG?

We have no data on the optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy after renal stenting, and guidelines from professional societies do not comment on it.58 As a result, practice patterns vary significantly among practitioners.

While in-stent restenosis rates are acceptably low after renal stenting, the risks and side effects of antiplatelet therapy often lead to arbitrary withdrawal of these drugs. The effect on stent patency is yet to be determined.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Results of STAR and ASTRAL confirm the growing suspicion that the surge seen in the last decade in renal artery stenting should be coming to an end. We await results either from CORAL or possibly a post hoc analysis of ASTRAL that might identify potential high-risk groups that will benefit from renal intervention. And as embolic protection devices become more agile and suitable to different renal lesions, there remains the possibility that, due to lower rates of unidentified atheroembolic kidney disease, CORAL may demonstrate improved renal outcomes after stenting. If not, the search for the best means to predict who should have renal intervention will continue.

We know through experience that stenting does provide great benefits for some patients with renal artery stenosis. Furthermore, the clinical problem is too intriguing, and too profitable, to die altogether.

References
  1. Choncol M, Linas S. Diagnosis and management of ischemic nephropathy. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2006; 1:172181.
  2. Webster J, Marshall F, Abdalla M, et al Randomised comparison of percutaneous angioplasty vs continued medical therapy for hypertensive patients with atheromatous renal artery stenosis. Scottish and Newcastle Renal Artery Stenosis Collaborative Group. J Hum Hypertens 1998; 12:329335.
  3. Plouin PF, Chatellier G, Darne B, Raynaud A. Blood pressure outcome of angioplasty in atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: a randomized trial. Essai Multicentrique Medicaments vs Angioplastie (EMMA) Study Group. Hypertension 1998; 31:823829.
  4. Textor SC. Revascularization in atherosclerotic renal artery disease. Kidney Int 1998; 53:799811.
  5. Bax L, Woittiez AJ, Kouwenberg HJ, et al Stent placement in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis and impaired renal function: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150:840848.
  6. Mistry S, Ives N, Harding J, et al Angioplasty and STent for Renal Artery Lesions (ASTRAL trial): rationale, methods and results so far. J Hum Hypertens 2007; 21:511515.
  7. Wheatley K, Ives N, Kalra P, Moss J. Revascularization versus medical therapy for renal-artery stenosis (ASTRAL). N Engl J Med 2009; 361:19531962.
  8. Cooper CJ, Murphy TP, Matsumoto A, et al Stent revascularization for the prevention of cardiovascular and renal events among patients with renal artery stenosis and systolic hypertension: rationale and design of the CORAL trial. Am Heart J 2006; 152:5966.
  9. Galaria II, Surowiec SM, Rhodes JM, et al Percutaneous and open renal revascularizations have equivalent long-term functional outcomes. Ann Vasc Surg 2005; 19:218228.
  10. Murphy TP, Soares G, Kim M. Increase in utilization of percutaneous renal artery interventions by Medicare beneficiaries 1996–2000. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183:561568.
  11. Textor SC. Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: overtreated but underrated? J Am Soc Nephrol 2008; 19:656659.
  12. Kalra PA, Guo H, Gilbertson DT, et al Atherosclerotic renovascular disease in the United States. Kidney Int 2010; 77:3743.
  13. Hansen KJ, Edwards MS, Craven TE, et al Prevalence of renovascular disease in the elderly: a population-based study. J Vasc Surg 2002; 36:443451.
  14. Cohen MG, Pascua JA, Garcia-Ben M, et al A simple prediction rule for significant renal artery stenosis in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. Am Heart J 2005; 150:12041211.
  15. Buller CE, Nogareda JG, Ramanathan K, et al The profile of cardiac patients with renal artery stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43:16061613.
  16. White CJ, Olin JW. Diagnosis and management of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: improving patient selection and outcomes. Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med 2009; 6:176190.
  17. Kalra PA, Guo H, Kausz AT, et al Atherosclerotic renovascular disease in United States patients aged 67 years or older: risk factors, revascularization, and prognosis. Kidney Int 2005; 69:293301.
  18. Holley KE, Hunt JC, Brown AL, Kincaid OW, Sheps SG. Renal artery stenosis. A clinical-pathologic study in normotensive and hypertensive patients. Am J Med 1964; 37:1422.
  19. de Mast Q, Beutler JJ. The prevalence of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis in risk groups: a systemic literature review. J Hypertens 2009; 27:13331340.
  20. Kuczera P, Włoszczynska E, Adamczak M, Pencak P, Chudek J, Wiecek A. Frequency of renal artery stenosis and variants of renal vascularization in hypertensive patients: analysis of 1550 angiographies in one centre. J Hum Hypertens 2009; 23:396401.
  21. Caps MT, Perissinotto C, Zierler RE, et al Prospective study of atherosclerotic disease progression in the renal artery. Circulation 1998; 98:28662872.
  22. Zierler RE, Bergelin RO, Davidson RC, Cantwell-Gab K, Polissar NL, Strandness DE. A prospective study of disease progression in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. Am J Hypertens 1996; 9:10551061.
  23. Schreiber MJ, Pohl MA, Novick AC. The natural history of atherosclerotic and fibrous renal artery disease. Urol Clin North Am 1984; 11:383392.
  24. Crowley JJ, Santos RM, Peter RH, et al Progression of renal artery stenosis in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. Am Heart J 1998; 136:913918.
  25. Textor SC. Renovascular hypertension update. Curr Hypertens Rep 2006; 8:521527.
  26. Textor SC. Ischemic nephropathy: where are we now? J Am Soc Nephrol 2004; 15:19741982.
  27. Wright JR, Shurrab AE, Cheung C, et al A prospective study of the determinants of renal functional outcome and mortality in atherosclerotic renovascular disease. Am J Kidney Dis 2002; 39:11531161.
  28. Messina LM, Zelenock GB, Yao KA, Stanley JC. Renal revascularization for recurrent pulmonary edema in patients with poorly controlled hypertension and renal insufficiency: a distinct subgroup of patients with arteriosclerotic renal artery occlusive disease. J Vasc Surg 1992; 15:7380.
  29. Bloch MJ, Trost DW, Pickering TG, Sos TA, August P. Prevention of recurrent pulmonary edema in patients with bilateral renovascular disease through renal artery stent placement. Am J Hypertens 1999; 12:17.
  30. Gray BH, Olin JW, Childs MB, Sullivan TM, Bacharach JM. Clinical benefit of renal artery angioplasty with stenting for the control of recurrent and refractory congestive heart failure. Vasc Med 2002; 7:275279.
  31. Pickering TG, Herman L, Devereux RB, et al Recurrent pulmonary oedema in hypertension due to bilateral renal artery stenosis: treatment by angioplasty or surgical revascularisation. Lancet 1988; 2:551552.
  32. Kennedy DJ, Colyer WR, Brewster PS, et al Renal insufficiency as a predictor of adverse events and mortality after renal artery stent placement. Am J Kidney Dis 2003; 14:926935.
  33. Beutler JJ, Van Ampting JM, Van De Ven PJ, et al Long-term effects of arterial stenting on kidney function for patients with ostial atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis and renal insufficiency. J Am Soc Nephrol 2001; 12:14751481.
  34. Van de Ven PJ, Kaatee R, Beutler JJ, et al Arterial stenting and balloon angioplasty in ostial atherosclerotic renovascular disease: a randomized trial. Lancet 1999; 353:282286.
  35. Isles C, Main J, O’Connell J, et al Survival associated with renovascular disease in Glasgow and Newcastle: a collaborative study. Scott Med J 1990; 35:7073.
  36. Hunt JC, Sheps SG, Harrison EG, Strong CG, Bernatz PE. Renal and renovascular hypertension. A reasoned approach to diagnosis and management. Arch Intern Med 1974; 133:988999.
  37. Textor SC. Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: how big is the problem, and what happens if nothing is done? J Hypertens Suppl 2005; 23:S5S13.
  38. van Jaarsveld BC, Krijnen P, Pieterman H, et al The effect of balloon angioplasty on hypertension in atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis. Dutch Renal Artery Stenosis Intervention Cooperative Study Group. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:10071014.
  39. Zeller T, Frank U, Müller C, et al Predictors of improved renal function after percutaneous stent-supported angioplasty of severe atherosclerotic ostial renal artery stenosis. Circulation 2003; 108;22442249.
  40. Chábová V, Schirger A, Stanson AW, McKusick MA, Textor SC. Outcomes of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis managed without revascularization. Mayo Clin Proc 2000; 75:437444.
  41. Davies MG, Saad WE, Peden EK, Mohiuddin IT, Naoum JJ, Lumsden AB. Implications of acute functional injury following percutaneous renal artery intervention. Ann Vasc Surg 2008; 22:783789.
  42. Radermacher J, Chavin A, Bleck J, et al Use of Doppler ultrasonography to predict the outcome of therapy for renal-artery stenosis. N Eng J Med 2001; 344:410417.
  43. García-Criado A, Gilabert R, Nicolau C, et al Value of Doppler sonography for predicting clinical outcome after renal artery revascularization in atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24:16411647.
  44. Zeller T, Müller C, Frank U, et al Stent angioplasty of severe atherosclerotic ostial renal artery stenosis in patients with diabetes mellitus and nephrosclerosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2003; 58:510515.
  45. Harden PN, MacLeod MJ, Rodger RSC, et al Effect of renal-artery stenting on progression of renovascular renal failure. Lancet 1997; 349:11331136.
  46. Isles CG, Robertson S, Hill D. Management of renovascular disease: a review of renal artery stenting in ten studies. QJM 1999; 92:159167.
  47. Muray S, Martın M, Amoedo ML, et al Rapid decline in renal function reflects reversibility and predicts the outcome after angioplasty in renal artery stenosis. Am J Kidney Dis 2002; 39:6066.
  48. Textor SC, Glockner JF, Lerman LO, et al The use of magnetic resonance to evaluate tissue oxygenation in renal artery stenosis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2008; 19:780788.
  49. Paraskevas KI, Perrea D, Briana DD, Liapis CD. Management of atherosclerotic renovascular disease: the effect of renal artery stenting on renal function and blood pressure. Int Urol Nephrol 2006; 38:683691.
  50. Watson PS, Hadjipetrou P, Cox SV, Piemonte TC, Eisenhauer AC. Effect of renal artery stenting on renal function and size in patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease. Circulation 2000; 102:16711677.
  51. Dean RH, Kieffer RW, Smith BM, et al Renovascular hypertension: anatomic and renal function changes during drug therapy. Arch Surg 1981; 116:14081415.
  52. Zhang Q, Shen W, Zhang R, Zhang J, Hu J, Zhang X. Effects of renal artery stenting on renal function and blood pressure in patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease. Chin Med J (Engl) 2003; 116:14511454.
  53. Ramos F, Kotliar C, Alvarez D, et al Renal function and outcome of PTRA and stenting for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. Kidney Int 2003; 63:276282.
  54. Rocha-Singh KJ, Ahuja RK, Sung CH, Rutherford J. Long-term renal function preservation after renal artery stenting in patients with progressive ischemic nephropathy. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2002; 57:135141.
  55. Thadhani RI, Camargo CA, Xavier RJ, Fang LS, Bazari H. Atheroembolic renal failure after invasive procedures. Natural history based on 52 histologically proven cases. Medicine (Baltimore) 1995; 74:350358.
  56. Holden A, Hill A, Jaff MR, Pilmore H. Renal artery stent revascularization with embolic protection in patients with ischemic nephropathy. Kidney Int 2006; 70:948955.
  57. Cooper CJ, Haller ST, Colyer W, et al Embolic protection and platelet inhibition during renal artery stenting. Circulation 2008; 117:27522760.
  58. Hirsch AT, Haskal ZJ, Hertzer NR, et al ACC/AHA 2005 Practice guidelines for the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease (lower extremity, renal, mesenteric, and abdominal aortic): a collaborative report from the American Association for Vascular Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, Society of Interventional Radiology, and the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease): endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Society for Vascular Nursing; TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus; and Vascular Disease Foundation. Circulation 2006; 113:e463e654.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

James F. Simon, MD
Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Address: James F. Simon, MD, Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Q7, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail [email protected]

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 77(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
178-189
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

James F. Simon, MD
Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Address: James F. Simon, MD, Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Q7, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail [email protected]

Author and Disclosure Information

James F. Simon, MD
Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Address: James F. Simon, MD, Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Q7, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail [email protected]

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

Author’s note: Atherosclerosis accounts for about 90% of cases of renal artery stenosis in people over age 40.1 Fibromuscular dysplasia, the other major cause, is a separate topic; in this paper “renal artery stenosis” refers to atherosclerotic disease only.

Renal artery stenosis is very common, and the number of angioplasty-stenting procedures performed every year is on the rise. Yet there is no overwhelming evidence that intervention yields clinical benefits—ie, better blood pressure control or renal function— than does medical therapy.

See related editorial

Earlier randomized controlled trials comparing angioplasty without stents and medical management showed no impressive difference in blood pressure.2,3 The data on renal function were even more questionable, with some studies suggesting that, with stenting, the chance of worsening renal function is equal to that of improvement.4

Two large randomized trials comparing renal intervention with medical therapy failed to show any benefit of intervention.5–7 A third study is under way.8

It is time to strongly reconsider the current aggressive approach to revascularization of stenotic renal arteries and take a more coordinated, critical approach.

RENAL INTERVENTIONS ON THE RISE

Renal angioplasty began replacing surgical revascularization in the 1990s, as this less-invasive procedure became more readily available and was shown to have similar clinical outcomes.9 In the last decade, stent placement during angioplasty has become standard, improving the rates of technical success.

As these procedures have become easier to perform and their radiographic outcomes have become more consistent, interventionalists have become more likely, if they see stenosis in a renal artery, to intervene and insert a stent, regardless of proven benefit. In addition, interventionalists from at least three different specialties now compete for these procedures, often by looking at the renal arteries during angiography of other vascular beds (the “drive-by”).

As a result, the number of renal interventions has been rising. Medicare received 21,660 claims for renal artery interventions (surgery or angioplasty) in 2000, compared with 13,380 in 1996—an increase of 62%. However, the number of surgeries actually decreased by 45% during this time, while the number of percutaneous procedures increased by 240%. The number of endovascular claims for renal artery stenosis by cardiologists alone rose 390%.10 Since then, the reports on intervention have been mixed, with one report citing a continued increase in 2005 to 35,000 claims,11 and another suggesting a decrease back to 1997 levels.12

HOW COMMON IS RENAL ARTERY STENOSIS?

The prevalence of renal artery stenosis depends on the definition used and the population screened. It is more common in older patients who have risk factors for other vascular diseases than in the general population.

Renal Doppler ultrasonography can detect stenosis only if the artery is narrowed by more than 60%. Hansen et al13 used ultrasonography to screen 870 people over age 65 and found a lesion (a narrowing of more than 60%) in 6.8%.

Angiography (direct, computed tomographic, or magnetic resonance) can detect less-severe stenosis. Thus, most angiographic studies define renal artery stenosis as a narrowing of more than 50%, and severe disease as a narrowing of more than 70%. Many experts believe that unilateral stenosis needs to be more than 70% to pose a risk to the kidney.14,15

Angiographic prevalence studies have been performed only in patients who were undergoing angiography for another reason such as coronary or peripheral arterial disease that inherently places them at higher risk of renal artery stenosis. For instance, renal artery stenosis is found in 11% to 28% of patients undergoing diagnostic cardiac catheterization. 16

No studies of the prevalence of renal artery stenosis have been performed in the general population. Medicare data indicate that from 1999 to 2001 the incidence of diagnosed renal artery stenosis was 3.7 per 1,000 patientyears. 17 Holley et al,18 in an autopsy series, found renal artery stenosis of greater than 50% in 27% of patients over age 50 and in 56.4% of hypertensive patients. The prevalence was 10% in normotensive patients.

WHO IS AT RISK?

Factors associated with a higher risk of finding renal artery stenosis on a radiographic study include14:

  • Older age
  • Female sex
  • Hypertension
  • Three-vessel coronary artery disease
  • Peripheral artery disease
  • Chronic kidney disease
  • Diabetes
  • Tobacco use
  • A low level of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol
  • The use of at least two cardiovascular drugs.

The prevalence of renal artery stenosis in at-risk populations ranges from 3% to 75% (Table  1).2,4,6,19,20

HOW OFTEN DOES STENOSIS PROGRESS?

The reported rates of progression of atherosclerotic renal artery lesions vary depending on the type of imaging test used and the reason for doing it.

In studies that used duplex ultrasonography, roughly half of lesions smaller than 60% grew to greater than 60% over 3 years.21,22 The risk of total occlusion of an artery was relatively low and depended on the severity of stenosis: 0.7% if the baseline stenosis was less than 60% and 2.3% to 7% if it was greater.21,22

In a seminal study in 1984, Schreiber and colleagues23 compared serial angiograms obtained a mean of 52 months apart in 85 patients who did not undergo intervention. Stenosis had progressed in 37 (44%), and to the point of total occlusion in 14 (16%). In contrast, a 1998 study found progression in 11.1% over 2.6 years, with older patients, women, and those with baseline coronary artery disease at higher risk.24

The the rates of progression differed in these two studies probably because the indications for screening were different (clinical suspicion23 vs routine screening during coronary angiography24), as was the severity of stenosis at the time of diagnosis. Also, when these studies were done, fewer people were taking statins. Thus, similar studies, if repeated, might show even lower rates of progression.

Finally, progression of renal artery stenosis has not been correlated with worsening renal function.

 

 

FOUR CLINICAL PRESENTATIONS OF RENAL ARTERY STENOSIS

Renal artery stenosis can present in one of four ways:

Clinically silent stenosis. Because renal artery stenosis is most often found in older patients, who are more likely to have essential hypertension and chronic kidney disease due to other causes, it can be an incidental finding that is completely clinically silent.16,25

Renovascular hypertension is defined as high blood pressure due to up-regulation of neurohormonal activity in response to decreased perfusion from renal artery stenosis. Renal artery stenosis is estimated to be the cause of hypertension in only 0.5% to 4.0% of hypertensive patients, or in 26% of patients with secondary hypertension.3

Ischemic nephropathy is more difficult to define because ischemia alone rarely explains the damage done to the kidneys. Activation of neurohormonal pathways and microvascular injury are thought to contribute to oxidative stress and fibrosis.26 These phenomena may explain why similar degrees of stenosis lead to varying degrees of kidney damage in different patients and why the severity of stenosis does not correlate with the degree of renal dysfunction.27

Furthermore, stenosis may lead to irreversible but stable kidney damage. It is therefore not surprising that, in studies in unselected populations (ie, studies that included patients with all presentations of renal artery stenosis, not just those more likely to benefit), up to two-thirds of renal interventions yielded no clinical benefit.25

As a result, if we define ischemic nephropathy as renal artery stenosis with renal dysfunction not attributable to another cause, we probably will overestimate the prevalence of ischemic nephropathy, leading to overly optimistic expectations about the response to revascularization.

Recurrent “flash” pulmonary edema is a less common presentation, usually occurring in patients with critical bilateral renal artery stenosis or unilateral stenosis in an artery supplying a solitary functioning kidney. Most have severe hypertension (average systolic blood pressure 174–207 mm Hg) and poor renal function.28–30

The association between pulmonary edema and bilateral renal artery stenosis was first noted in 1998 by Pickering et al,31 who in several case series showed that 82% to 92% of patients with recurrent pulmonary edema and renal artery stenosis had bilateral stenosis, compared with 20% to 65% of those with other presentations. Later case series corroborated this finding: 85% to 100% of patients with renal artery stenosis and pulmonary edema had bilateral stenosis.28–30

STENTING IS NOW STANDARD

Stenting has become standard in the endovascular treatment of renal artery stenosis.

Most atherosclerotic renal artery lesions are located in the ostium (ie, where the artery branches off from the aorta), and many are extensions of calcified aortic plaque.26,32 These hard lesions tend to rebound to their original shape more often with balloon angioplasty alone. Stenting provides the additional force needed to permanently disrupt the lesion, leading to a longer-lasting result.

Rates of technical success (dilating the artery during the intervention) are higher with stents than without them (98% vs 46%– 77%).33,34 If the lesion is ostial, this difference is even more impressive (75% vs 29%). In addition, restenosis rates at 6 months are lower with stents (14% vs 26%–48%).34

GOALS: LOWER THE BLOOD PRESSURE, SAVE THE KIDNEY

Because endovascular procedures pose some risk to the patient, it is critical to intervene only in patients most likely to respond clinically. The decision to intervene depends largely on the clinical goal, which should depend on the clinical presentation.

In renovascular hypertension, the goal should be to improve blood pressure control. In ischemic nephropathy, the goal should be to slow the decline in renal function or to improve it. Other indications for intervention include relatively rare but compelling events such as recurrent flash pulmonary edema,31 which typically resolves after intervention, and acute kidney injury after starting a reninangiotensin system inhibitor (Table 2). In the latter case, stopping the medications leads to resolution of the acute kidney injury, but intervening either prevents further problems or allows the medication to be restarted.

However, if renal artery stenosis is clinically silent, most of the evidence suggests that intervention has no benefit. Furthermore, although retrospective studies have indicated that intervention may improve survival rates,35,36 prospective studies have not. Similarly, studies have not shown that intervention generally improves cardiovascular outcomes, even though renal artery stenosis is associated with cardiovascular risk.

Hypertension plus stenosis is not necessarily renovascular hypertension

Essential hypertension and clinically silent renal artery stenosis often coexist, which is why blood pressure control often does not improve after stenting. Also, essential hypertension often coexists with renovascular hypertension.37 In this situation, stenting may not eliminate the need for antihypertensive drugs, although it may improve blood pressure control and decrease the drug burden.

Before stents came into use, several randomized controlled trials found that blood pressure was no better controlled after angioplasty, 2,3,38 except in cases of bilateral stenosis.2 This may be because stenosis tended to recur after angioplasty without stents.

The 2000 Dutch Renal Artery Stenosis Intervention Cooperative (DRASTIC) study was the first randomized controlled trial to examine the effect of angioplasty on blood pressure control in renal artery stenosis.38 It had significant design flaws. For example, many patients crossed over from the medical management group to the intervention group because their hypertension was resistant to medical therapy. Overall, intervention (balloon angioplasty without stents in 54 of 56 patients, with stents in the other 2) carried no benefit. However, in subgroup analysis, the patients who crossed over because of resistant hypertension (failure of a three-drug regimen) were more likely to benefit from angioplasty. This suggested that risk stratification should take place early on, before proceeding with revascularization.

With stents, Zeller,39 in a prospective nonrandomized study, found that the mean arterial pressure decreased by 10 mm Hg. Randomized trials (see below) have failed to demonstrate such a benefit.

 

 

Stenting may not improve renal function

Coincidental renal artery stenosis in a patient with unrelated chronic kidney disease is very hard to differentiate from true ischemic nephropathy. Furthermore, most patients with ischemic nephropathy do not benefit from revascularization, making it challenging to identify those few whose renal function may respond.

Given that patients with chronic kidney disease tend to have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, it is not surprising that 15% of them may have renal artery stenosis,4 most often incidental.

Chábová40 examined the outcomes of 68 patients who had chronic kidney disease and a renal artery lesion larger than 70% who did not undergo angioplasty. In only 10 (15%) of the patients did the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decline by more than 50% of its baseline value during the study period of 3 years. Given the retrospective nature of the study, it cannot be determined (and is rather unlikely) that ischemic nephropathy was the cause of the decline in kidney function in all 10 patients.

Figure 1.
When a patient with chronic kidney disease undergoes renal revascularization, renal function can respond in one of several ways (Figure 1). Positive responses include improvement in GFR, stabilization of declining GFR, and continued decline in GFR but at a slower rate (delaying the onset of end-stage renal disease). The worst result would be an accelerated decline in renal function, suggesting that harm was done to the kidneys. Acutely, this can be caused by contrast-related injury, atheroembolism, or reperfusion injury. Atheroembolism or stent thrombosis could cause a more lasting injury.4 If renal function was stable before the intervention, any result other than an improved GFR should not be considered a success.

In a prospective cohort study in 304 patients with chronic kidney disease and renal artery stenosis who underwent surgical revascularization, Textor4 reported that the serum creatinine level showed a meaningful improvement afterward in 28%, worsened in 19.7%, and remained unchanged in 160 52.6%. (A “meaningful” change was defined as > 1.0 mg/dL.) Findings were similar in a cohort that underwent stenting.33

Davies et al41 found that 20% of patients who underwent renal stenting had a persistent increase in serum creatinine of 0.5 mg/dL or more. These patients were nearly three times more likely (19% vs 7%) to eventually require dialysis, and they had a lower 5-year survival rate (41% vs 71%).

Zeller et al39 found that renal function improved slightly in 52% of patients who received stents. The mean decrease in serum creatinine in this group was 0.22 mg/dL. However, the other 48% had a mean increase in serum creatinine of 1.1 mg/dL.

From these data we can conclude that, in an unselected population with renal artery stenosis, stenting provides no benefit to renal function, and that the risk of a worsening of renal function after intervention is roughly equal to the likelihood of achieving any benefit.

Other predictors of improvement in renal function have been proposed, but the evidence supporting them has not been consistent. For example, although Radermacher et al42 reported that a renal resistive index (which reflects arterial stiffness downstream of the stenosis) lower than 0.8 predicted a response in renal function, this finding has not been reliably reproduced.43,44 Similarly, while several studies suggest that patients with milder renal dysfunction have a higher likelihood of a renal response,45,46 other studies suggest either that the opposite is true39 or that baseline renal function alone has no impact on outcome.47

In addition, once significant renal atrophy occurs, revascularization may not help much, since irreversible sclerosis has developed. Thus, the goal is to identify kidneys being harmed by renal artery stenosis during the ischemic phase, when the tissue is still viable.

Unfortunately, we still lack a good renal stress test—eg, analogous to the cardiac stress test—to diagnose reversible ischemia in the kidney. The captopril renal scan has that capability but is not accurate in patients with bilateral stenosis or a GFR less than 50 mL/min, severely limiting its applicability.26 Newer technologies such as blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) magnetic resonance imaging are being investigated for such a role.48

Cohort studies in patients with declining renal function

In several case series, patients whose renal function had been declining before intervention had impressive rates of better renal function afterward.33,39,47,49–54 In a prospective cohort study by Muray et al,47 a rise in serum creatinine of more than 0.1 mg/mL/month before intervention seemed to predict an improvement in renal function afterward.

One would expect that, for renal function to respond to intervention, severe bilateral stenosis or unilateral stenosis to a solitary functioning kidney would need to be present. However, this was an inconsistent finding in these case series.33,39,47,52,53 The Angioplasty and Stent for Renal Artery Lesions (ASTRAL) trial,6,7 discussed later, sheds a bit more light on this.

Stenting usually improves flash pulmonary edema

Acute pulmonary edema in the setting of bilateral renal artery stenosis seems to be a unique case in which improvement in clinical status can be expected in most patients after intervention. Blood pressure improves in 94% to 100% of patients,28,31 renal function either improves or stabilizes in 77% to 91%,28–31 and pulmonary edema resolves without recurrence in 77% to 100%.28–30

NEW RANDOMIZED TRIALS: STAR, ASTRAL, AND CORAL

Despite the lack of evidence supporting revascularization of renal artery stenosis, many interventionalists practice under the assumption that the radiographic finding of renal artery stenosis alone is an indication for renal revascularization. Only three randomized controlled trials in the modern era attempt to examine this hypothesis: STAR, ASTRAL, and CORAL.

STAR: No clear benefit

The Stent Placement and Blood Pressure and Lipid-lowering for the Prevention of Progression of Renal Dysfunction Caused by Atherosclerotic Ostial Stenosis of the Renal Artery (STAR) trial5 was a European multicenter trial that enrolled 140 patients with ostial renal artery stenosis greater than 50%, blood pressure controlled to less than 140/90 mm Hg, and creatinine clearance 15 to 80 mL/min.

Patients were randomized to undergo stenting or medical therapy alone. High blood pressure was treated according to a protocol in which angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers were relegated to second-line use. All patients received a statin, regardless of lipid levels.

At 2 years, the primary end point (a decline in creatinine clearance of 20% or greater) had been reached in 10 (16%) of the 64 patients in the stent group and 16 (22%) of the 76 patients in the medication group; the difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.33–1.61). No difference was seen in the secondary end points of the degree of blood pressure control or the rates of cardiovascular morbidity and death.5

 

 

ASTRAL: Also no clear benefit

In the international, multicenter ASTRAL trial,6,7 806 patients with at least one stenotic renal artery considered suitable for balloon angioplasty, stenting, or both7 were randomized to undergo intervention or medical management. Hypertension treatment was not specified by a protocol. The mean estimated GFR was 40 mL/min. Most patients (95%–96%) were on statin therapy. The primary outcome was the rate of decline of renal function over time. Secondary outcomes included blood pressure control, renal events, cardiovascular events, and death.

Results. At a mean follow-up of 33.6 months (range 1–4 years), no difference was noted between treatment groups in decline in renal function or blood pressure control at 1 year. Renal function worsened slightly in both groups.

The decline in renal function over time, calculated as the mean slope of the reciprocal of the serum creatinine level over time, was slightly slower in the revascularization group, but the difference was not statistically significant (−0.07 × 10−3 vs −0.13 × 10−3 L/μmol/year, P = .06). This difference did not appear until the last year of the study. There was no difference in the number of patients whose renal function improved or declined during the study.

There was no difference in the rate of any secondary outcome. The medical management group required a slightly higher number of antihypertensive drugs, reaching statistical but not clinical significance (2.97 vs 2.77 drugs, P = .03). More people in the revascularization group were taking ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. There was no difference in the number of patients on any antihypertensive therapy (97% vs 99%). Interestingly, amputations were more common in the revascularization group, occurring in 42 (12%) of the 386 patients in the revascularization group vs 29 (7%) of the 395 patients in the medical group (P = .04).

Seventeen percent of patients randomized to intervention did not have the procedure done. An as-treated analysis of the 317 (83%) patients randomized to revascularization who did receive it showed no differences in outcomes.

There were no differences in outcomes among specific, predefined subgroups based on severity of stenosis at baseline, renal length, baseline estimated GFR, baseline serum creatinine, and rate of progression of renal dysfunction before randomization.7

Comments. ASTRAL contradicts previous nonrandomized studies that suggested that rapidly declining renal function (loss of 20% in 1 year) predicts response to intervention. Considering the large number of patients with unilateral disease in the study, it would be interesting to see what effect stenting had on patients with both severe disease and declining renal function.

ASTRAL has been criticized because it lacked a central laboratory to interpret the severity of stenosis, it did not use a standardized intervention technique (5% of patients underwent angioplasty without stents, although this did not affect outcomes7), and patients were enrolled only if the clinician involved in the case was uncertain of the appropriate management.

This last issue raises the concern for selection bias toward inclusion of more difficult cases that may not respond to intervention. But these shortcomings are not serious enough to negate the fact that preliminary results from the largest randomized controlled trial to date confirm conclusions of other randomized trials, ie, that intervention in renal artery stenosis yields no benefits over medical management in most patients.

Based on the results of STAR and ASTRAL, the practice of indiscriminately revascularizing stenosed renal arteries without strong evidence that the procedure will provide a clinical benefit is no longer tenable. The challenge is to identify those few patients who will respond, and to intervene only on them. Unfortunately, none of the subgroups from ASTRAL helped characterize this population.

CORAL: A large trial is ongoing

The Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Artherosclerotic Lesions (CORAL) trial,8 an ongoing multicenter randomized controlled trial in the United States, may be of additional help.

Unlike ASTRAL, CORAL is studying patients who have difficult-to-control hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥ 155 mm Hg on two or more drugs).8 Chronic kidney disease is not an exclusion criterion unless the serum creatinine concentration is greater than 3.0 mg/dL.

CORAL is using a standardized medical protocol to control blood pressure. In addition, use of embolic protection devices during stenting is encouraged. Hopefully, the large size (a goal of 1,080 patients) and the inclusion of patients with more marked hypertension will address the utility of intervention in higher-risk populations with renal artery stenosis.

RECOMMENDED APPROACH TO INTERVENTION IN RENAL ARTERY STENOSIS

As we wait for CORAL to be completed, we have two modern-era randomized controlled trials that leave us with fewer indications for renal intervention. Table 2 lists commonly cited indications for intervention in renal artery stenosis and the evidence to support them. As most of these are based on retrospective data or have conflicting support in the literature, their utility remains in question. At this point we can safely recommend:

  • Patients with preserved or even decreased but stable renal function will not likely have a benefit in renal function after intervention.
  • Patients with resistant hypertension may benefit.
  • The best evidence supporting intervention is for bilateral stenosis with flash pulmonary edema, but the evidence is from retrospective studies.
  • Stenting in bilateral disease without another indication has no apparent benefit.
  • Declining renal function is not a guarantee of success.
  • It is unclear if patients with severe bilateral stenosis or severe stenosis to a solitary functioning kidney with declining renal function will benefit. Anecdotally, they do respond more often, but as with many other indications for intervention that have gone by the wayside, this may not bear out when studied properly.

Based on the current evidence, imperfect as it is, recommendations for a basic approach to intervention in renal artery stenosis are presented in Table 3.

As the utility of intervention narrows, the scope of practice for such interventions should narrow accordingly. Attention should now be focusing on clinical, rather than radiographic, indications for intervening on renal artery stenosis.

Therefore, the decision to intervene must not be made solely by the interventionalist. A multidisciplinary approach should be adopted that at the very least includes the input of a nephrologist well versed in renal artery stenosis. In this way, the clinical risks and benefits of renal intervention can be discussed with the patient by providers who are likely to be involved in their care should renal function or hypertension fail to improve afterward.

 

 

RISK OF ATHEROEMBOLISM

While renal stenting yields improved technical success in the treatment of renal artery stenosis, it carries with it an increasingly common risk to kidney function: atheroembolism as the stent crushes the plaque against the vessel wall. This may lead to obstruction of the renal microvasculature, increasing the risk of irreversible damage to renal function.

Atheroembolic kidney disease can manifest as progressive renal failure occurring over weeks to months, commonly misdiagnosed as permanent damage from contrast nephropathy.55

Embolic protection devices, inserted downstream of the lesion before stenting to catch any debris that may break loose, have been developed to help address this problem.

Holden et al 57 prospectively studied 63 patients with renal artery stenosis and deteriorating renal function (undefined) who underwent stenting with an embolic protection device. At 6 months after the intervention, renal function had either improved or stabilized in 97% of patients, suggesting that many of the deleterious effects of stenting on renal function are related to atheroembolism.

The Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Renal Artery Stenting With or Without Distal Protection (RESIST) trial, in which renal dysfunction was mild and the GFR was not declining (average estimated GFR 59.3 mL/min), found contrary results.57 In a two-by-two factorial study, patients were randomized to undergo stenting alone, stenting with the antiplatelet agent abciximab (ReoPro), stenting with an embolic protection device, or stenting with both abciximab and an embolic protection device. Interestingly, renal function declined in the first three groups, but remained stable in the group that received both abciximab and an embolic protection device.

ANTIPLATELET THERAPY AFTER RENAL STENTING: HOW LONG?

We have no data on the optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy after renal stenting, and guidelines from professional societies do not comment on it.58 As a result, practice patterns vary significantly among practitioners.

While in-stent restenosis rates are acceptably low after renal stenting, the risks and side effects of antiplatelet therapy often lead to arbitrary withdrawal of these drugs. The effect on stent patency is yet to be determined.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Results of STAR and ASTRAL confirm the growing suspicion that the surge seen in the last decade in renal artery stenting should be coming to an end. We await results either from CORAL or possibly a post hoc analysis of ASTRAL that might identify potential high-risk groups that will benefit from renal intervention. And as embolic protection devices become more agile and suitable to different renal lesions, there remains the possibility that, due to lower rates of unidentified atheroembolic kidney disease, CORAL may demonstrate improved renal outcomes after stenting. If not, the search for the best means to predict who should have renal intervention will continue.

We know through experience that stenting does provide great benefits for some patients with renal artery stenosis. Furthermore, the clinical problem is too intriguing, and too profitable, to die altogether.

Author’s note: Atherosclerosis accounts for about 90% of cases of renal artery stenosis in people over age 40.1 Fibromuscular dysplasia, the other major cause, is a separate topic; in this paper “renal artery stenosis” refers to atherosclerotic disease only.

Renal artery stenosis is very common, and the number of angioplasty-stenting procedures performed every year is on the rise. Yet there is no overwhelming evidence that intervention yields clinical benefits—ie, better blood pressure control or renal function— than does medical therapy.

See related editorial

Earlier randomized controlled trials comparing angioplasty without stents and medical management showed no impressive difference in blood pressure.2,3 The data on renal function were even more questionable, with some studies suggesting that, with stenting, the chance of worsening renal function is equal to that of improvement.4

Two large randomized trials comparing renal intervention with medical therapy failed to show any benefit of intervention.5–7 A third study is under way.8

It is time to strongly reconsider the current aggressive approach to revascularization of stenotic renal arteries and take a more coordinated, critical approach.

RENAL INTERVENTIONS ON THE RISE

Renal angioplasty began replacing surgical revascularization in the 1990s, as this less-invasive procedure became more readily available and was shown to have similar clinical outcomes.9 In the last decade, stent placement during angioplasty has become standard, improving the rates of technical success.

As these procedures have become easier to perform and their radiographic outcomes have become more consistent, interventionalists have become more likely, if they see stenosis in a renal artery, to intervene and insert a stent, regardless of proven benefit. In addition, interventionalists from at least three different specialties now compete for these procedures, often by looking at the renal arteries during angiography of other vascular beds (the “drive-by”).

As a result, the number of renal interventions has been rising. Medicare received 21,660 claims for renal artery interventions (surgery or angioplasty) in 2000, compared with 13,380 in 1996—an increase of 62%. However, the number of surgeries actually decreased by 45% during this time, while the number of percutaneous procedures increased by 240%. The number of endovascular claims for renal artery stenosis by cardiologists alone rose 390%.10 Since then, the reports on intervention have been mixed, with one report citing a continued increase in 2005 to 35,000 claims,11 and another suggesting a decrease back to 1997 levels.12

HOW COMMON IS RENAL ARTERY STENOSIS?

The prevalence of renal artery stenosis depends on the definition used and the population screened. It is more common in older patients who have risk factors for other vascular diseases than in the general population.

Renal Doppler ultrasonography can detect stenosis only if the artery is narrowed by more than 60%. Hansen et al13 used ultrasonography to screen 870 people over age 65 and found a lesion (a narrowing of more than 60%) in 6.8%.

Angiography (direct, computed tomographic, or magnetic resonance) can detect less-severe stenosis. Thus, most angiographic studies define renal artery stenosis as a narrowing of more than 50%, and severe disease as a narrowing of more than 70%. Many experts believe that unilateral stenosis needs to be more than 70% to pose a risk to the kidney.14,15

Angiographic prevalence studies have been performed only in patients who were undergoing angiography for another reason such as coronary or peripheral arterial disease that inherently places them at higher risk of renal artery stenosis. For instance, renal artery stenosis is found in 11% to 28% of patients undergoing diagnostic cardiac catheterization. 16

No studies of the prevalence of renal artery stenosis have been performed in the general population. Medicare data indicate that from 1999 to 2001 the incidence of diagnosed renal artery stenosis was 3.7 per 1,000 patientyears. 17 Holley et al,18 in an autopsy series, found renal artery stenosis of greater than 50% in 27% of patients over age 50 and in 56.4% of hypertensive patients. The prevalence was 10% in normotensive patients.

WHO IS AT RISK?

Factors associated with a higher risk of finding renal artery stenosis on a radiographic study include14:

  • Older age
  • Female sex
  • Hypertension
  • Three-vessel coronary artery disease
  • Peripheral artery disease
  • Chronic kidney disease
  • Diabetes
  • Tobacco use
  • A low level of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol
  • The use of at least two cardiovascular drugs.

The prevalence of renal artery stenosis in at-risk populations ranges from 3% to 75% (Table  1).2,4,6,19,20

HOW OFTEN DOES STENOSIS PROGRESS?

The reported rates of progression of atherosclerotic renal artery lesions vary depending on the type of imaging test used and the reason for doing it.

In studies that used duplex ultrasonography, roughly half of lesions smaller than 60% grew to greater than 60% over 3 years.21,22 The risk of total occlusion of an artery was relatively low and depended on the severity of stenosis: 0.7% if the baseline stenosis was less than 60% and 2.3% to 7% if it was greater.21,22

In a seminal study in 1984, Schreiber and colleagues23 compared serial angiograms obtained a mean of 52 months apart in 85 patients who did not undergo intervention. Stenosis had progressed in 37 (44%), and to the point of total occlusion in 14 (16%). In contrast, a 1998 study found progression in 11.1% over 2.6 years, with older patients, women, and those with baseline coronary artery disease at higher risk.24

The the rates of progression differed in these two studies probably because the indications for screening were different (clinical suspicion23 vs routine screening during coronary angiography24), as was the severity of stenosis at the time of diagnosis. Also, when these studies were done, fewer people were taking statins. Thus, similar studies, if repeated, might show even lower rates of progression.

Finally, progression of renal artery stenosis has not been correlated with worsening renal function.

 

 

FOUR CLINICAL PRESENTATIONS OF RENAL ARTERY STENOSIS

Renal artery stenosis can present in one of four ways:

Clinically silent stenosis. Because renal artery stenosis is most often found in older patients, who are more likely to have essential hypertension and chronic kidney disease due to other causes, it can be an incidental finding that is completely clinically silent.16,25

Renovascular hypertension is defined as high blood pressure due to up-regulation of neurohormonal activity in response to decreased perfusion from renal artery stenosis. Renal artery stenosis is estimated to be the cause of hypertension in only 0.5% to 4.0% of hypertensive patients, or in 26% of patients with secondary hypertension.3

Ischemic nephropathy is more difficult to define because ischemia alone rarely explains the damage done to the kidneys. Activation of neurohormonal pathways and microvascular injury are thought to contribute to oxidative stress and fibrosis.26 These phenomena may explain why similar degrees of stenosis lead to varying degrees of kidney damage in different patients and why the severity of stenosis does not correlate with the degree of renal dysfunction.27

Furthermore, stenosis may lead to irreversible but stable kidney damage. It is therefore not surprising that, in studies in unselected populations (ie, studies that included patients with all presentations of renal artery stenosis, not just those more likely to benefit), up to two-thirds of renal interventions yielded no clinical benefit.25

As a result, if we define ischemic nephropathy as renal artery stenosis with renal dysfunction not attributable to another cause, we probably will overestimate the prevalence of ischemic nephropathy, leading to overly optimistic expectations about the response to revascularization.

Recurrent “flash” pulmonary edema is a less common presentation, usually occurring in patients with critical bilateral renal artery stenosis or unilateral stenosis in an artery supplying a solitary functioning kidney. Most have severe hypertension (average systolic blood pressure 174–207 mm Hg) and poor renal function.28–30

The association between pulmonary edema and bilateral renal artery stenosis was first noted in 1998 by Pickering et al,31 who in several case series showed that 82% to 92% of patients with recurrent pulmonary edema and renal artery stenosis had bilateral stenosis, compared with 20% to 65% of those with other presentations. Later case series corroborated this finding: 85% to 100% of patients with renal artery stenosis and pulmonary edema had bilateral stenosis.28–30

STENTING IS NOW STANDARD

Stenting has become standard in the endovascular treatment of renal artery stenosis.

Most atherosclerotic renal artery lesions are located in the ostium (ie, where the artery branches off from the aorta), and many are extensions of calcified aortic plaque.26,32 These hard lesions tend to rebound to their original shape more often with balloon angioplasty alone. Stenting provides the additional force needed to permanently disrupt the lesion, leading to a longer-lasting result.

Rates of technical success (dilating the artery during the intervention) are higher with stents than without them (98% vs 46%– 77%).33,34 If the lesion is ostial, this difference is even more impressive (75% vs 29%). In addition, restenosis rates at 6 months are lower with stents (14% vs 26%–48%).34

GOALS: LOWER THE BLOOD PRESSURE, SAVE THE KIDNEY

Because endovascular procedures pose some risk to the patient, it is critical to intervene only in patients most likely to respond clinically. The decision to intervene depends largely on the clinical goal, which should depend on the clinical presentation.

In renovascular hypertension, the goal should be to improve blood pressure control. In ischemic nephropathy, the goal should be to slow the decline in renal function or to improve it. Other indications for intervention include relatively rare but compelling events such as recurrent flash pulmonary edema,31 which typically resolves after intervention, and acute kidney injury after starting a reninangiotensin system inhibitor (Table 2). In the latter case, stopping the medications leads to resolution of the acute kidney injury, but intervening either prevents further problems or allows the medication to be restarted.

However, if renal artery stenosis is clinically silent, most of the evidence suggests that intervention has no benefit. Furthermore, although retrospective studies have indicated that intervention may improve survival rates,35,36 prospective studies have not. Similarly, studies have not shown that intervention generally improves cardiovascular outcomes, even though renal artery stenosis is associated with cardiovascular risk.

Hypertension plus stenosis is not necessarily renovascular hypertension

Essential hypertension and clinically silent renal artery stenosis often coexist, which is why blood pressure control often does not improve after stenting. Also, essential hypertension often coexists with renovascular hypertension.37 In this situation, stenting may not eliminate the need for antihypertensive drugs, although it may improve blood pressure control and decrease the drug burden.

Before stents came into use, several randomized controlled trials found that blood pressure was no better controlled after angioplasty, 2,3,38 except in cases of bilateral stenosis.2 This may be because stenosis tended to recur after angioplasty without stents.

The 2000 Dutch Renal Artery Stenosis Intervention Cooperative (DRASTIC) study was the first randomized controlled trial to examine the effect of angioplasty on blood pressure control in renal artery stenosis.38 It had significant design flaws. For example, many patients crossed over from the medical management group to the intervention group because their hypertension was resistant to medical therapy. Overall, intervention (balloon angioplasty without stents in 54 of 56 patients, with stents in the other 2) carried no benefit. However, in subgroup analysis, the patients who crossed over because of resistant hypertension (failure of a three-drug regimen) were more likely to benefit from angioplasty. This suggested that risk stratification should take place early on, before proceeding with revascularization.

With stents, Zeller,39 in a prospective nonrandomized study, found that the mean arterial pressure decreased by 10 mm Hg. Randomized trials (see below) have failed to demonstrate such a benefit.

 

 

Stenting may not improve renal function

Coincidental renal artery stenosis in a patient with unrelated chronic kidney disease is very hard to differentiate from true ischemic nephropathy. Furthermore, most patients with ischemic nephropathy do not benefit from revascularization, making it challenging to identify those few whose renal function may respond.

Given that patients with chronic kidney disease tend to have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, it is not surprising that 15% of them may have renal artery stenosis,4 most often incidental.

Chábová40 examined the outcomes of 68 patients who had chronic kidney disease and a renal artery lesion larger than 70% who did not undergo angioplasty. In only 10 (15%) of the patients did the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decline by more than 50% of its baseline value during the study period of 3 years. Given the retrospective nature of the study, it cannot be determined (and is rather unlikely) that ischemic nephropathy was the cause of the decline in kidney function in all 10 patients.

Figure 1.
When a patient with chronic kidney disease undergoes renal revascularization, renal function can respond in one of several ways (Figure 1). Positive responses include improvement in GFR, stabilization of declining GFR, and continued decline in GFR but at a slower rate (delaying the onset of end-stage renal disease). The worst result would be an accelerated decline in renal function, suggesting that harm was done to the kidneys. Acutely, this can be caused by contrast-related injury, atheroembolism, or reperfusion injury. Atheroembolism or stent thrombosis could cause a more lasting injury.4 If renal function was stable before the intervention, any result other than an improved GFR should not be considered a success.

In a prospective cohort study in 304 patients with chronic kidney disease and renal artery stenosis who underwent surgical revascularization, Textor4 reported that the serum creatinine level showed a meaningful improvement afterward in 28%, worsened in 19.7%, and remained unchanged in 160 52.6%. (A “meaningful” change was defined as > 1.0 mg/dL.) Findings were similar in a cohort that underwent stenting.33

Davies et al41 found that 20% of patients who underwent renal stenting had a persistent increase in serum creatinine of 0.5 mg/dL or more. These patients were nearly three times more likely (19% vs 7%) to eventually require dialysis, and they had a lower 5-year survival rate (41% vs 71%).

Zeller et al39 found that renal function improved slightly in 52% of patients who received stents. The mean decrease in serum creatinine in this group was 0.22 mg/dL. However, the other 48% had a mean increase in serum creatinine of 1.1 mg/dL.

From these data we can conclude that, in an unselected population with renal artery stenosis, stenting provides no benefit to renal function, and that the risk of a worsening of renal function after intervention is roughly equal to the likelihood of achieving any benefit.

Other predictors of improvement in renal function have been proposed, but the evidence supporting them has not been consistent. For example, although Radermacher et al42 reported that a renal resistive index (which reflects arterial stiffness downstream of the stenosis) lower than 0.8 predicted a response in renal function, this finding has not been reliably reproduced.43,44 Similarly, while several studies suggest that patients with milder renal dysfunction have a higher likelihood of a renal response,45,46 other studies suggest either that the opposite is true39 or that baseline renal function alone has no impact on outcome.47

In addition, once significant renal atrophy occurs, revascularization may not help much, since irreversible sclerosis has developed. Thus, the goal is to identify kidneys being harmed by renal artery stenosis during the ischemic phase, when the tissue is still viable.

Unfortunately, we still lack a good renal stress test—eg, analogous to the cardiac stress test—to diagnose reversible ischemia in the kidney. The captopril renal scan has that capability but is not accurate in patients with bilateral stenosis or a GFR less than 50 mL/min, severely limiting its applicability.26 Newer technologies such as blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) magnetic resonance imaging are being investigated for such a role.48

Cohort studies in patients with declining renal function

In several case series, patients whose renal function had been declining before intervention had impressive rates of better renal function afterward.33,39,47,49–54 In a prospective cohort study by Muray et al,47 a rise in serum creatinine of more than 0.1 mg/mL/month before intervention seemed to predict an improvement in renal function afterward.

One would expect that, for renal function to respond to intervention, severe bilateral stenosis or unilateral stenosis to a solitary functioning kidney would need to be present. However, this was an inconsistent finding in these case series.33,39,47,52,53 The Angioplasty and Stent for Renal Artery Lesions (ASTRAL) trial,6,7 discussed later, sheds a bit more light on this.

Stenting usually improves flash pulmonary edema

Acute pulmonary edema in the setting of bilateral renal artery stenosis seems to be a unique case in which improvement in clinical status can be expected in most patients after intervention. Blood pressure improves in 94% to 100% of patients,28,31 renal function either improves or stabilizes in 77% to 91%,28–31 and pulmonary edema resolves without recurrence in 77% to 100%.28–30

NEW RANDOMIZED TRIALS: STAR, ASTRAL, AND CORAL

Despite the lack of evidence supporting revascularization of renal artery stenosis, many interventionalists practice under the assumption that the radiographic finding of renal artery stenosis alone is an indication for renal revascularization. Only three randomized controlled trials in the modern era attempt to examine this hypothesis: STAR, ASTRAL, and CORAL.

STAR: No clear benefit

The Stent Placement and Blood Pressure and Lipid-lowering for the Prevention of Progression of Renal Dysfunction Caused by Atherosclerotic Ostial Stenosis of the Renal Artery (STAR) trial5 was a European multicenter trial that enrolled 140 patients with ostial renal artery stenosis greater than 50%, blood pressure controlled to less than 140/90 mm Hg, and creatinine clearance 15 to 80 mL/min.

Patients were randomized to undergo stenting or medical therapy alone. High blood pressure was treated according to a protocol in which angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers were relegated to second-line use. All patients received a statin, regardless of lipid levels.

At 2 years, the primary end point (a decline in creatinine clearance of 20% or greater) had been reached in 10 (16%) of the 64 patients in the stent group and 16 (22%) of the 76 patients in the medication group; the difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.33–1.61). No difference was seen in the secondary end points of the degree of blood pressure control or the rates of cardiovascular morbidity and death.5

 

 

ASTRAL: Also no clear benefit

In the international, multicenter ASTRAL trial,6,7 806 patients with at least one stenotic renal artery considered suitable for balloon angioplasty, stenting, or both7 were randomized to undergo intervention or medical management. Hypertension treatment was not specified by a protocol. The mean estimated GFR was 40 mL/min. Most patients (95%–96%) were on statin therapy. The primary outcome was the rate of decline of renal function over time. Secondary outcomes included blood pressure control, renal events, cardiovascular events, and death.

Results. At a mean follow-up of 33.6 months (range 1–4 years), no difference was noted between treatment groups in decline in renal function or blood pressure control at 1 year. Renal function worsened slightly in both groups.

The decline in renal function over time, calculated as the mean slope of the reciprocal of the serum creatinine level over time, was slightly slower in the revascularization group, but the difference was not statistically significant (−0.07 × 10−3 vs −0.13 × 10−3 L/μmol/year, P = .06). This difference did not appear until the last year of the study. There was no difference in the number of patients whose renal function improved or declined during the study.

There was no difference in the rate of any secondary outcome. The medical management group required a slightly higher number of antihypertensive drugs, reaching statistical but not clinical significance (2.97 vs 2.77 drugs, P = .03). More people in the revascularization group were taking ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. There was no difference in the number of patients on any antihypertensive therapy (97% vs 99%). Interestingly, amputations were more common in the revascularization group, occurring in 42 (12%) of the 386 patients in the revascularization group vs 29 (7%) of the 395 patients in the medical group (P = .04).

Seventeen percent of patients randomized to intervention did not have the procedure done. An as-treated analysis of the 317 (83%) patients randomized to revascularization who did receive it showed no differences in outcomes.

There were no differences in outcomes among specific, predefined subgroups based on severity of stenosis at baseline, renal length, baseline estimated GFR, baseline serum creatinine, and rate of progression of renal dysfunction before randomization.7

Comments. ASTRAL contradicts previous nonrandomized studies that suggested that rapidly declining renal function (loss of 20% in 1 year) predicts response to intervention. Considering the large number of patients with unilateral disease in the study, it would be interesting to see what effect stenting had on patients with both severe disease and declining renal function.

ASTRAL has been criticized because it lacked a central laboratory to interpret the severity of stenosis, it did not use a standardized intervention technique (5% of patients underwent angioplasty without stents, although this did not affect outcomes7), and patients were enrolled only if the clinician involved in the case was uncertain of the appropriate management.

This last issue raises the concern for selection bias toward inclusion of more difficult cases that may not respond to intervention. But these shortcomings are not serious enough to negate the fact that preliminary results from the largest randomized controlled trial to date confirm conclusions of other randomized trials, ie, that intervention in renal artery stenosis yields no benefits over medical management in most patients.

Based on the results of STAR and ASTRAL, the practice of indiscriminately revascularizing stenosed renal arteries without strong evidence that the procedure will provide a clinical benefit is no longer tenable. The challenge is to identify those few patients who will respond, and to intervene only on them. Unfortunately, none of the subgroups from ASTRAL helped characterize this population.

CORAL: A large trial is ongoing

The Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Artherosclerotic Lesions (CORAL) trial,8 an ongoing multicenter randomized controlled trial in the United States, may be of additional help.

Unlike ASTRAL, CORAL is studying patients who have difficult-to-control hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥ 155 mm Hg on two or more drugs).8 Chronic kidney disease is not an exclusion criterion unless the serum creatinine concentration is greater than 3.0 mg/dL.

CORAL is using a standardized medical protocol to control blood pressure. In addition, use of embolic protection devices during stenting is encouraged. Hopefully, the large size (a goal of 1,080 patients) and the inclusion of patients with more marked hypertension will address the utility of intervention in higher-risk populations with renal artery stenosis.

RECOMMENDED APPROACH TO INTERVENTION IN RENAL ARTERY STENOSIS

As we wait for CORAL to be completed, we have two modern-era randomized controlled trials that leave us with fewer indications for renal intervention. Table 2 lists commonly cited indications for intervention in renal artery stenosis and the evidence to support them. As most of these are based on retrospective data or have conflicting support in the literature, their utility remains in question. At this point we can safely recommend:

  • Patients with preserved or even decreased but stable renal function will not likely have a benefit in renal function after intervention.
  • Patients with resistant hypertension may benefit.
  • The best evidence supporting intervention is for bilateral stenosis with flash pulmonary edema, but the evidence is from retrospective studies.
  • Stenting in bilateral disease without another indication has no apparent benefit.
  • Declining renal function is not a guarantee of success.
  • It is unclear if patients with severe bilateral stenosis or severe stenosis to a solitary functioning kidney with declining renal function will benefit. Anecdotally, they do respond more often, but as with many other indications for intervention that have gone by the wayside, this may not bear out when studied properly.

Based on the current evidence, imperfect as it is, recommendations for a basic approach to intervention in renal artery stenosis are presented in Table 3.

As the utility of intervention narrows, the scope of practice for such interventions should narrow accordingly. Attention should now be focusing on clinical, rather than radiographic, indications for intervening on renal artery stenosis.

Therefore, the decision to intervene must not be made solely by the interventionalist. A multidisciplinary approach should be adopted that at the very least includes the input of a nephrologist well versed in renal artery stenosis. In this way, the clinical risks and benefits of renal intervention can be discussed with the patient by providers who are likely to be involved in their care should renal function or hypertension fail to improve afterward.

 

 

RISK OF ATHEROEMBOLISM

While renal stenting yields improved technical success in the treatment of renal artery stenosis, it carries with it an increasingly common risk to kidney function: atheroembolism as the stent crushes the plaque against the vessel wall. This may lead to obstruction of the renal microvasculature, increasing the risk of irreversible damage to renal function.

Atheroembolic kidney disease can manifest as progressive renal failure occurring over weeks to months, commonly misdiagnosed as permanent damage from contrast nephropathy.55

Embolic protection devices, inserted downstream of the lesion before stenting to catch any debris that may break loose, have been developed to help address this problem.

Holden et al 57 prospectively studied 63 patients with renal artery stenosis and deteriorating renal function (undefined) who underwent stenting with an embolic protection device. At 6 months after the intervention, renal function had either improved or stabilized in 97% of patients, suggesting that many of the deleterious effects of stenting on renal function are related to atheroembolism.

The Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Renal Artery Stenting With or Without Distal Protection (RESIST) trial, in which renal dysfunction was mild and the GFR was not declining (average estimated GFR 59.3 mL/min), found contrary results.57 In a two-by-two factorial study, patients were randomized to undergo stenting alone, stenting with the antiplatelet agent abciximab (ReoPro), stenting with an embolic protection device, or stenting with both abciximab and an embolic protection device. Interestingly, renal function declined in the first three groups, but remained stable in the group that received both abciximab and an embolic protection device.

ANTIPLATELET THERAPY AFTER RENAL STENTING: HOW LONG?

We have no data on the optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy after renal stenting, and guidelines from professional societies do not comment on it.58 As a result, practice patterns vary significantly among practitioners.

While in-stent restenosis rates are acceptably low after renal stenting, the risks and side effects of antiplatelet therapy often lead to arbitrary withdrawal of these drugs. The effect on stent patency is yet to be determined.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Results of STAR and ASTRAL confirm the growing suspicion that the surge seen in the last decade in renal artery stenting should be coming to an end. We await results either from CORAL or possibly a post hoc analysis of ASTRAL that might identify potential high-risk groups that will benefit from renal intervention. And as embolic protection devices become more agile and suitable to different renal lesions, there remains the possibility that, due to lower rates of unidentified atheroembolic kidney disease, CORAL may demonstrate improved renal outcomes after stenting. If not, the search for the best means to predict who should have renal intervention will continue.

We know through experience that stenting does provide great benefits for some patients with renal artery stenosis. Furthermore, the clinical problem is too intriguing, and too profitable, to die altogether.

References
  1. Choncol M, Linas S. Diagnosis and management of ischemic nephropathy. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2006; 1:172181.
  2. Webster J, Marshall F, Abdalla M, et al Randomised comparison of percutaneous angioplasty vs continued medical therapy for hypertensive patients with atheromatous renal artery stenosis. Scottish and Newcastle Renal Artery Stenosis Collaborative Group. J Hum Hypertens 1998; 12:329335.
  3. Plouin PF, Chatellier G, Darne B, Raynaud A. Blood pressure outcome of angioplasty in atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: a randomized trial. Essai Multicentrique Medicaments vs Angioplastie (EMMA) Study Group. Hypertension 1998; 31:823829.
  4. Textor SC. Revascularization in atherosclerotic renal artery disease. Kidney Int 1998; 53:799811.
  5. Bax L, Woittiez AJ, Kouwenberg HJ, et al Stent placement in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis and impaired renal function: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150:840848.
  6. Mistry S, Ives N, Harding J, et al Angioplasty and STent for Renal Artery Lesions (ASTRAL trial): rationale, methods and results so far. J Hum Hypertens 2007; 21:511515.
  7. Wheatley K, Ives N, Kalra P, Moss J. Revascularization versus medical therapy for renal-artery stenosis (ASTRAL). N Engl J Med 2009; 361:19531962.
  8. Cooper CJ, Murphy TP, Matsumoto A, et al Stent revascularization for the prevention of cardiovascular and renal events among patients with renal artery stenosis and systolic hypertension: rationale and design of the CORAL trial. Am Heart J 2006; 152:5966.
  9. Galaria II, Surowiec SM, Rhodes JM, et al Percutaneous and open renal revascularizations have equivalent long-term functional outcomes. Ann Vasc Surg 2005; 19:218228.
  10. Murphy TP, Soares G, Kim M. Increase in utilization of percutaneous renal artery interventions by Medicare beneficiaries 1996–2000. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183:561568.
  11. Textor SC. Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: overtreated but underrated? J Am Soc Nephrol 2008; 19:656659.
  12. Kalra PA, Guo H, Gilbertson DT, et al Atherosclerotic renovascular disease in the United States. Kidney Int 2010; 77:3743.
  13. Hansen KJ, Edwards MS, Craven TE, et al Prevalence of renovascular disease in the elderly: a population-based study. J Vasc Surg 2002; 36:443451.
  14. Cohen MG, Pascua JA, Garcia-Ben M, et al A simple prediction rule for significant renal artery stenosis in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. Am Heart J 2005; 150:12041211.
  15. Buller CE, Nogareda JG, Ramanathan K, et al The profile of cardiac patients with renal artery stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43:16061613.
  16. White CJ, Olin JW. Diagnosis and management of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: improving patient selection and outcomes. Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med 2009; 6:176190.
  17. Kalra PA, Guo H, Kausz AT, et al Atherosclerotic renovascular disease in United States patients aged 67 years or older: risk factors, revascularization, and prognosis. Kidney Int 2005; 69:293301.
  18. Holley KE, Hunt JC, Brown AL, Kincaid OW, Sheps SG. Renal artery stenosis. A clinical-pathologic study in normotensive and hypertensive patients. Am J Med 1964; 37:1422.
  19. de Mast Q, Beutler JJ. The prevalence of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis in risk groups: a systemic literature review. J Hypertens 2009; 27:13331340.
  20. Kuczera P, Włoszczynska E, Adamczak M, Pencak P, Chudek J, Wiecek A. Frequency of renal artery stenosis and variants of renal vascularization in hypertensive patients: analysis of 1550 angiographies in one centre. J Hum Hypertens 2009; 23:396401.
  21. Caps MT, Perissinotto C, Zierler RE, et al Prospective study of atherosclerotic disease progression in the renal artery. Circulation 1998; 98:28662872.
  22. Zierler RE, Bergelin RO, Davidson RC, Cantwell-Gab K, Polissar NL, Strandness DE. A prospective study of disease progression in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. Am J Hypertens 1996; 9:10551061.
  23. Schreiber MJ, Pohl MA, Novick AC. The natural history of atherosclerotic and fibrous renal artery disease. Urol Clin North Am 1984; 11:383392.
  24. Crowley JJ, Santos RM, Peter RH, et al Progression of renal artery stenosis in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. Am Heart J 1998; 136:913918.
  25. Textor SC. Renovascular hypertension update. Curr Hypertens Rep 2006; 8:521527.
  26. Textor SC. Ischemic nephropathy: where are we now? J Am Soc Nephrol 2004; 15:19741982.
  27. Wright JR, Shurrab AE, Cheung C, et al A prospective study of the determinants of renal functional outcome and mortality in atherosclerotic renovascular disease. Am J Kidney Dis 2002; 39:11531161.
  28. Messina LM, Zelenock GB, Yao KA, Stanley JC. Renal revascularization for recurrent pulmonary edema in patients with poorly controlled hypertension and renal insufficiency: a distinct subgroup of patients with arteriosclerotic renal artery occlusive disease. J Vasc Surg 1992; 15:7380.
  29. Bloch MJ, Trost DW, Pickering TG, Sos TA, August P. Prevention of recurrent pulmonary edema in patients with bilateral renovascular disease through renal artery stent placement. Am J Hypertens 1999; 12:17.
  30. Gray BH, Olin JW, Childs MB, Sullivan TM, Bacharach JM. Clinical benefit of renal artery angioplasty with stenting for the control of recurrent and refractory congestive heart failure. Vasc Med 2002; 7:275279.
  31. Pickering TG, Herman L, Devereux RB, et al Recurrent pulmonary oedema in hypertension due to bilateral renal artery stenosis: treatment by angioplasty or surgical revascularisation. Lancet 1988; 2:551552.
  32. Kennedy DJ, Colyer WR, Brewster PS, et al Renal insufficiency as a predictor of adverse events and mortality after renal artery stent placement. Am J Kidney Dis 2003; 14:926935.
  33. Beutler JJ, Van Ampting JM, Van De Ven PJ, et al Long-term effects of arterial stenting on kidney function for patients with ostial atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis and renal insufficiency. J Am Soc Nephrol 2001; 12:14751481.
  34. Van de Ven PJ, Kaatee R, Beutler JJ, et al Arterial stenting and balloon angioplasty in ostial atherosclerotic renovascular disease: a randomized trial. Lancet 1999; 353:282286.
  35. Isles C, Main J, O’Connell J, et al Survival associated with renovascular disease in Glasgow and Newcastle: a collaborative study. Scott Med J 1990; 35:7073.
  36. Hunt JC, Sheps SG, Harrison EG, Strong CG, Bernatz PE. Renal and renovascular hypertension. A reasoned approach to diagnosis and management. Arch Intern Med 1974; 133:988999.
  37. Textor SC. Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: how big is the problem, and what happens if nothing is done? J Hypertens Suppl 2005; 23:S5S13.
  38. van Jaarsveld BC, Krijnen P, Pieterman H, et al The effect of balloon angioplasty on hypertension in atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis. Dutch Renal Artery Stenosis Intervention Cooperative Study Group. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:10071014.
  39. Zeller T, Frank U, Müller C, et al Predictors of improved renal function after percutaneous stent-supported angioplasty of severe atherosclerotic ostial renal artery stenosis. Circulation 2003; 108;22442249.
  40. Chábová V, Schirger A, Stanson AW, McKusick MA, Textor SC. Outcomes of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis managed without revascularization. Mayo Clin Proc 2000; 75:437444.
  41. Davies MG, Saad WE, Peden EK, Mohiuddin IT, Naoum JJ, Lumsden AB. Implications of acute functional injury following percutaneous renal artery intervention. Ann Vasc Surg 2008; 22:783789.
  42. Radermacher J, Chavin A, Bleck J, et al Use of Doppler ultrasonography to predict the outcome of therapy for renal-artery stenosis. N Eng J Med 2001; 344:410417.
  43. García-Criado A, Gilabert R, Nicolau C, et al Value of Doppler sonography for predicting clinical outcome after renal artery revascularization in atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24:16411647.
  44. Zeller T, Müller C, Frank U, et al Stent angioplasty of severe atherosclerotic ostial renal artery stenosis in patients with diabetes mellitus and nephrosclerosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2003; 58:510515.
  45. Harden PN, MacLeod MJ, Rodger RSC, et al Effect of renal-artery stenting on progression of renovascular renal failure. Lancet 1997; 349:11331136.
  46. Isles CG, Robertson S, Hill D. Management of renovascular disease: a review of renal artery stenting in ten studies. QJM 1999; 92:159167.
  47. Muray S, Martın M, Amoedo ML, et al Rapid decline in renal function reflects reversibility and predicts the outcome after angioplasty in renal artery stenosis. Am J Kidney Dis 2002; 39:6066.
  48. Textor SC, Glockner JF, Lerman LO, et al The use of magnetic resonance to evaluate tissue oxygenation in renal artery stenosis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2008; 19:780788.
  49. Paraskevas KI, Perrea D, Briana DD, Liapis CD. Management of atherosclerotic renovascular disease: the effect of renal artery stenting on renal function and blood pressure. Int Urol Nephrol 2006; 38:683691.
  50. Watson PS, Hadjipetrou P, Cox SV, Piemonte TC, Eisenhauer AC. Effect of renal artery stenting on renal function and size in patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease. Circulation 2000; 102:16711677.
  51. Dean RH, Kieffer RW, Smith BM, et al Renovascular hypertension: anatomic and renal function changes during drug therapy. Arch Surg 1981; 116:14081415.
  52. Zhang Q, Shen W, Zhang R, Zhang J, Hu J, Zhang X. Effects of renal artery stenting on renal function and blood pressure in patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease. Chin Med J (Engl) 2003; 116:14511454.
  53. Ramos F, Kotliar C, Alvarez D, et al Renal function and outcome of PTRA and stenting for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. Kidney Int 2003; 63:276282.
  54. Rocha-Singh KJ, Ahuja RK, Sung CH, Rutherford J. Long-term renal function preservation after renal artery stenting in patients with progressive ischemic nephropathy. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2002; 57:135141.
  55. Thadhani RI, Camargo CA, Xavier RJ, Fang LS, Bazari H. Atheroembolic renal failure after invasive procedures. Natural history based on 52 histologically proven cases. Medicine (Baltimore) 1995; 74:350358.
  56. Holden A, Hill A, Jaff MR, Pilmore H. Renal artery stent revascularization with embolic protection in patients with ischemic nephropathy. Kidney Int 2006; 70:948955.
  57. Cooper CJ, Haller ST, Colyer W, et al Embolic protection and platelet inhibition during renal artery stenting. Circulation 2008; 117:27522760.
  58. Hirsch AT, Haskal ZJ, Hertzer NR, et al ACC/AHA 2005 Practice guidelines for the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease (lower extremity, renal, mesenteric, and abdominal aortic): a collaborative report from the American Association for Vascular Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, Society of Interventional Radiology, and the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease): endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Society for Vascular Nursing; TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus; and Vascular Disease Foundation. Circulation 2006; 113:e463e654.
References
  1. Choncol M, Linas S. Diagnosis and management of ischemic nephropathy. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2006; 1:172181.
  2. Webster J, Marshall F, Abdalla M, et al Randomised comparison of percutaneous angioplasty vs continued medical therapy for hypertensive patients with atheromatous renal artery stenosis. Scottish and Newcastle Renal Artery Stenosis Collaborative Group. J Hum Hypertens 1998; 12:329335.
  3. Plouin PF, Chatellier G, Darne B, Raynaud A. Blood pressure outcome of angioplasty in atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: a randomized trial. Essai Multicentrique Medicaments vs Angioplastie (EMMA) Study Group. Hypertension 1998; 31:823829.
  4. Textor SC. Revascularization in atherosclerotic renal artery disease. Kidney Int 1998; 53:799811.
  5. Bax L, Woittiez AJ, Kouwenberg HJ, et al Stent placement in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis and impaired renal function: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150:840848.
  6. Mistry S, Ives N, Harding J, et al Angioplasty and STent for Renal Artery Lesions (ASTRAL trial): rationale, methods and results so far. J Hum Hypertens 2007; 21:511515.
  7. Wheatley K, Ives N, Kalra P, Moss J. Revascularization versus medical therapy for renal-artery stenosis (ASTRAL). N Engl J Med 2009; 361:19531962.
  8. Cooper CJ, Murphy TP, Matsumoto A, et al Stent revascularization for the prevention of cardiovascular and renal events among patients with renal artery stenosis and systolic hypertension: rationale and design of the CORAL trial. Am Heart J 2006; 152:5966.
  9. Galaria II, Surowiec SM, Rhodes JM, et al Percutaneous and open renal revascularizations have equivalent long-term functional outcomes. Ann Vasc Surg 2005; 19:218228.
  10. Murphy TP, Soares G, Kim M. Increase in utilization of percutaneous renal artery interventions by Medicare beneficiaries 1996–2000. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183:561568.
  11. Textor SC. Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: overtreated but underrated? J Am Soc Nephrol 2008; 19:656659.
  12. Kalra PA, Guo H, Gilbertson DT, et al Atherosclerotic renovascular disease in the United States. Kidney Int 2010; 77:3743.
  13. Hansen KJ, Edwards MS, Craven TE, et al Prevalence of renovascular disease in the elderly: a population-based study. J Vasc Surg 2002; 36:443451.
  14. Cohen MG, Pascua JA, Garcia-Ben M, et al A simple prediction rule for significant renal artery stenosis in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. Am Heart J 2005; 150:12041211.
  15. Buller CE, Nogareda JG, Ramanathan K, et al The profile of cardiac patients with renal artery stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43:16061613.
  16. White CJ, Olin JW. Diagnosis and management of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: improving patient selection and outcomes. Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med 2009; 6:176190.
  17. Kalra PA, Guo H, Kausz AT, et al Atherosclerotic renovascular disease in United States patients aged 67 years or older: risk factors, revascularization, and prognosis. Kidney Int 2005; 69:293301.
  18. Holley KE, Hunt JC, Brown AL, Kincaid OW, Sheps SG. Renal artery stenosis. A clinical-pathologic study in normotensive and hypertensive patients. Am J Med 1964; 37:1422.
  19. de Mast Q, Beutler JJ. The prevalence of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis in risk groups: a systemic literature review. J Hypertens 2009; 27:13331340.
  20. Kuczera P, Włoszczynska E, Adamczak M, Pencak P, Chudek J, Wiecek A. Frequency of renal artery stenosis and variants of renal vascularization in hypertensive patients: analysis of 1550 angiographies in one centre. J Hum Hypertens 2009; 23:396401.
  21. Caps MT, Perissinotto C, Zierler RE, et al Prospective study of atherosclerotic disease progression in the renal artery. Circulation 1998; 98:28662872.
  22. Zierler RE, Bergelin RO, Davidson RC, Cantwell-Gab K, Polissar NL, Strandness DE. A prospective study of disease progression in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. Am J Hypertens 1996; 9:10551061.
  23. Schreiber MJ, Pohl MA, Novick AC. The natural history of atherosclerotic and fibrous renal artery disease. Urol Clin North Am 1984; 11:383392.
  24. Crowley JJ, Santos RM, Peter RH, et al Progression of renal artery stenosis in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. Am Heart J 1998; 136:913918.
  25. Textor SC. Renovascular hypertension update. Curr Hypertens Rep 2006; 8:521527.
  26. Textor SC. Ischemic nephropathy: where are we now? J Am Soc Nephrol 2004; 15:19741982.
  27. Wright JR, Shurrab AE, Cheung C, et al A prospective study of the determinants of renal functional outcome and mortality in atherosclerotic renovascular disease. Am J Kidney Dis 2002; 39:11531161.
  28. Messina LM, Zelenock GB, Yao KA, Stanley JC. Renal revascularization for recurrent pulmonary edema in patients with poorly controlled hypertension and renal insufficiency: a distinct subgroup of patients with arteriosclerotic renal artery occlusive disease. J Vasc Surg 1992; 15:7380.
  29. Bloch MJ, Trost DW, Pickering TG, Sos TA, August P. Prevention of recurrent pulmonary edema in patients with bilateral renovascular disease through renal artery stent placement. Am J Hypertens 1999; 12:17.
  30. Gray BH, Olin JW, Childs MB, Sullivan TM, Bacharach JM. Clinical benefit of renal artery angioplasty with stenting for the control of recurrent and refractory congestive heart failure. Vasc Med 2002; 7:275279.
  31. Pickering TG, Herman L, Devereux RB, et al Recurrent pulmonary oedema in hypertension due to bilateral renal artery stenosis: treatment by angioplasty or surgical revascularisation. Lancet 1988; 2:551552.
  32. Kennedy DJ, Colyer WR, Brewster PS, et al Renal insufficiency as a predictor of adverse events and mortality after renal artery stent placement. Am J Kidney Dis 2003; 14:926935.
  33. Beutler JJ, Van Ampting JM, Van De Ven PJ, et al Long-term effects of arterial stenting on kidney function for patients with ostial atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis and renal insufficiency. J Am Soc Nephrol 2001; 12:14751481.
  34. Van de Ven PJ, Kaatee R, Beutler JJ, et al Arterial stenting and balloon angioplasty in ostial atherosclerotic renovascular disease: a randomized trial. Lancet 1999; 353:282286.
  35. Isles C, Main J, O’Connell J, et al Survival associated with renovascular disease in Glasgow and Newcastle: a collaborative study. Scott Med J 1990; 35:7073.
  36. Hunt JC, Sheps SG, Harrison EG, Strong CG, Bernatz PE. Renal and renovascular hypertension. A reasoned approach to diagnosis and management. Arch Intern Med 1974; 133:988999.
  37. Textor SC. Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: how big is the problem, and what happens if nothing is done? J Hypertens Suppl 2005; 23:S5S13.
  38. van Jaarsveld BC, Krijnen P, Pieterman H, et al The effect of balloon angioplasty on hypertension in atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis. Dutch Renal Artery Stenosis Intervention Cooperative Study Group. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:10071014.
  39. Zeller T, Frank U, Müller C, et al Predictors of improved renal function after percutaneous stent-supported angioplasty of severe atherosclerotic ostial renal artery stenosis. Circulation 2003; 108;22442249.
  40. Chábová V, Schirger A, Stanson AW, McKusick MA, Textor SC. Outcomes of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis managed without revascularization. Mayo Clin Proc 2000; 75:437444.
  41. Davies MG, Saad WE, Peden EK, Mohiuddin IT, Naoum JJ, Lumsden AB. Implications of acute functional injury following percutaneous renal artery intervention. Ann Vasc Surg 2008; 22:783789.
  42. Radermacher J, Chavin A, Bleck J, et al Use of Doppler ultrasonography to predict the outcome of therapy for renal-artery stenosis. N Eng J Med 2001; 344:410417.
  43. García-Criado A, Gilabert R, Nicolau C, et al Value of Doppler sonography for predicting clinical outcome after renal artery revascularization in atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24:16411647.
  44. Zeller T, Müller C, Frank U, et al Stent angioplasty of severe atherosclerotic ostial renal artery stenosis in patients with diabetes mellitus and nephrosclerosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2003; 58:510515.
  45. Harden PN, MacLeod MJ, Rodger RSC, et al Effect of renal-artery stenting on progression of renovascular renal failure. Lancet 1997; 349:11331136.
  46. Isles CG, Robertson S, Hill D. Management of renovascular disease: a review of renal artery stenting in ten studies. QJM 1999; 92:159167.
  47. Muray S, Martın M, Amoedo ML, et al Rapid decline in renal function reflects reversibility and predicts the outcome after angioplasty in renal artery stenosis. Am J Kidney Dis 2002; 39:6066.
  48. Textor SC, Glockner JF, Lerman LO, et al The use of magnetic resonance to evaluate tissue oxygenation in renal artery stenosis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2008; 19:780788.
  49. Paraskevas KI, Perrea D, Briana DD, Liapis CD. Management of atherosclerotic renovascular disease: the effect of renal artery stenting on renal function and blood pressure. Int Urol Nephrol 2006; 38:683691.
  50. Watson PS, Hadjipetrou P, Cox SV, Piemonte TC, Eisenhauer AC. Effect of renal artery stenting on renal function and size in patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease. Circulation 2000; 102:16711677.
  51. Dean RH, Kieffer RW, Smith BM, et al Renovascular hypertension: anatomic and renal function changes during drug therapy. Arch Surg 1981; 116:14081415.
  52. Zhang Q, Shen W, Zhang R, Zhang J, Hu J, Zhang X. Effects of renal artery stenting on renal function and blood pressure in patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease. Chin Med J (Engl) 2003; 116:14511454.
  53. Ramos F, Kotliar C, Alvarez D, et al Renal function and outcome of PTRA and stenting for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. Kidney Int 2003; 63:276282.
  54. Rocha-Singh KJ, Ahuja RK, Sung CH, Rutherford J. Long-term renal function preservation after renal artery stenting in patients with progressive ischemic nephropathy. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2002; 57:135141.
  55. Thadhani RI, Camargo CA, Xavier RJ, Fang LS, Bazari H. Atheroembolic renal failure after invasive procedures. Natural history based on 52 histologically proven cases. Medicine (Baltimore) 1995; 74:350358.
  56. Holden A, Hill A, Jaff MR, Pilmore H. Renal artery stent revascularization with embolic protection in patients with ischemic nephropathy. Kidney Int 2006; 70:948955.
  57. Cooper CJ, Haller ST, Colyer W, et al Embolic protection and platelet inhibition during renal artery stenting. Circulation 2008; 117:27522760.
  58. Hirsch AT, Haskal ZJ, Hertzer NR, et al ACC/AHA 2005 Practice guidelines for the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease (lower extremity, renal, mesenteric, and abdominal aortic): a collaborative report from the American Association for Vascular Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, Society of Interventional Radiology, and the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease): endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Society for Vascular Nursing; TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus; and Vascular Disease Foundation. Circulation 2006; 113:e463e654.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 77(3)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 77(3)
Page Number
178-189
Page Number
178-189
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Stenting atherosclerotic renal arteries: Time to be less aggressive
Display Headline
Stenting atherosclerotic renal arteries: Time to be less aggressive
Sections
Inside the Article

KEY POINTS

  • Two large randomized trials of intervention vs medical therapy showed negative results for intervention. A third trial is under way.
  • Intervention is not recommended if renal function has remained stable over the past 6 to 12 months and if hypertension can be controlled medically.
  • The best evidence supporting intervention is for bilateral stenosis with “flash” pulmonary edema, but the evidence is from retrospective studies.
  • Stenosis by itself, even if bilateral, is not an indication for renal artery stenting.
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Treating silent reflux disease does not improve poorly controlled asthma

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/15/2018 - 07:53
Display Headline
Treating silent reflux disease does not improve poorly controlled asthma

Should patients with poorly controlled asthma be treated empirically for gastroesphageal reflux disease (GERD)?

Current guidelines1 indicate that trying a proton pump inhibitor may be worthwhile. However, the results of a recent multicenter trial2 indicate that this does not help control asthma symptoms and that we need to reevaluate the guidelines and focus on other factors that can worsen asthma control.

REFLUX DISEASE IS LINKED TO ASTHMA

GERD’s association with asthma has long been recognized. Asthma patients have a higher prevalence of GERD than the general population, with reported rates of 20% to 80%.3–8

GERD may worsen asthma via several mechanisms. If stomach acid gets into the airway, it can induce bronchoconstriction, vagal reflexes, and chronic airway inflammation, all of which can increase airway reactivity.9–16 Chronic reflux can also cause inflammation of the esophagus, which can exacerbate cough and possibly bronchospasm via neurogenic mechanisms.17

In turn, asthma may worsen GERD. Airway restriction can lead to hyperinflation and increased negative inspiratory pleural pressure, both of which may reduce the effectiveness of the lower esophageal sphincter.18 In addition, the beta-agonists and methylxanthines used to treat asthma may impair function of the lower esophageal sphincter and exacerbate reflux.18–20

CURRENT GUIDELINES ARE BASED ON LIMITED INFORMATION

The symptoms of GERD and asthma are nonspecific and can be similar (chest tightness, chest discomfort), which can make it challenging for clinicians or patients to distinguish asthma from GERD.2 Moreover, in asthma patients, GERD often presents without classic symptoms such as heartburn, and thus has been labeled “silent” GERD.

Earlier studies21–29 (Table 1) suggested that treating GERD may improve asthma control. Based on this information, the most recent asthma guidelines from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommend trying GERD treatment in patients with poorly controlled asthma, even if they do not have classic GERD symptoms.1

However, these studies all had significant limitations, such as small sample size. Also, the definitions of asthma and GERD differed from study to study. In some cases, the definition of GERD included self-reported GERD, which often fails to correlate with GERD documented with esophageal pH monitoring in asthma patients.1 These limitations were highlighted in a Cochrane review,30 which found that asthma patients with GERD showed no overall improvement in asthma after treatment of reflux. It concluded that small groups of patients may benefit, but that predicting who will respond is difficult.

Larger randomized controlled trials28,29 attempted to address some of these limitations, with varying results.

Littner et al29 gave lansoprazole (Prevacid) 30 mg twice daily or placebo to 207 patients with moderate to severe asthma and symptomatic GERD and saw no improvement in daily asthma symptoms, ie, asthma control in the active-treatment group. While these patients had an improvement in symptoms of severe reflux, their overall quality-of-life scores were similar to those of the placebo group. Of note, patients needing more than one type of drug for asthma control had a lower rate of asthma exacerbations.

Kiljander et al28 gave esomeprazole (Nexium) 40 mg twice daily or placebo to 770 patients who had mild to moderate asthma and symptoms of nocturnal asthma with or without symptoms of GERD. The only benefit was a slight improvement in peak expiratory flow in those with symptoms of both GERD and nocturnal asthma, and this was most significant in patients taking long-acting beta-agonists. Other measures—eg, the forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), use of a beta-agonist, symptom scores, and nocturnal awakenings—did not improve.

In both of these studies,28,29 patients reported symptoms of GERD, so they did not have silent GERD.

THE DESIGN OF SARA

To address the limitations of the studies discussed above and evaluate the effect on asthma control of treating silent GERD, the American Lung Association and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute funded the multicenter Study of Acid Reflux in Asthma (SARA) (Table 2).2

In SARA, 412 patients age 18 and older with inadequately controlled asthma were randomized to receive esomeprazole 40 mg twice a day or placebo for 24 weeks. Inadequate control was defined as a score of 1.5 or higher on the Juniper Asthma Control Questionnaire31 despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids. Patients had no symptoms of GERD. The 40-mg twice-daily dosage of esomeprazole was chosen because it is known to suppress more than 90% of acid reflux.24,32

All patients completed a baseline asthma diary, recording peak expiratory flow rates, asthma symptoms, nighttime symptoms, and beta-agonist use. This information was collected every 4 weeks throughout the trial.

All participants also underwent esophageal pH monitoring for an objective confirmation of GERD. Patients were randomized independently of the results of the pH probe; in fact, investigators and patients were blinded to these results.

The primary outcome measure was the rate of episodes of poor asthma control, with poor control defined as any of the following:

  • A decrease of 30% or more in the morning peak expiratory flow rate on 2 consecutive days, compared with the patient’s best rate during the run-in period
  • An urgent visit, defined as an unscheduled health care visit, for asthma symptoms
  • The need for a course of oral prednisone for treatment of asthma.

Asthma was defined as doctor-diagnosed, plus either a positive methacholine challenge test (a concentration of methacholine causing a 20% reduction in FEV1 [PC20] < 16 mg/mL) or a positive bronchodilator response (a 12% increase in FEV1) to an inhaled beta-agonist. Participants had no other indication for acid suppression, including symptoms of GERD or previously diagnosed erosive esophageal or gastric disease.

Acid reflux was evaluated by ambulatory pH monitoring, which had to last at least 16 hours and span one meal and 2 hours in the recumbent position. Reflux was present if the pH was less than 4.0 for more than 5.8% of total time, 8.2% of time upright, or 3.5% of time lying down.33 Episodes and severity were measured by the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Symptom Assessment Scale.34

 

 

SARA RESULTS: NO IMPROVEMENT IN ASTHMA WITH GERD TREATMENT

The SARA treatment and control groups had similar baseline characteristics, with similar asthma symptoms. Most of the patients were women: 72% of the placebo group and 64% of the esomeprazole group. Most had baseline spirometric results at the lower end of normal (the mean FEV1 was 76% ± 16 SD in the treatment group and 78% ± 15 in the placebo group) and had very poor asthma control, with an average Juniper Asthma Control Questionnaire score of 1.9 (> 1.5 is considered poor control).31 GERD was documented with esophageal pH monitoring in 40% of patients, showing that a significant number had silent GERD.

Episodes of poor asthma control occurred with similar frequency in the esomeprazole and placebo groups (2.5 vs 2.3 events per personyear, P = .66). Treatment made no difference in this end point regardless of the baseline results of pH monitoring. No treatment effect was noted in the individual components of the episodes of poor asthma control or in secondary outcomes, including pulmonary function, airway reactivity, asthma control, symptom scores, nocturnal awakening, or quality of life.

In addition, subgroup analysis failed to identify any group—including those with documented reflux on pH probe testing or those receiving a long-acting beta-agonist—who benefited from proton pump inhibitor therapy.

The investigators concluded that these data suggest treatment of silent GERD does not improve asthma control and thus that a reevaluation of current guidelines and clinical practice is warranted.2

ISSUES REMAIN

This large clinical trial, in which asthma and GERD were well defined and objectively measured, was robustly negative in terms of showing any benefit of treatment of silent GERD on asthma control. The study population was representative of those for whom such a treatment is recommended in the current NIH guidelines, which are based on data published prior to SARA.

However, while SARA was well designed and had clear results, it had some limitations, and some issues regarding GERD and asthma remain unanswered.

Is acid the only problem in GERD? SARA focused on acidic GERD. Aspiration of substances such as pancreatic enzymes, pepsin, and bile has also been shown to induce symptoms in asthma patients.2,32,35 In addition, distention of the esophagus and stimulation of neurogenically mediated reflexes can cause symptoms or neurogenic airway inflammation that is not mitigated by drugs that target acid reflux.32

Indirectly supporting this theory is evidence that surgical interventions such as fundoplication can improve asthma symptoms. 36 However, this evidence is only from small studies with significant limitations.

Is proximal GERD worse than distal GERD? SARA did not address whether proximal and distal reflux may affect asthma differently. The importance of proximal reflux in asthma has not been clearly established, but there is evidence that patients with proximal GERD have a higher incidence of nocturnal cough than patients who have only distal reflux. 37

Dimango et al38 recently reported additional data from SARA in which patients with poorly controlled asthma underwent both proximal and distal esophageal pH monitoring to see if proximal GERD was associated with poor asthma control: 304 patients underwent dual pH-probe assessment and 38% of them had proximal reflux. The authors found no difference between those with and without proximal GERD with regard to nocturnal awakenings, need to use a rescue inhaler, inhaled controller medication dose, lung function, or airway reactivity by methacholine challenge. However, they did find that those with proximal GERD had worse asthma quality-of-life scores, and worse health-related quality-of-life scores and were more likely to complain of cough.

Thus, it appears that proximal GERD may worsen quality of life in asthmatic patients but does not worsen asthma control.

SARA RESULTS: IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT

The SARA results suggest that patients with poorly controlled asthma who are on adequate controller medications should not be treated empirically for silent GERD in the expectation that the asthma will improve. Rather, they suggest that the focus should be on other factors that can worsen asthma control, such as the ability to properly use an inhaler, the ability to afford medications, compliance with drug treatment, and adequate control of other significant comorbidities such as allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, sinusitis, allergic rhinitis, vocal cord dysfunction, and occult heart disease. The most recent NIH guidelines also suggest considering referral to an asthma specialist if symptoms persist despite adequate controller therapy.

References
  1. National Asthma Education and Prevention Program. Expert Panel Report 3 (EPR-3): Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma-Summary Report 2007. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007; 120( suppl 5):S94S138.
  2. Mastronarde JG, Anthonisen NR, Castro M, et al., American Lung Association Asthma Clinical Research Centers Efficacy of esomeprazole for treatment of poorly controlled asthma. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:14871499.
  3. Harding SM, Guzzo MR, Richter JE. 24-h Esophageal pH testing in asthmatics: respiratory symptom correlation with esophageal acid events. Chest 1999; 115:654659.
  4. Sontag SJ, O’Connell S, Khandelwal S, et al Most asthmatics have gastroesophageal reflux with or without bronchodilator therapy. Gastroenterology 1990; 99:613620.
  5. Harding SM, Guzzo MR, Richter JE. The prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux in asthma patients without reflux symptoms. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 162:3439.
  6. Vincent D, Cohen-Jonathan AM, Leport J, et al Gastro-oesophageal reflux prevalence and relationship with bronchial reactivity in asthma. Eur Respir J 1997; 10:22552259.
  7. Simpson WG. Gastroesophageal reflux disease and asthma. Diagnosis and management. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155:798803.
  8. Irwin RS, Curley FJ, French CL. Difficult-to-control asthma. Contributing factors and outcome of a systematic management protocol. Chest 1993; 103:16621669.
  9. Harding SM, Richter JE. The role of gastroesophageal reflux in chronic cough and asthma. Chest 1997; 111:13891402.
  10. Richter JE. Asthma and gastroesophageal reflux disease: the truth is difficult to define. Chest 1999; 116:11501152.
  11. Ekstrom T, Tibbling L. Esophageal acid perfusion, airway function, and symptoms in asthmatic patients with marked bronchial hyperreactivity. Chest 1989; 96:995998.
  12. Herve P, Denjean A, Jian R, Simonneau G, Duroux P. Intraesophageal perfusion of acid increases the bronchomotor response to methacholine and to isocapnic hyperventilation in asthmatic subjects. Am Rev Respir Dis 1986; 134:986989.
  13. Wu DN, Tanifuji Y, Kobayashi H, et al Effects of esophageal acid perfusion on airway hyperresponsiveness in patients with bronchial asthma. Chest 2000; 118:15531556.
  14. Cuttitta G, Cibella F, Visconti A, Scichilone N, Bellia V, Bonsignore G. Spontaneous gastroesophageal reflux and airway patency during the night in adult asthmatics. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 161:177181.
  15. Jack CI, Calverley PM, Donnelly RJ, et al Simultaneous tracheal and oesophageal pH measurements in asthmatic patients with gastrooesophageal reflux. Thorax 1995; 50:201204.
  16. Harding SM, Schan CA, Guzzo MR, Alexander RW, Bradley LA, Richter JE. Gastroesophageal reflux-induced bronchoconstriction. Is microaspiration a factor? Chest 1995; 108:12201227.
  17. Irwin RS, Madison JM, Fraire AE. The cough reflex and its relation to gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Med 2000; 108( suppl 4a):73S78S.
  18. Choy D, Leung R. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and asthma. Respirology 1997; 2:163168.
  19. Zerbib F, Guisset O, Lamouliatte H, Quinton A, Galmiche JP, Tunon-De-Lara JM. Effects of bronchial obstruction on lower esophageal sphincter motility and gastroesophageal reflux in patients with asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166:12061211.
  20. Lacy BE, Mathis C, DesBiens J, Liu MC. The effects of nebulized albuterol on esophageal function in asthmatic patients. Dig Dis Sci 2008; 53:26272633.
  21. Ford GA, Oliver PS, Prior JS, Butland RJ, Wilkinson SP. Omeprazole in the treatment of asthmatics with nocturnal symptoms and gastrooesophageal reflux: a placebo-controlled cross-over study. Postgrad Med J 1994; 70:350354.
  22. Teichtahl H, Kronborg IJ, Yeomans ND, Robinson P. Adult asthma and gastro-oesophageal reflux: the effects of omeprazole therapy on asthma. Aust N Z J Med 1996; 26:671676.
  23. Meier JH, McNally PR, Punja M, et al Does omeprazole (Prilosec) improve respiratory function in asthmatics with gastroesophageal reflux? A double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study. Dig Dis Sci 1994; 39:21272133.
  24. Harding SM, Richter JE, Guzzo MR, Schan CA, Alexander RW, Bradley LA. Asthma and gastroesophageal reflux: acid suppressive therapy improves asthma outcome. Am J Med 1996; 100:395405.
  25. Levin TR, Sperling RM, McQuaid KR. Omeprazole improves peak expiratory flow rate and quality of life in asthmatics with gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Gastroenterol 1998; 93:10601063.
  26. Boeree MJ, Peters FT, Postma DS, Kleibeuker JH. No effects of highdose omeprazole in patients with severe airway hyperresponsiveness and (a)symptomatic gastro-oesophageal reflux. Eur Respir J 1998; 11:10701074.
  27. Kiljander TO, Salomaa ER, Hietanen EK, Terho EO. Gastroesophageal reflux in asthmatics: a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study with omeprazole. Chest 1999; 116:12571264.
  28. Kiljander TO, Harding SM, Field SK, et al Effects of eso-meprazole 40 mg twice daily on asthma: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006; 173:10911097.
  29. Littner MR, Leung FW, Ballard ED, Huang B, Samra NKLansoprazole Asthma Study Group. Effects of 24 weeks of lansoprazole therapy on asthma symptoms, exacerbations, quality of life, and pulmonary function in adult asthmatic patients with acid reflux symptoms. Chest 2005; 128:11281135.
  30. Gibson PG, Henry R, Coughlan JJL. Gastro-oesophageal reflux treatment for asthma in adults and children. Coch-rane Database Syst Rev 2000;CD001496. Also available online at www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001496.html. Accessed January 28, 2010.
  31. Juniper EF, Bousquet J, Abetz L, Bateman EDGOAL Committee. Identifying ‘well-controlled’ and ‘not well-controlled’ asthma using the Asthma Control Questionnaire. Respir Med 2006; 100:616621.
  32. Canning BJ, Mazzone SB. Reflex mechanisms in gastro-esophageal reflux disease and asthma. Am J Med 2003; 115( suppl 3A):45S48S.
  33. Richter JE, Bradley LA, DeMeester TR, Wu WC. Normal 24-hr ambulatory esophageal pH values. Influence of study center, pH electrode, age, and gender. Dig Dis Sci 1992; 37:849856.
  34. Damiano A, Handley K, Adler E, Siddique R, Bhattacharyja A. Measuring symptom distress and health-related quality of life in clinical trials of gastroesophageal reflux disease treatment: further validation of the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Symptom Assessment Scale (GSAS). Dig Dis Sci 2002; 47:15301537.
  35. Asano K, Suzuki H. Silent acid reflux and asthma control [editorial]. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:15511553.
  36. Rakita S, Villadolid D, Thomas A, et al Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication offers high patient satisfaction with relief of extraesophageal symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am Surg 2006; 72:207212.
  37. Tomonaga T, Awad ZT, Filipi CJ, et al Symptom predictability of reflux-induced respiratory disease. Dig Dis Sci 2002; 47:914.
  38. Dimango E, Holbrook JT, Simpson E, et al., American Lung Association Asthma Clinical Research Centers. Effects of asymptomatic proximal and distal gastroesophageal reflux on asthma severity. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009; 180:809816.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Brent P. Riscili, MD
Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus

Jonathan P. Parsons, MD, MSc
Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, and Investigator in the Study of Acid Reflux in Asthma (SARA)

John G. Mastronarde, MD, MSc
Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, and Principal Investigator in the Study of Acid Reflux in Asthma (SARA)

Address: John G. Mastronarde, MD, The Ohio State University Medical Center, 201 Davis Heart/Lung Research Institute, 473 W. 12th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210; e-mail [email protected]

Dr. Parsons has received honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and AstraZeneca.

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 77(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
155-160
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Brent P. Riscili, MD
Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus

Jonathan P. Parsons, MD, MSc
Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, and Investigator in the Study of Acid Reflux in Asthma (SARA)

John G. Mastronarde, MD, MSc
Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, and Principal Investigator in the Study of Acid Reflux in Asthma (SARA)

Address: John G. Mastronarde, MD, The Ohio State University Medical Center, 201 Davis Heart/Lung Research Institute, 473 W. 12th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210; e-mail [email protected]

Dr. Parsons has received honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and AstraZeneca.

Author and Disclosure Information

Brent P. Riscili, MD
Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus

Jonathan P. Parsons, MD, MSc
Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, and Investigator in the Study of Acid Reflux in Asthma (SARA)

John G. Mastronarde, MD, MSc
Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, and Principal Investigator in the Study of Acid Reflux in Asthma (SARA)

Address: John G. Mastronarde, MD, The Ohio State University Medical Center, 201 Davis Heart/Lung Research Institute, 473 W. 12th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210; e-mail [email protected]

Dr. Parsons has received honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and AstraZeneca.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Should patients with poorly controlled asthma be treated empirically for gastroesphageal reflux disease (GERD)?

Current guidelines1 indicate that trying a proton pump inhibitor may be worthwhile. However, the results of a recent multicenter trial2 indicate that this does not help control asthma symptoms and that we need to reevaluate the guidelines and focus on other factors that can worsen asthma control.

REFLUX DISEASE IS LINKED TO ASTHMA

GERD’s association with asthma has long been recognized. Asthma patients have a higher prevalence of GERD than the general population, with reported rates of 20% to 80%.3–8

GERD may worsen asthma via several mechanisms. If stomach acid gets into the airway, it can induce bronchoconstriction, vagal reflexes, and chronic airway inflammation, all of which can increase airway reactivity.9–16 Chronic reflux can also cause inflammation of the esophagus, which can exacerbate cough and possibly bronchospasm via neurogenic mechanisms.17

In turn, asthma may worsen GERD. Airway restriction can lead to hyperinflation and increased negative inspiratory pleural pressure, both of which may reduce the effectiveness of the lower esophageal sphincter.18 In addition, the beta-agonists and methylxanthines used to treat asthma may impair function of the lower esophageal sphincter and exacerbate reflux.18–20

CURRENT GUIDELINES ARE BASED ON LIMITED INFORMATION

The symptoms of GERD and asthma are nonspecific and can be similar (chest tightness, chest discomfort), which can make it challenging for clinicians or patients to distinguish asthma from GERD.2 Moreover, in asthma patients, GERD often presents without classic symptoms such as heartburn, and thus has been labeled “silent” GERD.

Earlier studies21–29 (Table 1) suggested that treating GERD may improve asthma control. Based on this information, the most recent asthma guidelines from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommend trying GERD treatment in patients with poorly controlled asthma, even if they do not have classic GERD symptoms.1

However, these studies all had significant limitations, such as small sample size. Also, the definitions of asthma and GERD differed from study to study. In some cases, the definition of GERD included self-reported GERD, which often fails to correlate with GERD documented with esophageal pH monitoring in asthma patients.1 These limitations were highlighted in a Cochrane review,30 which found that asthma patients with GERD showed no overall improvement in asthma after treatment of reflux. It concluded that small groups of patients may benefit, but that predicting who will respond is difficult.

Larger randomized controlled trials28,29 attempted to address some of these limitations, with varying results.

Littner et al29 gave lansoprazole (Prevacid) 30 mg twice daily or placebo to 207 patients with moderate to severe asthma and symptomatic GERD and saw no improvement in daily asthma symptoms, ie, asthma control in the active-treatment group. While these patients had an improvement in symptoms of severe reflux, their overall quality-of-life scores were similar to those of the placebo group. Of note, patients needing more than one type of drug for asthma control had a lower rate of asthma exacerbations.

Kiljander et al28 gave esomeprazole (Nexium) 40 mg twice daily or placebo to 770 patients who had mild to moderate asthma and symptoms of nocturnal asthma with or without symptoms of GERD. The only benefit was a slight improvement in peak expiratory flow in those with symptoms of both GERD and nocturnal asthma, and this was most significant in patients taking long-acting beta-agonists. Other measures—eg, the forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), use of a beta-agonist, symptom scores, and nocturnal awakenings—did not improve.

In both of these studies,28,29 patients reported symptoms of GERD, so they did not have silent GERD.

THE DESIGN OF SARA

To address the limitations of the studies discussed above and evaluate the effect on asthma control of treating silent GERD, the American Lung Association and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute funded the multicenter Study of Acid Reflux in Asthma (SARA) (Table 2).2

In SARA, 412 patients age 18 and older with inadequately controlled asthma were randomized to receive esomeprazole 40 mg twice a day or placebo for 24 weeks. Inadequate control was defined as a score of 1.5 or higher on the Juniper Asthma Control Questionnaire31 despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids. Patients had no symptoms of GERD. The 40-mg twice-daily dosage of esomeprazole was chosen because it is known to suppress more than 90% of acid reflux.24,32

All patients completed a baseline asthma diary, recording peak expiratory flow rates, asthma symptoms, nighttime symptoms, and beta-agonist use. This information was collected every 4 weeks throughout the trial.

All participants also underwent esophageal pH monitoring for an objective confirmation of GERD. Patients were randomized independently of the results of the pH probe; in fact, investigators and patients were blinded to these results.

The primary outcome measure was the rate of episodes of poor asthma control, with poor control defined as any of the following:

  • A decrease of 30% or more in the morning peak expiratory flow rate on 2 consecutive days, compared with the patient’s best rate during the run-in period
  • An urgent visit, defined as an unscheduled health care visit, for asthma symptoms
  • The need for a course of oral prednisone for treatment of asthma.

Asthma was defined as doctor-diagnosed, plus either a positive methacholine challenge test (a concentration of methacholine causing a 20% reduction in FEV1 [PC20] < 16 mg/mL) or a positive bronchodilator response (a 12% increase in FEV1) to an inhaled beta-agonist. Participants had no other indication for acid suppression, including symptoms of GERD or previously diagnosed erosive esophageal or gastric disease.

Acid reflux was evaluated by ambulatory pH monitoring, which had to last at least 16 hours and span one meal and 2 hours in the recumbent position. Reflux was present if the pH was less than 4.0 for more than 5.8% of total time, 8.2% of time upright, or 3.5% of time lying down.33 Episodes and severity were measured by the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Symptom Assessment Scale.34

 

 

SARA RESULTS: NO IMPROVEMENT IN ASTHMA WITH GERD TREATMENT

The SARA treatment and control groups had similar baseline characteristics, with similar asthma symptoms. Most of the patients were women: 72% of the placebo group and 64% of the esomeprazole group. Most had baseline spirometric results at the lower end of normal (the mean FEV1 was 76% ± 16 SD in the treatment group and 78% ± 15 in the placebo group) and had very poor asthma control, with an average Juniper Asthma Control Questionnaire score of 1.9 (> 1.5 is considered poor control).31 GERD was documented with esophageal pH monitoring in 40% of patients, showing that a significant number had silent GERD.

Episodes of poor asthma control occurred with similar frequency in the esomeprazole and placebo groups (2.5 vs 2.3 events per personyear, P = .66). Treatment made no difference in this end point regardless of the baseline results of pH monitoring. No treatment effect was noted in the individual components of the episodes of poor asthma control or in secondary outcomes, including pulmonary function, airway reactivity, asthma control, symptom scores, nocturnal awakening, or quality of life.

In addition, subgroup analysis failed to identify any group—including those with documented reflux on pH probe testing or those receiving a long-acting beta-agonist—who benefited from proton pump inhibitor therapy.

The investigators concluded that these data suggest treatment of silent GERD does not improve asthma control and thus that a reevaluation of current guidelines and clinical practice is warranted.2

ISSUES REMAIN

This large clinical trial, in which asthma and GERD were well defined and objectively measured, was robustly negative in terms of showing any benefit of treatment of silent GERD on asthma control. The study population was representative of those for whom such a treatment is recommended in the current NIH guidelines, which are based on data published prior to SARA.

However, while SARA was well designed and had clear results, it had some limitations, and some issues regarding GERD and asthma remain unanswered.

Is acid the only problem in GERD? SARA focused on acidic GERD. Aspiration of substances such as pancreatic enzymes, pepsin, and bile has also been shown to induce symptoms in asthma patients.2,32,35 In addition, distention of the esophagus and stimulation of neurogenically mediated reflexes can cause symptoms or neurogenic airway inflammation that is not mitigated by drugs that target acid reflux.32

Indirectly supporting this theory is evidence that surgical interventions such as fundoplication can improve asthma symptoms. 36 However, this evidence is only from small studies with significant limitations.

Is proximal GERD worse than distal GERD? SARA did not address whether proximal and distal reflux may affect asthma differently. The importance of proximal reflux in asthma has not been clearly established, but there is evidence that patients with proximal GERD have a higher incidence of nocturnal cough than patients who have only distal reflux. 37

Dimango et al38 recently reported additional data from SARA in which patients with poorly controlled asthma underwent both proximal and distal esophageal pH monitoring to see if proximal GERD was associated with poor asthma control: 304 patients underwent dual pH-probe assessment and 38% of them had proximal reflux. The authors found no difference between those with and without proximal GERD with regard to nocturnal awakenings, need to use a rescue inhaler, inhaled controller medication dose, lung function, or airway reactivity by methacholine challenge. However, they did find that those with proximal GERD had worse asthma quality-of-life scores, and worse health-related quality-of-life scores and were more likely to complain of cough.

Thus, it appears that proximal GERD may worsen quality of life in asthmatic patients but does not worsen asthma control.

SARA RESULTS: IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT

The SARA results suggest that patients with poorly controlled asthma who are on adequate controller medications should not be treated empirically for silent GERD in the expectation that the asthma will improve. Rather, they suggest that the focus should be on other factors that can worsen asthma control, such as the ability to properly use an inhaler, the ability to afford medications, compliance with drug treatment, and adequate control of other significant comorbidities such as allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, sinusitis, allergic rhinitis, vocal cord dysfunction, and occult heart disease. The most recent NIH guidelines also suggest considering referral to an asthma specialist if symptoms persist despite adequate controller therapy.

Should patients with poorly controlled asthma be treated empirically for gastroesphageal reflux disease (GERD)?

Current guidelines1 indicate that trying a proton pump inhibitor may be worthwhile. However, the results of a recent multicenter trial2 indicate that this does not help control asthma symptoms and that we need to reevaluate the guidelines and focus on other factors that can worsen asthma control.

REFLUX DISEASE IS LINKED TO ASTHMA

GERD’s association with asthma has long been recognized. Asthma patients have a higher prevalence of GERD than the general population, with reported rates of 20% to 80%.3–8

GERD may worsen asthma via several mechanisms. If stomach acid gets into the airway, it can induce bronchoconstriction, vagal reflexes, and chronic airway inflammation, all of which can increase airway reactivity.9–16 Chronic reflux can also cause inflammation of the esophagus, which can exacerbate cough and possibly bronchospasm via neurogenic mechanisms.17

In turn, asthma may worsen GERD. Airway restriction can lead to hyperinflation and increased negative inspiratory pleural pressure, both of which may reduce the effectiveness of the lower esophageal sphincter.18 In addition, the beta-agonists and methylxanthines used to treat asthma may impair function of the lower esophageal sphincter and exacerbate reflux.18–20

CURRENT GUIDELINES ARE BASED ON LIMITED INFORMATION

The symptoms of GERD and asthma are nonspecific and can be similar (chest tightness, chest discomfort), which can make it challenging for clinicians or patients to distinguish asthma from GERD.2 Moreover, in asthma patients, GERD often presents without classic symptoms such as heartburn, and thus has been labeled “silent” GERD.

Earlier studies21–29 (Table 1) suggested that treating GERD may improve asthma control. Based on this information, the most recent asthma guidelines from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommend trying GERD treatment in patients with poorly controlled asthma, even if they do not have classic GERD symptoms.1

However, these studies all had significant limitations, such as small sample size. Also, the definitions of asthma and GERD differed from study to study. In some cases, the definition of GERD included self-reported GERD, which often fails to correlate with GERD documented with esophageal pH monitoring in asthma patients.1 These limitations were highlighted in a Cochrane review,30 which found that asthma patients with GERD showed no overall improvement in asthma after treatment of reflux. It concluded that small groups of patients may benefit, but that predicting who will respond is difficult.

Larger randomized controlled trials28,29 attempted to address some of these limitations, with varying results.

Littner et al29 gave lansoprazole (Prevacid) 30 mg twice daily or placebo to 207 patients with moderate to severe asthma and symptomatic GERD and saw no improvement in daily asthma symptoms, ie, asthma control in the active-treatment group. While these patients had an improvement in symptoms of severe reflux, their overall quality-of-life scores were similar to those of the placebo group. Of note, patients needing more than one type of drug for asthma control had a lower rate of asthma exacerbations.

Kiljander et al28 gave esomeprazole (Nexium) 40 mg twice daily or placebo to 770 patients who had mild to moderate asthma and symptoms of nocturnal asthma with or without symptoms of GERD. The only benefit was a slight improvement in peak expiratory flow in those with symptoms of both GERD and nocturnal asthma, and this was most significant in patients taking long-acting beta-agonists. Other measures—eg, the forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), use of a beta-agonist, symptom scores, and nocturnal awakenings—did not improve.

In both of these studies,28,29 patients reported symptoms of GERD, so they did not have silent GERD.

THE DESIGN OF SARA

To address the limitations of the studies discussed above and evaluate the effect on asthma control of treating silent GERD, the American Lung Association and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute funded the multicenter Study of Acid Reflux in Asthma (SARA) (Table 2).2

In SARA, 412 patients age 18 and older with inadequately controlled asthma were randomized to receive esomeprazole 40 mg twice a day or placebo for 24 weeks. Inadequate control was defined as a score of 1.5 or higher on the Juniper Asthma Control Questionnaire31 despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids. Patients had no symptoms of GERD. The 40-mg twice-daily dosage of esomeprazole was chosen because it is known to suppress more than 90% of acid reflux.24,32

All patients completed a baseline asthma diary, recording peak expiratory flow rates, asthma symptoms, nighttime symptoms, and beta-agonist use. This information was collected every 4 weeks throughout the trial.

All participants also underwent esophageal pH monitoring for an objective confirmation of GERD. Patients were randomized independently of the results of the pH probe; in fact, investigators and patients were blinded to these results.

The primary outcome measure was the rate of episodes of poor asthma control, with poor control defined as any of the following:

  • A decrease of 30% or more in the morning peak expiratory flow rate on 2 consecutive days, compared with the patient’s best rate during the run-in period
  • An urgent visit, defined as an unscheduled health care visit, for asthma symptoms
  • The need for a course of oral prednisone for treatment of asthma.

Asthma was defined as doctor-diagnosed, plus either a positive methacholine challenge test (a concentration of methacholine causing a 20% reduction in FEV1 [PC20] < 16 mg/mL) or a positive bronchodilator response (a 12% increase in FEV1) to an inhaled beta-agonist. Participants had no other indication for acid suppression, including symptoms of GERD or previously diagnosed erosive esophageal or gastric disease.

Acid reflux was evaluated by ambulatory pH monitoring, which had to last at least 16 hours and span one meal and 2 hours in the recumbent position. Reflux was present if the pH was less than 4.0 for more than 5.8% of total time, 8.2% of time upright, or 3.5% of time lying down.33 Episodes and severity were measured by the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Symptom Assessment Scale.34

 

 

SARA RESULTS: NO IMPROVEMENT IN ASTHMA WITH GERD TREATMENT

The SARA treatment and control groups had similar baseline characteristics, with similar asthma symptoms. Most of the patients were women: 72% of the placebo group and 64% of the esomeprazole group. Most had baseline spirometric results at the lower end of normal (the mean FEV1 was 76% ± 16 SD in the treatment group and 78% ± 15 in the placebo group) and had very poor asthma control, with an average Juniper Asthma Control Questionnaire score of 1.9 (> 1.5 is considered poor control).31 GERD was documented with esophageal pH monitoring in 40% of patients, showing that a significant number had silent GERD.

Episodes of poor asthma control occurred with similar frequency in the esomeprazole and placebo groups (2.5 vs 2.3 events per personyear, P = .66). Treatment made no difference in this end point regardless of the baseline results of pH monitoring. No treatment effect was noted in the individual components of the episodes of poor asthma control or in secondary outcomes, including pulmonary function, airway reactivity, asthma control, symptom scores, nocturnal awakening, or quality of life.

In addition, subgroup analysis failed to identify any group—including those with documented reflux on pH probe testing or those receiving a long-acting beta-agonist—who benefited from proton pump inhibitor therapy.

The investigators concluded that these data suggest treatment of silent GERD does not improve asthma control and thus that a reevaluation of current guidelines and clinical practice is warranted.2

ISSUES REMAIN

This large clinical trial, in which asthma and GERD were well defined and objectively measured, was robustly negative in terms of showing any benefit of treatment of silent GERD on asthma control. The study population was representative of those for whom such a treatment is recommended in the current NIH guidelines, which are based on data published prior to SARA.

However, while SARA was well designed and had clear results, it had some limitations, and some issues regarding GERD and asthma remain unanswered.

Is acid the only problem in GERD? SARA focused on acidic GERD. Aspiration of substances such as pancreatic enzymes, pepsin, and bile has also been shown to induce symptoms in asthma patients.2,32,35 In addition, distention of the esophagus and stimulation of neurogenically mediated reflexes can cause symptoms or neurogenic airway inflammation that is not mitigated by drugs that target acid reflux.32

Indirectly supporting this theory is evidence that surgical interventions such as fundoplication can improve asthma symptoms. 36 However, this evidence is only from small studies with significant limitations.

Is proximal GERD worse than distal GERD? SARA did not address whether proximal and distal reflux may affect asthma differently. The importance of proximal reflux in asthma has not been clearly established, but there is evidence that patients with proximal GERD have a higher incidence of nocturnal cough than patients who have only distal reflux. 37

Dimango et al38 recently reported additional data from SARA in which patients with poorly controlled asthma underwent both proximal and distal esophageal pH monitoring to see if proximal GERD was associated with poor asthma control: 304 patients underwent dual pH-probe assessment and 38% of them had proximal reflux. The authors found no difference between those with and without proximal GERD with regard to nocturnal awakenings, need to use a rescue inhaler, inhaled controller medication dose, lung function, or airway reactivity by methacholine challenge. However, they did find that those with proximal GERD had worse asthma quality-of-life scores, and worse health-related quality-of-life scores and were more likely to complain of cough.

Thus, it appears that proximal GERD may worsen quality of life in asthmatic patients but does not worsen asthma control.

SARA RESULTS: IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT

The SARA results suggest that patients with poorly controlled asthma who are on adequate controller medications should not be treated empirically for silent GERD in the expectation that the asthma will improve. Rather, they suggest that the focus should be on other factors that can worsen asthma control, such as the ability to properly use an inhaler, the ability to afford medications, compliance with drug treatment, and adequate control of other significant comorbidities such as allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, sinusitis, allergic rhinitis, vocal cord dysfunction, and occult heart disease. The most recent NIH guidelines also suggest considering referral to an asthma specialist if symptoms persist despite adequate controller therapy.

References
  1. National Asthma Education and Prevention Program. Expert Panel Report 3 (EPR-3): Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma-Summary Report 2007. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007; 120( suppl 5):S94S138.
  2. Mastronarde JG, Anthonisen NR, Castro M, et al., American Lung Association Asthma Clinical Research Centers Efficacy of esomeprazole for treatment of poorly controlled asthma. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:14871499.
  3. Harding SM, Guzzo MR, Richter JE. 24-h Esophageal pH testing in asthmatics: respiratory symptom correlation with esophageal acid events. Chest 1999; 115:654659.
  4. Sontag SJ, O’Connell S, Khandelwal S, et al Most asthmatics have gastroesophageal reflux with or without bronchodilator therapy. Gastroenterology 1990; 99:613620.
  5. Harding SM, Guzzo MR, Richter JE. The prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux in asthma patients without reflux symptoms. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 162:3439.
  6. Vincent D, Cohen-Jonathan AM, Leport J, et al Gastro-oesophageal reflux prevalence and relationship with bronchial reactivity in asthma. Eur Respir J 1997; 10:22552259.
  7. Simpson WG. Gastroesophageal reflux disease and asthma. Diagnosis and management. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155:798803.
  8. Irwin RS, Curley FJ, French CL. Difficult-to-control asthma. Contributing factors and outcome of a systematic management protocol. Chest 1993; 103:16621669.
  9. Harding SM, Richter JE. The role of gastroesophageal reflux in chronic cough and asthma. Chest 1997; 111:13891402.
  10. Richter JE. Asthma and gastroesophageal reflux disease: the truth is difficult to define. Chest 1999; 116:11501152.
  11. Ekstrom T, Tibbling L. Esophageal acid perfusion, airway function, and symptoms in asthmatic patients with marked bronchial hyperreactivity. Chest 1989; 96:995998.
  12. Herve P, Denjean A, Jian R, Simonneau G, Duroux P. Intraesophageal perfusion of acid increases the bronchomotor response to methacholine and to isocapnic hyperventilation in asthmatic subjects. Am Rev Respir Dis 1986; 134:986989.
  13. Wu DN, Tanifuji Y, Kobayashi H, et al Effects of esophageal acid perfusion on airway hyperresponsiveness in patients with bronchial asthma. Chest 2000; 118:15531556.
  14. Cuttitta G, Cibella F, Visconti A, Scichilone N, Bellia V, Bonsignore G. Spontaneous gastroesophageal reflux and airway patency during the night in adult asthmatics. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 161:177181.
  15. Jack CI, Calverley PM, Donnelly RJ, et al Simultaneous tracheal and oesophageal pH measurements in asthmatic patients with gastrooesophageal reflux. Thorax 1995; 50:201204.
  16. Harding SM, Schan CA, Guzzo MR, Alexander RW, Bradley LA, Richter JE. Gastroesophageal reflux-induced bronchoconstriction. Is microaspiration a factor? Chest 1995; 108:12201227.
  17. Irwin RS, Madison JM, Fraire AE. The cough reflex and its relation to gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Med 2000; 108( suppl 4a):73S78S.
  18. Choy D, Leung R. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and asthma. Respirology 1997; 2:163168.
  19. Zerbib F, Guisset O, Lamouliatte H, Quinton A, Galmiche JP, Tunon-De-Lara JM. Effects of bronchial obstruction on lower esophageal sphincter motility and gastroesophageal reflux in patients with asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166:12061211.
  20. Lacy BE, Mathis C, DesBiens J, Liu MC. The effects of nebulized albuterol on esophageal function in asthmatic patients. Dig Dis Sci 2008; 53:26272633.
  21. Ford GA, Oliver PS, Prior JS, Butland RJ, Wilkinson SP. Omeprazole in the treatment of asthmatics with nocturnal symptoms and gastrooesophageal reflux: a placebo-controlled cross-over study. Postgrad Med J 1994; 70:350354.
  22. Teichtahl H, Kronborg IJ, Yeomans ND, Robinson P. Adult asthma and gastro-oesophageal reflux: the effects of omeprazole therapy on asthma. Aust N Z J Med 1996; 26:671676.
  23. Meier JH, McNally PR, Punja M, et al Does omeprazole (Prilosec) improve respiratory function in asthmatics with gastroesophageal reflux? A double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study. Dig Dis Sci 1994; 39:21272133.
  24. Harding SM, Richter JE, Guzzo MR, Schan CA, Alexander RW, Bradley LA. Asthma and gastroesophageal reflux: acid suppressive therapy improves asthma outcome. Am J Med 1996; 100:395405.
  25. Levin TR, Sperling RM, McQuaid KR. Omeprazole improves peak expiratory flow rate and quality of life in asthmatics with gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Gastroenterol 1998; 93:10601063.
  26. Boeree MJ, Peters FT, Postma DS, Kleibeuker JH. No effects of highdose omeprazole in patients with severe airway hyperresponsiveness and (a)symptomatic gastro-oesophageal reflux. Eur Respir J 1998; 11:10701074.
  27. Kiljander TO, Salomaa ER, Hietanen EK, Terho EO. Gastroesophageal reflux in asthmatics: a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study with omeprazole. Chest 1999; 116:12571264.
  28. Kiljander TO, Harding SM, Field SK, et al Effects of eso-meprazole 40 mg twice daily on asthma: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006; 173:10911097.
  29. Littner MR, Leung FW, Ballard ED, Huang B, Samra NKLansoprazole Asthma Study Group. Effects of 24 weeks of lansoprazole therapy on asthma symptoms, exacerbations, quality of life, and pulmonary function in adult asthmatic patients with acid reflux symptoms. Chest 2005; 128:11281135.
  30. Gibson PG, Henry R, Coughlan JJL. Gastro-oesophageal reflux treatment for asthma in adults and children. Coch-rane Database Syst Rev 2000;CD001496. Also available online at www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001496.html. Accessed January 28, 2010.
  31. Juniper EF, Bousquet J, Abetz L, Bateman EDGOAL Committee. Identifying ‘well-controlled’ and ‘not well-controlled’ asthma using the Asthma Control Questionnaire. Respir Med 2006; 100:616621.
  32. Canning BJ, Mazzone SB. Reflex mechanisms in gastro-esophageal reflux disease and asthma. Am J Med 2003; 115( suppl 3A):45S48S.
  33. Richter JE, Bradley LA, DeMeester TR, Wu WC. Normal 24-hr ambulatory esophageal pH values. Influence of study center, pH electrode, age, and gender. Dig Dis Sci 1992; 37:849856.
  34. Damiano A, Handley K, Adler E, Siddique R, Bhattacharyja A. Measuring symptom distress and health-related quality of life in clinical trials of gastroesophageal reflux disease treatment: further validation of the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Symptom Assessment Scale (GSAS). Dig Dis Sci 2002; 47:15301537.
  35. Asano K, Suzuki H. Silent acid reflux and asthma control [editorial]. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:15511553.
  36. Rakita S, Villadolid D, Thomas A, et al Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication offers high patient satisfaction with relief of extraesophageal symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am Surg 2006; 72:207212.
  37. Tomonaga T, Awad ZT, Filipi CJ, et al Symptom predictability of reflux-induced respiratory disease. Dig Dis Sci 2002; 47:914.
  38. Dimango E, Holbrook JT, Simpson E, et al., American Lung Association Asthma Clinical Research Centers. Effects of asymptomatic proximal and distal gastroesophageal reflux on asthma severity. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009; 180:809816.
References
  1. National Asthma Education and Prevention Program. Expert Panel Report 3 (EPR-3): Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma-Summary Report 2007. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007; 120( suppl 5):S94S138.
  2. Mastronarde JG, Anthonisen NR, Castro M, et al., American Lung Association Asthma Clinical Research Centers Efficacy of esomeprazole for treatment of poorly controlled asthma. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:14871499.
  3. Harding SM, Guzzo MR, Richter JE. 24-h Esophageal pH testing in asthmatics: respiratory symptom correlation with esophageal acid events. Chest 1999; 115:654659.
  4. Sontag SJ, O’Connell S, Khandelwal S, et al Most asthmatics have gastroesophageal reflux with or without bronchodilator therapy. Gastroenterology 1990; 99:613620.
  5. Harding SM, Guzzo MR, Richter JE. The prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux in asthma patients without reflux symptoms. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 162:3439.
  6. Vincent D, Cohen-Jonathan AM, Leport J, et al Gastro-oesophageal reflux prevalence and relationship with bronchial reactivity in asthma. Eur Respir J 1997; 10:22552259.
  7. Simpson WG. Gastroesophageal reflux disease and asthma. Diagnosis and management. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155:798803.
  8. Irwin RS, Curley FJ, French CL. Difficult-to-control asthma. Contributing factors and outcome of a systematic management protocol. Chest 1993; 103:16621669.
  9. Harding SM, Richter JE. The role of gastroesophageal reflux in chronic cough and asthma. Chest 1997; 111:13891402.
  10. Richter JE. Asthma and gastroesophageal reflux disease: the truth is difficult to define. Chest 1999; 116:11501152.
  11. Ekstrom T, Tibbling L. Esophageal acid perfusion, airway function, and symptoms in asthmatic patients with marked bronchial hyperreactivity. Chest 1989; 96:995998.
  12. Herve P, Denjean A, Jian R, Simonneau G, Duroux P. Intraesophageal perfusion of acid increases the bronchomotor response to methacholine and to isocapnic hyperventilation in asthmatic subjects. Am Rev Respir Dis 1986; 134:986989.
  13. Wu DN, Tanifuji Y, Kobayashi H, et al Effects of esophageal acid perfusion on airway hyperresponsiveness in patients with bronchial asthma. Chest 2000; 118:15531556.
  14. Cuttitta G, Cibella F, Visconti A, Scichilone N, Bellia V, Bonsignore G. Spontaneous gastroesophageal reflux and airway patency during the night in adult asthmatics. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 161:177181.
  15. Jack CI, Calverley PM, Donnelly RJ, et al Simultaneous tracheal and oesophageal pH measurements in asthmatic patients with gastrooesophageal reflux. Thorax 1995; 50:201204.
  16. Harding SM, Schan CA, Guzzo MR, Alexander RW, Bradley LA, Richter JE. Gastroesophageal reflux-induced bronchoconstriction. Is microaspiration a factor? Chest 1995; 108:12201227.
  17. Irwin RS, Madison JM, Fraire AE. The cough reflex and its relation to gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Med 2000; 108( suppl 4a):73S78S.
  18. Choy D, Leung R. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and asthma. Respirology 1997; 2:163168.
  19. Zerbib F, Guisset O, Lamouliatte H, Quinton A, Galmiche JP, Tunon-De-Lara JM. Effects of bronchial obstruction on lower esophageal sphincter motility and gastroesophageal reflux in patients with asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166:12061211.
  20. Lacy BE, Mathis C, DesBiens J, Liu MC. The effects of nebulized albuterol on esophageal function in asthmatic patients. Dig Dis Sci 2008; 53:26272633.
  21. Ford GA, Oliver PS, Prior JS, Butland RJ, Wilkinson SP. Omeprazole in the treatment of asthmatics with nocturnal symptoms and gastrooesophageal reflux: a placebo-controlled cross-over study. Postgrad Med J 1994; 70:350354.
  22. Teichtahl H, Kronborg IJ, Yeomans ND, Robinson P. Adult asthma and gastro-oesophageal reflux: the effects of omeprazole therapy on asthma. Aust N Z J Med 1996; 26:671676.
  23. Meier JH, McNally PR, Punja M, et al Does omeprazole (Prilosec) improve respiratory function in asthmatics with gastroesophageal reflux? A double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study. Dig Dis Sci 1994; 39:21272133.
  24. Harding SM, Richter JE, Guzzo MR, Schan CA, Alexander RW, Bradley LA. Asthma and gastroesophageal reflux: acid suppressive therapy improves asthma outcome. Am J Med 1996; 100:395405.
  25. Levin TR, Sperling RM, McQuaid KR. Omeprazole improves peak expiratory flow rate and quality of life in asthmatics with gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Gastroenterol 1998; 93:10601063.
  26. Boeree MJ, Peters FT, Postma DS, Kleibeuker JH. No effects of highdose omeprazole in patients with severe airway hyperresponsiveness and (a)symptomatic gastro-oesophageal reflux. Eur Respir J 1998; 11:10701074.
  27. Kiljander TO, Salomaa ER, Hietanen EK, Terho EO. Gastroesophageal reflux in asthmatics: a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study with omeprazole. Chest 1999; 116:12571264.
  28. Kiljander TO, Harding SM, Field SK, et al Effects of eso-meprazole 40 mg twice daily on asthma: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006; 173:10911097.
  29. Littner MR, Leung FW, Ballard ED, Huang B, Samra NKLansoprazole Asthma Study Group. Effects of 24 weeks of lansoprazole therapy on asthma symptoms, exacerbations, quality of life, and pulmonary function in adult asthmatic patients with acid reflux symptoms. Chest 2005; 128:11281135.
  30. Gibson PG, Henry R, Coughlan JJL. Gastro-oesophageal reflux treatment for asthma in adults and children. Coch-rane Database Syst Rev 2000;CD001496. Also available online at www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001496.html. Accessed January 28, 2010.
  31. Juniper EF, Bousquet J, Abetz L, Bateman EDGOAL Committee. Identifying ‘well-controlled’ and ‘not well-controlled’ asthma using the Asthma Control Questionnaire. Respir Med 2006; 100:616621.
  32. Canning BJ, Mazzone SB. Reflex mechanisms in gastro-esophageal reflux disease and asthma. Am J Med 2003; 115( suppl 3A):45S48S.
  33. Richter JE, Bradley LA, DeMeester TR, Wu WC. Normal 24-hr ambulatory esophageal pH values. Influence of study center, pH electrode, age, and gender. Dig Dis Sci 1992; 37:849856.
  34. Damiano A, Handley K, Adler E, Siddique R, Bhattacharyja A. Measuring symptom distress and health-related quality of life in clinical trials of gastroesophageal reflux disease treatment: further validation of the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Symptom Assessment Scale (GSAS). Dig Dis Sci 2002; 47:15301537.
  35. Asano K, Suzuki H. Silent acid reflux and asthma control [editorial]. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:15511553.
  36. Rakita S, Villadolid D, Thomas A, et al Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication offers high patient satisfaction with relief of extraesophageal symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am Surg 2006; 72:207212.
  37. Tomonaga T, Awad ZT, Filipi CJ, et al Symptom predictability of reflux-induced respiratory disease. Dig Dis Sci 2002; 47:914.
  38. Dimango E, Holbrook JT, Simpson E, et al., American Lung Association Asthma Clinical Research Centers. Effects of asymptomatic proximal and distal gastroesophageal reflux on asthma severity. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009; 180:809816.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 77(3)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 77(3)
Page Number
155-160
Page Number
155-160
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Treating silent reflux disease does not improve poorly controlled asthma
Display Headline
Treating silent reflux disease does not improve poorly controlled asthma
Sections
Inside the Article

KEY POINTS

  • Acid reflux is more prevalent in patients with asthma, and it often occurs without classic symptoms such as heartburn.
  • Current guidelines, based on data from older studies with significant limitations, recommend considering treatment for reflux disease, even without the classic symptoms, in patients with uncontrolled asthma.
  • The recent Study of Acid Reflux in Asthma found not only that treating silent acid reflux does not improve asthma control, but also that esophageal pH monitoring does not detect a subgroup of asthma patients who might respond to a proton pump inhibitor. These data suggest that we should reconsider clinical practice based on current guidelines.
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media