NEW ORLEANS – Smokers with pulmonary embolism (PE) are more likely to be readmitted to the hospital within 30 days of their index admission, according to a retrospective study.

The rate of readmission was significantly higher among patients with tobacco dependence, and tobacco dependence was independently associated with an increased risk of readmission.

“This is the first study to quantify the increased rate of hospital readmission due to smoking,” said study investigator Kam Sing Ho, MD, of Mount Sinai St. Luke’s and Mount Sinai West, New York.

Dr. Ho and colleagues described this study and its results in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The researchers analyzed data on 168,891 hospital admissions of adults with PE, 34.2% of whom had tobacco dependence. Patients with and without tobacco dependence were propensity matched for baseline characteristics (n = 24,262 in each group).

The 30-day readmission rate was significantly higher in patients with tobacco dependence than in those without it – 11.0% and 8.9%, respectively (P less than .001). The most common reason for readmission in both groups was PE.

Dr. Ho said the higher readmission rate among patients with tobacco dependence might be explained by the fact that smokers have a higher level of fibrinogen, which may affect blood viscosity and contribute to thrombus formation (Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2005;2[1]:71-7).

The investigators also found that tobacco dependence was an independent predictor of readmission (hazard ratio, 1.43; P less than .001). And the mortality rate was significantly higher after readmission than after index admission – 6.27% and 3.15%, respectively (P less than .001).

The increased risk of readmission and death among smokers highlights the importance of smoking cessation services. Dr. Ho cited previous research suggesting these services are underused in the hospital setting (BMJ Qual Improv Rep. 2014;3[1]:u204964.w2110).

“Given that smoking is a common phenomenon among patients admitted with pulmonary embolism, we suggest that more rigorous smoking cessation services are implemented prior to discharge for all active smokers,” Dr. Ho said. “[P]atients have the right to be informed on the benefits of smoking cessation and the autonomy to choose. Future research will focus on implementing inpatient smoking cessation at our hospital and its effect on local readmission rate, health resources utilization, and mortality.”

Dr. Ho has no relevant relationships to disclose.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ho KS et al. CHEST 2019 October. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.1551.

NEW ORLEANS – Smokers with pulmonary embolism (PE) are more likely to be readmitted to the hospital within 30 days of their index admission, according to a retrospective study.

The rate of readmission was significantly higher among patients with tobacco dependence, and tobacco dependence was independently associated with an increased risk of readmission.

“This is the first study to quantify the increased rate of hospital readmission due to smoking,” said study investigator Kam Sing Ho, MD, of Mount Sinai St. Luke’s and Mount Sinai West, New York.

Dr. Ho and colleagues described this study and its results in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The researchers analyzed data on 168,891 hospital admissions of adults with PE, 34.2% of whom had tobacco dependence. Patients with and without tobacco dependence were propensity matched for baseline characteristics (n = 24,262 in each group).

The 30-day readmission rate was significantly higher in patients with tobacco dependence than in those without it – 11.0% and 8.9%, respectively (P less than .001). The most common reason for readmission in both groups was PE.

Dr. Ho said the higher readmission rate among patients with tobacco dependence might be explained by the fact that smokers have a higher level of fibrinogen, which may affect blood viscosity and contribute to thrombus formation (Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2005;2[1]:71-7).

The investigators also found that tobacco dependence was an independent predictor of readmission (hazard ratio, 1.43; P less than .001). And the mortality rate was significantly higher after readmission than after index admission – 6.27% and 3.15%, respectively (P less than .001).

The increased risk of readmission and death among smokers highlights the importance of smoking cessation services. Dr. Ho cited previous research suggesting these services are underused in the hospital setting (BMJ Qual Improv Rep. 2014;3[1]:u204964.w2110).

“Given that smoking is a common phenomenon among patients admitted with pulmonary embolism, we suggest that more rigorous smoking cessation services are implemented prior to discharge for all active smokers,” Dr. Ho said. “[P]atients have the right to be informed on the benefits of smoking cessation and the autonomy to choose. Future research will focus on implementing inpatient smoking cessation at our hospital and its effect on local readmission rate, health resources utilization, and mortality.”

Dr. Ho has no relevant relationships to disclose.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ho KS et al. CHEST 2019 October. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.1551.

NEW ORLEANS – Smokers with pulmonary embolism (PE) are more likely to be readmitted to the hospital within 30 days of their index admission, according to a retrospective study.

The rate of readmission was significantly higher among patients with tobacco dependence, and tobacco dependence was independently associated with an increased risk of readmission.

“This is the first study to quantify the increased rate of hospital readmission due to smoking,” said study investigator Kam Sing Ho, MD, of Mount Sinai St. Luke’s and Mount Sinai West, New York.

Dr. Ho and colleagues described this study and its results in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The researchers analyzed data on 168,891 hospital admissions of adults with PE, 34.2% of whom had tobacco dependence. Patients with and without tobacco dependence were propensity matched for baseline characteristics (n = 24,262 in each group).

The 30-day readmission rate was significantly higher in patients with tobacco dependence than in those without it – 11.0% and 8.9%, respectively (P less than .001). The most common reason for readmission in both groups was PE.

Dr. Ho said the higher readmission rate among patients with tobacco dependence might be explained by the fact that smokers have a higher level of fibrinogen, which may affect blood viscosity and contribute to thrombus formation (Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2005;2[1]:71-7).

The investigators also found that tobacco dependence was an independent predictor of readmission (hazard ratio, 1.43; P less than .001). And the mortality rate was significantly higher after readmission than after index admission – 6.27% and 3.15%, respectively (P less than .001).

The increased risk of readmission and death among smokers highlights the importance of smoking cessation services. Dr. Ho cited previous research suggesting these services are underused in the hospital setting (BMJ Qual Improv Rep. 2014;3[1]:u204964.w2110).

“Given that smoking is a common phenomenon among patients admitted with pulmonary embolism, we suggest that more rigorous smoking cessation services are implemented prior to discharge for all active smokers,” Dr. Ho said. “[P]atients have the right to be informed on the benefits of smoking cessation and the autonomy to choose. Future research will focus on implementing inpatient smoking cessation at our hospital and its effect on local readmission rate, health resources utilization, and mortality.”

Dr. Ho has no relevant relationships to disclose.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ho KS et al. CHEST 2019 October. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.1551.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2017 double-blind RCT that included 20,060 women with PPH from 21 countries (the WOMAN trial) found that the risk of maternal mortality was significantly lower among women who received tranexamic acid as part of their PPH treatment compared with placebo (1.5% [N = 155] vs 1.9% [N = 191]; P = .045; relative risk [RR] = 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1; number needed to treat [NNT] = 250).¹

Inclusion criteria were age 16 years or older, postpartum course complicated by hemorrhage of known or unknown etiology, and a case in which the clinician considered using tranexamic acid in addition to the standard of care. PPH was defined as > 500 mL blood loss after vaginal delivery, > 1000 mL blood loss after cesarean section, or blood loss sufficient to produce hemodynamic compromise.

Researchers randomized 10,051 women to the tranexamic acid group and 10,009 to the placebo group. Women in the experimental group received a 1-g IV injection of tranexamic acid over 10 to 20 minutes. A second dose was given if bleeding restarted after 30 minutes and within 24 hours of the first dose.

To reduce mortality give tranexamic acid promptly

Tranexamic acid reduced mortality most effectively compared with placebo when given within 3 hours of delivery (1.2% [N = 89] vs 1.7% [N = 127]; P = .008; RR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.52-0.91; NNT = 200). After 3 hours, no significant decrease in mortality occurred. No significant difference in effect was noted between vaginal and cesarean deliveries nor between uterine atony as the primary cause of hemorrhage and other causes.

Administering tranexamic acid didn’t reduce the composite primary endpoint of hysterectomy or death from all causes. Nor did it reduce the secondary endpoints of intrauterine tamponade, embolization, manual placental extraction, arterial ligation, blood transfusions, or number of units of packed red blood cells. The tranexamic acid group showed a significant decrease in cases of laparotomy for PPH (0.8% vs 1.3%; P = .002; RR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.85; NNT = 200).

Women who received tranexamic acid vs placebo showed no significant difference in mortality from pulmonary embolism (0.1% [N = 10] vs 0.1% [N = 11]; P = .82; RR = .9; 95% CI, 0.38-2.13), organ failure ure (0.3% [N = 25] vs 0.2% [N = 18]; P = .29; RR = 1.38; 95% CI, 0.75-2.53), sepsis (0.2% [N = 15] vs 0.1% [N = 8]; P = .15; RR = 1.87; 95% CI, 0.79-4.4), eclampsia (0.02% [N = 2] vs 0.1% [N = 8]; P = .057; RR = .25; 95% CI, 0.05-1.17), or other causes (0.2% [N = 20] vs 0.2% [N = 20]; P = .99; RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.54-1.85).

Tranexamic acid doesn’t increase the risk of thromboembolism

A 2018 Cochrane review sought more broadly to determine the general effectiveness and safety of antifibrinolytic drugs in treating primary PPH.² Of 15 RCTs identified, only 3 met the inclusion criteria for the review, 1 of which was the WOMAN trial (which contributed most of the data in the review). The other trials were a study conducted in France that recruited 152 women and a study of 200 women in Iran that contributed only 1 primary outcome—estimated blood loss—to the review. The former study didn’t report any maternal deaths, and the latter study didn’t look at maternal deaths. The Cochrane review concluded, based on data from the WOMAN trial, that IV tranexamic acid, if given as early as possible, reduced mortality from bleeding in women with primary PPH after both vaginal and cesarean delivery and didn’t increase the risk of thromboembolic events.²

Continue to: RECOMMENDATIONS

The newest practice guidelines on the management of postpartum hemorrhage published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends considering tranexamic acid as an additional agent in managing PPH when initial standard-of-care treatments fail.³

Editor’s takeaway

The large international double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial provides convincing evidence that tranexamic acid should be administered readily in cases of PPH.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2017 double-blind RCT that included 20,060 women with PPH from 21 countries (the WOMAN trial) found that the risk of maternal mortality was significantly lower among women who received tranexamic acid as part of their PPH treatment compared with placebo (1.5% [N = 155] vs 1.9% [N = 191]; P = .045; relative risk [RR] = 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1; number needed to treat [NNT] = 250).¹

Inclusion criteria were age 16 years or older, postpartum course complicated by hemorrhage of known or unknown etiology, and a case in which the clinician considered using tranexamic acid in addition to the standard of care. PPH was defined as > 500 mL blood loss after vaginal delivery, > 1000 mL blood loss after cesarean section, or blood loss sufficient to produce hemodynamic compromise.

Researchers randomized 10,051 women to the tranexamic acid group and 10,009 to the placebo group. Women in the experimental group received a 1-g IV injection of tranexamic acid over 10 to 20 minutes. A second dose was given if bleeding restarted after 30 minutes and within 24 hours of the first dose.

To reduce mortality give tranexamic acid promptly

Tranexamic acid reduced mortality most effectively compared with placebo when given within 3 hours of delivery (1.2% [N = 89] vs 1.7% [N = 127]; P = .008; RR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.52-0.91; NNT = 200). After 3 hours, no significant decrease in mortality occurred. No significant difference in effect was noted between vaginal and cesarean deliveries nor between uterine atony as the primary cause of hemorrhage and other causes.

Administering tranexamic acid didn’t reduce the composite primary endpoint of hysterectomy or death from all causes. Nor did it reduce the secondary endpoints of intrauterine tamponade, embolization, manual placental extraction, arterial ligation, blood transfusions, or number of units of packed red blood cells. The tranexamic acid group showed a significant decrease in cases of laparotomy for PPH (0.8% vs 1.3%; P = .002; RR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.85; NNT = 200).

Women who received tranexamic acid vs placebo showed no significant difference in mortality from pulmonary embolism (0.1% [N = 10] vs 0.1% [N = 11]; P = .82; RR = .9; 95% CI, 0.38-2.13), organ failure ure (0.3% [N = 25] vs 0.2% [N = 18]; P = .29; RR = 1.38; 95% CI, 0.75-2.53), sepsis (0.2% [N = 15] vs 0.1% [N = 8]; P = .15; RR = 1.87; 95% CI, 0.79-4.4), eclampsia (0.02% [N = 2] vs 0.1% [N = 8]; P = .057; RR = .25; 95% CI, 0.05-1.17), or other causes (0.2% [N = 20] vs 0.2% [N = 20]; P = .99; RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.54-1.85).

Tranexamic acid doesn’t increase the risk of thromboembolism

A 2018 Cochrane review sought more broadly to determine the general effectiveness and safety of antifibrinolytic drugs in treating primary PPH.² Of 15 RCTs identified, only 3 met the inclusion criteria for the review, 1 of which was the WOMAN trial (which contributed most of the data in the review). The other trials were a study conducted in France that recruited 152 women and a study of 200 women in Iran that contributed only 1 primary outcome—estimated blood loss—to the review. The former study didn’t report any maternal deaths, and the latter study didn’t look at maternal deaths. The Cochrane review concluded, based on data from the WOMAN trial, that IV tranexamic acid, if given as early as possible, reduced mortality from bleeding in women with primary PPH after both vaginal and cesarean delivery and didn’t increase the risk of thromboembolic events.²

Continue to: RECOMMENDATIONS

The newest practice guidelines on the management of postpartum hemorrhage published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends considering tranexamic acid as an additional agent in managing PPH when initial standard-of-care treatments fail.³

Editor’s takeaway

The large international double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial provides convincing evidence that tranexamic acid should be administered readily in cases of PPH.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2017 double-blind RCT that included 20,060 women with PPH from 21 countries (the WOMAN trial) found that the risk of maternal mortality was significantly lower among women who received tranexamic acid as part of their PPH treatment compared with placebo (1.5% [N = 155] vs 1.9% [N = 191]; P = .045; relative risk [RR] = 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1; number needed to treat [NNT] = 250).¹

Inclusion criteria were age 16 years or older, postpartum course complicated by hemorrhage of known or unknown etiology, and a case in which the clinician considered using tranexamic acid in addition to the standard of care. PPH was defined as > 500 mL blood loss after vaginal delivery, > 1000 mL blood loss after cesarean section, or blood loss sufficient to produce hemodynamic compromise.

Researchers randomized 10,051 women to the tranexamic acid group and 10,009 to the placebo group. Women in the experimental group received a 1-g IV injection of tranexamic acid over 10 to 20 minutes. A second dose was given if bleeding restarted after 30 minutes and within 24 hours of the first dose.

To reduce mortality give tranexamic acid promptly

Tranexamic acid reduced mortality most effectively compared with placebo when given within 3 hours of delivery (1.2% [N = 89] vs 1.7% [N = 127]; P = .008; RR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.52-0.91; NNT = 200). After 3 hours, no significant decrease in mortality occurred. No significant difference in effect was noted between vaginal and cesarean deliveries nor between uterine atony as the primary cause of hemorrhage and other causes.

Administering tranexamic acid didn’t reduce the composite primary endpoint of hysterectomy or death from all causes. Nor did it reduce the secondary endpoints of intrauterine tamponade, embolization, manual placental extraction, arterial ligation, blood transfusions, or number of units of packed red blood cells. The tranexamic acid group showed a significant decrease in cases of laparotomy for PPH (0.8% vs 1.3%; P = .002; RR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.85; NNT = 200).

Women who received tranexamic acid vs placebo showed no significant difference in mortality from pulmonary embolism (0.1% [N = 10] vs 0.1% [N = 11]; P = .82; RR = .9; 95% CI, 0.38-2.13), organ failure ure (0.3% [N = 25] vs 0.2% [N = 18]; P = .29; RR = 1.38; 95% CI, 0.75-2.53), sepsis (0.2% [N = 15] vs 0.1% [N = 8]; P = .15; RR = 1.87; 95% CI, 0.79-4.4), eclampsia (0.02% [N = 2] vs 0.1% [N = 8]; P = .057; RR = .25; 95% CI, 0.05-1.17), or other causes (0.2% [N = 20] vs 0.2% [N = 20]; P = .99; RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.54-1.85).

Tranexamic acid doesn’t increase the risk of thromboembolism

A 2018 Cochrane review sought more broadly to determine the general effectiveness and safety of antifibrinolytic drugs in treating primary PPH.² Of 15 RCTs identified, only 3 met the inclusion criteria for the review, 1 of which was the WOMAN trial (which contributed most of the data in the review). The other trials were a study conducted in France that recruited 152 women and a study of 200 women in Iran that contributed only 1 primary outcome—estimated blood loss—to the review. The former study didn’t report any maternal deaths, and the latter study didn’t look at maternal deaths. The Cochrane review concluded, based on data from the WOMAN trial, that IV tranexamic acid, if given as early as possible, reduced mortality from bleeding in women with primary PPH after both vaginal and cesarean delivery and didn’t increase the risk of thromboembolic events.²

Continue to: RECOMMENDATIONS

The newest practice guidelines on the management of postpartum hemorrhage published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends considering tranexamic acid as an additional agent in managing PPH when initial standard-of-care treatments fail.³

Editor’s takeaway

The large international double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial provides convincing evidence that tranexamic acid should be administered readily in cases of PPH.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – PRS-343, a 4-1BB/HER2 bispecific molecule, has demonstrated safety and antitumor activity in patients with heavily pretreated, HER2-positive solid tumors, an investigator reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

In a phase 1 trial of 18 evaluable patients, PRS-343 produced partial responses in 2 patients and enabled 8 patients to maintain stable disease. PRS-343 was considered well tolerated at all doses and schedules tested.

“PRS-343 is a bispecific construct targeting HER2 as well as 4-1BB,” said Geoffrey Y. Ku, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. “The HER2 component of the molecule localizes it into the tumor microenvironment of any HER2-positive cells. If the density of the HER2 protein is high enough, that facilitates cross-linkage of 4-1BB.

“4-1BB is an immune agonist that’s present in activated T cells, and cross-linkage helps to improve T-cell exhaustion and is also critical for T-cell expansion. The idea is that, by localizing 4-1BB activation to the tumor microenvironment, we can avoid some of the systemic toxicities associated with naked 4-1BB antibodies,” Dr. Ku added.

The ongoing, phase 1 trial of PRS-343 (NCT03330561) has enrolled 53 patients with a range of HER2-positive malignancies. To be eligible, patients must have progressed on standard therapy or have a tumor for which no standard therapy is available.

The most common diagnosis among enrolled patients is gastroesophageal cancer (n = 19), followed by breast cancer (n = 14), gynecologic cancers (n = 6), colorectal cancer (n = 5), and other malignancies.

The patients’ median age at baseline was 61 years (range, 29-92 years), and a majority were female (62%). Most patients (79%) had received three or more prior lines of therapy, including anti-HER2 treatments. Breast cancer patients had received a median of four anti-HER2 treatments, and gastric cancer patients had received a median of two.

The patients have been treated with PRS-343 at 11 dose levels, ranging from 0.0005 mg/kg to 8 mg/kg, given every 3 weeks. The highest dose, 8 mg/kg, was also given every 2 weeks.

Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) included infusion-related reactions (9%), fatigue (9%), chills (6%), flushing (6%), nausea (6%), diarrhea (6%), vomiting (5%), and noncardiac chest pain (4%).

“This was an extremely well-tolerated drug,” Dr. Ku said. “Out of 111 TRAEs, only a tiny proportion were grade 3, and toxicities mostly clustered around infusion-related reactions, constitutional symptoms, as well as gastrointestinal symptoms.”

Grade 3 TRAEs included infusion-related reactions (2%), fatigue (1%), flushing (3%), and noncardiac chest pain (1%). There were no grade 4-5 TRAEs.

At the data cutoff (Oct. 23, 2019), 18 patients were evaluable for a response at active dose levels (2.5 mg/kg, 5 mg/kg, and 8 mg/kg).

Two patients achieved a partial response, and eight had stable disease. “This translates to a response rate of 11% and a disease control rate of 55%,” Dr. Ku noted.

Both responders received PRS-343 at 8 mg/kg every 2 weeks. One of these patients had stage 4 gastric adenocarcinoma, and one had stage 4 gynecologic carcinoma.

Of the eight patients with stable disease, three received PRS-343 at 8 mg/kg every 2 weeks, two received 8 mg/kg every 3 weeks, one received the 5 mg/kg dose, and two received the 2.5 mg/kg dose.

Dr. Ku noted that the average time on treatment significantly increased in patients who received PRS-343 at 8 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Additionally, both responders and patients with stable disease had a “clear increase” in CD8+ T cells.

“[PRS-343] has demonstrated antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients across multiple tumor types, and the treatment history, specifically the receipt of prior anti-HER2 therapy, indicates this is a 4-1BB-driven mechanism of action,” Dr. Ku said. “Based on these results, future studies are planned for continued development in defined HER2-positive indications.”

The current study is sponsored by Pieris Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ku disclosed relationships with Arog Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Zymeworks, and Pieris Pharmaceuticals.

SOURCE: Ku GY et al. SITC 2019, Abstract O82.
 

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – PRS-343, a 4-1BB/HER2 bispecific molecule, has demonstrated safety and antitumor activity in patients with heavily pretreated, HER2-positive solid tumors, an investigator reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

In a phase 1 trial of 18 evaluable patients, PRS-343 produced partial responses in 2 patients and enabled 8 patients to maintain stable disease. PRS-343 was considered well tolerated at all doses and schedules tested.

“PRS-343 is a bispecific construct targeting HER2 as well as 4-1BB,” said Geoffrey Y. Ku, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. “The HER2 component of the molecule localizes it into the tumor microenvironment of any HER2-positive cells. If the density of the HER2 protein is high enough, that facilitates cross-linkage of 4-1BB.

“4-1BB is an immune agonist that’s present in activated T cells, and cross-linkage helps to improve T-cell exhaustion and is also critical for T-cell expansion. The idea is that, by localizing 4-1BB activation to the tumor microenvironment, we can avoid some of the systemic toxicities associated with naked 4-1BB antibodies,” Dr. Ku added.

The ongoing, phase 1 trial of PRS-343 (NCT03330561) has enrolled 53 patients with a range of HER2-positive malignancies. To be eligible, patients must have progressed on standard therapy or have a tumor for which no standard therapy is available.

The most common diagnosis among enrolled patients is gastroesophageal cancer (n = 19), followed by breast cancer (n = 14), gynecologic cancers (n = 6), colorectal cancer (n = 5), and other malignancies.

The patients’ median age at baseline was 61 years (range, 29-92 years), and a majority were female (62%). Most patients (79%) had received three or more prior lines of therapy, including anti-HER2 treatments. Breast cancer patients had received a median of four anti-HER2 treatments, and gastric cancer patients had received a median of two.

The patients have been treated with PRS-343 at 11 dose levels, ranging from 0.0005 mg/kg to 8 mg/kg, given every 3 weeks. The highest dose, 8 mg/kg, was also given every 2 weeks.

Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) included infusion-related reactions (9%), fatigue (9%), chills (6%), flushing (6%), nausea (6%), diarrhea (6%), vomiting (5%), and noncardiac chest pain (4%).

“This was an extremely well-tolerated drug,” Dr. Ku said. “Out of 111 TRAEs, only a tiny proportion were grade 3, and toxicities mostly clustered around infusion-related reactions, constitutional symptoms, as well as gastrointestinal symptoms.”

Grade 3 TRAEs included infusion-related reactions (2%), fatigue (1%), flushing (3%), and noncardiac chest pain (1%). There were no grade 4-5 TRAEs.

At the data cutoff (Oct. 23, 2019), 18 patients were evaluable for a response at active dose levels (2.5 mg/kg, 5 mg/kg, and 8 mg/kg).

Two patients achieved a partial response, and eight had stable disease. “This translates to a response rate of 11% and a disease control rate of 55%,” Dr. Ku noted.

Both responders received PRS-343 at 8 mg/kg every 2 weeks. One of these patients had stage 4 gastric adenocarcinoma, and one had stage 4 gynecologic carcinoma.

Of the eight patients with stable disease, three received PRS-343 at 8 mg/kg every 2 weeks, two received 8 mg/kg every 3 weeks, one received the 5 mg/kg dose, and two received the 2.5 mg/kg dose.

Dr. Ku noted that the average time on treatment significantly increased in patients who received PRS-343 at 8 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Additionally, both responders and patients with stable disease had a “clear increase” in CD8+ T cells.

“[PRS-343] has demonstrated antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients across multiple tumor types, and the treatment history, specifically the receipt of prior anti-HER2 therapy, indicates this is a 4-1BB-driven mechanism of action,” Dr. Ku said. “Based on these results, future studies are planned for continued development in defined HER2-positive indications.”

The current study is sponsored by Pieris Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ku disclosed relationships with Arog Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Zymeworks, and Pieris Pharmaceuticals.

SOURCE: Ku GY et al. SITC 2019, Abstract O82.
 

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – PRS-343, a 4-1BB/HER2 bispecific molecule, has demonstrated safety and antitumor activity in patients with heavily pretreated, HER2-positive solid tumors, an investigator reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

In a phase 1 trial of 18 evaluable patients, PRS-343 produced partial responses in 2 patients and enabled 8 patients to maintain stable disease. PRS-343 was considered well tolerated at all doses and schedules tested.

“PRS-343 is a bispecific construct targeting HER2 as well as 4-1BB,” said Geoffrey Y. Ku, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. “The HER2 component of the molecule localizes it into the tumor microenvironment of any HER2-positive cells. If the density of the HER2 protein is high enough, that facilitates cross-linkage of 4-1BB.

“4-1BB is an immune agonist that’s present in activated T cells, and cross-linkage helps to improve T-cell exhaustion and is also critical for T-cell expansion. The idea is that, by localizing 4-1BB activation to the tumor microenvironment, we can avoid some of the systemic toxicities associated with naked 4-1BB antibodies,” Dr. Ku added.

The ongoing, phase 1 trial of PRS-343 (NCT03330561) has enrolled 53 patients with a range of HER2-positive malignancies. To be eligible, patients must have progressed on standard therapy or have a tumor for which no standard therapy is available.

The most common diagnosis among enrolled patients is gastroesophageal cancer (n = 19), followed by breast cancer (n = 14), gynecologic cancers (n = 6), colorectal cancer (n = 5), and other malignancies.

The patients’ median age at baseline was 61 years (range, 29-92 years), and a majority were female (62%). Most patients (79%) had received three or more prior lines of therapy, including anti-HER2 treatments. Breast cancer patients had received a median of four anti-HER2 treatments, and gastric cancer patients had received a median of two.

The patients have been treated with PRS-343 at 11 dose levels, ranging from 0.0005 mg/kg to 8 mg/kg, given every 3 weeks. The highest dose, 8 mg/kg, was also given every 2 weeks.

Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) included infusion-related reactions (9%), fatigue (9%), chills (6%), flushing (6%), nausea (6%), diarrhea (6%), vomiting (5%), and noncardiac chest pain (4%).

“This was an extremely well-tolerated drug,” Dr. Ku said. “Out of 111 TRAEs, only a tiny proportion were grade 3, and toxicities mostly clustered around infusion-related reactions, constitutional symptoms, as well as gastrointestinal symptoms.”

Grade 3 TRAEs included infusion-related reactions (2%), fatigue (1%), flushing (3%), and noncardiac chest pain (1%). There were no grade 4-5 TRAEs.

At the data cutoff (Oct. 23, 2019), 18 patients were evaluable for a response at active dose levels (2.5 mg/kg, 5 mg/kg, and 8 mg/kg).

Two patients achieved a partial response, and eight had stable disease. “This translates to a response rate of 11% and a disease control rate of 55%,” Dr. Ku noted.

Both responders received PRS-343 at 8 mg/kg every 2 weeks. One of these patients had stage 4 gastric adenocarcinoma, and one had stage 4 gynecologic carcinoma.

Of the eight patients with stable disease, three received PRS-343 at 8 mg/kg every 2 weeks, two received 8 mg/kg every 3 weeks, one received the 5 mg/kg dose, and two received the 2.5 mg/kg dose.

Dr. Ku noted that the average time on treatment significantly increased in patients who received PRS-343 at 8 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Additionally, both responders and patients with stable disease had a “clear increase” in CD8+ T cells.

“[PRS-343] has demonstrated antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients across multiple tumor types, and the treatment history, specifically the receipt of prior anti-HER2 therapy, indicates this is a 4-1BB-driven mechanism of action,” Dr. Ku said. “Based on these results, future studies are planned for continued development in defined HER2-positive indications.”

The current study is sponsored by Pieris Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ku disclosed relationships with Arog Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Zymeworks, and Pieris Pharmaceuticals.

SOURCE: Ku GY et al. SITC 2019, Abstract O82.
 

Statins started in childhood for patients with familial hypercholesterolemia reduced progression of carotid thickening and cut the risk of cardiovascular disease 20 years later, according to authors of a long-term follow-up study.

There were no deaths and one cardiovascular event by the age of 39 years for patients in the observational study who had, as children, participated in a placebo-controlled, 2-year safety and efficacy study of pravastatin.

These positive effects on disease and a disease marker (carotid intima-media thickness) were observed even though only 20% of patients met LDL cholesterol goals, according to study senior authors John J.P. Kastelein, MD, PhD, and Barbara A. Hutten, PhD, of Amsterdam University Medical Centers in the Netherlands, and their colleagues.

“If corroborated, such findings would underscore the current pediatric guidelines, which recommend starting treatment from the age of 8 years or 10 years, with less-stringent targets than those for adults,” the investigators wrote in the report, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study was based in part on follow-up visits with 184 of the original cohort of 214 patients with familial hypercholesterolemia in the 2-year pravastatin study, along with 77 of 95 unaffected siblings who had served as a control group in that study.

At the time of the 20-year follow-up, 79% of the familial hypercholesterolemia patients said they were using lipid-lowering medication, the investigators wrote.

The mean LDL cholesterol level at follow-up was 160.7 mg/dL for those with familial hypercholesterolemia, a drop of 32% when compared with the mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline in the original study, according to the investigators. By contrast, LDL cholesterol in the unaffected siblings was 121.9 mg/dL, up 24% from baseline.

Just 37 patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, or about 20%, reached the LDL cholesterol treatment target of less than 100 mg/dL, the investigators wrote.

At the start of the original trial, carotid intima-media thickness was greater in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, compared with their unaffected siblings, with a mean difference of 0.012 mm (95% confidence interval, 0.002-0.021) after adjustment for age and sex.

Some 20 years later, the mean difference in thickness for patients with familial hypercholesterolemia and unaffected siblings, was 0.555 mm and 0.551 mm, respectively, for a mean difference of just 0.008 mm (95% CI, –0.009 to 0.026) after adjustments.

Data on cardiovascular events and deaths for affected parents was collected, as each child in the study had a parent with confirmed familial hypercholesterolemia, the investigators wrote.

A total of 7% of affected parents had died of MI before the age of 40 years, whereas there were no deaths from cardiovascular causes in all 214 patients with familial hypercholesterolemia from the original study.

Similarly, about a quarter of affected parents had a cardiovascular event before age 40, whereas there was only one event recorded in the patients in the study. That event, angina pectoris resulting in percutaneous coronary intervention, occurred in a patient who stopped taking the drug at the end of the trial, the investigators wrote.

The study was supported by a grant from the AMC Foundation. The study authors reported disclosures related to numerous pharmaceutical companies and government, nonprofit, or academic entities.

SOURCE: Kastelein JJP et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1547-56.

Statins started in childhood for patients with familial hypercholesterolemia reduced progression of carotid thickening and cut the risk of cardiovascular disease 20 years later, according to authors of a long-term follow-up study.

There were no deaths and one cardiovascular event by the age of 39 years for patients in the observational study who had, as children, participated in a placebo-controlled, 2-year safety and efficacy study of pravastatin.

These positive effects on disease and a disease marker (carotid intima-media thickness) were observed even though only 20% of patients met LDL cholesterol goals, according to study senior authors John J.P. Kastelein, MD, PhD, and Barbara A. Hutten, PhD, of Amsterdam University Medical Centers in the Netherlands, and their colleagues.

“If corroborated, such findings would underscore the current pediatric guidelines, which recommend starting treatment from the age of 8 years or 10 years, with less-stringent targets than those for adults,” the investigators wrote in the report, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study was based in part on follow-up visits with 184 of the original cohort of 214 patients with familial hypercholesterolemia in the 2-year pravastatin study, along with 77 of 95 unaffected siblings who had served as a control group in that study.

At the time of the 20-year follow-up, 79% of the familial hypercholesterolemia patients said they were using lipid-lowering medication, the investigators wrote.

The mean LDL cholesterol level at follow-up was 160.7 mg/dL for those with familial hypercholesterolemia, a drop of 32% when compared with the mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline in the original study, according to the investigators. By contrast, LDL cholesterol in the unaffected siblings was 121.9 mg/dL, up 24% from baseline.

Just 37 patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, or about 20%, reached the LDL cholesterol treatment target of less than 100 mg/dL, the investigators wrote.

At the start of the original trial, carotid intima-media thickness was greater in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, compared with their unaffected siblings, with a mean difference of 0.012 mm (95% confidence interval, 0.002-0.021) after adjustment for age and sex.

Some 20 years later, the mean difference in thickness for patients with familial hypercholesterolemia and unaffected siblings, was 0.555 mm and 0.551 mm, respectively, for a mean difference of just 0.008 mm (95% CI, –0.009 to 0.026) after adjustments.

Data on cardiovascular events and deaths for affected parents was collected, as each child in the study had a parent with confirmed familial hypercholesterolemia, the investigators wrote.

A total of 7% of affected parents had died of MI before the age of 40 years, whereas there were no deaths from cardiovascular causes in all 214 patients with familial hypercholesterolemia from the original study.

Similarly, about a quarter of affected parents had a cardiovascular event before age 40, whereas there was only one event recorded in the patients in the study. That event, angina pectoris resulting in percutaneous coronary intervention, occurred in a patient who stopped taking the drug at the end of the trial, the investigators wrote.

The study was supported by a grant from the AMC Foundation. The study authors reported disclosures related to numerous pharmaceutical companies and government, nonprofit, or academic entities.

SOURCE: Kastelein JJP et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1547-56.

Statins started in childhood for patients with familial hypercholesterolemia reduced progression of carotid thickening and cut the risk of cardiovascular disease 20 years later, according to authors of a long-term follow-up study.

There were no deaths and one cardiovascular event by the age of 39 years for patients in the observational study who had, as children, participated in a placebo-controlled, 2-year safety and efficacy study of pravastatin.

These positive effects on disease and a disease marker (carotid intima-media thickness) were observed even though only 20% of patients met LDL cholesterol goals, according to study senior authors John J.P. Kastelein, MD, PhD, and Barbara A. Hutten, PhD, of Amsterdam University Medical Centers in the Netherlands, and their colleagues.

“If corroborated, such findings would underscore the current pediatric guidelines, which recommend starting treatment from the age of 8 years or 10 years, with less-stringent targets than those for adults,” the investigators wrote in the report, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study was based in part on follow-up visits with 184 of the original cohort of 214 patients with familial hypercholesterolemia in the 2-year pravastatin study, along with 77 of 95 unaffected siblings who had served as a control group in that study.

At the time of the 20-year follow-up, 79% of the familial hypercholesterolemia patients said they were using lipid-lowering medication, the investigators wrote.

The mean LDL cholesterol level at follow-up was 160.7 mg/dL for those with familial hypercholesterolemia, a drop of 32% when compared with the mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline in the original study, according to the investigators. By contrast, LDL cholesterol in the unaffected siblings was 121.9 mg/dL, up 24% from baseline.

Just 37 patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, or about 20%, reached the LDL cholesterol treatment target of less than 100 mg/dL, the investigators wrote.

At the start of the original trial, carotid intima-media thickness was greater in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, compared with their unaffected siblings, with a mean difference of 0.012 mm (95% confidence interval, 0.002-0.021) after adjustment for age and sex.

Some 20 years later, the mean difference in thickness for patients with familial hypercholesterolemia and unaffected siblings, was 0.555 mm and 0.551 mm, respectively, for a mean difference of just 0.008 mm (95% CI, –0.009 to 0.026) after adjustments.

Data on cardiovascular events and deaths for affected parents was collected, as each child in the study had a parent with confirmed familial hypercholesterolemia, the investigators wrote.

A total of 7% of affected parents had died of MI before the age of 40 years, whereas there were no deaths from cardiovascular causes in all 214 patients with familial hypercholesterolemia from the original study.

Similarly, about a quarter of affected parents had a cardiovascular event before age 40, whereas there was only one event recorded in the patients in the study. That event, angina pectoris resulting in percutaneous coronary intervention, occurred in a patient who stopped taking the drug at the end of the trial, the investigators wrote.

The study was supported by a grant from the AMC Foundation. The study authors reported disclosures related to numerous pharmaceutical companies and government, nonprofit, or academic entities.

SOURCE: Kastelein JJP et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1547-56.

Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis (CNH) is a chronic painful or crusted, 4- to 6-mm, solitary nodule, primarily on the upper part of the ear (most commonly on the right side). The presence of pain, which increases the likelihood that a person will seek treatment, clinically distinguishes CNH from other cutaneous tumors in the differential diagnosis that produce painless ulceration.

It is roughly 5 times more prevalent in males (72.9%),¹ with an average age of onset of 65 years.² However, CNH has been reported in females³ and rarely in individuals younger than 20 years. According to a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE and a Google Scholar search using the terms chrondodermatitis nodularis helices child, only 6 cases of CNH have been reported in the pediatric population.^4-8 The youngest reported case was a 9-month-old infant.⁸ Including the present case, males and females in the pediatric population are equally affected; 4 patients had an underlying dermatomyositis,⁷ rheumatoid nodule,⁸ or systemic disease, including systemic lupus erythematosus and Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome.^5,9 Chronic intermittent pressure from headwear was the etiologic agent in the remaining cases.⁴ Recognizing that CNH can occur in young patients and can be associated with underlying autoimmune disease helps direct management and avoid overly invasive treatment.

Case Report

A 17-year-old adolescent boy presented with a painful ulcerated papule on the right upper helix of 3 months’ duration (Figure 1). The patient habitually slept on the right side, pressed a cell phone to that ear, and wore a tight-fitting visor while lifeguarding, which, along with solar damage, all may have contributed to the disease process. He was otherwise in good health, without a history of underlying systemic disease. Given the patient’s extensive occupational sun exposure, biopsy of the lesion was taken under the impression of CNH vs squamous cell carcinoma or basal cell carcinoma.

Histopathologic analysis revealed a central area of ulceration with edematous degenerated dermal collagen and overlying inflammatory crust, characteristic of CNH (Figure 2A). Biopsy in this patient demonstrated classic histopathologic findings of CNH, including a central area of epidermal ulceration capped by an inflammatory crust and an underlying edematous degenerated dermal collagen (Figure 2B).

Comment

Pathogenesis
The exact cause of CNH is unknown but is probably the result of prolonged and excessive pressure on the ear that leads to ischemic injury to cartilage and skin. The external location of CNH, lack of bony support, and exquisitely thin padding or insulation in the form of subcutaneous tissue make the small dermal blood vessels supplying the outer ear vulnerable to compression. Dermal inflammation; edema; and necrosis from trauma, cold, or actinic damage also can help initiate CNH. This disruption of blood perfusion to the external ear also inhibits the ear’s ability to heal. A cycle of pressure from objects such as a pillow or cell phone, followed by inadequate healing, leads to secondary perichondritis and remodeling of perichondrial arterioles, which is demonstrated histologically by the presence of perichondrial fibrous thickening, mild chronic inflammation, collagen degeneration, hyalinization, and rarely necrosis or calcification. Healed lesions often show dermal fibrosis overlying perichondrium.

Repeated pressure can lead to vascular changes, but underlying vascular disease also can predispose a person to CNH at a younger age. A striking case of bilateral CNH was reported in an 8-year-old girl with a known history of dermatomyositis.⁷ Furthermore, in 24 patients with CNH (mean age, 43 years), Magro et al⁹ observed an association between CNH and collagen vascular disease, scleroderma, hypertension, thyroid disease, and heart disease, with a higher incidence of any of these medical problems in younger patients. Therefore, screening all patients presenting with CNH, particularly those younger than their fourth decade, for underlying vasculopathy and an autoimmune connective tissue disorder is advised.⁹

Other findings of CNH reported in the literature include loss of elastic fibers in the central area of degenerated dermal collagen and nerve hyperplasia, which might account for pain.⁶ Many of the biopsies in cases of CNH reported in the literature also demonstrate perichondrial fibrous thickening, mild chronic inflammation, and degenerative changes in collagen, including hyalinization and rarely necrosis and calcification. Skin at the periphery of the lesion usually contains granulation tissue, with a mild to moderate inflammatory infiltrate and dilated vessels extending beyond the lesion.²

Genetics might play a role in the disorder, which is suggested by the occurrence of CNH in monozygotic twins¹⁰ and in an otherwise healthy 16-year-old adolescent girl with CNH of the right ear who screened negative for underlying connective tissue disease—serologic tests included antinuclear antibody, anti-Sm, anti-SCL-70, anti-Ro, anti-La, and rheumatoid factor—but who had a family history of a maternal grandmother with CNH, also on the right side.⁶

In the present case, there was no family history or signs and symptoms of underlying systemic disease at the time of diagnosis. The social history revealed excessive occupational sun exposure, habitually wearing a tight visor, and frequent cell phone use, all of which might have contributed to CNH.

Management
Medical management is geared toward relieving pressure at the site of the lesion, which was accomplished by use of an off-loading, ring-shaped, foam pillow at night in a 9-month-old girl with CNH, in which the smaller of her 2 left-sided lesions completely resolved by 6-month follow-up.⁸ However, it often is difficult to achieve adequate relief of pressure because of the patient’s preference for holding a cell phone to a particular ear or unconscious sleeping habits that perpetuate lesions. There are many creative physical interventions to offload aggravating pressure from the area during sleep. A prosthesis can be fashioned by cutting a hole from the center of a bath sponge and securing it with a headband,¹¹ or a crescentic or rectangular piece of self-adhering foam sponge can be applied to the non–hair-bearing postauricular scalp during sleep.¹² Topical antibiotics might relieve pain caused by secondary infection.

Surgical intervention, with or without placement of a full-thickness skin graft, is the mainstay of therapy. Excision was performed in 3 previously reported pediatric cases, with no recurrence reported at 6- to 24-month follow-up. Other treatments employed to varying effect include topical and intralesional steroids, collagen injection, cryotherapy, nitroglycerin paste 2% twice daily,¹³ and electrodesiccation and curettage.¹⁴ In adults, if full resolution is desired, multiple surgeries might be required to remove underlying protuberant cartilage; however, this strategy is not without risk of complication, including formation of adjacent cartilaginous nodules that can become site(s) of CNH recurrence due to a change in pressure points.

Conclusion

Although uncommon, CNH can present on the ears of young patients. A causal link between underlying vasculopathy and CNH has yet to be determined, but the association discovered by Magro et al⁹ merits obtaining a more detailed rheumatologic history and examination, followed by serologic testing (if indicated). Once the diagnosis of CNH is determined, patient education is paramount to prevent recurrence. Increased awareness of habits that inflict persistent repetitive trauma or pressure to the site—from sleeping patterns to cell phone use—will help to extinguish the behavior and therefore the lesion.

Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis (CNH) is a chronic painful or crusted, 4- to 6-mm, solitary nodule, primarily on the upper part of the ear (most commonly on the right side). The presence of pain, which increases the likelihood that a person will seek treatment, clinically distinguishes CNH from other cutaneous tumors in the differential diagnosis that produce painless ulceration.

It is roughly 5 times more prevalent in males (72.9%),¹ with an average age of onset of 65 years.² However, CNH has been reported in females³ and rarely in individuals younger than 20 years. According to a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE and a Google Scholar search using the terms chrondodermatitis nodularis helices child, only 6 cases of CNH have been reported in the pediatric population.^4-8 The youngest reported case was a 9-month-old infant.⁸ Including the present case, males and females in the pediatric population are equally affected; 4 patients had an underlying dermatomyositis,⁷ rheumatoid nodule,⁸ or systemic disease, including systemic lupus erythematosus and Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome.^5,9 Chronic intermittent pressure from headwear was the etiologic agent in the remaining cases.⁴ Recognizing that CNH can occur in young patients and can be associated with underlying autoimmune disease helps direct management and avoid overly invasive treatment.

Case Report

A 17-year-old adolescent boy presented with a painful ulcerated papule on the right upper helix of 3 months’ duration (Figure 1). The patient habitually slept on the right side, pressed a cell phone to that ear, and wore a tight-fitting visor while lifeguarding, which, along with solar damage, all may have contributed to the disease process. He was otherwise in good health, without a history of underlying systemic disease. Given the patient’s extensive occupational sun exposure, biopsy of the lesion was taken under the impression of CNH vs squamous cell carcinoma or basal cell carcinoma.

Histopathologic analysis revealed a central area of ulceration with edematous degenerated dermal collagen and overlying inflammatory crust, characteristic of CNH (Figure 2A). Biopsy in this patient demonstrated classic histopathologic findings of CNH, including a central area of epidermal ulceration capped by an inflammatory crust and an underlying edematous degenerated dermal collagen (Figure 2B).

Comment

Pathogenesis
The exact cause of CNH is unknown but is probably the result of prolonged and excessive pressure on the ear that leads to ischemic injury to cartilage and skin. The external location of CNH, lack of bony support, and exquisitely thin padding or insulation in the form of subcutaneous tissue make the small dermal blood vessels supplying the outer ear vulnerable to compression. Dermal inflammation; edema; and necrosis from trauma, cold, or actinic damage also can help initiate CNH. This disruption of blood perfusion to the external ear also inhibits the ear’s ability to heal. A cycle of pressure from objects such as a pillow or cell phone, followed by inadequate healing, leads to secondary perichondritis and remodeling of perichondrial arterioles, which is demonstrated histologically by the presence of perichondrial fibrous thickening, mild chronic inflammation, collagen degeneration, hyalinization, and rarely necrosis or calcification. Healed lesions often show dermal fibrosis overlying perichondrium.

Repeated pressure can lead to vascular changes, but underlying vascular disease also can predispose a person to CNH at a younger age. A striking case of bilateral CNH was reported in an 8-year-old girl with a known history of dermatomyositis.⁷ Furthermore, in 24 patients with CNH (mean age, 43 years), Magro et al⁹ observed an association between CNH and collagen vascular disease, scleroderma, hypertension, thyroid disease, and heart disease, with a higher incidence of any of these medical problems in younger patients. Therefore, screening all patients presenting with CNH, particularly those younger than their fourth decade, for underlying vasculopathy and an autoimmune connective tissue disorder is advised.⁹

Other findings of CNH reported in the literature include loss of elastic fibers in the central area of degenerated dermal collagen and nerve hyperplasia, which might account for pain.⁶ Many of the biopsies in cases of CNH reported in the literature also demonstrate perichondrial fibrous thickening, mild chronic inflammation, and degenerative changes in collagen, including hyalinization and rarely necrosis and calcification. Skin at the periphery of the lesion usually contains granulation tissue, with a mild to moderate inflammatory infiltrate and dilated vessels extending beyond the lesion.²

Genetics might play a role in the disorder, which is suggested by the occurrence of CNH in monozygotic twins¹⁰ and in an otherwise healthy 16-year-old adolescent girl with CNH of the right ear who screened negative for underlying connective tissue disease—serologic tests included antinuclear antibody, anti-Sm, anti-SCL-70, anti-Ro, anti-La, and rheumatoid factor—but who had a family history of a maternal grandmother with CNH, also on the right side.⁶

In the present case, there was no family history or signs and symptoms of underlying systemic disease at the time of diagnosis. The social history revealed excessive occupational sun exposure, habitually wearing a tight visor, and frequent cell phone use, all of which might have contributed to CNH.

Management
Medical management is geared toward relieving pressure at the site of the lesion, which was accomplished by use of an off-loading, ring-shaped, foam pillow at night in a 9-month-old girl with CNH, in which the smaller of her 2 left-sided lesions completely resolved by 6-month follow-up.⁸ However, it often is difficult to achieve adequate relief of pressure because of the patient’s preference for holding a cell phone to a particular ear or unconscious sleeping habits that perpetuate lesions. There are many creative physical interventions to offload aggravating pressure from the area during sleep. A prosthesis can be fashioned by cutting a hole from the center of a bath sponge and securing it with a headband,¹¹ or a crescentic or rectangular piece of self-adhering foam sponge can be applied to the non–hair-bearing postauricular scalp during sleep.¹² Topical antibiotics might relieve pain caused by secondary infection.

Surgical intervention, with or without placement of a full-thickness skin graft, is the mainstay of therapy. Excision was performed in 3 previously reported pediatric cases, with no recurrence reported at 6- to 24-month follow-up. Other treatments employed to varying effect include topical and intralesional steroids, collagen injection, cryotherapy, nitroglycerin paste 2% twice daily,¹³ and electrodesiccation and curettage.¹⁴ In adults, if full resolution is desired, multiple surgeries might be required to remove underlying protuberant cartilage; however, this strategy is not without risk of complication, including formation of adjacent cartilaginous nodules that can become site(s) of CNH recurrence due to a change in pressure points.

Conclusion

Although uncommon, CNH can present on the ears of young patients. A causal link between underlying vasculopathy and CNH has yet to be determined, but the association discovered by Magro et al⁹ merits obtaining a more detailed rheumatologic history and examination, followed by serologic testing (if indicated). Once the diagnosis of CNH is determined, patient education is paramount to prevent recurrence. Increased awareness of habits that inflict persistent repetitive trauma or pressure to the site—from sleeping patterns to cell phone use—will help to extinguish the behavior and therefore the lesion.

Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis (CNH) is a chronic painful or crusted, 4- to 6-mm, solitary nodule, primarily on the upper part of the ear (most commonly on the right side). The presence of pain, which increases the likelihood that a person will seek treatment, clinically distinguishes CNH from other cutaneous tumors in the differential diagnosis that produce painless ulceration.

It is roughly 5 times more prevalent in males (72.9%),¹ with an average age of onset of 65 years.² However, CNH has been reported in females³ and rarely in individuals younger than 20 years. According to a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE and a Google Scholar search using the terms chrondodermatitis nodularis helices child, only 6 cases of CNH have been reported in the pediatric population.^4-8 The youngest reported case was a 9-month-old infant.⁸ Including the present case, males and females in the pediatric population are equally affected; 4 patients had an underlying dermatomyositis,⁷ rheumatoid nodule,⁸ or systemic disease, including systemic lupus erythematosus and Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome.^5,9 Chronic intermittent pressure from headwear was the etiologic agent in the remaining cases.⁴ Recognizing that CNH can occur in young patients and can be associated with underlying autoimmune disease helps direct management and avoid overly invasive treatment.

Case Report

A 17-year-old adolescent boy presented with a painful ulcerated papule on the right upper helix of 3 months’ duration (Figure 1). The patient habitually slept on the right side, pressed a cell phone to that ear, and wore a tight-fitting visor while lifeguarding, which, along with solar damage, all may have contributed to the disease process. He was otherwise in good health, without a history of underlying systemic disease. Given the patient’s extensive occupational sun exposure, biopsy of the lesion was taken under the impression of CNH vs squamous cell carcinoma or basal cell carcinoma.

Histopathologic analysis revealed a central area of ulceration with edematous degenerated dermal collagen and overlying inflammatory crust, characteristic of CNH (Figure 2A). Biopsy in this patient demonstrated classic histopathologic findings of CNH, including a central area of epidermal ulceration capped by an inflammatory crust and an underlying edematous degenerated dermal collagen (Figure 2B).

Comment

Pathogenesis
The exact cause of CNH is unknown but is probably the result of prolonged and excessive pressure on the ear that leads to ischemic injury to cartilage and skin. The external location of CNH, lack of bony support, and exquisitely thin padding or insulation in the form of subcutaneous tissue make the small dermal blood vessels supplying the outer ear vulnerable to compression. Dermal inflammation; edema; and necrosis from trauma, cold, or actinic damage also can help initiate CNH. This disruption of blood perfusion to the external ear also inhibits the ear’s ability to heal. A cycle of pressure from objects such as a pillow or cell phone, followed by inadequate healing, leads to secondary perichondritis and remodeling of perichondrial arterioles, which is demonstrated histologically by the presence of perichondrial fibrous thickening, mild chronic inflammation, collagen degeneration, hyalinization, and rarely necrosis or calcification. Healed lesions often show dermal fibrosis overlying perichondrium.

Repeated pressure can lead to vascular changes, but underlying vascular disease also can predispose a person to CNH at a younger age. A striking case of bilateral CNH was reported in an 8-year-old girl with a known history of dermatomyositis.⁷ Furthermore, in 24 patients with CNH (mean age, 43 years), Magro et al⁹ observed an association between CNH and collagen vascular disease, scleroderma, hypertension, thyroid disease, and heart disease, with a higher incidence of any of these medical problems in younger patients. Therefore, screening all patients presenting with CNH, particularly those younger than their fourth decade, for underlying vasculopathy and an autoimmune connective tissue disorder is advised.⁹

Other findings of CNH reported in the literature include loss of elastic fibers in the central area of degenerated dermal collagen and nerve hyperplasia, which might account for pain.⁶ Many of the biopsies in cases of CNH reported in the literature also demonstrate perichondrial fibrous thickening, mild chronic inflammation, and degenerative changes in collagen, including hyalinization and rarely necrosis and calcification. Skin at the periphery of the lesion usually contains granulation tissue, with a mild to moderate inflammatory infiltrate and dilated vessels extending beyond the lesion.²

Genetics might play a role in the disorder, which is suggested by the occurrence of CNH in monozygotic twins¹⁰ and in an otherwise healthy 16-year-old adolescent girl with CNH of the right ear who screened negative for underlying connective tissue disease—serologic tests included antinuclear antibody, anti-Sm, anti-SCL-70, anti-Ro, anti-La, and rheumatoid factor—but who had a family history of a maternal grandmother with CNH, also on the right side.⁶

In the present case, there was no family history or signs and symptoms of underlying systemic disease at the time of diagnosis. The social history revealed excessive occupational sun exposure, habitually wearing a tight visor, and frequent cell phone use, all of which might have contributed to CNH.

Management
Medical management is geared toward relieving pressure at the site of the lesion, which was accomplished by use of an off-loading, ring-shaped, foam pillow at night in a 9-month-old girl with CNH, in which the smaller of her 2 left-sided lesions completely resolved by 6-month follow-up.⁸ However, it often is difficult to achieve adequate relief of pressure because of the patient’s preference for holding a cell phone to a particular ear or unconscious sleeping habits that perpetuate lesions. There are many creative physical interventions to offload aggravating pressure from the area during sleep. A prosthesis can be fashioned by cutting a hole from the center of a bath sponge and securing it with a headband,¹¹ or a crescentic or rectangular piece of self-adhering foam sponge can be applied to the non–hair-bearing postauricular scalp during sleep.¹² Topical antibiotics might relieve pain caused by secondary infection.

Surgical intervention, with or without placement of a full-thickness skin graft, is the mainstay of therapy. Excision was performed in 3 previously reported pediatric cases, with no recurrence reported at 6- to 24-month follow-up. Other treatments employed to varying effect include topical and intralesional steroids, collagen injection, cryotherapy, nitroglycerin paste 2% twice daily,¹³ and electrodesiccation and curettage.¹⁴ In adults, if full resolution is desired, multiple surgeries might be required to remove underlying protuberant cartilage; however, this strategy is not without risk of complication, including formation of adjacent cartilaginous nodules that can become site(s) of CNH recurrence due to a change in pressure points.

Conclusion

Although uncommon, CNH can present on the ears of young patients. A causal link between underlying vasculopathy and CNH has yet to be determined, but the association discovered by Magro et al⁹ merits obtaining a more detailed rheumatologic history and examination, followed by serologic testing (if indicated). Once the diagnosis of CNH is determined, patient education is paramount to prevent recurrence. Increased awareness of habits that inflict persistent repetitive trauma or pressure to the site—from sleeping patterns to cell phone use—will help to extinguish the behavior and therefore the lesion.

Patients with cancer who live in regions with high levels of opioid misuse may be undertreated for pain, according to investigators who studied opioid prescription patterns and cancer incidence in rural southwest Virginia.

Among 4,324 patients with cancer, only 22.16% were prescribed a Controlled Schedule II (C-II) prescription opioid medication at least 3 times in 1 year, from prescribers likely to be treating cancer pain. More than 60% of patients never received a C-II opioid prescription, reported Virginia T. LeBaron, PhD, of the University of Virginia School of Nursing in Charlottesville, and colleagues.

“A clearer view of geographic patterns and predictors of both POM [prescription opioid medication] prescribing and potential harms can inform targeted interventions and policy initiatives that achieve a balanced approach to POMs – ensuring access for patients in need while reducing risk to both patients and communities. Our research makes an important contribution by exploring how the current ‘opioid epidemic’ relates to rural patients with cancer,” they wrote. Their report is in Journal of Oncology Practice.

The investigators studied the confluence of disproportionately high cancer mortality rates and opioid fatality rates in rural southwest Virginia, in the heart of Appalachia.

They conducted a longitudinal, exploratory secondary analysis of data from the Commonwealth of Virginia All Payer Claims database to look at opioid prescribing patterns and explore whether concerns about opioid misuse could result in undertreatment of pain in cancer patients.

They looked at prescribing patterns at the patient, provider, and insurance claim levels, predictors of opioid prescription frequency, opioid-related harms and patterns related to opioid prescribing, cancer incidence, and fatalities.

They identified 4,324 patients with cancer, 958 of whom (22.16%) received a C-II opioid at least three times in any study year. The majority of patients were in the 45-64 age range, and approximately 88% were diagnosed with solid malignancies, with breast cancer and lung cancer being the most frequent diagnoses.

As noted, more than 60% of patients never received a C-II prescription.

“The large percentages of cancer patients never prescribed a C-II are concerning for a number of reasons, especially when we consider the results per year,” the investigators wrote. “First, the ‘no C-II’ patients remain over 80% of the total sample, each year, even after accounting for the upscheduling (from C-III to C-II) of commonly-prescribed hydrocodone products in 2014. Second, anecdotal data and emerging empirical evidence demonstrate that patients with legitimate pain needs, including patients with cancer, experience significant difficulty accessing POMs.”

They noted that regulations regarding opioid prescriptions have become increasingly strict since the end date of their analysis in 2015, suggesting that the number of patients with cancer who are not receiving C-II opioids today may be even higher.

They also pointed to evidence of prescription practices suggesting suboptimal pain management or potential patient harm, such as frequent prescription of opioid-acetaminophen combinations that are dose-limited due to acetaminophen toxicity; coprescription of opioids and benzodiazepines, which is not recommended under current prescribing guidelines; and infrequent use of deterrent formulations of C-II opioids such as crush-resistant tablets.

The study was supported by the University of Virginia Cancer Center, Cancer Control & Population Health Division and the Virginia Tobacco Region Revitalization Commission. The authors reported having no disclaimers or conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: LeBaron VT et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Nov. 4. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00149.

Patients with cancer who live in regions with high levels of opioid misuse may be undertreated for pain, according to investigators who studied opioid prescription patterns and cancer incidence in rural southwest Virginia.

Among 4,324 patients with cancer, only 22.16% were prescribed a Controlled Schedule II (C-II) prescription opioid medication at least 3 times in 1 year, from prescribers likely to be treating cancer pain. More than 60% of patients never received a C-II opioid prescription, reported Virginia T. LeBaron, PhD, of the University of Virginia School of Nursing in Charlottesville, and colleagues.

“A clearer view of geographic patterns and predictors of both POM [prescription opioid medication] prescribing and potential harms can inform targeted interventions and policy initiatives that achieve a balanced approach to POMs – ensuring access for patients in need while reducing risk to both patients and communities. Our research makes an important contribution by exploring how the current ‘opioid epidemic’ relates to rural patients with cancer,” they wrote. Their report is in Journal of Oncology Practice.

The investigators studied the confluence of disproportionately high cancer mortality rates and opioid fatality rates in rural southwest Virginia, in the heart of Appalachia.

They conducted a longitudinal, exploratory secondary analysis of data from the Commonwealth of Virginia All Payer Claims database to look at opioid prescribing patterns and explore whether concerns about opioid misuse could result in undertreatment of pain in cancer patients.

They looked at prescribing patterns at the patient, provider, and insurance claim levels, predictors of opioid prescription frequency, opioid-related harms and patterns related to opioid prescribing, cancer incidence, and fatalities.

They identified 4,324 patients with cancer, 958 of whom (22.16%) received a C-II opioid at least three times in any study year. The majority of patients were in the 45-64 age range, and approximately 88% were diagnosed with solid malignancies, with breast cancer and lung cancer being the most frequent diagnoses.

As noted, more than 60% of patients never received a C-II prescription.

“The large percentages of cancer patients never prescribed a C-II are concerning for a number of reasons, especially when we consider the results per year,” the investigators wrote. “First, the ‘no C-II’ patients remain over 80% of the total sample, each year, even after accounting for the upscheduling (from C-III to C-II) of commonly-prescribed hydrocodone products in 2014. Second, anecdotal data and emerging empirical evidence demonstrate that patients with legitimate pain needs, including patients with cancer, experience significant difficulty accessing POMs.”

They noted that regulations regarding opioid prescriptions have become increasingly strict since the end date of their analysis in 2015, suggesting that the number of patients with cancer who are not receiving C-II opioids today may be even higher.

They also pointed to evidence of prescription practices suggesting suboptimal pain management or potential patient harm, such as frequent prescription of opioid-acetaminophen combinations that are dose-limited due to acetaminophen toxicity; coprescription of opioids and benzodiazepines, which is not recommended under current prescribing guidelines; and infrequent use of deterrent formulations of C-II opioids such as crush-resistant tablets.

The study was supported by the University of Virginia Cancer Center, Cancer Control & Population Health Division and the Virginia Tobacco Region Revitalization Commission. The authors reported having no disclaimers or conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: LeBaron VT et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Nov. 4. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00149.

Patients with cancer who live in regions with high levels of opioid misuse may be undertreated for pain, according to investigators who studied opioid prescription patterns and cancer incidence in rural southwest Virginia.

Among 4,324 patients with cancer, only 22.16% were prescribed a Controlled Schedule II (C-II) prescription opioid medication at least 3 times in 1 year, from prescribers likely to be treating cancer pain. More than 60% of patients never received a C-II opioid prescription, reported Virginia T. LeBaron, PhD, of the University of Virginia School of Nursing in Charlottesville, and colleagues.

“A clearer view of geographic patterns and predictors of both POM [prescription opioid medication] prescribing and potential harms can inform targeted interventions and policy initiatives that achieve a balanced approach to POMs – ensuring access for patients in need while reducing risk to both patients and communities. Our research makes an important contribution by exploring how the current ‘opioid epidemic’ relates to rural patients with cancer,” they wrote. Their report is in Journal of Oncology Practice.

The investigators studied the confluence of disproportionately high cancer mortality rates and opioid fatality rates in rural southwest Virginia, in the heart of Appalachia.

They conducted a longitudinal, exploratory secondary analysis of data from the Commonwealth of Virginia All Payer Claims database to look at opioid prescribing patterns and explore whether concerns about opioid misuse could result in undertreatment of pain in cancer patients.

They looked at prescribing patterns at the patient, provider, and insurance claim levels, predictors of opioid prescription frequency, opioid-related harms and patterns related to opioid prescribing, cancer incidence, and fatalities.

They identified 4,324 patients with cancer, 958 of whom (22.16%) received a C-II opioid at least three times in any study year. The majority of patients were in the 45-64 age range, and approximately 88% were diagnosed with solid malignancies, with breast cancer and lung cancer being the most frequent diagnoses.

As noted, more than 60% of patients never received a C-II prescription.

“The large percentages of cancer patients never prescribed a C-II are concerning for a number of reasons, especially when we consider the results per year,” the investigators wrote. “First, the ‘no C-II’ patients remain over 80% of the total sample, each year, even after accounting for the upscheduling (from C-III to C-II) of commonly-prescribed hydrocodone products in 2014. Second, anecdotal data and emerging empirical evidence demonstrate that patients with legitimate pain needs, including patients with cancer, experience significant difficulty accessing POMs.”

They noted that regulations regarding opioid prescriptions have become increasingly strict since the end date of their analysis in 2015, suggesting that the number of patients with cancer who are not receiving C-II opioids today may be even higher.

They also pointed to evidence of prescription practices suggesting suboptimal pain management or potential patient harm, such as frequent prescription of opioid-acetaminophen combinations that are dose-limited due to acetaminophen toxicity; coprescription of opioids and benzodiazepines, which is not recommended under current prescribing guidelines; and infrequent use of deterrent formulations of C-II opioids such as crush-resistant tablets.

The study was supported by the University of Virginia Cancer Center, Cancer Control & Population Health Division and the Virginia Tobacco Region Revitalization Commission. The authors reported having no disclaimers or conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: LeBaron VT et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Nov. 4. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00149.

SAN FRANCISCO – Chest tube placement and removal comes with a high error rate, with about one in five procedures going wrong, according to a prospective observational study conducted at 14 adult trauma centers.

“The sad part is, I don’t know if it was surprisingly high, but I’m glad somebody has taken the time to document it,” said Robert Sawyer, MD, professor of surgery at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Mich., who comoderated the session at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons, where the study was presented.

The researchers examined error rates in both insertions and removals, and compared some of the practices and characteristics of trauma centers with unusually good or poor records. The work could begin to inform quality improvement initiatives. “That’s very parallel to where we were 20 or 25 years ago with central venous catheters. We used to put them in and thought it was never a problem, and then we started taking a close look at it and found out, yeah, there was a problem. We systematically made our procedures more consistent and had better outcomes. I think chest tubes is going to be ripe for that,” Dr. Sawyer said in an interview.

“In some ways we have been lying to ourselves. We acknowledge that trainees have a high rate of complications in chest tube insertion and removal, but we haven’t fixed it as a systematic problem. We’re behind in our work to reduce complications for this bedside procedure,” echoed the session’s other comoderator, Tam Pham, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview.

The researchers defined chest tube errors as anything that resulted in a need to manipulate, replace, or revise an existing tube; a worsening of the condition that the tube was intended to address; or complications that resulted in additional length of stay or interventions. A total of 381 chest tubes were placed in 273 patients over a 3-month period, about 55% by residents and about 28% by trauma attending physicians. Around 80% were traditional chest tubes, and most of the rest were Pigtail, with a very small fraction of Trocar chest tubes, according to a pie chart displayed by Michaela West, MD, a trauma surgeon at North Memorial Health, Robbinsdale, Minn., who presented the research.

SOURCE: West M et al. Clinical Congress 2019 Abstract.

SAN FRANCISCO – Chest tube placement and removal comes with a high error rate, with about one in five procedures going wrong, according to a prospective observational study conducted at 14 adult trauma centers.

“The sad part is, I don’t know if it was surprisingly high, but I’m glad somebody has taken the time to document it,” said Robert Sawyer, MD, professor of surgery at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Mich., who comoderated the session at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons, where the study was presented.

The researchers examined error rates in both insertions and removals, and compared some of the practices and characteristics of trauma centers with unusually good or poor records. The work could begin to inform quality improvement initiatives. “That’s very parallel to where we were 20 or 25 years ago with central venous catheters. We used to put them in and thought it was never a problem, and then we started taking a close look at it and found out, yeah, there was a problem. We systematically made our procedures more consistent and had better outcomes. I think chest tubes is going to be ripe for that,” Dr. Sawyer said in an interview.

“In some ways we have been lying to ourselves. We acknowledge that trainees have a high rate of complications in chest tube insertion and removal, but we haven’t fixed it as a systematic problem. We’re behind in our work to reduce complications for this bedside procedure,” echoed the session’s other comoderator, Tam Pham, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview.

The researchers defined chest tube errors as anything that resulted in a need to manipulate, replace, or revise an existing tube; a worsening of the condition that the tube was intended to address; or complications that resulted in additional length of stay or interventions. A total of 381 chest tubes were placed in 273 patients over a 3-month period, about 55% by residents and about 28% by trauma attending physicians. Around 80% were traditional chest tubes, and most of the rest were Pigtail, with a very small fraction of Trocar chest tubes, according to a pie chart displayed by Michaela West, MD, a trauma surgeon at North Memorial Health, Robbinsdale, Minn., who presented the research.

SOURCE: West M et al. Clinical Congress 2019 Abstract.

SAN FRANCISCO – Chest tube placement and removal comes with a high error rate, with about one in five procedures going wrong, according to a prospective observational study conducted at 14 adult trauma centers.

“The sad part is, I don’t know if it was surprisingly high, but I’m glad somebody has taken the time to document it,” said Robert Sawyer, MD, professor of surgery at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Mich., who comoderated the session at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons, where the study was presented.

The researchers examined error rates in both insertions and removals, and compared some of the practices and characteristics of trauma centers with unusually good or poor records. The work could begin to inform quality improvement initiatives. “That’s very parallel to where we were 20 or 25 years ago with central venous catheters. We used to put them in and thought it was never a problem, and then we started taking a close look at it and found out, yeah, there was a problem. We systematically made our procedures more consistent and had better outcomes. I think chest tubes is going to be ripe for that,” Dr. Sawyer said in an interview.

“In some ways we have been lying to ourselves. We acknowledge that trainees have a high rate of complications in chest tube insertion and removal, but we haven’t fixed it as a systematic problem. We’re behind in our work to reduce complications for this bedside procedure,” echoed the session’s other comoderator, Tam Pham, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview.

The researchers defined chest tube errors as anything that resulted in a need to manipulate, replace, or revise an existing tube; a worsening of the condition that the tube was intended to address; or complications that resulted in additional length of stay or interventions. A total of 381 chest tubes were placed in 273 patients over a 3-month period, about 55% by residents and about 28% by trauma attending physicians. Around 80% were traditional chest tubes, and most of the rest were Pigtail, with a very small fraction of Trocar chest tubes, according to a pie chart displayed by Michaela West, MD, a trauma surgeon at North Memorial Health, Robbinsdale, Minn., who presented the research.

SOURCE: West M et al. Clinical Congress 2019 Abstract.

Assistant/Associate/Full Professor (Final Rank/Title Commensurate w/Experience)
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience
College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati

The College of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience is recruiting for a psychiatrist (clinical-track) to provide consultation-liaison services for our growing department at the Instructor, Assistant, Associate or Professor level. Opportunities are abundant in both the inpatient and outpatient setting. Inpatient services include traditional and proactive consultation-liaison services in our 519-bed medical center or our 211-bed Daniel Drake Rehabilitation Center. Outpatient opportunities include positions in our integrated and collaborative care clinics as well as any of our traditional general psychiatry and subspecialty psychiatry clinics.

The Department is dedicated to excellence in patient care as well as high quality medical student and resident education and is committed to advancing the science in psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences through clinical trials and ongoing collaborative research. The rank of the appointment is open and will be commensurate with the experience and professional accomplishments of the selected applicants.

Responsibilities may include direct patient care, teaching of medical students, residents and fellows, and research at various University of Cincinnati Health facilities, hospitals, and other local health care systems.

Signing bonus and relocation remuneration are available.

Minimum Qualifications: MD/DO with an Ohio license. Candidate must be board certified/board eligible as a psychiatrist with demonstrated experience or interest in providing consultation-liaison services.

For additional information you may visit http://med.uc.edu/psychiatry or contact Dr. Melissa P. DelBello, Chairman, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, University of Cincinnati, 260 Stetson Street, Suite 3200, Cincinnati, OH 45219 or via email to [email protected].

The University of Cincinnati, as a multi-national and culturally diverse university, is committed to providing an inclusive, equitable and diverse place of learning and employment. As part of a complete job application you will be asked to include a Contribution to Diversity and Inclusion statement.

The University of Cincinnati is an Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer / M / F / Veteran / Disabled.

Assistant/Associate/Full Professor (Final Rank/Title Commensurate w/Experience)
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience
College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati

The College of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience is recruiting for a psychiatrist (clinical-track) to provide consultation-liaison services for our growing department at the Instructor, Assistant, Associate or Professor level. Opportunities are abundant in both the inpatient and outpatient setting. Inpatient services include traditional and proactive consultation-liaison services in our 519-bed medical center or our 211-bed Daniel Drake Rehabilitation Center. Outpatient opportunities include positions in our integrated and collaborative care clinics as well as any of our traditional general psychiatry and subspecialty psychiatry clinics.

The Department is dedicated to excellence in patient care as well as high quality medical student and resident education and is committed to advancing the science in psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences through clinical trials and ongoing collaborative research. The rank of the appointment is open and will be commensurate with the experience and professional accomplishments of the selected applicants.

Responsibilities may include direct patient care, teaching of medical students, residents and fellows, and research at various University of Cincinnati Health facilities, hospitals, and other local health care systems.

Signing bonus and relocation remuneration are available.

Minimum Qualifications: MD/DO with an Ohio license. Candidate must be board certified/board eligible as a psychiatrist with demonstrated experience or interest in providing consultation-liaison services.

For additional information you may visit http://med.uc.edu/psychiatry or contact Dr. Melissa P. DelBello, Chairman, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, University of Cincinnati, 260 Stetson Street, Suite 3200, Cincinnati, OH 45219 or via email to [email protected].

The University of Cincinnati, as a multi-national and culturally diverse university, is committed to providing an inclusive, equitable and diverse place of learning and employment. As part of a complete job application you will be asked to include a Contribution to Diversity and Inclusion statement.

The University of Cincinnati is an Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer / M / F / Veteran / Disabled.

Assistant/Associate/Full Professor (Final Rank/Title Commensurate w/Experience)
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience
College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati

The College of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience is recruiting for a psychiatrist (clinical-track) to provide consultation-liaison services for our growing department at the Instructor, Assistant, Associate or Professor level. Opportunities are abundant in both the inpatient and outpatient setting. Inpatient services include traditional and proactive consultation-liaison services in our 519-bed medical center or our 211-bed Daniel Drake Rehabilitation Center. Outpatient opportunities include positions in our integrated and collaborative care clinics as well as any of our traditional general psychiatry and subspecialty psychiatry clinics.

The Department is dedicated to excellence in patient care as well as high quality medical student and resident education and is committed to advancing the science in psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences through clinical trials and ongoing collaborative research. The rank of the appointment is open and will be commensurate with the experience and professional accomplishments of the selected applicants.

Responsibilities may include direct patient care, teaching of medical students, residents and fellows, and research at various University of Cincinnati Health facilities, hospitals, and other local health care systems.

Signing bonus and relocation remuneration are available.

Minimum Qualifications: MD/DO with an Ohio license. Candidate must be board certified/board eligible as a psychiatrist with demonstrated experience or interest in providing consultation-liaison services.

For additional information you may visit http://med.uc.edu/psychiatry or contact Dr. Melissa P. DelBello, Chairman, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, University of Cincinnati, 260 Stetson Street, Suite 3200, Cincinnati, OH 45219 or via email to [email protected].

The University of Cincinnati, as a multi-national and culturally diverse university, is committed to providing an inclusive, equitable and diverse place of learning and employment. As part of a complete job application you will be asked to include a Contribution to Diversity and Inclusion statement.

The University of Cincinnati is an Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer / M / F / Veteran / Disabled.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I highlight two studies that previously reported significant progression-free survival (PFS) improvements and more recently, at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress, overall survival (OS) benefit. I reflect on the significance of these new reports in the wake of previously reported data and guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Osimertinib in advanced NSCLC

In the double-blind, phase 3 FLAURA trial, 556 patients with EGFR-mutated (EGFRm), advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) received osimertinib or a standard tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) as initial treatment. PFS, the primary endpoint, was clinically and statistically better for osimertinib (18.9 months vs. 10.2 months; hazard ratio 0.46; P less than .001), overall and in all major subgroups. There were fewer grade 3-4 adverse events and fewer permanent treatment discontinuations with osimertinib.

At the time of initial publication, OS data were immature, but because of the substantial survival improvements previously noted, osimertinib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for first-line treatment of EGFRm stage IV NSCLC patients in April 2018 (N Engl J Med. 2018; 378:113-25).

More recently, at ESMO 2019, Suresh Ramalingam, MD, of the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues reported the OS results. Crossover to osimertinib was allowed for patients on the standard TKI arm when they had progressive disease and a T790M mutation. Osimertinib produced a median OS of 38.6 months, compared with 31.8 months for standard TKI (HR, 0.799; P = .0462), a 24-month OS rate of 74% vs. 59% (with no overlap in the 95% confidence intervals), and a 36-month OS rate of 54% vs. 44%. These benefits were interpreted to be statistically significant and clinically meaningful.

The 31.8-month median OS for standard TKI was competitive with the highest reported OS for standard therapy, perhaps because crossover to osimertinib was permitted.

What this means in clinical practice

The report by Dr. Ramalingam and colleagues – and the next abstract I will review – remind me of the famous “You had me at Hello” line from “Jerry Maguire.”

For patient education – and perhaps for some national regulatory agencies – it is good that we now have definition of what the average OS is with osimertinib, compared with standard TKI followed by osimertinib. However, very few oncologists in the United States likely use the latter strategy anymore. It was clear when the impressive PFS and toxicity information appeared in 2018 in the New England Journal of Medicine that osimertinib is the best tolerated, most durably effective front-line treatment for EGFRm mNSCLC, regardless of disease extent, sex, nationality, type of EGFRm (L858R amino acid substitution in exon 21 or exon 19 deletion), or presence/absence of central nervous system metastases.

In NCCN guidelines, osimertinib was listed as the preferred TKI, prior to the OS report at ESMO 2019. The challenges going forward will be to identify high-risk patient subsets who might benefit from drug combinations or novel new agents.

MONARCH 2: Abemaciclib plus fulvestrant

In the MONARCH 2, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (abema-F) significantly improved PFS, in comparison with placebo plus fulvestrant (placebo-F; 16.9 months vs. 9.3 months; HR, 0.563) in 669 premenopausal (with concurrent ovarian function suppression) and postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) who had disease progression on one to two lines of prior hormonal therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2017;35[25]:2875-84).

At ESMO 2019, George W. Sledge Jr., MD, of Stanford (Calif.) Medical Center, and colleagues reported the OS results, a secondary endpoint for the trial (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 29. doi. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.4782). At the prespecified interim analysis point, median OS for abema-F was 46.7 months vs. 37.3 months for placebo-F (HR, 0.757; 95% CI 0.505-0.945; P = .0137). Patients with greatest benefit from abema-F were exactly the patients who needed the most help – those with visceral metastases (HR 0.675) and with primary resistance to prior hormonal therapy (HR, 0.686).

At 3 years, at least three times as many patients remained progression free with abema-F, compared with placebo-F, and the abema-F patients experienced prolongation in time to eventual chemotherapy (50.2 months vs. 22.1 months; HR, 0.625).

What this means in clinical practice

Many times I find myself sitting at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and thinking, “Only a medical oncologist like me would find this result exciting.” Prior to ESMO 2019, MONARCH 2 (and a similar study presented at ESMO 2019, MONALEESA-3, which employed an alternative CDK 4/6 inhibitor, ribociclib, with similar OS results) added to the body of literature that caused NCCN guidelines to list all of the approved CDK 4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy for first- or second-line use in patients with hormone-receptor positive, HER2/neu-negative mBC. NCCN guidelines have the caveat that, among patients with disease progression on CDK 4/6 inhibitors in the first-line setting, there are no data to support continuing the CDK 4/6 inhibitor or switching to an alternative CDK 4/6 inhibitor thereafter.

For that shrinking group of patients and doctors who choose to avoid CDK 4/6 inhibitors for first-line treatment, as we describe risks and benefits of using a CDK 4/6 inhibitor for second- or third-line therapy, we have high-quality OS information from ESMO 2019 to answer the “Is it worth it?” question.

Are the results of MONARCH 2 and MONALEESA-3 practice changing? No. We were already convinced. Should we be excited that we have this new information for discussions with our patients? Absolutely.
 

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I highlight two studies that previously reported significant progression-free survival (PFS) improvements and more recently, at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress, overall survival (OS) benefit. I reflect on the significance of these new reports in the wake of previously reported data and guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Osimertinib in advanced NSCLC

In the double-blind, phase 3 FLAURA trial, 556 patients with EGFR-mutated (EGFRm), advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) received osimertinib or a standard tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) as initial treatment. PFS, the primary endpoint, was clinically and statistically better for osimertinib (18.9 months vs. 10.2 months; hazard ratio 0.46; P less than .001), overall and in all major subgroups. There were fewer grade 3-4 adverse events and fewer permanent treatment discontinuations with osimertinib.

At the time of initial publication, OS data were immature, but because of the substantial survival improvements previously noted, osimertinib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for first-line treatment of EGFRm stage IV NSCLC patients in April 2018 (N Engl J Med. 2018; 378:113-25).

More recently, at ESMO 2019, Suresh Ramalingam, MD, of the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues reported the OS results. Crossover to osimertinib was allowed for patients on the standard TKI arm when they had progressive disease and a T790M mutation. Osimertinib produced a median OS of 38.6 months, compared with 31.8 months for standard TKI (HR, 0.799; P = .0462), a 24-month OS rate of 74% vs. 59% (with no overlap in the 95% confidence intervals), and a 36-month OS rate of 54% vs. 44%. These benefits were interpreted to be statistically significant and clinically meaningful.

The 31.8-month median OS for standard TKI was competitive with the highest reported OS for standard therapy, perhaps because crossover to osimertinib was permitted.

What this means in clinical practice

The report by Dr. Ramalingam and colleagues – and the next abstract I will review – remind me of the famous “You had me at Hello” line from “Jerry Maguire.”

For patient education – and perhaps for some national regulatory agencies – it is good that we now have definition of what the average OS is with osimertinib, compared with standard TKI followed by osimertinib. However, very few oncologists in the United States likely use the latter strategy anymore. It was clear when the impressive PFS and toxicity information appeared in 2018 in the New England Journal of Medicine that osimertinib is the best tolerated, most durably effective front-line treatment for EGFRm mNSCLC, regardless of disease extent, sex, nationality, type of EGFRm (L858R amino acid substitution in exon 21 or exon 19 deletion), or presence/absence of central nervous system metastases.

In NCCN guidelines, osimertinib was listed as the preferred TKI, prior to the OS report at ESMO 2019. The challenges going forward will be to identify high-risk patient subsets who might benefit from drug combinations or novel new agents.

MONARCH 2: Abemaciclib plus fulvestrant

In the MONARCH 2, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (abema-F) significantly improved PFS, in comparison with placebo plus fulvestrant (placebo-F; 16.9 months vs. 9.3 months; HR, 0.563) in 669 premenopausal (with concurrent ovarian function suppression) and postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) who had disease progression on one to two lines of prior hormonal therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2017;35[25]:2875-84).

At ESMO 2019, George W. Sledge Jr., MD, of Stanford (Calif.) Medical Center, and colleagues reported the OS results, a secondary endpoint for the trial (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 29. doi. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.4782). At the prespecified interim analysis point, median OS for abema-F was 46.7 months vs. 37.3 months for placebo-F (HR, 0.757; 95% CI 0.505-0.945; P = .0137). Patients with greatest benefit from abema-F were exactly the patients who needed the most help – those with visceral metastases (HR 0.675) and with primary resistance to prior hormonal therapy (HR, 0.686).

At 3 years, at least three times as many patients remained progression free with abema-F, compared with placebo-F, and the abema-F patients experienced prolongation in time to eventual chemotherapy (50.2 months vs. 22.1 months; HR, 0.625).

What this means in clinical practice

Many times I find myself sitting at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and thinking, “Only a medical oncologist like me would find this result exciting.” Prior to ESMO 2019, MONARCH 2 (and a similar study presented at ESMO 2019, MONALEESA-3, which employed an alternative CDK 4/6 inhibitor, ribociclib, with similar OS results) added to the body of literature that caused NCCN guidelines to list all of the approved CDK 4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy for first- or second-line use in patients with hormone-receptor positive, HER2/neu-negative mBC. NCCN guidelines have the caveat that, among patients with disease progression on CDK 4/6 inhibitors in the first-line setting, there are no data to support continuing the CDK 4/6 inhibitor or switching to an alternative CDK 4/6 inhibitor thereafter.

For that shrinking group of patients and doctors who choose to avoid CDK 4/6 inhibitors for first-line treatment, as we describe risks and benefits of using a CDK 4/6 inhibitor for second- or third-line therapy, we have high-quality OS information from ESMO 2019 to answer the “Is it worth it?” question.

Are the results of MONARCH 2 and MONALEESA-3 practice changing? No. We were already convinced. Should we be excited that we have this new information for discussions with our patients? Absolutely.
 

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I highlight two studies that previously reported significant progression-free survival (PFS) improvements and more recently, at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress, overall survival (OS) benefit. I reflect on the significance of these new reports in the wake of previously reported data and guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Osimertinib in advanced NSCLC

In the double-blind, phase 3 FLAURA trial, 556 patients with EGFR-mutated (EGFRm), advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) received osimertinib or a standard tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) as initial treatment. PFS, the primary endpoint, was clinically and statistically better for osimertinib (18.9 months vs. 10.2 months; hazard ratio 0.46; P less than .001), overall and in all major subgroups. There were fewer grade 3-4 adverse events and fewer permanent treatment discontinuations with osimertinib.

At the time of initial publication, OS data were immature, but because of the substantial survival improvements previously noted, osimertinib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for first-line treatment of EGFRm stage IV NSCLC patients in April 2018 (N Engl J Med. 2018; 378:113-25).

More recently, at ESMO 2019, Suresh Ramalingam, MD, of the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues reported the OS results. Crossover to osimertinib was allowed for patients on the standard TKI arm when they had progressive disease and a T790M mutation. Osimertinib produced a median OS of 38.6 months, compared with 31.8 months for standard TKI (HR, 0.799; P = .0462), a 24-month OS rate of 74% vs. 59% (with no overlap in the 95% confidence intervals), and a 36-month OS rate of 54% vs. 44%. These benefits were interpreted to be statistically significant and clinically meaningful.

The 31.8-month median OS for standard TKI was competitive with the highest reported OS for standard therapy, perhaps because crossover to osimertinib was permitted.

What this means in clinical practice

The report by Dr. Ramalingam and colleagues – and the next abstract I will review – remind me of the famous “You had me at Hello” line from “Jerry Maguire.”

For patient education – and perhaps for some national regulatory agencies – it is good that we now have definition of what the average OS is with osimertinib, compared with standard TKI followed by osimertinib. However, very few oncologists in the United States likely use the latter strategy anymore. It was clear when the impressive PFS and toxicity information appeared in 2018 in the New England Journal of Medicine that osimertinib is the best tolerated, most durably effective front-line treatment for EGFRm mNSCLC, regardless of disease extent, sex, nationality, type of EGFRm (L858R amino acid substitution in exon 21 or exon 19 deletion), or presence/absence of central nervous system metastases.

In NCCN guidelines, osimertinib was listed as the preferred TKI, prior to the OS report at ESMO 2019. The challenges going forward will be to identify high-risk patient subsets who might benefit from drug combinations or novel new agents.

MONARCH 2: Abemaciclib plus fulvestrant

In the MONARCH 2, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (abema-F) significantly improved PFS, in comparison with placebo plus fulvestrant (placebo-F; 16.9 months vs. 9.3 months; HR, 0.563) in 669 premenopausal (with concurrent ovarian function suppression) and postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) who had disease progression on one to two lines of prior hormonal therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2017;35[25]:2875-84).

At ESMO 2019, George W. Sledge Jr., MD, of Stanford (Calif.) Medical Center, and colleagues reported the OS results, a secondary endpoint for the trial (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 29. doi. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.4782). At the prespecified interim analysis point, median OS for abema-F was 46.7 months vs. 37.3 months for placebo-F (HR, 0.757; 95% CI 0.505-0.945; P = .0137). Patients with greatest benefit from abema-F were exactly the patients who needed the most help – those with visceral metastases (HR 0.675) and with primary resistance to prior hormonal therapy (HR, 0.686).

At 3 years, at least three times as many patients remained progression free with abema-F, compared with placebo-F, and the abema-F patients experienced prolongation in time to eventual chemotherapy (50.2 months vs. 22.1 months; HR, 0.625).

What this means in clinical practice

Many times I find myself sitting at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and thinking, “Only a medical oncologist like me would find this result exciting.” Prior to ESMO 2019, MONARCH 2 (and a similar study presented at ESMO 2019, MONALEESA-3, which employed an alternative CDK 4/6 inhibitor, ribociclib, with similar OS results) added to the body of literature that caused NCCN guidelines to list all of the approved CDK 4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy for first- or second-line use in patients with hormone-receptor positive, HER2/neu-negative mBC. NCCN guidelines have the caveat that, among patients with disease progression on CDK 4/6 inhibitors in the first-line setting, there are no data to support continuing the CDK 4/6 inhibitor or switching to an alternative CDK 4/6 inhibitor thereafter.

For that shrinking group of patients and doctors who choose to avoid CDK 4/6 inhibitors for first-line treatment, as we describe risks and benefits of using a CDK 4/6 inhibitor for second- or third-line therapy, we have high-quality OS information from ESMO 2019 to answer the “Is it worth it?” question.

Are the results of MONARCH 2 and MONALEESA-3 practice changing? No. We were already convinced. Should we be excited that we have this new information for discussions with our patients? Absolutely.
 

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.