Federal Practitioner

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2022 National Quality Strategy is described as an “ambitious long-term initiative that aims to promote the highest quality outcomes and safest care for all individuals.” The strategy calls for a multidisciplinary, person-centric approach for individuals throughout the continuum of care, with an emphasis on historically underresourced communities. It is a commendable goal for an overburdened U.S. health care system that spends more than other high-income counties yet experiences poorer outcomes. But whole-person, person-centered care cannot be achieved under current misaligned quality measures that fail to measure what we purport to value: the quintuple aim of improved health outcomes, cost savings, patient satisfaction, clinician well-being, and health equity.
 

Lifestyle first

Clinical practice guidelines for many chronic diseases recommend lifestyle intervention as the first and optimal treatment. A growing body of evidence supports lifestyle behavior interventions to treat and, when used intensively, even reverse common chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease, obesity, and type 2 diabetes, while also providing effective prevention for those conditions. However, no current quality measures consider lifestyle interventions. In fact, some quality measures unintentionally penalize physicians for successfully treating or reversing disease through lifestyle behavior interventions while rewarding clinicians for meeting process measures – usually adherence to medication – regardless of whether health outcomes improved.

Rewarding medication adherence for the treatment of diseases in which lifestyle is a primary therapy (such as hypertension), combined with other health care constraints (lack of lifestyle education, time to spend with patients, and infrastructure support) incentivizes physicians to skip the conversation about lifestyle changes and go straight to medication prescription. Meanwhile, the clinician who takes the extra time to guide a patient toward lifestyle interventions that could treat their current disease and prevent future diseases – without side effects – is penalized.

Misaligned quality measures like these can stifle clinical judgment and risk reducing the practice of medicine to mindless box-checking. In many cases, patients are not even informed that lifestyle behavior change may be a treatment option (much less the first recommended option) for their conditions. This delivery of care is not person-centered and, in fact, may raise questions about the adequacy of informed treatment consent.
 

Reimbursement barriers

Lifestyle medicine is a growing medical specialty that uses therapeutic lifestyle interventions as a primary modality to treat chronic conditions. Since certification began in 2017, almost 2500 US physicians and 1000 nonphysician health professionals have earned certification. Health systems, including the U.S. military, are increasingly integrating lifestyle medicine. There have been advancements since one survey found that more than half of lifestyle medicine clinicians reported receiving no reimbursement for lifestyle behavior interventions. However, barriers, especially in fee-for-service systems, still inhibit many patients from receiving insurance coverage for comprehensive, interdisciplinary, and whole-person treatments called intensive therapeutic lifestyle change (ITLC) programs.

Existing comprehensive lifestyle programs that patients are eligible for (ie, the Diabetes Prevention Program and intensive behavioral therapy) are often so poorly reimbursed that clinicians and health systems decline to offer them. An example of a well-reimbursed ITLC program is intensive cardiac rehabilitation (ICR), which remains underutilized and limited to a narrow segment of patients, despite ICR›s proven benefits for managing comorbid risk factors such as hemoglobin A1c and weight. Even when lifestyle intervention programs are available and patients are eligible to participate (often through shared medical appointments), patient copays for the frequent visits required to achieve and sustain behavior change – or the lack of reimbursement for interdisciplinary team members – discourage engagement.
 

Penalizing successful outcomes

Despite the fact that lifestyle behaviors are top contributors to health and, conversely, contribute to up to 80% of chronic diseases, few quality measures focus on screening for lifestyle factors or treating diseases with lifestyle interventions. An example of an existing quality measure is screening or treatment for harmful substance use.

Specific quality measures that penalize lifestyle medicine approaches include pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, osteoporosis, and gout as well as approaches to rheumatoid arthritis.

Statins offer a useful example of the conundrum faced by clinicians who want to offer lifestyle interventions. A lifestyle medicine primary care physician had a patient covered by Medicare Advantage who was diagnosed with hyperlipidemia. The patient had total cholesterol of 226 and a triglycerides level of 132. Instead of prescribing the routine statin, the physician prescribed lifestyle behavior modifications. Within 3 weeks, the patient›s total cholesterol improved to 171 and triglycerides to 75. This was a great success for the delighted patient. However, the CMS 5-Star Rating System assigned the primary care physician a grade of C rather than A, which put the physician›s 5-star rating at risk. Why? Because the system bases its score largely on medication compliance. The physician was penalized despite achieving the optimal health outcome, and at a lower cost than with medication. This misalignment does not incentivize patient-centered care because it disregards patient preference, shared decision-making, and evidence-based practice.
 

Risk adjustment

Rather than automatically managing disease with ever-increasing quantities of costly medications and procedures, lifestyle medicine clinicians first pursue a goal of health restoration when appropriate. But Medicare risk adjustment incentivizes physicians to manage rather than reverse disease. How much Medicare pays health plans is determined in part by how sick the patients are; the sicker the patient, the more Medicare pays, because those patients› costs are expected to be higher. This ensures that health plans are not penalized for enrolling sicker patients. But a physician utilizing diet alone to achieve remission in a patient with type 2 diabetes is penalized financially because, when the risk is adjusted, diabetes is no longer listed among the patient›s conditions. So, Medicare pays the physician less money. That misalignment incentivizes clinicians to manage the symptoms of type 2 diabetes rather than achieve remission, despite remission being the ideal clinical outcome.

Realigning quality measures

Quality measures were developed to quantify health care processes and outcomes, and to ensure the delivery of safe care to all patients. However, over time the number of quality measures has swelled to 2500, evolving into a confusing, time-consuming, and even soul-crushing responsibility for the physician.

Instead of relying heavily on process measures, we must incentivize outcome measures that honor patient autonomy and allow clinicians to offer lifestyle intervention as the first line of treatment. Risk-score calculations should be adjusted so that we stop incentivizing disease management and penalizing disease reversal.

CMS’s proposed development of “a universal foundation” of quality measures is an opportunity to begin the realignment of quality measures and values. This foundation is intended to establish more consistent and meaningful measures, reduce clinician burnout by streamlining the reporting process, and advance health equity. For this change to be successful, it is vital that lifestyle behavior interventions – optimal nutrition, physical activity, restorative sleep, social connections, stress management, and avoidance of harmful substances – become the foundation of universal quality measures. This will ensure that every clinician is incentivized to discuss lifestyle behaviors with patients and pursue the first clinical step recommended by clinical practice guidelines for most chronic diseases. Only then can we truly deliver high-value, whole-person, person-centered care and achieve the quintuple aim.

Dr. Patel is president-elect, American College of Lifestyle Medicine; Lifestyle Medicine Medical Director, Wellvana Health, Midland, Tex. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2022 National Quality Strategy is described as an “ambitious long-term initiative that aims to promote the highest quality outcomes and safest care for all individuals.” The strategy calls for a multidisciplinary, person-centric approach for individuals throughout the continuum of care, with an emphasis on historically underresourced communities. It is a commendable goal for an overburdened U.S. health care system that spends more than other high-income counties yet experiences poorer outcomes. But whole-person, person-centered care cannot be achieved under current misaligned quality measures that fail to measure what we purport to value: the quintuple aim of improved health outcomes, cost savings, patient satisfaction, clinician well-being, and health equity.
 

Lifestyle first

Clinical practice guidelines for many chronic diseases recommend lifestyle intervention as the first and optimal treatment. A growing body of evidence supports lifestyle behavior interventions to treat and, when used intensively, even reverse common chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease, obesity, and type 2 diabetes, while also providing effective prevention for those conditions. However, no current quality measures consider lifestyle interventions. In fact, some quality measures unintentionally penalize physicians for successfully treating or reversing disease through lifestyle behavior interventions while rewarding clinicians for meeting process measures – usually adherence to medication – regardless of whether health outcomes improved.

Rewarding medication adherence for the treatment of diseases in which lifestyle is a primary therapy (such as hypertension), combined with other health care constraints (lack of lifestyle education, time to spend with patients, and infrastructure support) incentivizes physicians to skip the conversation about lifestyle changes and go straight to medication prescription. Meanwhile, the clinician who takes the extra time to guide a patient toward lifestyle interventions that could treat their current disease and prevent future diseases – without side effects – is penalized.

Misaligned quality measures like these can stifle clinical judgment and risk reducing the practice of medicine to mindless box-checking. In many cases, patients are not even informed that lifestyle behavior change may be a treatment option (much less the first recommended option) for their conditions. This delivery of care is not person-centered and, in fact, may raise questions about the adequacy of informed treatment consent.
 

Reimbursement barriers

Lifestyle medicine is a growing medical specialty that uses therapeutic lifestyle interventions as a primary modality to treat chronic conditions. Since certification began in 2017, almost 2500 US physicians and 1000 nonphysician health professionals have earned certification. Health systems, including the U.S. military, are increasingly integrating lifestyle medicine. There have been advancements since one survey found that more than half of lifestyle medicine clinicians reported receiving no reimbursement for lifestyle behavior interventions. However, barriers, especially in fee-for-service systems, still inhibit many patients from receiving insurance coverage for comprehensive, interdisciplinary, and whole-person treatments called intensive therapeutic lifestyle change (ITLC) programs.

Existing comprehensive lifestyle programs that patients are eligible for (ie, the Diabetes Prevention Program and intensive behavioral therapy) are often so poorly reimbursed that clinicians and health systems decline to offer them. An example of a well-reimbursed ITLC program is intensive cardiac rehabilitation (ICR), which remains underutilized and limited to a narrow segment of patients, despite ICR›s proven benefits for managing comorbid risk factors such as hemoglobin A1c and weight. Even when lifestyle intervention programs are available and patients are eligible to participate (often through shared medical appointments), patient copays for the frequent visits required to achieve and sustain behavior change – or the lack of reimbursement for interdisciplinary team members – discourage engagement.
 

Penalizing successful outcomes

Despite the fact that lifestyle behaviors are top contributors to health and, conversely, contribute to up to 80% of chronic diseases, few quality measures focus on screening for lifestyle factors or treating diseases with lifestyle interventions. An example of an existing quality measure is screening or treatment for harmful substance use.

Specific quality measures that penalize lifestyle medicine approaches include pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, osteoporosis, and gout as well as approaches to rheumatoid arthritis.

Statins offer a useful example of the conundrum faced by clinicians who want to offer lifestyle interventions. A lifestyle medicine primary care physician had a patient covered by Medicare Advantage who was diagnosed with hyperlipidemia. The patient had total cholesterol of 226 and a triglycerides level of 132. Instead of prescribing the routine statin, the physician prescribed lifestyle behavior modifications. Within 3 weeks, the patient›s total cholesterol improved to 171 and triglycerides to 75. This was a great success for the delighted patient. However, the CMS 5-Star Rating System assigned the primary care physician a grade of C rather than A, which put the physician›s 5-star rating at risk. Why? Because the system bases its score largely on medication compliance. The physician was penalized despite achieving the optimal health outcome, and at a lower cost than with medication. This misalignment does not incentivize patient-centered care because it disregards patient preference, shared decision-making, and evidence-based practice.
 

Risk adjustment

Rather than automatically managing disease with ever-increasing quantities of costly medications and procedures, lifestyle medicine clinicians first pursue a goal of health restoration when appropriate. But Medicare risk adjustment incentivizes physicians to manage rather than reverse disease. How much Medicare pays health plans is determined in part by how sick the patients are; the sicker the patient, the more Medicare pays, because those patients› costs are expected to be higher. This ensures that health plans are not penalized for enrolling sicker patients. But a physician utilizing diet alone to achieve remission in a patient with type 2 diabetes is penalized financially because, when the risk is adjusted, diabetes is no longer listed among the patient›s conditions. So, Medicare pays the physician less money. That misalignment incentivizes clinicians to manage the symptoms of type 2 diabetes rather than achieve remission, despite remission being the ideal clinical outcome.

Realigning quality measures

Quality measures were developed to quantify health care processes and outcomes, and to ensure the delivery of safe care to all patients. However, over time the number of quality measures has swelled to 2500, evolving into a confusing, time-consuming, and even soul-crushing responsibility for the physician.

Instead of relying heavily on process measures, we must incentivize outcome measures that honor patient autonomy and allow clinicians to offer lifestyle intervention as the first line of treatment. Risk-score calculations should be adjusted so that we stop incentivizing disease management and penalizing disease reversal.

CMS’s proposed development of “a universal foundation” of quality measures is an opportunity to begin the realignment of quality measures and values. This foundation is intended to establish more consistent and meaningful measures, reduce clinician burnout by streamlining the reporting process, and advance health equity. For this change to be successful, it is vital that lifestyle behavior interventions – optimal nutrition, physical activity, restorative sleep, social connections, stress management, and avoidance of harmful substances – become the foundation of universal quality measures. This will ensure that every clinician is incentivized to discuss lifestyle behaviors with patients and pursue the first clinical step recommended by clinical practice guidelines for most chronic diseases. Only then can we truly deliver high-value, whole-person, person-centered care and achieve the quintuple aim.

Dr. Patel is president-elect, American College of Lifestyle Medicine; Lifestyle Medicine Medical Director, Wellvana Health, Midland, Tex. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2022 National Quality Strategy is described as an “ambitious long-term initiative that aims to promote the highest quality outcomes and safest care for all individuals.” The strategy calls for a multidisciplinary, person-centric approach for individuals throughout the continuum of care, with an emphasis on historically underresourced communities. It is a commendable goal for an overburdened U.S. health care system that spends more than other high-income counties yet experiences poorer outcomes. But whole-person, person-centered care cannot be achieved under current misaligned quality measures that fail to measure what we purport to value: the quintuple aim of improved health outcomes, cost savings, patient satisfaction, clinician well-being, and health equity.
 

Lifestyle first

Clinical practice guidelines for many chronic diseases recommend lifestyle intervention as the first and optimal treatment. A growing body of evidence supports lifestyle behavior interventions to treat and, when used intensively, even reverse common chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease, obesity, and type 2 diabetes, while also providing effective prevention for those conditions. However, no current quality measures consider lifestyle interventions. In fact, some quality measures unintentionally penalize physicians for successfully treating or reversing disease through lifestyle behavior interventions while rewarding clinicians for meeting process measures – usually adherence to medication – regardless of whether health outcomes improved.

Rewarding medication adherence for the treatment of diseases in which lifestyle is a primary therapy (such as hypertension), combined with other health care constraints (lack of lifestyle education, time to spend with patients, and infrastructure support) incentivizes physicians to skip the conversation about lifestyle changes and go straight to medication prescription. Meanwhile, the clinician who takes the extra time to guide a patient toward lifestyle interventions that could treat their current disease and prevent future diseases – without side effects – is penalized.

Misaligned quality measures like these can stifle clinical judgment and risk reducing the practice of medicine to mindless box-checking. In many cases, patients are not even informed that lifestyle behavior change may be a treatment option (much less the first recommended option) for their conditions. This delivery of care is not person-centered and, in fact, may raise questions about the adequacy of informed treatment consent.
 

Reimbursement barriers

Lifestyle medicine is a growing medical specialty that uses therapeutic lifestyle interventions as a primary modality to treat chronic conditions. Since certification began in 2017, almost 2500 US physicians and 1000 nonphysician health professionals have earned certification. Health systems, including the U.S. military, are increasingly integrating lifestyle medicine. There have been advancements since one survey found that more than half of lifestyle medicine clinicians reported receiving no reimbursement for lifestyle behavior interventions. However, barriers, especially in fee-for-service systems, still inhibit many patients from receiving insurance coverage for comprehensive, interdisciplinary, and whole-person treatments called intensive therapeutic lifestyle change (ITLC) programs.

Existing comprehensive lifestyle programs that patients are eligible for (ie, the Diabetes Prevention Program and intensive behavioral therapy) are often so poorly reimbursed that clinicians and health systems decline to offer them. An example of a well-reimbursed ITLC program is intensive cardiac rehabilitation (ICR), which remains underutilized and limited to a narrow segment of patients, despite ICR›s proven benefits for managing comorbid risk factors such as hemoglobin A1c and weight. Even when lifestyle intervention programs are available and patients are eligible to participate (often through shared medical appointments), patient copays for the frequent visits required to achieve and sustain behavior change – or the lack of reimbursement for interdisciplinary team members – discourage engagement.
 

Penalizing successful outcomes

Despite the fact that lifestyle behaviors are top contributors to health and, conversely, contribute to up to 80% of chronic diseases, few quality measures focus on screening for lifestyle factors or treating diseases with lifestyle interventions. An example of an existing quality measure is screening or treatment for harmful substance use.

Specific quality measures that penalize lifestyle medicine approaches include pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, osteoporosis, and gout as well as approaches to rheumatoid arthritis.

Statins offer a useful example of the conundrum faced by clinicians who want to offer lifestyle interventions. A lifestyle medicine primary care physician had a patient covered by Medicare Advantage who was diagnosed with hyperlipidemia. The patient had total cholesterol of 226 and a triglycerides level of 132. Instead of prescribing the routine statin, the physician prescribed lifestyle behavior modifications. Within 3 weeks, the patient›s total cholesterol improved to 171 and triglycerides to 75. This was a great success for the delighted patient. However, the CMS 5-Star Rating System assigned the primary care physician a grade of C rather than A, which put the physician›s 5-star rating at risk. Why? Because the system bases its score largely on medication compliance. The physician was penalized despite achieving the optimal health outcome, and at a lower cost than with medication. This misalignment does not incentivize patient-centered care because it disregards patient preference, shared decision-making, and evidence-based practice.
 

Risk adjustment

Rather than automatically managing disease with ever-increasing quantities of costly medications and procedures, lifestyle medicine clinicians first pursue a goal of health restoration when appropriate. But Medicare risk adjustment incentivizes physicians to manage rather than reverse disease. How much Medicare pays health plans is determined in part by how sick the patients are; the sicker the patient, the more Medicare pays, because those patients› costs are expected to be higher. This ensures that health plans are not penalized for enrolling sicker patients. But a physician utilizing diet alone to achieve remission in a patient with type 2 diabetes is penalized financially because, when the risk is adjusted, diabetes is no longer listed among the patient›s conditions. So, Medicare pays the physician less money. That misalignment incentivizes clinicians to manage the symptoms of type 2 diabetes rather than achieve remission, despite remission being the ideal clinical outcome.

Realigning quality measures

Quality measures were developed to quantify health care processes and outcomes, and to ensure the delivery of safe care to all patients. However, over time the number of quality measures has swelled to 2500, evolving into a confusing, time-consuming, and even soul-crushing responsibility for the physician.

Instead of relying heavily on process measures, we must incentivize outcome measures that honor patient autonomy and allow clinicians to offer lifestyle intervention as the first line of treatment. Risk-score calculations should be adjusted so that we stop incentivizing disease management and penalizing disease reversal.

CMS’s proposed development of “a universal foundation” of quality measures is an opportunity to begin the realignment of quality measures and values. This foundation is intended to establish more consistent and meaningful measures, reduce clinician burnout by streamlining the reporting process, and advance health equity. For this change to be successful, it is vital that lifestyle behavior interventions – optimal nutrition, physical activity, restorative sleep, social connections, stress management, and avoidance of harmful substances – become the foundation of universal quality measures. This will ensure that every clinician is incentivized to discuss lifestyle behaviors with patients and pursue the first clinical step recommended by clinical practice guidelines for most chronic diseases. Only then can we truly deliver high-value, whole-person, person-centered care and achieve the quintuple aim.

Dr. Patel is president-elect, American College of Lifestyle Medicine; Lifestyle Medicine Medical Director, Wellvana Health, Midland, Tex. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Assessing a key aspect of bone architecture, for which clinicians can now be reimbursed under Medicare, can significantly improve the ability to predict a patient’s risk for bone fracture.

Although bone mineral density (BMD) is traditionally used to identify patients with osteoporosis or low bone mass, some physicians have begun incorporating the trabecular bone score (TBS) into their exams.

At the Cleveland Clinic Center for Specialized Women’s Health, factoring in the TBS changed the diagnosis for 16% of 432 patients, according to Holly Thacker, MD, the center’s director.

“Importantly, 11% got worse diagnoses, and I use that in terms of prioritizing treatment,” Dr. Thacker said in an interview. The ability to determine how degraded the bone microarchitecture is through a software system “is a huge advance.”

Dr. Thacker described her center’s experience with the technology at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

While BMD captures the amount of minerals like calcium in the skeleton, TBS assesses the underlying microarchitecture by looking at the distribution of shades of gray on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.

Based on the TBS, patients’ bones are classified as normal, partially degraded, or degraded. Among the 432 patients who received a TBS analysis in 2022, 3% shifted from a normal diagnosis to osteopenia, 8% worsened from osteopenia to osteoporosis, 4% went from osteopenia to normal, and 1.6% downgraded from osteoporosis to osteopenia, Dr. Thacker reported.

The new test may also provide some reassurance for female patients who have thinner bones, which may raise alarms based on BMD. TBS, however, may show that the structure of the bone looks normal.

“When you know that the microarchitecture is normal, you’re a lot less concerned that they actually have a bone disease of osteoporosis,” Dr. Thacker said.

Conversely, unexpectedly degraded bone raises questions.

“That makes you go back and say [to the patient]: ‘Have you been on steroids? Were you malnourished? Is there some other metabolic problem? Have you had some calcium disorder?’ ” Dr. Thacker said.

Dr. Thacker leverages the TBS to help patients obtain effective therapy, typically an anabolic agent followed by antiresorptive medication.

“When I see a patient who not only has osteoporosis on bone density but has completely degraded bone architecture, it’s a lot easier for me to make the argument to the insurance company that this patient is at grave risk for a low trauma fracture and bad outcome without the best treatment,” Dr. Thacker said.
 

10-year-old tech, recently covered

The Food and Drug Administration approved TBS software in 2012, but Medicare only recently started paying for it.

Medimaps Group, a company that markets imaging software to calculate TBS, announced in 2022 that reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services was available, at $41.53 on the Physician Fee Schedule and $82.61 on the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment Schedule.

“Reimbursement through CMS is an important endorsement of the clinical value of TBS for clinicians and their patients,” Didier Hans, PhD, MBA, the CEO of Medimaps, said in a statement at the time. He noted that more than 600,000 TBS procedures were being performed in the United States each year.

Nevertheless, the initial investment in purchasing the software may be a barrier for health systems.

“We are the first and only site in our health system to offer TBS, as this is an extra expense and not uniformly reimbursed by insurers,” Dr. Thacker reported at the meeting.
 

Potential drawbacks

The TBS software used in Dr. Thacker’s study has been validated only in Asian and White patients between certain ages and weights, meaning the system is not designed to be used for other populations. Other researchers have highlighted a need for trabecular bone scoring to be validated more broadly. The authors of a recent analysis, however, suggest that TBS can be used the same way no matter a patient’s race.

TBS “is going to be most helpful in those with osteopenia who are right near the threshold for treatment,” said Marcella Donovan Walker, MD, MS, in a presentation on bone quality at the meeting.

Many studies have shown that TBS “provides additive information to bone density,” said Dr. Walker, a professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology at Columbia University, New York. For example, a large study of women in Manitoba found that, regardless of whether their bone density was normal, osteopenic, or osteoporotic, those with a low TBS had a much higher risk for fracture.
 

‘Opportunistic screening’ with CT?

TBS relies on the same DXA scans that are used to calculate bone mineral density, so obtaining the score does not add time or radiation to the scanning process, Dr. Thacker said.

But many patients who should receive DXA scans do not, which adds to the promise of “opportunistic screening” for osteoporosis, Dr. Walker said. With this approach, physicians would analyze a CT scan that a patient received for another purpose, such as to investigate abdominal pain or chest pain.

“In these images is information about the bone,” Dr. Walker said.

Researchers have used high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT to perform finite element analysis, where a computer program simulates compression of the bone to create a measure of bone stiffness and determine the load required for a break.

One study found that including those elements predicted fractures better than bone mineral density or the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool alone, Dr. Walker noted.

Other aspects of bone quality include how many cracks are in the bone, the amount of adipose in the marrow space, and the rate at which bone is broken down and rebuilt. But Dr. Walker suggested that the longstanding focus on bone mineral density in clinical practice makes sense.

“By far, bone mass is the most important bone quality,” Dr. Walker said.

Dr. Thacker is the executive director of the nonprofit Speaking of Women’s Health. Dr. Walker reported receiving funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and Amgen.

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

Assessing a key aspect of bone architecture, for which clinicians can now be reimbursed under Medicare, can significantly improve the ability to predict a patient’s risk for bone fracture.

Although bone mineral density (BMD) is traditionally used to identify patients with osteoporosis or low bone mass, some physicians have begun incorporating the trabecular bone score (TBS) into their exams.

At the Cleveland Clinic Center for Specialized Women’s Health, factoring in the TBS changed the diagnosis for 16% of 432 patients, according to Holly Thacker, MD, the center’s director.

“Importantly, 11% got worse diagnoses, and I use that in terms of prioritizing treatment,” Dr. Thacker said in an interview. The ability to determine how degraded the bone microarchitecture is through a software system “is a huge advance.”

Dr. Thacker described her center’s experience with the technology at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

While BMD captures the amount of minerals like calcium in the skeleton, TBS assesses the underlying microarchitecture by looking at the distribution of shades of gray on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.

Based on the TBS, patients’ bones are classified as normal, partially degraded, or degraded. Among the 432 patients who received a TBS analysis in 2022, 3% shifted from a normal diagnosis to osteopenia, 8% worsened from osteopenia to osteoporosis, 4% went from osteopenia to normal, and 1.6% downgraded from osteoporosis to osteopenia, Dr. Thacker reported.

The new test may also provide some reassurance for female patients who have thinner bones, which may raise alarms based on BMD. TBS, however, may show that the structure of the bone looks normal.

“When you know that the microarchitecture is normal, you’re a lot less concerned that they actually have a bone disease of osteoporosis,” Dr. Thacker said.

Conversely, unexpectedly degraded bone raises questions.

“That makes you go back and say [to the patient]: ‘Have you been on steroids? Were you malnourished? Is there some other metabolic problem? Have you had some calcium disorder?’ ” Dr. Thacker said.

Dr. Thacker leverages the TBS to help patients obtain effective therapy, typically an anabolic agent followed by antiresorptive medication.

“When I see a patient who not only has osteoporosis on bone density but has completely degraded bone architecture, it’s a lot easier for me to make the argument to the insurance company that this patient is at grave risk for a low trauma fracture and bad outcome without the best treatment,” Dr. Thacker said.
 

10-year-old tech, recently covered

The Food and Drug Administration approved TBS software in 2012, but Medicare only recently started paying for it.

Medimaps Group, a company that markets imaging software to calculate TBS, announced in 2022 that reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services was available, at $41.53 on the Physician Fee Schedule and $82.61 on the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment Schedule.

“Reimbursement through CMS is an important endorsement of the clinical value of TBS for clinicians and their patients,” Didier Hans, PhD, MBA, the CEO of Medimaps, said in a statement at the time. He noted that more than 600,000 TBS procedures were being performed in the United States each year.

Nevertheless, the initial investment in purchasing the software may be a barrier for health systems.

“We are the first and only site in our health system to offer TBS, as this is an extra expense and not uniformly reimbursed by insurers,” Dr. Thacker reported at the meeting.
 

Potential drawbacks

The TBS software used in Dr. Thacker’s study has been validated only in Asian and White patients between certain ages and weights, meaning the system is not designed to be used for other populations. Other researchers have highlighted a need for trabecular bone scoring to be validated more broadly. The authors of a recent analysis, however, suggest that TBS can be used the same way no matter a patient’s race.

TBS “is going to be most helpful in those with osteopenia who are right near the threshold for treatment,” said Marcella Donovan Walker, MD, MS, in a presentation on bone quality at the meeting.

Many studies have shown that TBS “provides additive information to bone density,” said Dr. Walker, a professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology at Columbia University, New York. For example, a large study of women in Manitoba found that, regardless of whether their bone density was normal, osteopenic, or osteoporotic, those with a low TBS had a much higher risk for fracture.
 

‘Opportunistic screening’ with CT?

TBS relies on the same DXA scans that are used to calculate bone mineral density, so obtaining the score does not add time or radiation to the scanning process, Dr. Thacker said.

But many patients who should receive DXA scans do not, which adds to the promise of “opportunistic screening” for osteoporosis, Dr. Walker said. With this approach, physicians would analyze a CT scan that a patient received for another purpose, such as to investigate abdominal pain or chest pain.

“In these images is information about the bone,” Dr. Walker said.

Researchers have used high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT to perform finite element analysis, where a computer program simulates compression of the bone to create a measure of bone stiffness and determine the load required for a break.

One study found that including those elements predicted fractures better than bone mineral density or the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool alone, Dr. Walker noted.

Other aspects of bone quality include how many cracks are in the bone, the amount of adipose in the marrow space, and the rate at which bone is broken down and rebuilt. But Dr. Walker suggested that the longstanding focus on bone mineral density in clinical practice makes sense.

“By far, bone mass is the most important bone quality,” Dr. Walker said.

Dr. Thacker is the executive director of the nonprofit Speaking of Women’s Health. Dr. Walker reported receiving funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and Amgen.

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

Assessing a key aspect of bone architecture, for which clinicians can now be reimbursed under Medicare, can significantly improve the ability to predict a patient’s risk for bone fracture.

Although bone mineral density (BMD) is traditionally used to identify patients with osteoporosis or low bone mass, some physicians have begun incorporating the trabecular bone score (TBS) into their exams.

At the Cleveland Clinic Center for Specialized Women’s Health, factoring in the TBS changed the diagnosis for 16% of 432 patients, according to Holly Thacker, MD, the center’s director.

“Importantly, 11% got worse diagnoses, and I use that in terms of prioritizing treatment,” Dr. Thacker said in an interview. The ability to determine how degraded the bone microarchitecture is through a software system “is a huge advance.”

Dr. Thacker described her center’s experience with the technology at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

While BMD captures the amount of minerals like calcium in the skeleton, TBS assesses the underlying microarchitecture by looking at the distribution of shades of gray on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.

Based on the TBS, patients’ bones are classified as normal, partially degraded, or degraded. Among the 432 patients who received a TBS analysis in 2022, 3% shifted from a normal diagnosis to osteopenia, 8% worsened from osteopenia to osteoporosis, 4% went from osteopenia to normal, and 1.6% downgraded from osteoporosis to osteopenia, Dr. Thacker reported.

The new test may also provide some reassurance for female patients who have thinner bones, which may raise alarms based on BMD. TBS, however, may show that the structure of the bone looks normal.

“When you know that the microarchitecture is normal, you’re a lot less concerned that they actually have a bone disease of osteoporosis,” Dr. Thacker said.

Conversely, unexpectedly degraded bone raises questions.

“That makes you go back and say [to the patient]: ‘Have you been on steroids? Were you malnourished? Is there some other metabolic problem? Have you had some calcium disorder?’ ” Dr. Thacker said.

Dr. Thacker leverages the TBS to help patients obtain effective therapy, typically an anabolic agent followed by antiresorptive medication.

“When I see a patient who not only has osteoporosis on bone density but has completely degraded bone architecture, it’s a lot easier for me to make the argument to the insurance company that this patient is at grave risk for a low trauma fracture and bad outcome without the best treatment,” Dr. Thacker said.
 

10-year-old tech, recently covered

The Food and Drug Administration approved TBS software in 2012, but Medicare only recently started paying for it.

Medimaps Group, a company that markets imaging software to calculate TBS, announced in 2022 that reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services was available, at $41.53 on the Physician Fee Schedule and $82.61 on the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment Schedule.

“Reimbursement through CMS is an important endorsement of the clinical value of TBS for clinicians and their patients,” Didier Hans, PhD, MBA, the CEO of Medimaps, said in a statement at the time. He noted that more than 600,000 TBS procedures were being performed in the United States each year.

Nevertheless, the initial investment in purchasing the software may be a barrier for health systems.

“We are the first and only site in our health system to offer TBS, as this is an extra expense and not uniformly reimbursed by insurers,” Dr. Thacker reported at the meeting.
 

Potential drawbacks

The TBS software used in Dr. Thacker’s study has been validated only in Asian and White patients between certain ages and weights, meaning the system is not designed to be used for other populations. Other researchers have highlighted a need for trabecular bone scoring to be validated more broadly. The authors of a recent analysis, however, suggest that TBS can be used the same way no matter a patient’s race.

TBS “is going to be most helpful in those with osteopenia who are right near the threshold for treatment,” said Marcella Donovan Walker, MD, MS, in a presentation on bone quality at the meeting.

Many studies have shown that TBS “provides additive information to bone density,” said Dr. Walker, a professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology at Columbia University, New York. For example, a large study of women in Manitoba found that, regardless of whether their bone density was normal, osteopenic, or osteoporotic, those with a low TBS had a much higher risk for fracture.
 

‘Opportunistic screening’ with CT?

TBS relies on the same DXA scans that are used to calculate bone mineral density, so obtaining the score does not add time or radiation to the scanning process, Dr. Thacker said.

But many patients who should receive DXA scans do not, which adds to the promise of “opportunistic screening” for osteoporosis, Dr. Walker said. With this approach, physicians would analyze a CT scan that a patient received for another purpose, such as to investigate abdominal pain or chest pain.

“In these images is information about the bone,” Dr. Walker said.

Researchers have used high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT to perform finite element analysis, where a computer program simulates compression of the bone to create a measure of bone stiffness and determine the load required for a break.

One study found that including those elements predicted fractures better than bone mineral density or the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool alone, Dr. Walker noted.

Other aspects of bone quality include how many cracks are in the bone, the amount of adipose in the marrow space, and the rate at which bone is broken down and rebuilt. But Dr. Walker suggested that the longstanding focus on bone mineral density in clinical practice makes sense.

“By far, bone mass is the most important bone quality,” Dr. Walker said.

Dr. Thacker is the executive director of the nonprofit Speaking of Women’s Health. Dr. Walker reported receiving funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and Amgen.

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

SAN DIEGO – Radiation has become a crucial component of treatment for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) over the past 25 years. But radiologists presenting at an annual conference cautioned colleagues to keep the limitations of radiology in mind and not to assume that it’s always a necessary adjunct to chemotherapy.

For example, radiation may not be needed for advanced-stage patients who’ve received at least four cycles of R-CHOP chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone plus rituximab), and whose PET scans show no sign of disease at interim or end-of treatment phases, said Joanna Yang, MD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

These patients “may be able to omit radiotherapy without sacrificing good outcomes,” Dr. Yang said. In contrast, those whose PET scans show signs of disease at interim and end-of-treatment points may benefit from radiotherapy to selected sites, she said.

Dr. Yang highlighted a 2021 study in Blood that tracked 723 patients with advanced-stage DLBCL who were diagnosed from 2005 to 2017. All were treated with R-CHOP, and some of those who were PET-positive – that is, showing signs of malignant disease – were treated with radiotherapy.

Over a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, the study reported “time to progression and overall survival at 3 years were 83% vs. 56% and 87% vs. 64% in patients with PET-NEG and PET-POS scans, respectively.”

These findings aren’t surprising, Dr. Yang said. But “the PET-positive patients who got radiation actually had outcomes that came close to the outcomes that the PET-negative patients were able to achieve.” Their 3-year overall survival was 80% vs. 87% in the PET-negative, no-radiation group vs. 44% in the PET-positive, no-radiation group.

Dr. Yang cautioned, however, that withholding radiation in PET-negative patients isn’t right for everyone: “This doesn’t mean this should be the approach for every single patient.”

What about early-stage DLBCL? In patients without risk factors, Dr. Yang recommends PET scans after four treatments with R-CHOP. “Getting that end-of-treatment PET is going to be super-critical because that’s going to help guide you in terms of the patients who you may feel comfortable omitting radiation versus the patients who remain PET-positive at the end of chemotherapy. Many places will also add an interim PET as well.”

According to her, radiotherapy is appropriate in patients who are PET-positive, based on the findings of the FLYER and LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03 trials.

In early-stage patients who have risk factors such as advanced age or bulky or extra-nodal disease, Dr. Yang suggests examining interim PET scans after three treatments with R-CHOP. If they are negative, another R-CHOP treatment is appropriate – with or without radiotherapy.

“There’s a lot that goes into that decision. The first thing I think about in patients who have risk factors is: What salvage options are available for my patient? Can they tolerate these salvage option? If they’re older, they might not be eligible for auto [autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation]. If they’re frail, they might not be eligible for auto or CAR T cells. If they have bulk, it’s certainly an area of concern. It seems like radiation does help control disease in areas of bulk for patients with DLBCL.”

If these patients are PET-positive, go directly to radiotherapy, Dr. Yang advised. Trials that support this approach include S1001, LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03, and RICOVER-noRTH, she said.

What about double-hit and triple-hit lymphomas, which are especially aggressive due to genetic variations? Research suggests that “even if double hit/triple hit is not responding to chemo, it still responds to radiation,” Dr. Yang said.

In regard to advanced-stage disease, “if patients are receiving full-dose chemo for least six cycles, I use that end-of-treatment PET to help guide me. And then I make an individualized decision based on how bulky that disease is, where the location is, how morbid a relapse would be. If they’re older or receiving reduced-dose chemotherapy, then I’ll more seriously consider radiation just because there are limited options for these patients. And we know that DLCBL is most commonly a disease of the elderly.”

In an adjoining presentation at ASTRO, Andrea Ng, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School/Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, discussed which patients with incomplete response or refractory/relapsed DLCBL can benefit from radiotherapy.

She highlighted patients with good partial response and end-of-treatment PET-positive with evidence of residual 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose activity via PET scan (Deauville 4/5) – a group that “we’re increasingly seeing.” In these patients, “radiation can be quite effective” at doses of 36-45 Gy. She highlighted a study from 2011 that linked consolidation radiotherapy to 5-year event-free survival in 65% of patients.

As for relapsed/refractory disease in patients who aren’t candidates for further systemic therapy – the “frail without good options” – Dr. Ng said data about salvage radiotherapy is limited. However, a 2015 study tracked 65 patients who were treated with a median dose of 40 Gy with “curative” intent. Local control was “not great” at 72% at 2 years, Dr. Ng said, while overall survival was 60% and progress-free survival was 46%.

Dr. Ng, who was one of this study’s authors, said several groups did better: Those with refractory vs. relapsed disease and those who were responsive to chemotherapy vs. those who were not.

She also highlighted a similar 2019 study of 32 patients with refractory/relapsed disease treated with salvage radiotherapy (median dose of 42.7 Gy) found that 61.8% reached progress-free survival at 5 years – a better outcome.

Dr. Yang has no disclosures. Dr. Ng discloses royalties from UpToDate and Elsevier.
 

SAN DIEGO – Radiation has become a crucial component of treatment for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) over the past 25 years. But radiologists presenting at an annual conference cautioned colleagues to keep the limitations of radiology in mind and not to assume that it’s always a necessary adjunct to chemotherapy.

For example, radiation may not be needed for advanced-stage patients who’ve received at least four cycles of R-CHOP chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone plus rituximab), and whose PET scans show no sign of disease at interim or end-of treatment phases, said Joanna Yang, MD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

These patients “may be able to omit radiotherapy without sacrificing good outcomes,” Dr. Yang said. In contrast, those whose PET scans show signs of disease at interim and end-of-treatment points may benefit from radiotherapy to selected sites, she said.

Dr. Yang highlighted a 2021 study in Blood that tracked 723 patients with advanced-stage DLBCL who were diagnosed from 2005 to 2017. All were treated with R-CHOP, and some of those who were PET-positive – that is, showing signs of malignant disease – were treated with radiotherapy.

Over a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, the study reported “time to progression and overall survival at 3 years were 83% vs. 56% and 87% vs. 64% in patients with PET-NEG and PET-POS scans, respectively.”

These findings aren’t surprising, Dr. Yang said. But “the PET-positive patients who got radiation actually had outcomes that came close to the outcomes that the PET-negative patients were able to achieve.” Their 3-year overall survival was 80% vs. 87% in the PET-negative, no-radiation group vs. 44% in the PET-positive, no-radiation group.

Dr. Yang cautioned, however, that withholding radiation in PET-negative patients isn’t right for everyone: “This doesn’t mean this should be the approach for every single patient.”

What about early-stage DLBCL? In patients without risk factors, Dr. Yang recommends PET scans after four treatments with R-CHOP. “Getting that end-of-treatment PET is going to be super-critical because that’s going to help guide you in terms of the patients who you may feel comfortable omitting radiation versus the patients who remain PET-positive at the end of chemotherapy. Many places will also add an interim PET as well.”

According to her, radiotherapy is appropriate in patients who are PET-positive, based on the findings of the FLYER and LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03 trials.

In early-stage patients who have risk factors such as advanced age or bulky or extra-nodal disease, Dr. Yang suggests examining interim PET scans after three treatments with R-CHOP. If they are negative, another R-CHOP treatment is appropriate – with or without radiotherapy.

“There’s a lot that goes into that decision. The first thing I think about in patients who have risk factors is: What salvage options are available for my patient? Can they tolerate these salvage option? If they’re older, they might not be eligible for auto [autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation]. If they’re frail, they might not be eligible for auto or CAR T cells. If they have bulk, it’s certainly an area of concern. It seems like radiation does help control disease in areas of bulk for patients with DLBCL.”

If these patients are PET-positive, go directly to radiotherapy, Dr. Yang advised. Trials that support this approach include S1001, LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03, and RICOVER-noRTH, she said.

What about double-hit and triple-hit lymphomas, which are especially aggressive due to genetic variations? Research suggests that “even if double hit/triple hit is not responding to chemo, it still responds to radiation,” Dr. Yang said.

In regard to advanced-stage disease, “if patients are receiving full-dose chemo for least six cycles, I use that end-of-treatment PET to help guide me. And then I make an individualized decision based on how bulky that disease is, where the location is, how morbid a relapse would be. If they’re older or receiving reduced-dose chemotherapy, then I’ll more seriously consider radiation just because there are limited options for these patients. And we know that DLCBL is most commonly a disease of the elderly.”

In an adjoining presentation at ASTRO, Andrea Ng, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School/Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, discussed which patients with incomplete response or refractory/relapsed DLCBL can benefit from radiotherapy.

She highlighted patients with good partial response and end-of-treatment PET-positive with evidence of residual 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose activity via PET scan (Deauville 4/5) – a group that “we’re increasingly seeing.” In these patients, “radiation can be quite effective” at doses of 36-45 Gy. She highlighted a study from 2011 that linked consolidation radiotherapy to 5-year event-free survival in 65% of patients.

As for relapsed/refractory disease in patients who aren’t candidates for further systemic therapy – the “frail without good options” – Dr. Ng said data about salvage radiotherapy is limited. However, a 2015 study tracked 65 patients who were treated with a median dose of 40 Gy with “curative” intent. Local control was “not great” at 72% at 2 years, Dr. Ng said, while overall survival was 60% and progress-free survival was 46%.

Dr. Ng, who was one of this study’s authors, said several groups did better: Those with refractory vs. relapsed disease and those who were responsive to chemotherapy vs. those who were not.

She also highlighted a similar 2019 study of 32 patients with refractory/relapsed disease treated with salvage radiotherapy (median dose of 42.7 Gy) found that 61.8% reached progress-free survival at 5 years – a better outcome.

Dr. Yang has no disclosures. Dr. Ng discloses royalties from UpToDate and Elsevier.
 

SAN DIEGO – Radiation has become a crucial component of treatment for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) over the past 25 years. But radiologists presenting at an annual conference cautioned colleagues to keep the limitations of radiology in mind and not to assume that it’s always a necessary adjunct to chemotherapy.

For example, radiation may not be needed for advanced-stage patients who’ve received at least four cycles of R-CHOP chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone plus rituximab), and whose PET scans show no sign of disease at interim or end-of treatment phases, said Joanna Yang, MD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

These patients “may be able to omit radiotherapy without sacrificing good outcomes,” Dr. Yang said. In contrast, those whose PET scans show signs of disease at interim and end-of-treatment points may benefit from radiotherapy to selected sites, she said.

Dr. Yang highlighted a 2021 study in Blood that tracked 723 patients with advanced-stage DLBCL who were diagnosed from 2005 to 2017. All were treated with R-CHOP, and some of those who were PET-positive – that is, showing signs of malignant disease – were treated with radiotherapy.

Over a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, the study reported “time to progression and overall survival at 3 years were 83% vs. 56% and 87% vs. 64% in patients with PET-NEG and PET-POS scans, respectively.”

These findings aren’t surprising, Dr. Yang said. But “the PET-positive patients who got radiation actually had outcomes that came close to the outcomes that the PET-negative patients were able to achieve.” Their 3-year overall survival was 80% vs. 87% in the PET-negative, no-radiation group vs. 44% in the PET-positive, no-radiation group.

Dr. Yang cautioned, however, that withholding radiation in PET-negative patients isn’t right for everyone: “This doesn’t mean this should be the approach for every single patient.”

What about early-stage DLBCL? In patients without risk factors, Dr. Yang recommends PET scans after four treatments with R-CHOP. “Getting that end-of-treatment PET is going to be super-critical because that’s going to help guide you in terms of the patients who you may feel comfortable omitting radiation versus the patients who remain PET-positive at the end of chemotherapy. Many places will also add an interim PET as well.”

According to her, radiotherapy is appropriate in patients who are PET-positive, based on the findings of the FLYER and LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03 trials.

In early-stage patients who have risk factors such as advanced age or bulky or extra-nodal disease, Dr. Yang suggests examining interim PET scans after three treatments with R-CHOP. If they are negative, another R-CHOP treatment is appropriate – with or without radiotherapy.

“There’s a lot that goes into that decision. The first thing I think about in patients who have risk factors is: What salvage options are available for my patient? Can they tolerate these salvage option? If they’re older, they might not be eligible for auto [autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation]. If they’re frail, they might not be eligible for auto or CAR T cells. If they have bulk, it’s certainly an area of concern. It seems like radiation does help control disease in areas of bulk for patients with DLBCL.”

If these patients are PET-positive, go directly to radiotherapy, Dr. Yang advised. Trials that support this approach include S1001, LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03, and RICOVER-noRTH, she said.

What about double-hit and triple-hit lymphomas, which are especially aggressive due to genetic variations? Research suggests that “even if double hit/triple hit is not responding to chemo, it still responds to radiation,” Dr. Yang said.

In regard to advanced-stage disease, “if patients are receiving full-dose chemo for least six cycles, I use that end-of-treatment PET to help guide me. And then I make an individualized decision based on how bulky that disease is, where the location is, how morbid a relapse would be. If they’re older or receiving reduced-dose chemotherapy, then I’ll more seriously consider radiation just because there are limited options for these patients. And we know that DLCBL is most commonly a disease of the elderly.”

In an adjoining presentation at ASTRO, Andrea Ng, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School/Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, discussed which patients with incomplete response or refractory/relapsed DLCBL can benefit from radiotherapy.

She highlighted patients with good partial response and end-of-treatment PET-positive with evidence of residual 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose activity via PET scan (Deauville 4/5) – a group that “we’re increasingly seeing.” In these patients, “radiation can be quite effective” at doses of 36-45 Gy. She highlighted a study from 2011 that linked consolidation radiotherapy to 5-year event-free survival in 65% of patients.

As for relapsed/refractory disease in patients who aren’t candidates for further systemic therapy – the “frail without good options” – Dr. Ng said data about salvage radiotherapy is limited. However, a 2015 study tracked 65 patients who were treated with a median dose of 40 Gy with “curative” intent. Local control was “not great” at 72% at 2 years, Dr. Ng said, while overall survival was 60% and progress-free survival was 46%.

Dr. Ng, who was one of this study’s authors, said several groups did better: Those with refractory vs. relapsed disease and those who were responsive to chemotherapy vs. those who were not.

She also highlighted a similar 2019 study of 32 patients with refractory/relapsed disease treated with salvage radiotherapy (median dose of 42.7 Gy) found that 61.8% reached progress-free survival at 5 years – a better outcome.

Dr. Yang has no disclosures. Dr. Ng discloses royalties from UpToDate and Elsevier.
 

Recently updated colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidance from the American College of Physicians is raising concerns among some specialists.

The ACP’s clinical guidance, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, called for CRC screenings to start at age 50 in average-risk individuals who are asymptomatic. This recommendation, however, conflicts with guidelines from the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which, in 2021, officially lowered the recommended initial age of screening to 45.

Following the ACP’s announcement, several professional organizations, such as the American College of Radiology, criticized the new guidelines, calling them “a step backward” and warning they may hinder recent gains against CRC.

Some physicians believe the discordance will confuse patients and lead to varying referral practices among primary care physicians. And while insurers will likely continue to pay for screening procedures based on the USPSTF guidelines, which dictate insurance coverage, some physicians worry that insurers could create additional roadblocks for CRC screening coverage, such as requiring prior authorization.

“We’re in a conflicted space on this issue as a country,” said John L. Marshall, MD, a GI oncologist and director of The Ruesch Center for the Cure of GI Cancers at Georgetown University, Washington.

Ultimately, the physician community wants an inexpensive screening test that’s effective at preventing cancer and deaths, but the evidence thus far doesn’t necessarily support colonoscopy as that test, said Dr. Marshall, also chief medical officer for Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Although colonoscopy can prevent CRC by removing precancerous polyps and can reduce deaths from cancer, it has not been shown to lower all-cause mortality, Dr. Marshall explained. A recent meta-analysis, for example, found that, aside from sigmoidoscopy for colon cancer screening, no other cancer screening modalities meaningfully changed life expectancy.

“That’s why we’re struggling,” Dr. Marshall said. “We’re emotionally invested in having screening available to younger people because we’re seeing colon cancer in younger people. So, we want it to move earlier, but it’s expensive and it’s invasive.”
 

Docs debate differing guidance

The new ACP guidance, based on a critical review of existing guidelines, evidence, and modeling studies, argues that the potential harms of screening average-risk individuals under age 50 may outweigh the potential benefits.

The benefits of screening, of course, include identifying and removing precancerous lesions or localized cancer, while the potential harms include false positives that may lead to unnecessary additional tests, treatments, and costs. More invasive screening procedures, such as colonoscopy, can also come with their own risks, including serious bleeding and perforation.

For colonoscopy, for instance, the ACP team determined that starting screening at age 45 vs. 50 could prevent three additional CRC cases per 1,000 individuals screened (58 vs. 61) and one CRC death (27 vs. 28) over the recommended screening time frame. On the flip side, screening starting at age 45 could increase the incidence of gastrointestinal or cardiovascular events (14 vs. 16).

“Even if we assumed the modeling study had no limitations and accepted the results at face value, we would conclude that the small estimated benefits and harms roughly balance each other out, resulting in an inadequate net benefit to warrant CRC screening in average-risk adults aged 45 to 49 years,” Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, and ACP coauthors write.

Family physician Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, believes the updated ACP guidelines are reasonable, and points out the ACP is not the first group to disagree with the USPSTF’s recommendations.

“I think the [ACP] guidelines make a lot of sense,” said Dr. Lin, who practices in Lancaster, Pa. The American Academy of Family Physicians “also did not endorse the recommendations to start screenings at 45.” In its 2021 updated guidance, the AAFP recommended screening for CRC starting at age 50, concluding there was “insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of screening” in the 45 to 49 population.

However, Jason R. Woloski, MD, a family physician based in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., expressed concern that the differing guidelines will confuse patients as well as present challenges for primary care physicians.

“I feel like we took the last couple of years convincing people that earlier is better,” said Dr. Woloski, an associate professor of family medicine at Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, Pa. “It can send a mixed message to a patient after we’ve been stressing the importance of earlier [screening], and then saying, ‘Maybe we got it wrong; maybe we were okay the first time.’ ”

Mark A. Lewis, MD, a GI oncologist, had a similar initial reaction upon hearing about the updated guidelines: “The lack of synchronization across groups is going to create confusion among patients.”

Although he could not say definitively whether the recommendations will affect GI oncologists, because he only sees patients with advanced CRC, he does see the demands in primary care and gastroenterology shifting.

“I think the much bigger impact will be on primary care physicians and gastroenterologists,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah. “My best guess is that the procedural burden on the latter will be mitigated by more stool testing ordered by primary care physicians. Patients may understandably prefer the convenience and lack of invasiveness of home-based fecal testing, but a positive FIT [fecal immunochemical test] without a follow-up scope is an incomplete screening.”

Dr. Marshall, however, had a different take. He does not envision the updated guidelines having much of a practical impact on physician practice. Most of the country is already not receiving proper colon cancer screenings, he said. Research shows more than 40% of Americans skip standard CRC screenings. Even anecdotally, he noted, friends in their 60s come to him and admit they haven’t had a colonoscopy yet.
 

Potential impact on patient outcomes, costs

Beyond mixed messaging, some experts worry that pushing CRC screening later could mean cancers are caught later, when they’re more advanced.

Finding cancers earlier, when they are easier and less expensive to treat, make earlier CRC screenings worthwhile, Dr. Woloski explained.

Dr. Lewis sees earlier screening as a way to stop a tumor from progressing before it can really pick up steam.

“To me the biggest advantage of colonoscopy is the interruption of the adenoma-to-carcinoma sequence, whereby a polyp that is completely removed cannot become an invasive adenocarcinoma,” Dr. Lewis said. “We’ve also had evidence for well over a decade that flexible sigmoidoscopy, which doesn’t come close to visualizing the entire colon, can confer a survival benefit.”

Another concern is the potential effect on insurance coverage.

Medicare and other insurers use USPSTF guidelines to make coverage decisions. However, because of this mixed message, Dr. Woloski questioned whether there would be more challenges regarding insurance coverage. “Does it mean primary care doctors are going to have to preauthorize a lot of these screenings even if you have shared decision-making with the patient?” he asked.

When it comes to screening referrals, Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at Kaiser Permanente in northern California, said it’s critical for primary care physicians to educate patients about the differing views on screening benefits and harms as well as the different screening options.

“Given the different opinions, it is important to let people in this age group know that screening is an option recommended by some groups,” Dr. Corley said. “Colorectal cancer screening is very effective for decreasing the risk for death from colorectal cancer, which is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Making sure all eligible people know this is an option provides the best way for patients to have an informed choice.”

Dr. Lin has already begun talking with patients about the differing recommendations. He said it’s helpful to simplify the issue and focus the conversation on what patients value most. For more assertive patients whose priority is finding every possible cancer early, starting screenings at age 45 may be reasonable, he said, whereas other patients may not find the process or possible side effects worth it.

“And then you have the middle group that decides, ‘Yes, I want to start at 45, but I want the fecal test. I don’t want to just jump into colonoscopy.’ ” Dr. Lin said. “That would be kind of a compromise where you’d be starting screening earlier, but not subjecting yourself to something that has more potential for harms.”

Dr. Woloski said he plans to continue making referrals based on the USPSTF recommendations.

“With every screening, it is about informed decision-making with the patient, but I think for now, since USPSTF still supports the earlier screening, I will probably stick with offering it earlier,” he said.

But when deciding on the appropriate timing for evaluating CRC, the most important distinction is between screening and diagnosis, Dr. Lewis added.

“The former is only appropriate in patients who are truly asymptomatic and who are truly average-risk,” he said. “The latter is critical in any patient with symptoms. I cannot count the number of times I have seen blood in the stool discounted as hemorrhoids without even an exam, digital rectal, or scope, to demonstrate that hemorrhoids are present and the culprit for blood loss.”

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

Recently updated colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidance from the American College of Physicians is raising concerns among some specialists.

The ACP’s clinical guidance, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, called for CRC screenings to start at age 50 in average-risk individuals who are asymptomatic. This recommendation, however, conflicts with guidelines from the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which, in 2021, officially lowered the recommended initial age of screening to 45.

Following the ACP’s announcement, several professional organizations, such as the American College of Radiology, criticized the new guidelines, calling them “a step backward” and warning they may hinder recent gains against CRC.

Some physicians believe the discordance will confuse patients and lead to varying referral practices among primary care physicians. And while insurers will likely continue to pay for screening procedures based on the USPSTF guidelines, which dictate insurance coverage, some physicians worry that insurers could create additional roadblocks for CRC screening coverage, such as requiring prior authorization.

“We’re in a conflicted space on this issue as a country,” said John L. Marshall, MD, a GI oncologist and director of The Ruesch Center for the Cure of GI Cancers at Georgetown University, Washington.

Ultimately, the physician community wants an inexpensive screening test that’s effective at preventing cancer and deaths, but the evidence thus far doesn’t necessarily support colonoscopy as that test, said Dr. Marshall, also chief medical officer for Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Although colonoscopy can prevent CRC by removing precancerous polyps and can reduce deaths from cancer, it has not been shown to lower all-cause mortality, Dr. Marshall explained. A recent meta-analysis, for example, found that, aside from sigmoidoscopy for colon cancer screening, no other cancer screening modalities meaningfully changed life expectancy.

“That’s why we’re struggling,” Dr. Marshall said. “We’re emotionally invested in having screening available to younger people because we’re seeing colon cancer in younger people. So, we want it to move earlier, but it’s expensive and it’s invasive.”
 

Docs debate differing guidance

The new ACP guidance, based on a critical review of existing guidelines, evidence, and modeling studies, argues that the potential harms of screening average-risk individuals under age 50 may outweigh the potential benefits.

The benefits of screening, of course, include identifying and removing precancerous lesions or localized cancer, while the potential harms include false positives that may lead to unnecessary additional tests, treatments, and costs. More invasive screening procedures, such as colonoscopy, can also come with their own risks, including serious bleeding and perforation.

For colonoscopy, for instance, the ACP team determined that starting screening at age 45 vs. 50 could prevent three additional CRC cases per 1,000 individuals screened (58 vs. 61) and one CRC death (27 vs. 28) over the recommended screening time frame. On the flip side, screening starting at age 45 could increase the incidence of gastrointestinal or cardiovascular events (14 vs. 16).

“Even if we assumed the modeling study had no limitations and accepted the results at face value, we would conclude that the small estimated benefits and harms roughly balance each other out, resulting in an inadequate net benefit to warrant CRC screening in average-risk adults aged 45 to 49 years,” Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, and ACP coauthors write.

Family physician Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, believes the updated ACP guidelines are reasonable, and points out the ACP is not the first group to disagree with the USPSTF’s recommendations.

“I think the [ACP] guidelines make a lot of sense,” said Dr. Lin, who practices in Lancaster, Pa. The American Academy of Family Physicians “also did not endorse the recommendations to start screenings at 45.” In its 2021 updated guidance, the AAFP recommended screening for CRC starting at age 50, concluding there was “insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of screening” in the 45 to 49 population.

However, Jason R. Woloski, MD, a family physician based in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., expressed concern that the differing guidelines will confuse patients as well as present challenges for primary care physicians.

“I feel like we took the last couple of years convincing people that earlier is better,” said Dr. Woloski, an associate professor of family medicine at Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, Pa. “It can send a mixed message to a patient after we’ve been stressing the importance of earlier [screening], and then saying, ‘Maybe we got it wrong; maybe we were okay the first time.’ ”

Mark A. Lewis, MD, a GI oncologist, had a similar initial reaction upon hearing about the updated guidelines: “The lack of synchronization across groups is going to create confusion among patients.”

Although he could not say definitively whether the recommendations will affect GI oncologists, because he only sees patients with advanced CRC, he does see the demands in primary care and gastroenterology shifting.

“I think the much bigger impact will be on primary care physicians and gastroenterologists,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah. “My best guess is that the procedural burden on the latter will be mitigated by more stool testing ordered by primary care physicians. Patients may understandably prefer the convenience and lack of invasiveness of home-based fecal testing, but a positive FIT [fecal immunochemical test] without a follow-up scope is an incomplete screening.”

Dr. Marshall, however, had a different take. He does not envision the updated guidelines having much of a practical impact on physician practice. Most of the country is already not receiving proper colon cancer screenings, he said. Research shows more than 40% of Americans skip standard CRC screenings. Even anecdotally, he noted, friends in their 60s come to him and admit they haven’t had a colonoscopy yet.
 

Potential impact on patient outcomes, costs

Beyond mixed messaging, some experts worry that pushing CRC screening later could mean cancers are caught later, when they’re more advanced.

Finding cancers earlier, when they are easier and less expensive to treat, make earlier CRC screenings worthwhile, Dr. Woloski explained.

Dr. Lewis sees earlier screening as a way to stop a tumor from progressing before it can really pick up steam.

“To me the biggest advantage of colonoscopy is the interruption of the adenoma-to-carcinoma sequence, whereby a polyp that is completely removed cannot become an invasive adenocarcinoma,” Dr. Lewis said. “We’ve also had evidence for well over a decade that flexible sigmoidoscopy, which doesn’t come close to visualizing the entire colon, can confer a survival benefit.”

Another concern is the potential effect on insurance coverage.

Medicare and other insurers use USPSTF guidelines to make coverage decisions. However, because of this mixed message, Dr. Woloski questioned whether there would be more challenges regarding insurance coverage. “Does it mean primary care doctors are going to have to preauthorize a lot of these screenings even if you have shared decision-making with the patient?” he asked.

When it comes to screening referrals, Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at Kaiser Permanente in northern California, said it’s critical for primary care physicians to educate patients about the differing views on screening benefits and harms as well as the different screening options.

“Given the different opinions, it is important to let people in this age group know that screening is an option recommended by some groups,” Dr. Corley said. “Colorectal cancer screening is very effective for decreasing the risk for death from colorectal cancer, which is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Making sure all eligible people know this is an option provides the best way for patients to have an informed choice.”

Dr. Lin has already begun talking with patients about the differing recommendations. He said it’s helpful to simplify the issue and focus the conversation on what patients value most. For more assertive patients whose priority is finding every possible cancer early, starting screenings at age 45 may be reasonable, he said, whereas other patients may not find the process or possible side effects worth it.

“And then you have the middle group that decides, ‘Yes, I want to start at 45, but I want the fecal test. I don’t want to just jump into colonoscopy.’ ” Dr. Lin said. “That would be kind of a compromise where you’d be starting screening earlier, but not subjecting yourself to something that has more potential for harms.”

Dr. Woloski said he plans to continue making referrals based on the USPSTF recommendations.

“With every screening, it is about informed decision-making with the patient, but I think for now, since USPSTF still supports the earlier screening, I will probably stick with offering it earlier,” he said.

But when deciding on the appropriate timing for evaluating CRC, the most important distinction is between screening and diagnosis, Dr. Lewis added.

“The former is only appropriate in patients who are truly asymptomatic and who are truly average-risk,” he said. “The latter is critical in any patient with symptoms. I cannot count the number of times I have seen blood in the stool discounted as hemorrhoids without even an exam, digital rectal, or scope, to demonstrate that hemorrhoids are present and the culprit for blood loss.”

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

Recently updated colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidance from the American College of Physicians is raising concerns among some specialists.

The ACP’s clinical guidance, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, called for CRC screenings to start at age 50 in average-risk individuals who are asymptomatic. This recommendation, however, conflicts with guidelines from the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which, in 2021, officially lowered the recommended initial age of screening to 45.

Following the ACP’s announcement, several professional organizations, such as the American College of Radiology, criticized the new guidelines, calling them “a step backward” and warning they may hinder recent gains against CRC.

Some physicians believe the discordance will confuse patients and lead to varying referral practices among primary care physicians. And while insurers will likely continue to pay for screening procedures based on the USPSTF guidelines, which dictate insurance coverage, some physicians worry that insurers could create additional roadblocks for CRC screening coverage, such as requiring prior authorization.

“We’re in a conflicted space on this issue as a country,” said John L. Marshall, MD, a GI oncologist and director of The Ruesch Center for the Cure of GI Cancers at Georgetown University, Washington.

Ultimately, the physician community wants an inexpensive screening test that’s effective at preventing cancer and deaths, but the evidence thus far doesn’t necessarily support colonoscopy as that test, said Dr. Marshall, also chief medical officer for Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Although colonoscopy can prevent CRC by removing precancerous polyps and can reduce deaths from cancer, it has not been shown to lower all-cause mortality, Dr. Marshall explained. A recent meta-analysis, for example, found that, aside from sigmoidoscopy for colon cancer screening, no other cancer screening modalities meaningfully changed life expectancy.

“That’s why we’re struggling,” Dr. Marshall said. “We’re emotionally invested in having screening available to younger people because we’re seeing colon cancer in younger people. So, we want it to move earlier, but it’s expensive and it’s invasive.”
 

Docs debate differing guidance

The new ACP guidance, based on a critical review of existing guidelines, evidence, and modeling studies, argues that the potential harms of screening average-risk individuals under age 50 may outweigh the potential benefits.

The benefits of screening, of course, include identifying and removing precancerous lesions or localized cancer, while the potential harms include false positives that may lead to unnecessary additional tests, treatments, and costs. More invasive screening procedures, such as colonoscopy, can also come with their own risks, including serious bleeding and perforation.

For colonoscopy, for instance, the ACP team determined that starting screening at age 45 vs. 50 could prevent three additional CRC cases per 1,000 individuals screened (58 vs. 61) and one CRC death (27 vs. 28) over the recommended screening time frame. On the flip side, screening starting at age 45 could increase the incidence of gastrointestinal or cardiovascular events (14 vs. 16).

“Even if we assumed the modeling study had no limitations and accepted the results at face value, we would conclude that the small estimated benefits and harms roughly balance each other out, resulting in an inadequate net benefit to warrant CRC screening in average-risk adults aged 45 to 49 years,” Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, and ACP coauthors write.

Family physician Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, believes the updated ACP guidelines are reasonable, and points out the ACP is not the first group to disagree with the USPSTF’s recommendations.

“I think the [ACP] guidelines make a lot of sense,” said Dr. Lin, who practices in Lancaster, Pa. The American Academy of Family Physicians “also did not endorse the recommendations to start screenings at 45.” In its 2021 updated guidance, the AAFP recommended screening for CRC starting at age 50, concluding there was “insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of screening” in the 45 to 49 population.

However, Jason R. Woloski, MD, a family physician based in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., expressed concern that the differing guidelines will confuse patients as well as present challenges for primary care physicians.

“I feel like we took the last couple of years convincing people that earlier is better,” said Dr. Woloski, an associate professor of family medicine at Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, Pa. “It can send a mixed message to a patient after we’ve been stressing the importance of earlier [screening], and then saying, ‘Maybe we got it wrong; maybe we were okay the first time.’ ”

Mark A. Lewis, MD, a GI oncologist, had a similar initial reaction upon hearing about the updated guidelines: “The lack of synchronization across groups is going to create confusion among patients.”

Although he could not say definitively whether the recommendations will affect GI oncologists, because he only sees patients with advanced CRC, he does see the demands in primary care and gastroenterology shifting.

“I think the much bigger impact will be on primary care physicians and gastroenterologists,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah. “My best guess is that the procedural burden on the latter will be mitigated by more stool testing ordered by primary care physicians. Patients may understandably prefer the convenience and lack of invasiveness of home-based fecal testing, but a positive FIT [fecal immunochemical test] without a follow-up scope is an incomplete screening.”

Dr. Marshall, however, had a different take. He does not envision the updated guidelines having much of a practical impact on physician practice. Most of the country is already not receiving proper colon cancer screenings, he said. Research shows more than 40% of Americans skip standard CRC screenings. Even anecdotally, he noted, friends in their 60s come to him and admit they haven’t had a colonoscopy yet.
 

Potential impact on patient outcomes, costs

Beyond mixed messaging, some experts worry that pushing CRC screening later could mean cancers are caught later, when they’re more advanced.

Finding cancers earlier, when they are easier and less expensive to treat, make earlier CRC screenings worthwhile, Dr. Woloski explained.

Dr. Lewis sees earlier screening as a way to stop a tumor from progressing before it can really pick up steam.

“To me the biggest advantage of colonoscopy is the interruption of the adenoma-to-carcinoma sequence, whereby a polyp that is completely removed cannot become an invasive adenocarcinoma,” Dr. Lewis said. “We’ve also had evidence for well over a decade that flexible sigmoidoscopy, which doesn’t come close to visualizing the entire colon, can confer a survival benefit.”

Another concern is the potential effect on insurance coverage.

Medicare and other insurers use USPSTF guidelines to make coverage decisions. However, because of this mixed message, Dr. Woloski questioned whether there would be more challenges regarding insurance coverage. “Does it mean primary care doctors are going to have to preauthorize a lot of these screenings even if you have shared decision-making with the patient?” he asked.

When it comes to screening referrals, Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at Kaiser Permanente in northern California, said it’s critical for primary care physicians to educate patients about the differing views on screening benefits and harms as well as the different screening options.

“Given the different opinions, it is important to let people in this age group know that screening is an option recommended by some groups,” Dr. Corley said. “Colorectal cancer screening is very effective for decreasing the risk for death from colorectal cancer, which is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Making sure all eligible people know this is an option provides the best way for patients to have an informed choice.”

Dr. Lin has already begun talking with patients about the differing recommendations. He said it’s helpful to simplify the issue and focus the conversation on what patients value most. For more assertive patients whose priority is finding every possible cancer early, starting screenings at age 45 may be reasonable, he said, whereas other patients may not find the process or possible side effects worth it.

“And then you have the middle group that decides, ‘Yes, I want to start at 45, but I want the fecal test. I don’t want to just jump into colonoscopy.’ ” Dr. Lin said. “That would be kind of a compromise where you’d be starting screening earlier, but not subjecting yourself to something that has more potential for harms.”

Dr. Woloski said he plans to continue making referrals based on the USPSTF recommendations.

“With every screening, it is about informed decision-making with the patient, but I think for now, since USPSTF still supports the earlier screening, I will probably stick with offering it earlier,” he said.

But when deciding on the appropriate timing for evaluating CRC, the most important distinction is between screening and diagnosis, Dr. Lewis added.

“The former is only appropriate in patients who are truly asymptomatic and who are truly average-risk,” he said. “The latter is critical in any patient with symptoms. I cannot count the number of times I have seen blood in the stool discounted as hemorrhoids without even an exam, digital rectal, or scope, to demonstrate that hemorrhoids are present and the culprit for blood loss.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved etrasimod (Velsipity, Pfizer) for treating moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis (UC) in adults, Pfizer announced on Oct. 13.

Etrasimod is an oral sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor that binds with high affinity to receptors 1, 4, and 5. The approved recommended dose is 2 mg once daily.

Etrasimod is the second agent in the S1P class approved for UC in the United States. The other agent, ozanimod (Zeposia, Bristol-Myers Squibb), received FDA approval for moderately to severely active UC in May 2021.

The approval of etrasimod was based on safety and efficacy data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials: ELEVATE UC 52 trial and the ELEVATE UC 12 trial. The Lancet published full results from the two trials in March.

Both trials enrolled patients with UC who had previously failed or were intolerant of at least one conventional, biologic, or Janus kinase inhibitor therapy.

In ELEVATE UC 52, clinical remission at 12 weeks occurred in 27% of patients taking etrasimod versus 7% of patients taking a placebo (20% difference; P < .001). At week 52, remission rates were 32% with active treatment verus 7% with placebo (26% difference; P < .001).

In ELEVATE UC 12, clinical remission was achieved among 26% of patients who received etrasimod versus 15.0% of patients who received placebo (11% difference; P < .05).

Statistically significant improvements were also observed with etrasimod (vs. placebo) on all key secondary endpoints, including endoscopic improvement and mucosal healing at weeks 12 and 52, and corticosteroid-free remission and sustained clinical remission at week 52.

The most common side effects of etrasimod were found to be headache, elevated values on liver tests, worsening of UC, SARS-CoV-2 infection, dizziness, pyrexia, arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea. Full prescribing information is available online.

Etrasimod is “a proven advanced treatment with a favorable benefit-risk profile,” Michael Chiorean, MD, codirector of the IBD Center at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, who is an investigator in the ELEVATE studies, said in a Pfizer news release.

“UC can affect patients differently and many people living with this disease struggle with ongoing symptoms. The introduction of a new treatment for UC could increase options for patients, and we look forward to seeing the impact of Velsipity for patients across the U.S.,” added Michael Osso, president and CEO of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved etrasimod (Velsipity, Pfizer) for treating moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis (UC) in adults, Pfizer announced on Oct. 13.

Etrasimod is an oral sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor that binds with high affinity to receptors 1, 4, and 5. The approved recommended dose is 2 mg once daily.

Etrasimod is the second agent in the S1P class approved for UC in the United States. The other agent, ozanimod (Zeposia, Bristol-Myers Squibb), received FDA approval for moderately to severely active UC in May 2021.

The approval of etrasimod was based on safety and efficacy data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials: ELEVATE UC 52 trial and the ELEVATE UC 12 trial. The Lancet published full results from the two trials in March.

Both trials enrolled patients with UC who had previously failed or were intolerant of at least one conventional, biologic, or Janus kinase inhibitor therapy.

In ELEVATE UC 52, clinical remission at 12 weeks occurred in 27% of patients taking etrasimod versus 7% of patients taking a placebo (20% difference; P < .001). At week 52, remission rates were 32% with active treatment verus 7% with placebo (26% difference; P < .001).

In ELEVATE UC 12, clinical remission was achieved among 26% of patients who received etrasimod versus 15.0% of patients who received placebo (11% difference; P < .05).

Statistically significant improvements were also observed with etrasimod (vs. placebo) on all key secondary endpoints, including endoscopic improvement and mucosal healing at weeks 12 and 52, and corticosteroid-free remission and sustained clinical remission at week 52.

The most common side effects of etrasimod were found to be headache, elevated values on liver tests, worsening of UC, SARS-CoV-2 infection, dizziness, pyrexia, arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea. Full prescribing information is available online.

Etrasimod is “a proven advanced treatment with a favorable benefit-risk profile,” Michael Chiorean, MD, codirector of the IBD Center at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, who is an investigator in the ELEVATE studies, said in a Pfizer news release.

“UC can affect patients differently and many people living with this disease struggle with ongoing symptoms. The introduction of a new treatment for UC could increase options for patients, and we look forward to seeing the impact of Velsipity for patients across the U.S.,” added Michael Osso, president and CEO of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved etrasimod (Velsipity, Pfizer) for treating moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis (UC) in adults, Pfizer announced on Oct. 13.

Etrasimod is an oral sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor that binds with high affinity to receptors 1, 4, and 5. The approved recommended dose is 2 mg once daily.

Etrasimod is the second agent in the S1P class approved for UC in the United States. The other agent, ozanimod (Zeposia, Bristol-Myers Squibb), received FDA approval for moderately to severely active UC in May 2021.

The approval of etrasimod was based on safety and efficacy data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials: ELEVATE UC 52 trial and the ELEVATE UC 12 trial. The Lancet published full results from the two trials in March.

Both trials enrolled patients with UC who had previously failed or were intolerant of at least one conventional, biologic, or Janus kinase inhibitor therapy.

In ELEVATE UC 52, clinical remission at 12 weeks occurred in 27% of patients taking etrasimod versus 7% of patients taking a placebo (20% difference; P < .001). At week 52, remission rates were 32% with active treatment verus 7% with placebo (26% difference; P < .001).

In ELEVATE UC 12, clinical remission was achieved among 26% of patients who received etrasimod versus 15.0% of patients who received placebo (11% difference; P < .05).

Statistically significant improvements were also observed with etrasimod (vs. placebo) on all key secondary endpoints, including endoscopic improvement and mucosal healing at weeks 12 and 52, and corticosteroid-free remission and sustained clinical remission at week 52.

The most common side effects of etrasimod were found to be headache, elevated values on liver tests, worsening of UC, SARS-CoV-2 infection, dizziness, pyrexia, arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea. Full prescribing information is available online.

Etrasimod is “a proven advanced treatment with a favorable benefit-risk profile,” Michael Chiorean, MD, codirector of the IBD Center at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, who is an investigator in the ELEVATE studies, said in a Pfizer news release.

“UC can affect patients differently and many people living with this disease struggle with ongoing symptoms. The introduction of a new treatment for UC could increase options for patients, and we look forward to seeing the impact of Velsipity for patients across the U.S.,” added Michael Osso, president and CEO of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.

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

In its September meeting, the safety committee (Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee) of the European Medicines Agency confirmed that atrial fibrillation will now be included as a common side effect in the Summary of Product Characteristics for medicinal products containing omega-3-acid ethyl esters. Should atrial fibrillation develop, intake of the medication must be stopped permanently.

Omega-3-acid ethyl esters are used to treat hypertriglyceridemia if lifestyle changes, particularly those related to nutrition, have not been sufficient to lower the blood triglyceride level. Hypertriglyceridemia is a risk factor for coronary heart disease.

During a Periodic Safety Update Single Assessment Procedure, the EMA safety committee analyzed systematic overviews and meta-analyses of randomized, controlled clinical studies. Experts found a dose-dependent increase in the risk for atrial fibrillation in patients with cardiovascular diseases or cardiovascular risk factors who were being treated with omega-3-acid ethyl esters, compared with those treated with placebo. The observed risk was at its highest at a dose of 4 g/d.

The PRAC will recommend an update to the Summary of Product Characteristics for preparations that contain omega-3-acid ethyl esters. The aim is to inform physicians, pharmacists, and patients of the risk for atrial fibrillation. A notification will be sent to health care professionals soon to inform them of further details.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

In its September meeting, the safety committee (Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee) of the European Medicines Agency confirmed that atrial fibrillation will now be included as a common side effect in the Summary of Product Characteristics for medicinal products containing omega-3-acid ethyl esters. Should atrial fibrillation develop, intake of the medication must be stopped permanently.

Omega-3-acid ethyl esters are used to treat hypertriglyceridemia if lifestyle changes, particularly those related to nutrition, have not been sufficient to lower the blood triglyceride level. Hypertriglyceridemia is a risk factor for coronary heart disease.

During a Periodic Safety Update Single Assessment Procedure, the EMA safety committee analyzed systematic overviews and meta-analyses of randomized, controlled clinical studies. Experts found a dose-dependent increase in the risk for atrial fibrillation in patients with cardiovascular diseases or cardiovascular risk factors who were being treated with omega-3-acid ethyl esters, compared with those treated with placebo. The observed risk was at its highest at a dose of 4 g/d.

The PRAC will recommend an update to the Summary of Product Characteristics for preparations that contain omega-3-acid ethyl esters. The aim is to inform physicians, pharmacists, and patients of the risk for atrial fibrillation. A notification will be sent to health care professionals soon to inform them of further details.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

In its September meeting, the safety committee (Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee) of the European Medicines Agency confirmed that atrial fibrillation will now be included as a common side effect in the Summary of Product Characteristics for medicinal products containing omega-3-acid ethyl esters. Should atrial fibrillation develop, intake of the medication must be stopped permanently.

Omega-3-acid ethyl esters are used to treat hypertriglyceridemia if lifestyle changes, particularly those related to nutrition, have not been sufficient to lower the blood triglyceride level. Hypertriglyceridemia is a risk factor for coronary heart disease.

During a Periodic Safety Update Single Assessment Procedure, the EMA safety committee analyzed systematic overviews and meta-analyses of randomized, controlled clinical studies. Experts found a dose-dependent increase in the risk for atrial fibrillation in patients with cardiovascular diseases or cardiovascular risk factors who were being treated with omega-3-acid ethyl esters, compared with those treated with placebo. The observed risk was at its highest at a dose of 4 g/d.

The PRAC will recommend an update to the Summary of Product Characteristics for preparations that contain omega-3-acid ethyl esters. The aim is to inform physicians, pharmacists, and patients of the risk for atrial fibrillation. A notification will be sent to health care professionals soon to inform them of further details.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – Ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) effectively prevents relapse in older patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), researchers have shown for the first time, although the extremely low risk for relapse in this population should be taken into account, they say.

The researchers studied about 700 patients with MS aged 60 years and older from an international database, comparing outcomes with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab versus those for interferon/glatiramer acetate (BRACE). They found ocrelizumab significantly reduced the annual rate of relapses, although after adjustments, patients overall faced a relapse rate of less than 0.1 per year. There were also no significant differences in either disability progression or improvement between the two treatments.

“We believe this study is unique in that ocrelizumab demonstrates a very clear differential treatment benefit in this age group,” said study presenter Yi Chao Foong, MD, department of neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne. “However, this has to be balanced against the fact that overall relapse activity is extremely low in people with MS over the age of 60. We believe that this study adds valuable, real-world data for nuanced benefit versus risk DMT discussions with for older adults with MS.”

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
 

Lack of data in older patients

Dr. Fong explained the comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has not been demonstrated in older people with MS, as all landmark trials to date have excluded people older than age 60 years. He underlined, however, that the inflammatory aspect of MS reduces with age, when neurodegenerative processes begin to predominate.

“This, combined with increased risk of acute infections in older adults have raised concerns over the benefit ratios of DMTs in this age group,” Dr. Fong said.

This has led to several de-escalation studies in older patients already on treatment for MS, but with “varied results.”

One study, published earlier in 2023, was unable to conclude whether DMT discontinuation was noninferior to continuation in older patients with no recent relapse or new MRI activity.

To investigate further, the Australian team used the MSBase database to study patients with a confirmed MS diagnosis who had started or switched to ocrelizumab or BRACE when older than 60 years of age.

They were also required to have undergone an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessment around the time of the initiation of DMT. In all, 675 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 248 started with ocrelizumab and 427 with BRACE.

The treatment groups were well balanced, although baseline EDSS scores were higher in patients given ocrelizumab, at 5.22 versus 3.89 with BRACE (P = .05), and they had a lower relapse rate prior in the year (P = .01) and 2 years (P = .02) prior to baseline.
 

Only relapse rates reduced

With more than 571 patient-years of follow-up, there were eight relapses in patients treated with ocrelizumab, compared with 182 relapses during 2238 patient-years among those given BRACE.

The team then performed propensity matching based on patient age, disease duration, sex, baseline EDSS, prior relapses, and prior DMTs.

They found that, over a median follow-up of 2.47 years for ocrelizumab and 4.48 years for BRACE, there was a lower rate of relapse with ocrelizumab, at a weighted annualized relapse rate of 0.01 versus 0.08 (P < .0001). This, they calculated, equated to an ARR ratio in favor of ocrelizumab of 0.15 (P < .01).

The time to first relapse was also longer for ocrelizumab versus BRACE, at a weighted hazard ratio for relapse of 0.11 (P < .001) and with, as Dr. Fong highlighted, separation of the curves at 5 months.

Over a follow-up duration of 3.6 years, there was, however, no significant difference in confirmed disability progression between the two treatments (P = .31), with similar results seen for confirmed disability improvement (P = .92).

Dr. Fong noted the study was limited by an inherent treatment indication bias, affecting the sensitivity analysis and weighing, while assessment of confirmed disability progression and confirmed disability improvement was hampered by the relatively short follow-up period and the lack of data on comorbidities.

He also highlighted the lack of safety data for the study population, as well as the lack of MRI.
 

Muddling the data

Approached for comment, Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, pointed out the study is based on retrospective data.

“The main question that we normally come up against in clinical practice, once people are older, is: What do you do with their treatment?” he asked.

This, Dr. Bhargava said, was the question that was addressed in the previous de-escalation studies.

The current study “actually answered a completely different question: If you were starting or changing a treatment after 60, which one would be better to choose?” This is a “much rarer scenario,” he said.

The results nevertheless showed what is seen in younger patients; in other words, “a more efficacious treatment is more effective at reducing relapses than a less efficacious treatment, even though overall the number of relapses is quite low,” Dr. Bhargava said.

“The other problem,” he added, is the study included “not just relapsing but also progressive patients, so that kind of muddles the data a little bit.”

Consequently, “it’s hard to really make a definitive conclusion” from the results, Dr. Bhargava concluded.

No funding was declared. Dr. Fong declares relationships with Biogen, National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia, and the Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists. Several coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.

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

MILAN – Ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) effectively prevents relapse in older patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), researchers have shown for the first time, although the extremely low risk for relapse in this population should be taken into account, they say.

The researchers studied about 700 patients with MS aged 60 years and older from an international database, comparing outcomes with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab versus those for interferon/glatiramer acetate (BRACE). They found ocrelizumab significantly reduced the annual rate of relapses, although after adjustments, patients overall faced a relapse rate of less than 0.1 per year. There were also no significant differences in either disability progression or improvement between the two treatments.

“We believe this study is unique in that ocrelizumab demonstrates a very clear differential treatment benefit in this age group,” said study presenter Yi Chao Foong, MD, department of neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne. “However, this has to be balanced against the fact that overall relapse activity is extremely low in people with MS over the age of 60. We believe that this study adds valuable, real-world data for nuanced benefit versus risk DMT discussions with for older adults with MS.”

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
 

Lack of data in older patients

Dr. Fong explained the comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has not been demonstrated in older people with MS, as all landmark trials to date have excluded people older than age 60 years. He underlined, however, that the inflammatory aspect of MS reduces with age, when neurodegenerative processes begin to predominate.

“This, combined with increased risk of acute infections in older adults have raised concerns over the benefit ratios of DMTs in this age group,” Dr. Fong said.

This has led to several de-escalation studies in older patients already on treatment for MS, but with “varied results.”

One study, published earlier in 2023, was unable to conclude whether DMT discontinuation was noninferior to continuation in older patients with no recent relapse or new MRI activity.

To investigate further, the Australian team used the MSBase database to study patients with a confirmed MS diagnosis who had started or switched to ocrelizumab or BRACE when older than 60 years of age.

They were also required to have undergone an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessment around the time of the initiation of DMT. In all, 675 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 248 started with ocrelizumab and 427 with BRACE.

The treatment groups were well balanced, although baseline EDSS scores were higher in patients given ocrelizumab, at 5.22 versus 3.89 with BRACE (P = .05), and they had a lower relapse rate prior in the year (P = .01) and 2 years (P = .02) prior to baseline.
 

Only relapse rates reduced

With more than 571 patient-years of follow-up, there were eight relapses in patients treated with ocrelizumab, compared with 182 relapses during 2238 patient-years among those given BRACE.

The team then performed propensity matching based on patient age, disease duration, sex, baseline EDSS, prior relapses, and prior DMTs.

They found that, over a median follow-up of 2.47 years for ocrelizumab and 4.48 years for BRACE, there was a lower rate of relapse with ocrelizumab, at a weighted annualized relapse rate of 0.01 versus 0.08 (P < .0001). This, they calculated, equated to an ARR ratio in favor of ocrelizumab of 0.15 (P < .01).

The time to first relapse was also longer for ocrelizumab versus BRACE, at a weighted hazard ratio for relapse of 0.11 (P < .001) and with, as Dr. Fong highlighted, separation of the curves at 5 months.

Over a follow-up duration of 3.6 years, there was, however, no significant difference in confirmed disability progression between the two treatments (P = .31), with similar results seen for confirmed disability improvement (P = .92).

Dr. Fong noted the study was limited by an inherent treatment indication bias, affecting the sensitivity analysis and weighing, while assessment of confirmed disability progression and confirmed disability improvement was hampered by the relatively short follow-up period and the lack of data on comorbidities.

He also highlighted the lack of safety data for the study population, as well as the lack of MRI.
 

Muddling the data

Approached for comment, Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, pointed out the study is based on retrospective data.

“The main question that we normally come up against in clinical practice, once people are older, is: What do you do with their treatment?” he asked.

This, Dr. Bhargava said, was the question that was addressed in the previous de-escalation studies.

The current study “actually answered a completely different question: If you were starting or changing a treatment after 60, which one would be better to choose?” This is a “much rarer scenario,” he said.

The results nevertheless showed what is seen in younger patients; in other words, “a more efficacious treatment is more effective at reducing relapses than a less efficacious treatment, even though overall the number of relapses is quite low,” Dr. Bhargava said.

“The other problem,” he added, is the study included “not just relapsing but also progressive patients, so that kind of muddles the data a little bit.”

Consequently, “it’s hard to really make a definitive conclusion” from the results, Dr. Bhargava concluded.

No funding was declared. Dr. Fong declares relationships with Biogen, National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia, and the Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists. Several coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.

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

MILAN – Ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) effectively prevents relapse in older patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), researchers have shown for the first time, although the extremely low risk for relapse in this population should be taken into account, they say.

The researchers studied about 700 patients with MS aged 60 years and older from an international database, comparing outcomes with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab versus those for interferon/glatiramer acetate (BRACE). They found ocrelizumab significantly reduced the annual rate of relapses, although after adjustments, patients overall faced a relapse rate of less than 0.1 per year. There were also no significant differences in either disability progression or improvement between the two treatments.

“We believe this study is unique in that ocrelizumab demonstrates a very clear differential treatment benefit in this age group,” said study presenter Yi Chao Foong, MD, department of neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne. “However, this has to be balanced against the fact that overall relapse activity is extremely low in people with MS over the age of 60. We believe that this study adds valuable, real-world data for nuanced benefit versus risk DMT discussions with for older adults with MS.”

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
 

Lack of data in older patients

Dr. Fong explained the comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has not been demonstrated in older people with MS, as all landmark trials to date have excluded people older than age 60 years. He underlined, however, that the inflammatory aspect of MS reduces with age, when neurodegenerative processes begin to predominate.

“This, combined with increased risk of acute infections in older adults have raised concerns over the benefit ratios of DMTs in this age group,” Dr. Fong said.

This has led to several de-escalation studies in older patients already on treatment for MS, but with “varied results.”

One study, published earlier in 2023, was unable to conclude whether DMT discontinuation was noninferior to continuation in older patients with no recent relapse or new MRI activity.

To investigate further, the Australian team used the MSBase database to study patients with a confirmed MS diagnosis who had started or switched to ocrelizumab or BRACE when older than 60 years of age.

They were also required to have undergone an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessment around the time of the initiation of DMT. In all, 675 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 248 started with ocrelizumab and 427 with BRACE.

The treatment groups were well balanced, although baseline EDSS scores were higher in patients given ocrelizumab, at 5.22 versus 3.89 with BRACE (P = .05), and they had a lower relapse rate prior in the year (P = .01) and 2 years (P = .02) prior to baseline.
 

Only relapse rates reduced

With more than 571 patient-years of follow-up, there were eight relapses in patients treated with ocrelizumab, compared with 182 relapses during 2238 patient-years among those given BRACE.

The team then performed propensity matching based on patient age, disease duration, sex, baseline EDSS, prior relapses, and prior DMTs.

They found that, over a median follow-up of 2.47 years for ocrelizumab and 4.48 years for BRACE, there was a lower rate of relapse with ocrelizumab, at a weighted annualized relapse rate of 0.01 versus 0.08 (P < .0001). This, they calculated, equated to an ARR ratio in favor of ocrelizumab of 0.15 (P < .01).

The time to first relapse was also longer for ocrelizumab versus BRACE, at a weighted hazard ratio for relapse of 0.11 (P < .001) and with, as Dr. Fong highlighted, separation of the curves at 5 months.

Over a follow-up duration of 3.6 years, there was, however, no significant difference in confirmed disability progression between the two treatments (P = .31), with similar results seen for confirmed disability improvement (P = .92).

Dr. Fong noted the study was limited by an inherent treatment indication bias, affecting the sensitivity analysis and weighing, while assessment of confirmed disability progression and confirmed disability improvement was hampered by the relatively short follow-up period and the lack of data on comorbidities.

He also highlighted the lack of safety data for the study population, as well as the lack of MRI.
 

Muddling the data

Approached for comment, Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, pointed out the study is based on retrospective data.

“The main question that we normally come up against in clinical practice, once people are older, is: What do you do with their treatment?” he asked.

This, Dr. Bhargava said, was the question that was addressed in the previous de-escalation studies.

The current study “actually answered a completely different question: If you were starting or changing a treatment after 60, which one would be better to choose?” This is a “much rarer scenario,” he said.

The results nevertheless showed what is seen in younger patients; in other words, “a more efficacious treatment is more effective at reducing relapses than a less efficacious treatment, even though overall the number of relapses is quite low,” Dr. Bhargava said.

“The other problem,” he added, is the study included “not just relapsing but also progressive patients, so that kind of muddles the data a little bit.”

Consequently, “it’s hard to really make a definitive conclusion” from the results, Dr. Bhargava concluded.

No funding was declared. Dr. Fong declares relationships with Biogen, National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia, and the Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists. Several coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.

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

TOPLINE:

An artificial intelligence (AI) model shows potential for detecting early-stage, “hidden” pancreatic cancer on scans of asymptomatic individuals, paving the way for surgical intervention and cure, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers utilized a diverse dataset of 3,014 CT scans: 1,105 diagnostic CT scans with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) and 1,909 control CT scans.
• Of the total, 696 diagnostic CT scans with PDA and 1,080 control CT scans were used as an AI model training subset, and 409 CT scans with PDA and 829 control CT scans were used as an intramural hold-out test subset.
• The model was also tested on a simulated cohort that evaluated the risk for PDA in new-onset diabetes; multicenter public datasets (194 CT scans with PDA and 80 controls); and a cohort of 100 prediagnostic CT scans, incidentally acquired 3-36 months prior to PDA being diagnosed, and 134 controls.

TAKEAWAY:

• The model correctly classified 360 CT scans with PDA (88%) and 783 control CT scans (94%) in the intramural test subset. The mean accuracy was 0.92, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.97, sensitivity was 0.88, and specificity was 0.95.
• On heat maps, activation areas overlapped with the tumor in 350 of 360 CT scans (97%).
• Performance was high across tumor stages, with sensitivities of 0.80, 0.87, 0.95, and 1.0 on T1 through T4 stages, respectively. Performance was comparable for hypodense versus isodense tumors (sensitivity of 0.90 vs. 0.82, respectively), patient demographics, CT slice thicknesses, and vendors.
• Findings were generalizable on both the simulated cohort (accuracy, 0.95; area under the ROC curve, 0.97) and public datasets (accuracy, 0.86; AUROC, 0.9).
• Occult PDA was detected on prediagnostic CT scans at a median 475 days before clinical diagnosis. Accuracy was 0.84, AUROC was 0.91, sensitivity was 0.75, and specificity was 0.9.

IN PRACTICE:

“Artificial intelligence model could mitigate the inadequacies of imaging and the diagnostic errors in interpretation, which often contribute to delayed diagnosis of pancreas cancer. In combination with emerging blood-based biomarkers, such a model could be evaluated to screen for sporadic cancer in ongoing trials of high-risk cohorts such as the Early Detection Initiative (NCT04662879).”

SOURCE:

Panagiotis Korfiatis, PhD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., led the study, which was published online in Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design is prone to selection bias. Results are presented dichotomously as either cancer or control. These are preliminary insights, and prospective clinical trials that incorporate epidemiological risk factors and emerging blood-based biomarkers are needed to further evaluate the model’s performance.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the National Cancer Institute, the Centene Charitable Foundation, and the Champions for Hope Pancreatic Cancer Research Program of the Funk Zitiello Foundation. One author received an institutional research grant from Sofie Biosciences and Clovis Oncology, is on the BlueStar Genomics advisory board (ad hoc), and is a consultant for Bayer Healthcare, Candel Therapeutics, and UWorld. The remaining authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

An artificial intelligence (AI) model shows potential for detecting early-stage, “hidden” pancreatic cancer on scans of asymptomatic individuals, paving the way for surgical intervention and cure, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers utilized a diverse dataset of 3,014 CT scans: 1,105 diagnostic CT scans with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) and 1,909 control CT scans.
• Of the total, 696 diagnostic CT scans with PDA and 1,080 control CT scans were used as an AI model training subset, and 409 CT scans with PDA and 829 control CT scans were used as an intramural hold-out test subset.
• The model was also tested on a simulated cohort that evaluated the risk for PDA in new-onset diabetes; multicenter public datasets (194 CT scans with PDA and 80 controls); and a cohort of 100 prediagnostic CT scans, incidentally acquired 3-36 months prior to PDA being diagnosed, and 134 controls.

TAKEAWAY:

• The model correctly classified 360 CT scans with PDA (88%) and 783 control CT scans (94%) in the intramural test subset. The mean accuracy was 0.92, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.97, sensitivity was 0.88, and specificity was 0.95.
• On heat maps, activation areas overlapped with the tumor in 350 of 360 CT scans (97%).
• Performance was high across tumor stages, with sensitivities of 0.80, 0.87, 0.95, and 1.0 on T1 through T4 stages, respectively. Performance was comparable for hypodense versus isodense tumors (sensitivity of 0.90 vs. 0.82, respectively), patient demographics, CT slice thicknesses, and vendors.
• Findings were generalizable on both the simulated cohort (accuracy, 0.95; area under the ROC curve, 0.97) and public datasets (accuracy, 0.86; AUROC, 0.9).
• Occult PDA was detected on prediagnostic CT scans at a median 475 days before clinical diagnosis. Accuracy was 0.84, AUROC was 0.91, sensitivity was 0.75, and specificity was 0.9.

IN PRACTICE:

“Artificial intelligence model could mitigate the inadequacies of imaging and the diagnostic errors in interpretation, which often contribute to delayed diagnosis of pancreas cancer. In combination with emerging blood-based biomarkers, such a model could be evaluated to screen for sporadic cancer in ongoing trials of high-risk cohorts such as the Early Detection Initiative (NCT04662879).”

SOURCE:

Panagiotis Korfiatis, PhD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., led the study, which was published online in Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design is prone to selection bias. Results are presented dichotomously as either cancer or control. These are preliminary insights, and prospective clinical trials that incorporate epidemiological risk factors and emerging blood-based biomarkers are needed to further evaluate the model’s performance.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the National Cancer Institute, the Centene Charitable Foundation, and the Champions for Hope Pancreatic Cancer Research Program of the Funk Zitiello Foundation. One author received an institutional research grant from Sofie Biosciences and Clovis Oncology, is on the BlueStar Genomics advisory board (ad hoc), and is a consultant for Bayer Healthcare, Candel Therapeutics, and UWorld. The remaining authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

An artificial intelligence (AI) model shows potential for detecting early-stage, “hidden” pancreatic cancer on scans of asymptomatic individuals, paving the way for surgical intervention and cure, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers utilized a diverse dataset of 3,014 CT scans: 1,105 diagnostic CT scans with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) and 1,909 control CT scans.
• Of the total, 696 diagnostic CT scans with PDA and 1,080 control CT scans were used as an AI model training subset, and 409 CT scans with PDA and 829 control CT scans were used as an intramural hold-out test subset.
• The model was also tested on a simulated cohort that evaluated the risk for PDA in new-onset diabetes; multicenter public datasets (194 CT scans with PDA and 80 controls); and a cohort of 100 prediagnostic CT scans, incidentally acquired 3-36 months prior to PDA being diagnosed, and 134 controls.

TAKEAWAY:

• The model correctly classified 360 CT scans with PDA (88%) and 783 control CT scans (94%) in the intramural test subset. The mean accuracy was 0.92, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.97, sensitivity was 0.88, and specificity was 0.95.
• On heat maps, activation areas overlapped with the tumor in 350 of 360 CT scans (97%).
• Performance was high across tumor stages, with sensitivities of 0.80, 0.87, 0.95, and 1.0 on T1 through T4 stages, respectively. Performance was comparable for hypodense versus isodense tumors (sensitivity of 0.90 vs. 0.82, respectively), patient demographics, CT slice thicknesses, and vendors.
• Findings were generalizable on both the simulated cohort (accuracy, 0.95; area under the ROC curve, 0.97) and public datasets (accuracy, 0.86; AUROC, 0.9).
• Occult PDA was detected on prediagnostic CT scans at a median 475 days before clinical diagnosis. Accuracy was 0.84, AUROC was 0.91, sensitivity was 0.75, and specificity was 0.9.

IN PRACTICE:

“Artificial intelligence model could mitigate the inadequacies of imaging and the diagnostic errors in interpretation, which often contribute to delayed diagnosis of pancreas cancer. In combination with emerging blood-based biomarkers, such a model could be evaluated to screen for sporadic cancer in ongoing trials of high-risk cohorts such as the Early Detection Initiative (NCT04662879).”

SOURCE:

Panagiotis Korfiatis, PhD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., led the study, which was published online in Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design is prone to selection bias. Results are presented dichotomously as either cancer or control. These are preliminary insights, and prospective clinical trials that incorporate epidemiological risk factors and emerging blood-based biomarkers are needed to further evaluate the model’s performance.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the National Cancer Institute, the Centene Charitable Foundation, and the Champions for Hope Pancreatic Cancer Research Program of the Funk Zitiello Foundation. One author received an institutional research grant from Sofie Biosciences and Clovis Oncology, is on the BlueStar Genomics advisory board (ad hoc), and is a consultant for Bayer Healthcare, Candel Therapeutics, and UWorld. The remaining authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People taking semaglutide or liraglutide for weight management are at a higher risk for rare but potentially serious gastrointestinal issues, compared with those taking naltrexone/bupropion, according to a large epidemiologic study.

Patients taking either of these glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists had a 9-fold elevation in risk for pancreatitis. They were also 4 times more likely to develop bowel obstruction and over 3.5 times more likely to experience gastroparesis.

The research letter was published online in JAMA.

Investigators say their findings are not about scaring people off the weight-loss drugs, but instead about increasing awareness that these potential adverse outcomes can happen.

“Given the wide use of these drugs, these adverse events, although rare, must be considered by patients thinking about using them for weight loss,” said lead author Mohit Sodhi, MSc, in a news release about the study. Mr. Sodhi is a graduate of the experimental medicine program at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, and also a 4th-year medical student at UBC.

People taking a GLP-1 agonist to treat diabetes might be more willing to accept the risks, given their potential advantages, especially that of lowering the risk for heart problems, said Mahyar Etminan, PharmD, MSc, the study’s senior author and an expert in drug safety and pharmacoepidemiology at UBC. “But those who are otherwise healthy and just taking them for weight loss might want to be more careful in weighing the risk–benefit equation.”

People taking these drugs for weight loss have an approximately 1%-2% chance of experiencing these events, including a 1% risk for gastroparesis, Dr. Etminan said.
 

Key findings

The study included 4,144 people taking liraglutide, 613 taking semaglutide, and 654 taking naltrexone/bupropion based on medical records between 2006 and 2020.

They included patients with a recent history of obesity but excluded those with diabetes or who had been prescribed another diabetes medication.

The use of GLP-1 agonists, compared with naltrexone/bupropion, was associated with an increased risk for pancreatitis (adjusted hazard ratio, 9.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-66.00), bowel obstruction (HR, 4.22; 95% CI, 1.02-17.40), and gastroparesis (HR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.15-11.90).

The study also found a higher incidence of biliary disease, but the difference was not statistically significant (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.89-2.53). The incidence of biliary disease (per 1,000 person-years) was 11.7 for semaglutide, 18.6 for liraglutide, and 12.6 for naltrexone/bupropion.
 

Not the first report of GI issues

“This important paper confirms the safety signals hinted at in previous randomized controlled trials,” said Carel Le Roux, MBChB, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine, Ulster University, Coleraine, Ireland, and professor of experimental pathology at University College Dublin.

“The limitations of the paper are acknowledged but do not detract from the value of the robust data,” Dr. Le Roux said. “Patients should be informed of the low risk of serious complications, such as pancreatitis, gastroparesis, and bowel obstruction, before they start semaglutide or liraglutide.”

This is not the first report of GI issues associated with GLP-1 agonists, but it’s one of the largest. Most reports have been anecdotal. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced on Sept. 28 that it would require manufacturers to include a warning about gastrointestinal ileus on the Ozempic (semaglutide) label.

“The results from this study highlight how important it is that patients access these drugs only through trusted medical professionals, and only with ongoing support and monitoring,” noted Simon Cork, PhD, senior lecturer in physiology, Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, England.

Dr. Cork added that “it’s important to look at this in the proper context.” Obesity significantly increases the risk for developing cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, gallbladder disease, and stroke, risks that fall dramatically with clinically meaningful and sustained weight loss, he said.

“For the overwhelming majority of patients for whom these drugs are targeted (those with the most severe forms of obesity), the benefits of weight loss far outweigh the risks,” Dr. Cork said.

The study was independently supported. Mr. Sodhi, Dr. Etminan, and Dr. Cork report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Le Roux is a consultant and has received research funding and reimbursement of travel expenses from Novo Nordisk.

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

People taking semaglutide or liraglutide for weight management are at a higher risk for rare but potentially serious gastrointestinal issues, compared with those taking naltrexone/bupropion, according to a large epidemiologic study.

Patients taking either of these glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists had a 9-fold elevation in risk for pancreatitis. They were also 4 times more likely to develop bowel obstruction and over 3.5 times more likely to experience gastroparesis.

The research letter was published online in JAMA.

Investigators say their findings are not about scaring people off the weight-loss drugs, but instead about increasing awareness that these potential adverse outcomes can happen.

“Given the wide use of these drugs, these adverse events, although rare, must be considered by patients thinking about using them for weight loss,” said lead author Mohit Sodhi, MSc, in a news release about the study. Mr. Sodhi is a graduate of the experimental medicine program at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, and also a 4th-year medical student at UBC.

People taking a GLP-1 agonist to treat diabetes might be more willing to accept the risks, given their potential advantages, especially that of lowering the risk for heart problems, said Mahyar Etminan, PharmD, MSc, the study’s senior author and an expert in drug safety and pharmacoepidemiology at UBC. “But those who are otherwise healthy and just taking them for weight loss might want to be more careful in weighing the risk–benefit equation.”

People taking these drugs for weight loss have an approximately 1%-2% chance of experiencing these events, including a 1% risk for gastroparesis, Dr. Etminan said.
 

Key findings

The study included 4,144 people taking liraglutide, 613 taking semaglutide, and 654 taking naltrexone/bupropion based on medical records between 2006 and 2020.

They included patients with a recent history of obesity but excluded those with diabetes or who had been prescribed another diabetes medication.

The use of GLP-1 agonists, compared with naltrexone/bupropion, was associated with an increased risk for pancreatitis (adjusted hazard ratio, 9.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-66.00), bowel obstruction (HR, 4.22; 95% CI, 1.02-17.40), and gastroparesis (HR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.15-11.90).

The study also found a higher incidence of biliary disease, but the difference was not statistically significant (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.89-2.53). The incidence of biliary disease (per 1,000 person-years) was 11.7 for semaglutide, 18.6 for liraglutide, and 12.6 for naltrexone/bupropion.
 

Not the first report of GI issues

“This important paper confirms the safety signals hinted at in previous randomized controlled trials,” said Carel Le Roux, MBChB, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine, Ulster University, Coleraine, Ireland, and professor of experimental pathology at University College Dublin.

“The limitations of the paper are acknowledged but do not detract from the value of the robust data,” Dr. Le Roux said. “Patients should be informed of the low risk of serious complications, such as pancreatitis, gastroparesis, and bowel obstruction, before they start semaglutide or liraglutide.”

This is not the first report of GI issues associated with GLP-1 agonists, but it’s one of the largest. Most reports have been anecdotal. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced on Sept. 28 that it would require manufacturers to include a warning about gastrointestinal ileus on the Ozempic (semaglutide) label.

“The results from this study highlight how important it is that patients access these drugs only through trusted medical professionals, and only with ongoing support and monitoring,” noted Simon Cork, PhD, senior lecturer in physiology, Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, England.

Dr. Cork added that “it’s important to look at this in the proper context.” Obesity significantly increases the risk for developing cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, gallbladder disease, and stroke, risks that fall dramatically with clinically meaningful and sustained weight loss, he said.

“For the overwhelming majority of patients for whom these drugs are targeted (those with the most severe forms of obesity), the benefits of weight loss far outweigh the risks,” Dr. Cork said.

The study was independently supported. Mr. Sodhi, Dr. Etminan, and Dr. Cork report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Le Roux is a consultant and has received research funding and reimbursement of travel expenses from Novo Nordisk.

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

People taking semaglutide or liraglutide for weight management are at a higher risk for rare but potentially serious gastrointestinal issues, compared with those taking naltrexone/bupropion, according to a large epidemiologic study.

Patients taking either of these glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists had a 9-fold elevation in risk for pancreatitis. They were also 4 times more likely to develop bowel obstruction and over 3.5 times more likely to experience gastroparesis.

The research letter was published online in JAMA.

Investigators say their findings are not about scaring people off the weight-loss drugs, but instead about increasing awareness that these potential adverse outcomes can happen.

“Given the wide use of these drugs, these adverse events, although rare, must be considered by patients thinking about using them for weight loss,” said lead author Mohit Sodhi, MSc, in a news release about the study. Mr. Sodhi is a graduate of the experimental medicine program at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, and also a 4th-year medical student at UBC.

People taking a GLP-1 agonist to treat diabetes might be more willing to accept the risks, given their potential advantages, especially that of lowering the risk for heart problems, said Mahyar Etminan, PharmD, MSc, the study’s senior author and an expert in drug safety and pharmacoepidemiology at UBC. “But those who are otherwise healthy and just taking them for weight loss might want to be more careful in weighing the risk–benefit equation.”

People taking these drugs for weight loss have an approximately 1%-2% chance of experiencing these events, including a 1% risk for gastroparesis, Dr. Etminan said.
 

Key findings

The study included 4,144 people taking liraglutide, 613 taking semaglutide, and 654 taking naltrexone/bupropion based on medical records between 2006 and 2020.

They included patients with a recent history of obesity but excluded those with diabetes or who had been prescribed another diabetes medication.

The use of GLP-1 agonists, compared with naltrexone/bupropion, was associated with an increased risk for pancreatitis (adjusted hazard ratio, 9.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-66.00), bowel obstruction (HR, 4.22; 95% CI, 1.02-17.40), and gastroparesis (HR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.15-11.90).

The study also found a higher incidence of biliary disease, but the difference was not statistically significant (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.89-2.53). The incidence of biliary disease (per 1,000 person-years) was 11.7 for semaglutide, 18.6 for liraglutide, and 12.6 for naltrexone/bupropion.
 

Not the first report of GI issues

“This important paper confirms the safety signals hinted at in previous randomized controlled trials,” said Carel Le Roux, MBChB, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine, Ulster University, Coleraine, Ireland, and professor of experimental pathology at University College Dublin.

“The limitations of the paper are acknowledged but do not detract from the value of the robust data,” Dr. Le Roux said. “Patients should be informed of the low risk of serious complications, such as pancreatitis, gastroparesis, and bowel obstruction, before they start semaglutide or liraglutide.”

This is not the first report of GI issues associated with GLP-1 agonists, but it’s one of the largest. Most reports have been anecdotal. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced on Sept. 28 that it would require manufacturers to include a warning about gastrointestinal ileus on the Ozempic (semaglutide) label.

“The results from this study highlight how important it is that patients access these drugs only through trusted medical professionals, and only with ongoing support and monitoring,” noted Simon Cork, PhD, senior lecturer in physiology, Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, England.

Dr. Cork added that “it’s important to look at this in the proper context.” Obesity significantly increases the risk for developing cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, gallbladder disease, and stroke, risks that fall dramatically with clinically meaningful and sustained weight loss, he said.

“For the overwhelming majority of patients for whom these drugs are targeted (those with the most severe forms of obesity), the benefits of weight loss far outweigh the risks,” Dr. Cork said.

The study was independently supported. Mr. Sodhi, Dr. Etminan, and Dr. Cork report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Le Roux is a consultant and has received research funding and reimbursement of travel expenses from Novo Nordisk.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Fatima Cardoso, MD: Today we will be discussing breast cancer in male patients. To join me in this discussion, I have Sharon Giordano and Oliver Bogler. I will ask, to start, that we briefly introduce ourselves.

I’m Fatima Cardoso. I’m a medical oncologist based in Lisbon, Portugal. I have had a special interest in this topic for a couple of years. Sharon?

Sharon H. Giordano, MD, MPH, FASCO: I’m Sharon Giordano. I practice at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. I’m also a medical oncologist and treat most of the male breast cancer patients that are seen here.

Oliver Bogler, PhD: I’m Oliver Bogler. I’m a cancer biologist by background and an 11-year survivor of breast cancer. Dr. Giordano was my oncologist during the active phase of my treatment. It’s great to be here with you.

Special considerations surrounding male patients

• Dr. Cardoso: Sharon, when you are treating breast cancer in a male patient, what specific considerations do you have?
• Dr. Giordano: As we all know, breast cancer in men is a rare disease. It makes up about 1 in 1,000 cases of breast cancer. I think that one of the major challenges in treating the disease is we just don’t have the same to support our treatments as we do for women.

Often, what we need to do and what we end up doing is extrapolating as much as possible from clinical trials that were conducted in female patients with breast cancer. I think that’s one of the major challenges we face in treating the disease. There have been international efforts to try to put together standardized treatment approaches.

For example, ASCO has created guidelines for the management of male breast cancer. NCCN also has a special page on considerations for treatment of men with breast cancer. I would encourage people to look at those resources if questions do come up on the topic.

Dr. Cardoso: Perhaps we can also mention that the latest clinical trials fortunately have been allowing for male patients to be included, which is very important so that we can start having some data on the new drugs. I think that’s also relevant.

Dr. Giordano: That’s a great point because, historically, most of the trials explicitly excluded men. I don’t know if it was intentional or they just wrote the trials saying “women with breast cancer,” because that’s what most people thought of. I think it’s a great effort by the FDA and by investigators to make sure now that men are included in the trials. That will help build our evidence base.

Dr. Cardoso: Oliver, 11 years ago, you faced the diagnosis and you went through this. Can you speak a little bit about this challenge of going through what is considered a rare disease, but also a disease that is very much associated with the female gender traditionally?

Dr. Bogler: Gladly. For me, it was particularly odd because my wife, at the time that I was diagnosed, was a 5-year survivor of breast cancer. It took me some time to even think that the lump I felt might be the same disease. That seemed very unlikely, statistically, and also odd.

I have to say that I was protected from much of the fish-out-of-water experience that many men have because I both worked and was treated at MD Anderson, where Dr Giordano has a large practice, so my colleagues and my friends were not surprised that a man could get this disease.

Many of the patients I met had that experience, difficulty convincing their primary care physician or even their first-line oncologist that this could be the case. I just want to connect to what you both said, which is that 10 years ago, inclusion of men in clinical trials was not standard. It is a fantastic development to see that because unless we include men, we won’t learn about that type of breast cancer.

Dr. Cardoso: Even if only a few are entering each trial, at least it allows us to see if the drug behaves the same way or if there is any strange behavior of the drug in a male patient. It’s already one step forward. You were going to mention something, Sharon?

Dr. Giordano: I was going to say that, anecdotally, I’ve heard the experience that Oliver referred to, of many men feeling not so much uncomfortable with the diagnosis – although that does happen – but not having an obvious fit within the health care system.

For example, going to get their mammogram as part of their diagnostic workup and whoever might be taking them back saying, “Oh, no, this is Mrs. Jones, not Mr.,” and trying to argue with them that it’s not really meant for them. I had a patient – and this guy had a great sense of humor – who had a biopsy done and the instructions were to place this pink, floral ice pack inside your bra.

Even the materials that we have are gender specific. I think those things all together can certainly contribute to a man feeling like a fish out of water.

Dr. Cardoso: Actually, I fought in my institution because they wanted to call the Breast and Gynecology Unit the Women’s Unit. I said that there is no way you can call it the Women’s Unit because we have male patients. There are small things that we can do in our institutions to try to decrease the stigma and to make it less awkward for a man to be in a waiting room that says Women’s Clinic or something similar to that.

The importance of a support system

Dr. Cardoso: I wanted Oliver, perhaps, to mention experiences that you may have heard from other men. Some men do not feel that comfortable speaking about the disease. Also, some of them do not feel comfortable after treatment to go to the beach, to show the scar, and to show what happens after you have radiation.

Some men actually take it quite heavily, psychologically speaking. Have you encountered some of these men?

Dr. Bogler: Definitely. I think it leads to men not accessing the support opportunities – their family, their friends, or the support groups – and staying away from those because of this feeling of not wanting to share about it. That can be damaging. Cancer treatment is usually a tough road for most people, and the long-term consequences of hormone therapy – most men have hormone-driven disease – can be significant. I agree with you.

I participated in the male breast cancer SCAR Project by David Jay, a famous photographer. One of the high points of my life has been appearing in The New York Times topless, right after my radiation treatment, showing my scar. There are quite a few of us out there who’ve done that.

I’ll just mention in passing the Male Breast Cancer Global Alliance, which is a patient support supergroup, if you will. We’ve got a symposium coming up in November. That’s a great place for men who are early in the stage of their disease, or at any stage, to connect to others who are facing this issue.

Dr. Cardoso: They can also find specific information. This is a really good website where you can find information. One of the most important topics that I’ve heard from my patients is, “I never thought that I could have this disease. I never heard that men could have breast cancer as well.” Information is very crucial.

I believe that if you are well informed, you will also be less scared of the disease. Sources of reliable information are really crucial for patients. Since you mentioned the SCAR Project, we have a similar project here in Portugal that really called attention to the disease. It was very visual and really interesting.
 

Discussions during and after treatment

Dr. Cardoso: I wanted to say something, and I don’t know if both of you would agree. I think only recently surgeons have started to pay attention to the way they operate on men with breast cancer, and even in considering techniques of breast conservation and oncoplastic surgery. I had the feeling, looking at those photos, that some years ago, it wouldn’t have mattered how they do with the mastectomy scar just because it was a man. This was biased, right?

Just because it was a man, there was no need to pay attention to the aesthetic outcome. That is wrong, in my perspective. I’m very happy to see that now there are surgeons considering other types of breast surgery to conserve as much as possible the aesthetic outcome.

Dr. Bogler: I have to say that I was offered reconstruction at MD Anderson. I declined it. It wasn’t that big a part of my body image. When I raised this issue at home, my kids, who were quite young at the time, just suggested, “Well, Dad, why don’t you just wear a swim shirt?” They came up with a very practical solution for this issue.

I agree with you that it should be an option. I was also offered a nipple tattoo. I have yet to take that up, but maybe one day.

Dr. Cardoso: I’m not sure that we need to go into reconstruction. It also depends on whether a man has gynecomastia, if it’s going to be very asymmetric. There are other techniques to do, and depending on the size of the tumor, we can also do breast conservation, which we have done here in a couple of patients.

It’s quite an interesting approach where, for example, a skin-sparing mastectomy would be less aggressive, let’s say. Sharon?

Dr. Giordano: I completely agree. I’ve noticed increasing attention to the issue over the years that I’ve been in practice. I do think that it’s more front-and-center when the surgeons are having discussions with the patients now.

Also, although it’s still a minority, some do choose to have reconstructive surgery; some have more extensive surgeries, and some maybe have nipple reconstruction or a nipple tattoo. In a few men, like you mentioned, who are somewhat asymmetric, it actually can make a difference even when they’re dressed.

For many men, it’s more that they want to take off their shirt to play basketball or go swimming, and to decrease the feeling of awkwardness or like they have to make an explanation for why they have a nipple missing and a scar across their chest.
 

Biological aspects of male patients

Dr. Cardoso: Let’s switch gears now to the management, and before that, the biology. Oliver, with your other hat of biology, speak a little bit on what we know so far – whether it is exactly the same disease or there are biological specific characteristics of breast cancer in men.

Dr. Bogler: I should preface this by saying that I spent my career studying brain tumors. That was clearly a mistake.

Dr. Cardoso: It starts with a B. ...

Dr. Bogler: It starts with a B, but it’s the wrong part of the body. The reality is that we don’t really know that much fundamental biology yet, though the picture is changing and it has changed in recent years. Part of the reason is we don’t have many of the tools that we’ve had for the female disease for many years, particularly laboratory models.

On the genetic and transcriptomics front, there has been some really good activity. There was a comprehensive systematic review by Professor Val Speirs from the University of Aberdeen earlier this year that summarized much of the recent data. It showed that there are a handful of molecular hallmarks of the male disease, compared with the female disease, that are worth exploring.

Interestingly enough, one of them is the androgen receptor. It does beg the question of whether hormone-driven disease might not show up quite differently in males and females, where the hormone picture is a little different. I think there’s increasing evidence that there’s information out there to go after.

I will say that I was treated by Dr. Giordano and her colleagues very much like a woman would have been with my disease, and actually, very similarly to my wife. I’ve done well with it, so I would say, in most cases, the current standard of care is very effective but it falls a little short of personalized medicine, particularly when it comes to the hormone component.

Dr. Cardoso: Sharon?

Dr. Giordano: I would add that when I think about it as a clinician, although there’s a large amount of overlap and many similarities, when we’re treating men with breast cancer, almost all of the men have hormone receptor–positive disease, which I think Oliver mentioned earlier. We’re really thinking about endocrine therapy as one of the mainstays of treatment.

Obviously, as he also mentioned, it’s a different biologic background of hormones in a male vs. a female patient. There’s reason to think that some of those treatments could differ. In general, the subtypes are a little bit different. We see very, very few cases of triple-negative breast cancer in men. I think I’ve seen only one or two in my career. The ones I remember were probably radiation induced. They were cancer survivors who’d had chest-wall radiation for previous diseases. Those patients are very uncommon.

We also tend to see that the histology patterns are a little bit different. We tend to see more ductal cancers in men than we do in women as a relative proportion.

One thing that I always try to remember is that the risk for BRCA mutations or underlying germline genetic mutations is higher in men than in women. Just having a diagnosis of male breast cancer is an indication to consider genetic testing or meet with a genetic counselor to look for a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

Now, most men will not have that. Only roughly 10% of male patients, or maybe a little less, will have a BRCA2 mutation; for BRCA1, it’s more like only 1% or 2%. They’re not that common. Certainly, male breast cancer is recognized as being associated with the BRCA mutations.

Dr. Cardoso: If I have to give a take-home message in terms of biology, it would be that if there is a diagnosis of hormone receptor–negative or HER2-positive disease in a male patient, I would ask for a confirmation of the diagnosis. It’s not that it cannot exist, but it’s so rare that it’s worthwhile to confirm.

You mentioned that triple-negative disease is less than 1%, at about 0.5%, and HER2-positive disease is about 9%-10%. I think it will be very important to keep this in mind and confirm the biology if you have a different diagnosis than ER-positive, HER2-negative. Unfortunately, I received some cases where this was not done, and in fact, it ended up being a technical problem. People can receive the wrong treatment based on that.

Dr. Giordano: I’ve also seen that happen when it’s a metastasis to the breast rather than a primary breast cancer. I completely agree. That’s an excellent point. 

Management approaches

Dr. Cardoso: Let’s go now to management and focus on early breast cancer first. Sharon, what are your main take-home messages for a professional who doesn’t see this very often? What does someone need to remember when they manage a male patient who has early breast cancer?

Dr. Giordano: In general, in terms of chemotherapy, we essentially use the same guidelines as we do for women. Most of the male patients will have tumors that are hormone receptor positive. For endocrine therapy, we typically rely on tamoxifen as the standard of care for adjuvant endocrine treatment for breast cancer.

There are some data suggesting that there can be some efficacy of aromatase inhibitors as single agents. In general, and extrapolated from some population-based registry data, the outcomes for men treated with single-agent aromatase inhibitors don’t tend to be as good as for those treated with tamoxifen.

I know that these are not randomized data so there are all the caveats of that, but the best information we have suggests that tamoxifen appears to likely be more effective. Typically, we stay with tamoxifen. If, for some reason, a man cannot tolerate tamoxifen or has a contraindication, then we could use a GnRH agonist along with an aromatase inhibitor.

Dr. Cardoso: I would like to mention that, because it’s ER-positive, HER2-negative disease most of the time, there will be the question as to whether we can use genomic tests. I think it is important that people know that we have much less data regarding the use of Oncotype DX, MammaPrint, or any of the genomic tests in male patients.

We have some data on the distribution of, for example, Oncotype DX or MammaPrint scores. Whether we can use these tests for the decision of chemotherapy, we don’t have much data on that. I’ve seen many people making exactly the same decisions as with female patients, but that’s not really based on very strong evidence.

Dr. Giordano: It’s hard to know what to do with that. There are prognostic data on Oncotype, so the higher-risk tumors do seem to have a worse outcome than the lower-score tumors. You’re right, though; I don’t think we have any predictive information to really show that the Oncotype DX score predicts benefit to chemotherapy.

Having said that, I will sometimes order the test in my practice. If somebody comes back with a score of 5 or a very low-risk score, I will use that in my decision-making.

Dr. Cardoso: There is something we didn’t exactly mention in the diagnosis that may be important. We discussed most men not knowing that they can have breast cancer, and Oliver, you mentioned that sometimes the first-line physicians can think that very often. Usually, we have late diagnosis and that means a higher tumor burden.

Sometimes we have to go to chemotherapy because of locally advanced or very positive axillas and not really because of the biology. That’s one of the reasons to go for chemotherapy in this setting, right?

Dr. Bogler: Yes. I remember that conversation with you, Dr. Giordano. I asked you whether I should do one of these tests. You said, “Don’t worry about it. At stage III, you’re going to have chemo anyway.”

Dr. Cardoso: The problem of these rare diagnoses is the not thinking about it, even from the health professional side, and then having the diagnosis quite late that will demand chemotherapy use.

To clarify to everybody, in terms of distinguishing luminal A–like, luminal B–like, and what that implies in a male patient, we really don’t know if it’s the same as in a female. There have been some very interesting studies from our Nordic country colleagues showing that maybe the subtyping is different. There is likely a male-specific subtype that does not exist in female breast cancer and that probably behaves differently. We still have a large amount of research to do to understand that.

Is there anything else you would like to mention about early breast cancer management?

Dr. Bogler: One of the things that’s probably underexplored is adherence to tamoxifen therapy in men. I do know anecdotally that this is the discussion among men because of the impact on quality of life. I do worry that sometimes men perhaps make the wrong choice, and I think that’s an opportunity for more research. Again, if there were alternative therapies that were perhaps a little less impactful on things like libido, that might be an advance in the field.

Dr. Cardoso: We have been seeing more studies on the issue of quality of life. Noncompliance is also an issue in female patients. We have to acknowledge that. Not everybody is able to keep taking the treatments. Interestingly, when there is a relapse and people had stopped taking the tamoxifen, most of them say, “I stopped because I had not understood exactly how important it is.”

We come back to the importance of explaining that it is the most crucial treatment for this subtype of breast cancer. Again, information is really key.

Sometimes I also use the argument with my patients that the alternative is even worse because if you use an aromatase inhibitor, and you have to use an LHRH agonist, then the implications for your sexual life are even worse. That’s how I try to convince them to stay on tamoxifen.

Let’s finalize with a couple of words on metastatic breast cancer in male patients. Sharon, I’ll start with you again. Is there any difference in the management if you have a patient with metastatic, ER-positive, HER2-negative disease? How do you treat? How do you sequence the available therapies? Is it different from the female patient?

Dr. Giordano: I’d say that, big picture, it’s quite similar. Again, most of the men have hormone receptor–positive disease, so really, the mainstay of treatment and the first treatments are going to be endocrine therapies. We’ll sequence through the endocrine therapies like we do in women. When using aromatase inhibitors, I typically would add a GnRH agonist to that, and I have had that be a very successful therapy, along now with the CDK inhibitors that are also approved.

I don’t think the studies of CDK inhibitors included male patients, but at least palbociclib actually was approved in the United States, based on some real-world evidence of its efficacy. Anecdotally, again, in my clinical practice, that tends to be a really powerful combination of leuprolide, an aromatase inhibitor, and a CDK inhibitor.

I think there’s less information about drugs like fulvestrant, whether that would benefit from combination with a GnRH agonist or whether those should be given as single agents. We just don’t really know. We have a few case series out there.

Similar to the early breast cancer setting, I think it’s really important to remember to check for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. PARP inhibitors could be a part of the treatment plan if those underlying germline mutations are found. Generally, we’re following a similar sequence of endocrine therapies and then, eventually, chemotherapy.

Dr. Cardoso: Maybe, Oliver, you’re also seeing that one consistent finding in the biology study is the importance of the AKT/PI3K/mTOR pathway in male patients with breast cancer, because we now have at least two classes of agents to tackle this pathway. Again, anecdotally – we’re not talking about trials – I’ve been seeing quite interesting responses, for example, to everolimus combined with endocrine therapy.

We have a little less experience with the PI3K inhibitor, but that’s just because of accessibility to the drug. I think this combination is also something to keep in mind that can be quite effective in these patients.

Dr. Bogler: I agree. Those findings are exciting in the context of dealing with something as difficult as metastatic breast cancer. It’s good to know that there’s some information coming and opportunities and options, hopefully, down the road for men facing that problem.

Dr. Cardoso: Sharon, although small numbers, in these cases where there is HER2-positive disease, you would also use the new anti-HER2 agents and more or less the same sequence, right?

Dr. Giordano: Absolutely. It’s not particularly data driven, but yes, I would. If it’s a HER2-positive tumor, I would use the same HER2-targeted therapies that are used for women with breast cancer.