NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Nebulous pricing associated with prior authorization continues to be a major pain point for health care professionals, but this may become a thing of the past – thanks to a technology called real-time pharmacy benefit.

Real-time pharmacy benefits (RTPB) is software or a software component that allows practicing clinicians to look up a patient’s out-of-pocket costs for a specific drug, regardless of the patient’s health insurance coverage. Users can see the costs, copayment, and deductible for branded and generic, as well as compare insurance costs versus cash pricing.

Lindsey Colbert, RN, program manager for care team efficiency at HealthPartners, and Leann McDowell, PharmD, supervisor, pharmacy utilization management at HealthPartners, investigated how integrating RTPB software into their existing platforms and operations could help address pricing nuances and their associated burden on patients and health care professionals. They presented the results of their pilot test and post–pilot test expansion at the annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.

“Historically, clinicians were told not to quote prices, because having numerous insurance plans made it difficult to know what was going to be covered,” Ms. Colbert said. “Now, with real-time benefits, clinicians have pricing information readily available to them.”

HealthPartners pilot-tested RTPB at two locations before expanding to additional sites. They found that integrating real-time pharmacy benefits information improved the user experience and added cost savings for patients while improving workflow efficiency.

Health care professionals were more like to use RTPB for inquiries when the perceived patient cost was $50 or more – a price many clinicians perceive to be too expensive for many patients.

Before RTPB implementation, participating health care professionals reported waiting at least 45 minutes to get pricing on drugs requiring prior authorization. Integrating the RTPB software shaved the wait time down to 4 minutes – allowing them to quote drug prices to patients at the point of service.

Despite the benefits, everyone is not on board with RTPB.

Health care professionals already feel burdened by the information requirements of their electronic health records systems. They “count the number of computer clicks they have to make, so getting them to make an additional click to use RTPB requires another buy-in,” Ms. Colbert said.

While participating health care professionals were asked to run every prescription through RTPB, they reported using the software only when they knew a patient would either perceive cost as a potential barrier, or if they knew a drug would be expensive.

Investigators said they plan to continue working with clinicians to make RTPB integration more user-friendly by eventually eliminating the additional computer click required to run the program. They also plan to monitor the progress of the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs – developer of RTPB – regarding its adaptation of its new standard.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Nebulous pricing associated with prior authorization continues to be a major pain point for health care professionals, but this may become a thing of the past – thanks to a technology called real-time pharmacy benefit.

Real-time pharmacy benefits (RTPB) is software or a software component that allows practicing clinicians to look up a patient’s out-of-pocket costs for a specific drug, regardless of the patient’s health insurance coverage. Users can see the costs, copayment, and deductible for branded and generic, as well as compare insurance costs versus cash pricing.

Lindsey Colbert, RN, program manager for care team efficiency at HealthPartners, and Leann McDowell, PharmD, supervisor, pharmacy utilization management at HealthPartners, investigated how integrating RTPB software into their existing platforms and operations could help address pricing nuances and their associated burden on patients and health care professionals. They presented the results of their pilot test and post–pilot test expansion at the annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.

“Historically, clinicians were told not to quote prices, because having numerous insurance plans made it difficult to know what was going to be covered,” Ms. Colbert said. “Now, with real-time benefits, clinicians have pricing information readily available to them.”

HealthPartners pilot-tested RTPB at two locations before expanding to additional sites. They found that integrating real-time pharmacy benefits information improved the user experience and added cost savings for patients while improving workflow efficiency.

Health care professionals were more like to use RTPB for inquiries when the perceived patient cost was $50 or more – a price many clinicians perceive to be too expensive for many patients.

Before RTPB implementation, participating health care professionals reported waiting at least 45 minutes to get pricing on drugs requiring prior authorization. Integrating the RTPB software shaved the wait time down to 4 minutes – allowing them to quote drug prices to patients at the point of service.

Despite the benefits, everyone is not on board with RTPB.

Health care professionals already feel burdened by the information requirements of their electronic health records systems. They “count the number of computer clicks they have to make, so getting them to make an additional click to use RTPB requires another buy-in,” Ms. Colbert said.

While participating health care professionals were asked to run every prescription through RTPB, they reported using the software only when they knew a patient would either perceive cost as a potential barrier, or if they knew a drug would be expensive.

Investigators said they plan to continue working with clinicians to make RTPB integration more user-friendly by eventually eliminating the additional computer click required to run the program. They also plan to monitor the progress of the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs – developer of RTPB – regarding its adaptation of its new standard.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Nebulous pricing associated with prior authorization continues to be a major pain point for health care professionals, but this may become a thing of the past – thanks to a technology called real-time pharmacy benefit.

Real-time pharmacy benefits (RTPB) is software or a software component that allows practicing clinicians to look up a patient’s out-of-pocket costs for a specific drug, regardless of the patient’s health insurance coverage. Users can see the costs, copayment, and deductible for branded and generic, as well as compare insurance costs versus cash pricing.

Lindsey Colbert, RN, program manager for care team efficiency at HealthPartners, and Leann McDowell, PharmD, supervisor, pharmacy utilization management at HealthPartners, investigated how integrating RTPB software into their existing platforms and operations could help address pricing nuances and their associated burden on patients and health care professionals. They presented the results of their pilot test and post–pilot test expansion at the annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.

“Historically, clinicians were told not to quote prices, because having numerous insurance plans made it difficult to know what was going to be covered,” Ms. Colbert said. “Now, with real-time benefits, clinicians have pricing information readily available to them.”

HealthPartners pilot-tested RTPB at two locations before expanding to additional sites. They found that integrating real-time pharmacy benefits information improved the user experience and added cost savings for patients while improving workflow efficiency.

Health care professionals were more like to use RTPB for inquiries when the perceived patient cost was $50 or more – a price many clinicians perceive to be too expensive for many patients.

Before RTPB implementation, participating health care professionals reported waiting at least 45 minutes to get pricing on drugs requiring prior authorization. Integrating the RTPB software shaved the wait time down to 4 minutes – allowing them to quote drug prices to patients at the point of service.

Despite the benefits, everyone is not on board with RTPB.

Health care professionals already feel burdened by the information requirements of their electronic health records systems. They “count the number of computer clicks they have to make, so getting them to make an additional click to use RTPB requires another buy-in,” Ms. Colbert said.

While participating health care professionals were asked to run every prescription through RTPB, they reported using the software only when they knew a patient would either perceive cost as a potential barrier, or if they knew a drug would be expensive.

Investigators said they plan to continue working with clinicians to make RTPB integration more user-friendly by eventually eliminating the additional computer click required to run the program. They also plan to monitor the progress of the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs – developer of RTPB – regarding its adaptation of its new standard.

BARCELONA – Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status in patients with advanced triple negative or HER2-positive breast cancer appears to identify distinct disease entities with varying likelihood of benefit from immune checkpoint inhibition, according to Giampaolo Bianchini, MD.

This observation, which contrasts with findings in other solid tumors and expands the road map to improved outcomes with immunotherapy for metastatic breast cancer, is based in part on new findings presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

Among additional lessons from those findings: PD-L1 assays are not easily interchangeable, and studies with a “one size fits all” approach should be avoided, Dr. Bianchini, head of the Breast Cancer Group – Medical Oncology and clinical translational and immunotherapy research at Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, said at the congress.
 

IMPassion130 and PD-L1 assays

In the phase 3 IMpassion130 trial assessing nanoparticle, albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel chemotherapy + either the anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody atezolizumab or placebo for the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC), investigators used, and validated, the VENTANA PD-L1 SP142 assay to evaluate PD-L1 expression in immune cells (IC). PD-L1 positivity was defined using a 1% cutoff, meaning that PD-L1-stained IC encompassed at least 1% of the tumor area.

The trial demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in the atezolizumab arm, both in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (7.2 vs. 5.5 months in the placebo arm; hazard ratio, 0.80), and the PD-L1-positive subgroup (7.5 vs. 5.0 months; HR, 0.62), and the results were published in November 2018 (N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2108-21).

“IMpassion130 is the first phase 3 trial demonstrating clinical benefit of cancer immunotherapy in patients with PD-L1-positive, metastatic triple-negative breast cancer,” Hope S. Rugo, MD, said at the congress. “The combination of atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel is now approved in the United States and Europe for this indication.”

Subgroup analyses indicated that PFS and OS benefit with atezolizumab + nab-paclitaxel vs. nab-paclitaxel alone was greater in double-positive patients (those with SP142 positivity and either SP263 or 22C3 positivity) than in patients who were SP263-positive/SP142-negative or 22C3-positive/SP142-negative.

Dr. Rugo and her colleagues also found that the benefits with atezolizumab + nab-paclitaxel in PD-L1-positive patients were apparent regardless of the source of tissue for testing (breast or distant metastases).

They concluded that the findings of the assays are not equivalent; 22C3 and SP263 identified more patients as PD-L1 positive, and SP142-positivity was encompassed in positive tests for both.

“The clinical benefit in the 22C3-positive and the SP263-positive subgroups appear to be driven by the SP142-positive subgroup, and [SP142] identifies patients with the longest median progression-free and overall survival from the addition of atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel,” she said “The SP142 assay with an IC cutoff of 1% or greater is the approved diagnostic test used to identify patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who are most likely to benefit from the addition of the checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel.”

As for whether the SP142 should be the assay of choice in other settings in which it hasn’t been validated, Dr. Rugo said it is advisable to use the assay that has been validated in a positive trial.

“That’s what we would generally do ... however, recognizing that some countries are not using SP142, and some sites may not have access, certainly you encompass that population in the patients whose tumors are positive by both other assays,” she said. “The risk is that you might overtreat, and the cost of treatment is greater.”

Excess toxicity is also a concern in that situation, she said, adding that “hopefully in the future we’ll be able to figure out ways to have even more patients benefit from the addition of immunotherapy so that won’t be an issue.”

“What this data shows is that you can feel secure that you are encompassing the patient population identified by the parent trial to benefit from the addition of atezolizumab by using either of the other two assays; you’re only missing 1% – so that’s very reasonable,” she said. “The risk is that you’re overtreating; it’s quite likely that there’s a population there that isn’t benefiting as much, but that’s a balance.”

The findings from IMPassion130 with regard to OS in the unselected population that included PD-L1-negative patients (18.7 vs. 21.0 months with vs. without atezolizumab; HR, 0.86) underscore the fact that “one size does not fit all” when it comes to immunotherapy benefit, Dr. Bianchini said.

This is further demonstrated by the post hoc analysis comparing IHC assays, he said, explaining that 63% of IMPassion130 patients who were considered PD-L1-negative based on the SP142 “actually scored as PD-L1-positive by the other tests.

“So the very clinically important question is if there is any evidence from the data that [the PD-L1-negative group] benefits in a significant way from the addition of atezolizumab,” he said. “I don’t see evidence for a clinical benefit, I see evidence to look for new biomarkers to identify a potential population who will benefit.”

The “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” he stressed, noting that it may be possible – with the right biomarkers – to identify PD-L1-negative patients who would benefit.

What the findings do show, however, is support for the FDA decision to approve the SP142 assay with an IC cutoff of 1% as a companion diagnostic tool, and that PD-L1 is ideally assessed using samples from both the primary and metastatic site, as the IMPassion130 data “do not inform whether PD-L1 assessment in primary and metastatic sites is equally informative,” he said.

In addition, Dr. Bianchini said the findings suggest that more information is needed about using different cutoffs for SP263 and 22C3, and he cautioned against “directly translating these finding to other disease settings or immune combinations.

“Defining new biomarkers to identify who within the PD-L1-negative group might benefit from this combination remains an unmet need,” he said. “For sure, I don’t see a space for the other tests to define this population,” he added.

KEYNOTE-119, KATE2, and future directions

Both the randomized, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-119 study of the checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab vs. single-agent chemotherapy for mTNBC, and the phase 2 KATE2 trial of the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) + either atezolizumab or placebo in previously treated HER2-positive breast cancer patients, failed to meet their respective primary study endpoints.

But the news isn’t all bad, Dr. Bianchini said.

For example, in KEYNOTE-119, second- or third-line pembrolizumab monotherapy did not significantly improve OS vs. chemotherapy for mTNBC, but the pembrolizumab treatment effect increased as PD-L1 enrichment increased, he explained.

Pembrolizumab showed promising antitumor activity and manageable safety in mTNBC in prior trials, and was therefore further assessed in the KEYNOTE-119 study of 601 patients with centrally confirmed TNBC, 1-2 prior systemic treatments for mTNBC, progression on the latest therapy, and a prior anthracycline or taxane, Javier Cortés, MD, PhD, of Instituto Oncológico, Madrid, reported at the congress.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Pembrolizumab was given at a dose of 200 mg every 3 weeks, and chemotherapy was physician’s choice of capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine.

At a median follow-up of 9.9 months in the pembrolizumab group and 10.9 months in the chemotherapy group, OS did not differ significantly between the groups; this was true overall, in patients with a CPS of 10 or greater, and in those with a CPS of 1 or greater.

In all-comers, the HR for OS was 0.97, compared with 0.78 in patients with CPS of 10 or greater, and 0.86 in those with CPS of 1 or greater, Dr. Cortés said.

“One of the most interesting exploratory analyses was OS in those patients with CPS of 20 or higher,” he said, noting that median OS in that group was 14.9 vs.12.5 months with pembrolizumab vs. with chemotherapy (HR, 0.58).

Pembrolizumab did not improve overall PFS, but again, the rates improved with higher CPS. Duration of response, however, was longer with pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy (12.2 vs. 8.3 months overall; 12.2 vs. 6.5 months for CPS of 1 or greater; and not reached vs. 7.1 months for CPS of 10 or greater).

Grade 3-5 AEs occurred in 35% vs. 49% of patients in the pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy groups, with nine deaths occurring in each, Dr. Cortés said, adding that treatment-related AEs occurred in 14% (with one death) and 36% (with two deaths), respectively, and grade 3-4 immune-mediated AEs and infusion reactions occurred in 3.2% vs. 1.0% (no deaths), respectively.

In the double-blind, signal-seeking KATE2 trial, as reported in 2018 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, no overall PFS improvement was seen with atezolizumab + T-DM1 (median of 8.2 vs. 6.8 months; HR, 0.82; 12-month PFS 38% vs. 34%), but again, a possible benefit was seen in PD-L1-positive patients (8.5 vs. 4.1 months; HR, 0.60).

KATE2 included 202 patients with advanced HER2-positive breast cancer that progressed after treatment with T-DM1 and a taxane. They were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous T-DM1 at a dose of 3.6 mg/kg plus atezolizumab (1,200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks until loss of clinical benefit or intolerable toxicity.

The “overall survival and final safety results” show that at a median follow-up of 19.0 months in the atezolizumab arm and 18.2 months in the placebo arm, with 52 OS events reported, median OS was not reached in either arm and 1-year survival was similar in the two groups (89.1% and 89.0%), Leisha A. Emens, MD, PhD, professor of medicine in hematology/oncology and co-leader of the Hillman Cancer Immunology and Immunotherapy Program at Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) reported at the congress.

“And when you look at duration of response, you see an increase not just in the number ... but the quality of the response,” he said, noting that for PFS, as well, a trend toward superiority is seen “that is consistent with all the other endpoints.”

“So overall, the application of incrementally restrictive cut-off of CPS lends weight to the exploratory analysis showing better survival from pembrolizumab in tumors with CPS more than 20,” Dr. Bianchini said, noting that the “real question,” however, is whether the finding “is worth clinical implementation.

“We know a lot about the primary tumor and immune infiltration. We’ve learned ... that if you wait and look ahead at immune infiltration in the advanced stage, you find that the tumor becomes smart,” he said, explaining that tumor/immune co-evolution leads to increased immuno-editing and immune subversion and it becomes “much harder to just hit the tumor with PD-L1, because this is not the only mechanism of immune escape.”

A review of several studies shows that in similar populations defined by biomarkers, response rates in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors decrease in the second- and third-line setting vs. the first-line setting, he said.

For example, pembrolizumab response rates in the first-line and second-line or greater setting in cohort B of the KEYNOTE-086 study were 21.4% and 5.7%, respectively, compared with 12.3% in the second- to third-line setting in KEYNOTE-119, he said.

Another consideration is whether monotherapy or combination therapy is preferable, and the data suggest that regardless of how PD-L1-positivity is defined (by CPS cutoff of 1 vs. 20, for example), most patients treated with monotherapy progress within the first 3 months, he said.

“I don’t see that this is a safe approach for the majority of these patients. So without better biomarkers, combinations should always be preferred, at least to avoid early progression,” Dr. Bianchini said, adding that the open question, then, is: “If we set the new standard in the first-line as the combination of nab-paclitaxel and atezolizumab for PD-L1-positive patients defined by the VENTANA [SP142 assay], should we continue with immune checkpoint [inhibition] using different combinations?”

“Of course, at the time the trial was designed, the results of IMpassion were not available, but it’s very important, because [the findings] add to the evidence that immunotherapy is extremely relevant for some patients,” he said.

KATE2 further demonstrated the importance of PD-L1 status, he said, adding that due to its limitations, including small sample size and short follow-up, longer follow-up is needed to better evaluate duration of response and PFS.

“Despite the trial limitations, the qualitative effect seen in all clinical endpoints – overall response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival – in PD-L1-positive tumors defined by SP142 ... provided strong and robust signals supporting the investigation of immune checkpoint inhibitors in HER-positive breast cancer,” he said, noting that “many trials are ongoing in the early setting and the advanced setting.”

In addition to the lessons of these trials with respect to the interchangeability of PD-L1 IHC assays and the value of PD-L1 assessment for identifying the likelihood of benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors, the findings highlight the possibility that PD-L1-negative tumors require different immunotherapy approaches or alternative therapeutic strategies, and underscore that the benefit of immunotherapy in PD-L1-positive patients is still restricted to a minority.

“So new studies and approaches with immuno-oncology are needed, and we need more effective biomarkers, because we need to have precision oncology applied – we need to go in that direction,” he concluded.

Dr. Bianchini reported consultancy/honorarium and or advisory board activity associated with Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Chugai, EISAI, Lilly, Novartis, Amgen, Sanofi, Neopharm, and Genomic Health. The IMPassion30 trial was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.; Dr. Rugo reported research grants, other funding, and or travel/accommodation/expenses from Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Merck, OBI, EISAI, Plexxikon, Genentech/Roche, MacroGenics, PUMA, Mylan, Immunomedics, Daiichi Sankyo, and Celltrion. KEYNOTE-119 was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.; Dr. Cortés and Dr. Emens reported numerous funding relationships but none with F. Hoffman-La Roche. KATE2 was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche.
 

Sources: IMPassion130; ESMO Abstract LBA20; KEYNOTE-119: ESMO Abstract LBA21; KATE2: ESMO Abstract 305O.

BARCELONA – Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status in patients with advanced triple negative or HER2-positive breast cancer appears to identify distinct disease entities with varying likelihood of benefit from immune checkpoint inhibition, according to Giampaolo Bianchini, MD.

This observation, which contrasts with findings in other solid tumors and expands the road map to improved outcomes with immunotherapy for metastatic breast cancer, is based in part on new findings presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

Among additional lessons from those findings: PD-L1 assays are not easily interchangeable, and studies with a “one size fits all” approach should be avoided, Dr. Bianchini, head of the Breast Cancer Group – Medical Oncology and clinical translational and immunotherapy research at Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, said at the congress.
 

IMPassion130 and PD-L1 assays

In the phase 3 IMpassion130 trial assessing nanoparticle, albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel chemotherapy + either the anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody atezolizumab or placebo for the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC), investigators used, and validated, the VENTANA PD-L1 SP142 assay to evaluate PD-L1 expression in immune cells (IC). PD-L1 positivity was defined using a 1% cutoff, meaning that PD-L1-stained IC encompassed at least 1% of the tumor area.

The trial demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in the atezolizumab arm, both in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (7.2 vs. 5.5 months in the placebo arm; hazard ratio, 0.80), and the PD-L1-positive subgroup (7.5 vs. 5.0 months; HR, 0.62), and the results were published in November 2018 (N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2108-21).

“IMpassion130 is the first phase 3 trial demonstrating clinical benefit of cancer immunotherapy in patients with PD-L1-positive, metastatic triple-negative breast cancer,” Hope S. Rugo, MD, said at the congress. “The combination of atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel is now approved in the United States and Europe for this indication.”

Subgroup analyses indicated that PFS and OS benefit with atezolizumab + nab-paclitaxel vs. nab-paclitaxel alone was greater in double-positive patients (those with SP142 positivity and either SP263 or 22C3 positivity) than in patients who were SP263-positive/SP142-negative or 22C3-positive/SP142-negative.

Dr. Rugo and her colleagues also found that the benefits with atezolizumab + nab-paclitaxel in PD-L1-positive patients were apparent regardless of the source of tissue for testing (breast or distant metastases).

They concluded that the findings of the assays are not equivalent; 22C3 and SP263 identified more patients as PD-L1 positive, and SP142-positivity was encompassed in positive tests for both.

“The clinical benefit in the 22C3-positive and the SP263-positive subgroups appear to be driven by the SP142-positive subgroup, and [SP142] identifies patients with the longest median progression-free and overall survival from the addition of atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel,” she said “The SP142 assay with an IC cutoff of 1% or greater is the approved diagnostic test used to identify patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who are most likely to benefit from the addition of the checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel.”

As for whether the SP142 should be the assay of choice in other settings in which it hasn’t been validated, Dr. Rugo said it is advisable to use the assay that has been validated in a positive trial.

“That’s what we would generally do ... however, recognizing that some countries are not using SP142, and some sites may not have access, certainly you encompass that population in the patients whose tumors are positive by both other assays,” she said. “The risk is that you might overtreat, and the cost of treatment is greater.”

Excess toxicity is also a concern in that situation, she said, adding that “hopefully in the future we’ll be able to figure out ways to have even more patients benefit from the addition of immunotherapy so that won’t be an issue.”

“What this data shows is that you can feel secure that you are encompassing the patient population identified by the parent trial to benefit from the addition of atezolizumab by using either of the other two assays; you’re only missing 1% – so that’s very reasonable,” she said. “The risk is that you’re overtreating; it’s quite likely that there’s a population there that isn’t benefiting as much, but that’s a balance.”

The findings from IMPassion130 with regard to OS in the unselected population that included PD-L1-negative patients (18.7 vs. 21.0 months with vs. without atezolizumab; HR, 0.86) underscore the fact that “one size does not fit all” when it comes to immunotherapy benefit, Dr. Bianchini said.

This is further demonstrated by the post hoc analysis comparing IHC assays, he said, explaining that 63% of IMPassion130 patients who were considered PD-L1-negative based on the SP142 “actually scored as PD-L1-positive by the other tests.

“So the very clinically important question is if there is any evidence from the data that [the PD-L1-negative group] benefits in a significant way from the addition of atezolizumab,” he said. “I don’t see evidence for a clinical benefit, I see evidence to look for new biomarkers to identify a potential population who will benefit.”

The “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” he stressed, noting that it may be possible – with the right biomarkers – to identify PD-L1-negative patients who would benefit.

What the findings do show, however, is support for the FDA decision to approve the SP142 assay with an IC cutoff of 1% as a companion diagnostic tool, and that PD-L1 is ideally assessed using samples from both the primary and metastatic site, as the IMPassion130 data “do not inform whether PD-L1 assessment in primary and metastatic sites is equally informative,” he said.

In addition, Dr. Bianchini said the findings suggest that more information is needed about using different cutoffs for SP263 and 22C3, and he cautioned against “directly translating these finding to other disease settings or immune combinations.

“Defining new biomarkers to identify who within the PD-L1-negative group might benefit from this combination remains an unmet need,” he said. “For sure, I don’t see a space for the other tests to define this population,” he added.

KEYNOTE-119, KATE2, and future directions

Both the randomized, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-119 study of the checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab vs. single-agent chemotherapy for mTNBC, and the phase 2 KATE2 trial of the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) + either atezolizumab or placebo in previously treated HER2-positive breast cancer patients, failed to meet their respective primary study endpoints.

But the news isn’t all bad, Dr. Bianchini said.

For example, in KEYNOTE-119, second- or third-line pembrolizumab monotherapy did not significantly improve OS vs. chemotherapy for mTNBC, but the pembrolizumab treatment effect increased as PD-L1 enrichment increased, he explained.

Pembrolizumab showed promising antitumor activity and manageable safety in mTNBC in prior trials, and was therefore further assessed in the KEYNOTE-119 study of 601 patients with centrally confirmed TNBC, 1-2 prior systemic treatments for mTNBC, progression on the latest therapy, and a prior anthracycline or taxane, Javier Cortés, MD, PhD, of Instituto Oncológico, Madrid, reported at the congress.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Pembrolizumab was given at a dose of 200 mg every 3 weeks, and chemotherapy was physician’s choice of capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine.

At a median follow-up of 9.9 months in the pembrolizumab group and 10.9 months in the chemotherapy group, OS did not differ significantly between the groups; this was true overall, in patients with a CPS of 10 or greater, and in those with a CPS of 1 or greater.

In all-comers, the HR for OS was 0.97, compared with 0.78 in patients with CPS of 10 or greater, and 0.86 in those with CPS of 1 or greater, Dr. Cortés said.

“One of the most interesting exploratory analyses was OS in those patients with CPS of 20 or higher,” he said, noting that median OS in that group was 14.9 vs.12.5 months with pembrolizumab vs. with chemotherapy (HR, 0.58).

Pembrolizumab did not improve overall PFS, but again, the rates improved with higher CPS. Duration of response, however, was longer with pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy (12.2 vs. 8.3 months overall; 12.2 vs. 6.5 months for CPS of 1 or greater; and not reached vs. 7.1 months for CPS of 10 or greater).

Grade 3-5 AEs occurred in 35% vs. 49% of patients in the pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy groups, with nine deaths occurring in each, Dr. Cortés said, adding that treatment-related AEs occurred in 14% (with one death) and 36% (with two deaths), respectively, and grade 3-4 immune-mediated AEs and infusion reactions occurred in 3.2% vs. 1.0% (no deaths), respectively.

In the double-blind, signal-seeking KATE2 trial, as reported in 2018 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, no overall PFS improvement was seen with atezolizumab + T-DM1 (median of 8.2 vs. 6.8 months; HR, 0.82; 12-month PFS 38% vs. 34%), but again, a possible benefit was seen in PD-L1-positive patients (8.5 vs. 4.1 months; HR, 0.60).

KATE2 included 202 patients with advanced HER2-positive breast cancer that progressed after treatment with T-DM1 and a taxane. They were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous T-DM1 at a dose of 3.6 mg/kg plus atezolizumab (1,200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks until loss of clinical benefit or intolerable toxicity.

The “overall survival and final safety results” show that at a median follow-up of 19.0 months in the atezolizumab arm and 18.2 months in the placebo arm, with 52 OS events reported, median OS was not reached in either arm and 1-year survival was similar in the two groups (89.1% and 89.0%), Leisha A. Emens, MD, PhD, professor of medicine in hematology/oncology and co-leader of the Hillman Cancer Immunology and Immunotherapy Program at Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) reported at the congress.

“And when you look at duration of response, you see an increase not just in the number ... but the quality of the response,” he said, noting that for PFS, as well, a trend toward superiority is seen “that is consistent with all the other endpoints.”

“So overall, the application of incrementally restrictive cut-off of CPS lends weight to the exploratory analysis showing better survival from pembrolizumab in tumors with CPS more than 20,” Dr. Bianchini said, noting that the “real question,” however, is whether the finding “is worth clinical implementation.

“We know a lot about the primary tumor and immune infiltration. We’ve learned ... that if you wait and look ahead at immune infiltration in the advanced stage, you find that the tumor becomes smart,” he said, explaining that tumor/immune co-evolution leads to increased immuno-editing and immune subversion and it becomes “much harder to just hit the tumor with PD-L1, because this is not the only mechanism of immune escape.”

A review of several studies shows that in similar populations defined by biomarkers, response rates in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors decrease in the second- and third-line setting vs. the first-line setting, he said.

For example, pembrolizumab response rates in the first-line and second-line or greater setting in cohort B of the KEYNOTE-086 study were 21.4% and 5.7%, respectively, compared with 12.3% in the second- to third-line setting in KEYNOTE-119, he said.

Another consideration is whether monotherapy or combination therapy is preferable, and the data suggest that regardless of how PD-L1-positivity is defined (by CPS cutoff of 1 vs. 20, for example), most patients treated with monotherapy progress within the first 3 months, he said.

“I don’t see that this is a safe approach for the majority of these patients. So without better biomarkers, combinations should always be preferred, at least to avoid early progression,” Dr. Bianchini said, adding that the open question, then, is: “If we set the new standard in the first-line as the combination of nab-paclitaxel and atezolizumab for PD-L1-positive patients defined by the VENTANA [SP142 assay], should we continue with immune checkpoint [inhibition] using different combinations?”

“Of course, at the time the trial was designed, the results of IMpassion were not available, but it’s very important, because [the findings] add to the evidence that immunotherapy is extremely relevant for some patients,” he said.

KATE2 further demonstrated the importance of PD-L1 status, he said, adding that due to its limitations, including small sample size and short follow-up, longer follow-up is needed to better evaluate duration of response and PFS.

“Despite the trial limitations, the qualitative effect seen in all clinical endpoints – overall response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival – in PD-L1-positive tumors defined by SP142 ... provided strong and robust signals supporting the investigation of immune checkpoint inhibitors in HER-positive breast cancer,” he said, noting that “many trials are ongoing in the early setting and the advanced setting.”

In addition to the lessons of these trials with respect to the interchangeability of PD-L1 IHC assays and the value of PD-L1 assessment for identifying the likelihood of benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors, the findings highlight the possibility that PD-L1-negative tumors require different immunotherapy approaches or alternative therapeutic strategies, and underscore that the benefit of immunotherapy in PD-L1-positive patients is still restricted to a minority.

“So new studies and approaches with immuno-oncology are needed, and we need more effective biomarkers, because we need to have precision oncology applied – we need to go in that direction,” he concluded.

Dr. Bianchini reported consultancy/honorarium and or advisory board activity associated with Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Chugai, EISAI, Lilly, Novartis, Amgen, Sanofi, Neopharm, and Genomic Health. The IMPassion30 trial was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.; Dr. Rugo reported research grants, other funding, and or travel/accommodation/expenses from Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Merck, OBI, EISAI, Plexxikon, Genentech/Roche, MacroGenics, PUMA, Mylan, Immunomedics, Daiichi Sankyo, and Celltrion. KEYNOTE-119 was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.; Dr. Cortés and Dr. Emens reported numerous funding relationships but none with F. Hoffman-La Roche. KATE2 was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche.
 

Sources: IMPassion130; ESMO Abstract LBA20; KEYNOTE-119: ESMO Abstract LBA21; KATE2: ESMO Abstract 305O.

BARCELONA – Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status in patients with advanced triple negative or HER2-positive breast cancer appears to identify distinct disease entities with varying likelihood of benefit from immune checkpoint inhibition, according to Giampaolo Bianchini, MD.

This observation, which contrasts with findings in other solid tumors and expands the road map to improved outcomes with immunotherapy for metastatic breast cancer, is based in part on new findings presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

Among additional lessons from those findings: PD-L1 assays are not easily interchangeable, and studies with a “one size fits all” approach should be avoided, Dr. Bianchini, head of the Breast Cancer Group – Medical Oncology and clinical translational and immunotherapy research at Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, said at the congress.
 

IMPassion130 and PD-L1 assays

In the phase 3 IMpassion130 trial assessing nanoparticle, albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel chemotherapy + either the anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody atezolizumab or placebo for the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC), investigators used, and validated, the VENTANA PD-L1 SP142 assay to evaluate PD-L1 expression in immune cells (IC). PD-L1 positivity was defined using a 1% cutoff, meaning that PD-L1-stained IC encompassed at least 1% of the tumor area.

The trial demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in the atezolizumab arm, both in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (7.2 vs. 5.5 months in the placebo arm; hazard ratio, 0.80), and the PD-L1-positive subgroup (7.5 vs. 5.0 months; HR, 0.62), and the results were published in November 2018 (N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2108-21).

“IMpassion130 is the first phase 3 trial demonstrating clinical benefit of cancer immunotherapy in patients with PD-L1-positive, metastatic triple-negative breast cancer,” Hope S. Rugo, MD, said at the congress. “The combination of atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel is now approved in the United States and Europe for this indication.”

Subgroup analyses indicated that PFS and OS benefit with atezolizumab + nab-paclitaxel vs. nab-paclitaxel alone was greater in double-positive patients (those with SP142 positivity and either SP263 or 22C3 positivity) than in patients who were SP263-positive/SP142-negative or 22C3-positive/SP142-negative.

Dr. Rugo and her colleagues also found that the benefits with atezolizumab + nab-paclitaxel in PD-L1-positive patients were apparent regardless of the source of tissue for testing (breast or distant metastases).

They concluded that the findings of the assays are not equivalent; 22C3 and SP263 identified more patients as PD-L1 positive, and SP142-positivity was encompassed in positive tests for both.

“The clinical benefit in the 22C3-positive and the SP263-positive subgroups appear to be driven by the SP142-positive subgroup, and [SP142] identifies patients with the longest median progression-free and overall survival from the addition of atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel,” she said “The SP142 assay with an IC cutoff of 1% or greater is the approved diagnostic test used to identify patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who are most likely to benefit from the addition of the checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel.”

As for whether the SP142 should be the assay of choice in other settings in which it hasn’t been validated, Dr. Rugo said it is advisable to use the assay that has been validated in a positive trial.

“That’s what we would generally do ... however, recognizing that some countries are not using SP142, and some sites may not have access, certainly you encompass that population in the patients whose tumors are positive by both other assays,” she said. “The risk is that you might overtreat, and the cost of treatment is greater.”

Excess toxicity is also a concern in that situation, she said, adding that “hopefully in the future we’ll be able to figure out ways to have even more patients benefit from the addition of immunotherapy so that won’t be an issue.”

“What this data shows is that you can feel secure that you are encompassing the patient population identified by the parent trial to benefit from the addition of atezolizumab by using either of the other two assays; you’re only missing 1% – so that’s very reasonable,” she said. “The risk is that you’re overtreating; it’s quite likely that there’s a population there that isn’t benefiting as much, but that’s a balance.”

The findings from IMPassion130 with regard to OS in the unselected population that included PD-L1-negative patients (18.7 vs. 21.0 months with vs. without atezolizumab; HR, 0.86) underscore the fact that “one size does not fit all” when it comes to immunotherapy benefit, Dr. Bianchini said.

This is further demonstrated by the post hoc analysis comparing IHC assays, he said, explaining that 63% of IMPassion130 patients who were considered PD-L1-negative based on the SP142 “actually scored as PD-L1-positive by the other tests.

“So the very clinically important question is if there is any evidence from the data that [the PD-L1-negative group] benefits in a significant way from the addition of atezolizumab,” he said. “I don’t see evidence for a clinical benefit, I see evidence to look for new biomarkers to identify a potential population who will benefit.”

The “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” he stressed, noting that it may be possible – with the right biomarkers – to identify PD-L1-negative patients who would benefit.

What the findings do show, however, is support for the FDA decision to approve the SP142 assay with an IC cutoff of 1% as a companion diagnostic tool, and that PD-L1 is ideally assessed using samples from both the primary and metastatic site, as the IMPassion130 data “do not inform whether PD-L1 assessment in primary and metastatic sites is equally informative,” he said.

In addition, Dr. Bianchini said the findings suggest that more information is needed about using different cutoffs for SP263 and 22C3, and he cautioned against “directly translating these finding to other disease settings or immune combinations.

“Defining new biomarkers to identify who within the PD-L1-negative group might benefit from this combination remains an unmet need,” he said. “For sure, I don’t see a space for the other tests to define this population,” he added.

KEYNOTE-119, KATE2, and future directions

Both the randomized, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-119 study of the checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab vs. single-agent chemotherapy for mTNBC, and the phase 2 KATE2 trial of the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) + either atezolizumab or placebo in previously treated HER2-positive breast cancer patients, failed to meet their respective primary study endpoints.

But the news isn’t all bad, Dr. Bianchini said.

For example, in KEYNOTE-119, second- or third-line pembrolizumab monotherapy did not significantly improve OS vs. chemotherapy for mTNBC, but the pembrolizumab treatment effect increased as PD-L1 enrichment increased, he explained.

Pembrolizumab showed promising antitumor activity and manageable safety in mTNBC in prior trials, and was therefore further assessed in the KEYNOTE-119 study of 601 patients with centrally confirmed TNBC, 1-2 prior systemic treatments for mTNBC, progression on the latest therapy, and a prior anthracycline or taxane, Javier Cortés, MD, PhD, of Instituto Oncológico, Madrid, reported at the congress.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Pembrolizumab was given at a dose of 200 mg every 3 weeks, and chemotherapy was physician’s choice of capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine.

At a median follow-up of 9.9 months in the pembrolizumab group and 10.9 months in the chemotherapy group, OS did not differ significantly between the groups; this was true overall, in patients with a CPS of 10 or greater, and in those with a CPS of 1 or greater.

In all-comers, the HR for OS was 0.97, compared with 0.78 in patients with CPS of 10 or greater, and 0.86 in those with CPS of 1 or greater, Dr. Cortés said.

“One of the most interesting exploratory analyses was OS in those patients with CPS of 20 or higher,” he said, noting that median OS in that group was 14.9 vs.12.5 months with pembrolizumab vs. with chemotherapy (HR, 0.58).

Pembrolizumab did not improve overall PFS, but again, the rates improved with higher CPS. Duration of response, however, was longer with pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy (12.2 vs. 8.3 months overall; 12.2 vs. 6.5 months for CPS of 1 or greater; and not reached vs. 7.1 months for CPS of 10 or greater).

Grade 3-5 AEs occurred in 35% vs. 49% of patients in the pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy groups, with nine deaths occurring in each, Dr. Cortés said, adding that treatment-related AEs occurred in 14% (with one death) and 36% (with two deaths), respectively, and grade 3-4 immune-mediated AEs and infusion reactions occurred in 3.2% vs. 1.0% (no deaths), respectively.

In the double-blind, signal-seeking KATE2 trial, as reported in 2018 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, no overall PFS improvement was seen with atezolizumab + T-DM1 (median of 8.2 vs. 6.8 months; HR, 0.82; 12-month PFS 38% vs. 34%), but again, a possible benefit was seen in PD-L1-positive patients (8.5 vs. 4.1 months; HR, 0.60).

KATE2 included 202 patients with advanced HER2-positive breast cancer that progressed after treatment with T-DM1 and a taxane. They were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous T-DM1 at a dose of 3.6 mg/kg plus atezolizumab (1,200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks until loss of clinical benefit or intolerable toxicity.

The “overall survival and final safety results” show that at a median follow-up of 19.0 months in the atezolizumab arm and 18.2 months in the placebo arm, with 52 OS events reported, median OS was not reached in either arm and 1-year survival was similar in the two groups (89.1% and 89.0%), Leisha A. Emens, MD, PhD, professor of medicine in hematology/oncology and co-leader of the Hillman Cancer Immunology and Immunotherapy Program at Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) reported at the congress.

“And when you look at duration of response, you see an increase not just in the number ... but the quality of the response,” he said, noting that for PFS, as well, a trend toward superiority is seen “that is consistent with all the other endpoints.”

“So overall, the application of incrementally restrictive cut-off of CPS lends weight to the exploratory analysis showing better survival from pembrolizumab in tumors with CPS more than 20,” Dr. Bianchini said, noting that the “real question,” however, is whether the finding “is worth clinical implementation.

“We know a lot about the primary tumor and immune infiltration. We’ve learned ... that if you wait and look ahead at immune infiltration in the advanced stage, you find that the tumor becomes smart,” he said, explaining that tumor/immune co-evolution leads to increased immuno-editing and immune subversion and it becomes “much harder to just hit the tumor with PD-L1, because this is not the only mechanism of immune escape.”

A review of several studies shows that in similar populations defined by biomarkers, response rates in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors decrease in the second- and third-line setting vs. the first-line setting, he said.

For example, pembrolizumab response rates in the first-line and second-line or greater setting in cohort B of the KEYNOTE-086 study were 21.4% and 5.7%, respectively, compared with 12.3% in the second- to third-line setting in KEYNOTE-119, he said.

Another consideration is whether monotherapy or combination therapy is preferable, and the data suggest that regardless of how PD-L1-positivity is defined (by CPS cutoff of 1 vs. 20, for example), most patients treated with monotherapy progress within the first 3 months, he said.

“I don’t see that this is a safe approach for the majority of these patients. So without better biomarkers, combinations should always be preferred, at least to avoid early progression,” Dr. Bianchini said, adding that the open question, then, is: “If we set the new standard in the first-line as the combination of nab-paclitaxel and atezolizumab for PD-L1-positive patients defined by the VENTANA [SP142 assay], should we continue with immune checkpoint [inhibition] using different combinations?”

“Of course, at the time the trial was designed, the results of IMpassion were not available, but it’s very important, because [the findings] add to the evidence that immunotherapy is extremely relevant for some patients,” he said.

KATE2 further demonstrated the importance of PD-L1 status, he said, adding that due to its limitations, including small sample size and short follow-up, longer follow-up is needed to better evaluate duration of response and PFS.

“Despite the trial limitations, the qualitative effect seen in all clinical endpoints – overall response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival – in PD-L1-positive tumors defined by SP142 ... provided strong and robust signals supporting the investigation of immune checkpoint inhibitors in HER-positive breast cancer,” he said, noting that “many trials are ongoing in the early setting and the advanced setting.”

In addition to the lessons of these trials with respect to the interchangeability of PD-L1 IHC assays and the value of PD-L1 assessment for identifying the likelihood of benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors, the findings highlight the possibility that PD-L1-negative tumors require different immunotherapy approaches or alternative therapeutic strategies, and underscore that the benefit of immunotherapy in PD-L1-positive patients is still restricted to a minority.

“So new studies and approaches with immuno-oncology are needed, and we need more effective biomarkers, because we need to have precision oncology applied – we need to go in that direction,” he concluded.

Dr. Bianchini reported consultancy/honorarium and or advisory board activity associated with Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Chugai, EISAI, Lilly, Novartis, Amgen, Sanofi, Neopharm, and Genomic Health. The IMPassion30 trial was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.; Dr. Rugo reported research grants, other funding, and or travel/accommodation/expenses from Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Merck, OBI, EISAI, Plexxikon, Genentech/Roche, MacroGenics, PUMA, Mylan, Immunomedics, Daiichi Sankyo, and Celltrion. KEYNOTE-119 was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.; Dr. Cortés and Dr. Emens reported numerous funding relationships but none with F. Hoffman-La Roche. KATE2 was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche.
 

Sources: IMPassion130; ESMO Abstract LBA20; KEYNOTE-119: ESMO Abstract LBA21; KATE2: ESMO Abstract 305O.

Genital lichen simplex chronicus

Lichen simplex chronicus (LSC) is an inflammatory skin condition that develops secondary to persistent rubbing or scratching of skin. Although LSC can occur anywhere on the body, genital LSC develops in association with genital itch, with the itch often described as intense and unrelenting. The itching sensation leads to scratching and rubbing of the area, which can provide temporary symptomatic relief.^1,2 However, this action of rubbing and scratching stimulates local cutaneous nerves, inducing an even more intense itch sensation. This process, identified as the ‘itch-scratch cycle,’ plays a prominent role in all cases of LSC.¹

On physical examination LSC appears as poorly defined, pink to red plaques with accentuated skin markings on bilateral labia majora. Less commonly, it can present as asymmetrical or unilateral plaques.³ LSC can extend onto labia minora, mons pubis, and medial thighs. However, the vagina is spared.¹ Excoriations, marked by their geometric, angular appearance, often can be appreciated overlying plaques of LSC. Additionally, crusting, scale, broken hairs, hyperpigmentation, and scarring may be seen in LSC.²

In this case, white discharge was noted on vaginal examination, which was suspicious for vaginal candidiasis. Wet mount examination revealed multiple candida hyphae and spores (FIGURE 2), confirming vaginal candidiasis. This vulvovaginal fungal infection caused persistent vulvar pruritus, with subsequent development of LSC due to prolonged scratching. The patient was treated with both oral fluconazole and topical mometasone ointment, for vaginal candidiasis and vulvar LSC, respectively. Mometasone ointment is categorized as a class II (high potency) topical steroid. However, it is worth noting that mometasone cream is categorized as a class IV (medium potency) topical steroid.
 

FIGURE 2 Wet mount of vaginal discharge, revealing candida hyphae and spores

Treatment

Successful treatment of LSC requires addressing 4 elements, including recognizing and treating the underlying etiology, restoring barrier function, reducing inflammation, and interrupting the itch-scratch cycle.³

Identifying the underlying etiology. Knowing the etiology of vulvar pruritus is a key step in resolution of the condition because LSC is driven by repetitive rubbing and scratching behaviors in response to the itch. The differential diagnosis for vulvar pruritus is broad. Evaluation and workup should be tailored to suit each unique patient presentation. A review of past medical history and full-body skin examination can identify a contributing inflammatory skin disease, such as atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, lichen planus, lichen sclerosus, or autoimmune vesiculobullous disease (pemphigus).^1,2 Careful review of products applied in the genital area can reveal an underlying irritant or allergic contact dermatitis. Scented soap or detergent commonly cause vulvar dermatitis.¹ A speculum examination may suggest inflammatory vaginitis or atrophic vaginitis (genitourinary syndrome of menopause); run off of vaginal discharge onto the vulvar skin can result in vulvar pruritus. Vaginal wet mount can diagnose vulvovaginal candidiasis, trichomonas infection, and bacterial vaginitis.¹ A skin scraping with mineral oil or potassium hydroxide can suggest scabies infestation or cutaneous dermatophyte infection, respectively.² Treatment of vulvar pruritus should be initiated based on diagnosis.

Restoring barrier function. The repetitive scratching and rubbing behaviors disrupt the cutaneous barrier layer and lead to stimulation of the local nerves. This creates more itch and further traumatization to the barrier. Barrier function can be restored through soaking the area, with sitz baths or damp towels. Following 20- to 30-minute soaks, a lubricant, such as petroleum jelly, should be applied to the area.³

Reducing inflammation. To reduce inflammation, topical steroids should be applied to areas of LSC.³ In severe cases, high potency topical steroids should be prescribed. Examples of high potency topical steroids include:

• clobetasol propionate 0.05%
• betamethasone dipropionate 0.05%
• halobetasol propionate 0.05%.

Ointment is the choice vehicle because it is both more potent and associated with decreased stinging sensation. High potency steroid ointment should be applied twice daily for at least 2 to 4 weeks. The transition to lower potency topical steroids, such as triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% ointment, can be made as the LSC improves.²

Interrupting the itch-scratch cycle. As noted above, persistent rubbing and scratching generates increased itch sensation. Thus, breaking the itch-scratch cycle is essential. Nighttime scratching can be improved with hydroxyzine. The effective dosage ranges between 25 and 75 mg and should be titrated up slowly every 5 to 7 days. Sedation is a major adverse effect of hydroxyzine, limiting the treatment of daytime itching. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), such as citalopram, also have been found to be effective. Over the counter, nonsedation antihistamines have not been found to be useful in breaking the itch-scratch cycle. The clinical course of LSC is chronic (as the name implies), waxing and waning, and sometimes can be challenging to treat—some patients require years-long continued follow-up and treatment.³
 

Genital lichen simplex chronicus

Lichen simplex chronicus (LSC) is an inflammatory skin condition that develops secondary to persistent rubbing or scratching of skin. Although LSC can occur anywhere on the body, genital LSC develops in association with genital itch, with the itch often described as intense and unrelenting. The itching sensation leads to scratching and rubbing of the area, which can provide temporary symptomatic relief.^1,2 However, this action of rubbing and scratching stimulates local cutaneous nerves, inducing an even more intense itch sensation. This process, identified as the ‘itch-scratch cycle,’ plays a prominent role in all cases of LSC.¹

On physical examination LSC appears as poorly defined, pink to red plaques with accentuated skin markings on bilateral labia majora. Less commonly, it can present as asymmetrical or unilateral plaques.³ LSC can extend onto labia minora, mons pubis, and medial thighs. However, the vagina is spared.¹ Excoriations, marked by their geometric, angular appearance, often can be appreciated overlying plaques of LSC. Additionally, crusting, scale, broken hairs, hyperpigmentation, and scarring may be seen in LSC.²

In this case, white discharge was noted on vaginal examination, which was suspicious for vaginal candidiasis. Wet mount examination revealed multiple candida hyphae and spores (FIGURE 2), confirming vaginal candidiasis. This vulvovaginal fungal infection caused persistent vulvar pruritus, with subsequent development of LSC due to prolonged scratching. The patient was treated with both oral fluconazole and topical mometasone ointment, for vaginal candidiasis and vulvar LSC, respectively. Mometasone ointment is categorized as a class II (high potency) topical steroid. However, it is worth noting that mometasone cream is categorized as a class IV (medium potency) topical steroid.
 

FIGURE 2 Wet mount of vaginal discharge, revealing candida hyphae and spores

Treatment

Successful treatment of LSC requires addressing 4 elements, including recognizing and treating the underlying etiology, restoring barrier function, reducing inflammation, and interrupting the itch-scratch cycle.³

Identifying the underlying etiology. Knowing the etiology of vulvar pruritus is a key step in resolution of the condition because LSC is driven by repetitive rubbing and scratching behaviors in response to the itch. The differential diagnosis for vulvar pruritus is broad. Evaluation and workup should be tailored to suit each unique patient presentation. A review of past medical history and full-body skin examination can identify a contributing inflammatory skin disease, such as atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, lichen planus, lichen sclerosus, or autoimmune vesiculobullous disease (pemphigus).^1,2 Careful review of products applied in the genital area can reveal an underlying irritant or allergic contact dermatitis. Scented soap or detergent commonly cause vulvar dermatitis.¹ A speculum examination may suggest inflammatory vaginitis or atrophic vaginitis (genitourinary syndrome of menopause); run off of vaginal discharge onto the vulvar skin can result in vulvar pruritus. Vaginal wet mount can diagnose vulvovaginal candidiasis, trichomonas infection, and bacterial vaginitis.¹ A skin scraping with mineral oil or potassium hydroxide can suggest scabies infestation or cutaneous dermatophyte infection, respectively.² Treatment of vulvar pruritus should be initiated based on diagnosis.

Restoring barrier function. The repetitive scratching and rubbing behaviors disrupt the cutaneous barrier layer and lead to stimulation of the local nerves. This creates more itch and further traumatization to the barrier. Barrier function can be restored through soaking the area, with sitz baths or damp towels. Following 20- to 30-minute soaks, a lubricant, such as petroleum jelly, should be applied to the area.³

Reducing inflammation. To reduce inflammation, topical steroids should be applied to areas of LSC.³ In severe cases, high potency topical steroids should be prescribed. Examples of high potency topical steroids include:

• clobetasol propionate 0.05%
• betamethasone dipropionate 0.05%
• halobetasol propionate 0.05%.

Ointment is the choice vehicle because it is both more potent and associated with decreased stinging sensation. High potency steroid ointment should be applied twice daily for at least 2 to 4 weeks. The transition to lower potency topical steroids, such as triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% ointment, can be made as the LSC improves.²

Interrupting the itch-scratch cycle. As noted above, persistent rubbing and scratching generates increased itch sensation. Thus, breaking the itch-scratch cycle is essential. Nighttime scratching can be improved with hydroxyzine. The effective dosage ranges between 25 and 75 mg and should be titrated up slowly every 5 to 7 days. Sedation is a major adverse effect of hydroxyzine, limiting the treatment of daytime itching. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), such as citalopram, also have been found to be effective. Over the counter, nonsedation antihistamines have not been found to be useful in breaking the itch-scratch cycle. The clinical course of LSC is chronic (as the name implies), waxing and waning, and sometimes can be challenging to treat—some patients require years-long continued follow-up and treatment.³
 

Genital lichen simplex chronicus

Lichen simplex chronicus (LSC) is an inflammatory skin condition that develops secondary to persistent rubbing or scratching of skin. Although LSC can occur anywhere on the body, genital LSC develops in association with genital itch, with the itch often described as intense and unrelenting. The itching sensation leads to scratching and rubbing of the area, which can provide temporary symptomatic relief.^1,2 However, this action of rubbing and scratching stimulates local cutaneous nerves, inducing an even more intense itch sensation. This process, identified as the ‘itch-scratch cycle,’ plays a prominent role in all cases of LSC.¹

On physical examination LSC appears as poorly defined, pink to red plaques with accentuated skin markings on bilateral labia majora. Less commonly, it can present as asymmetrical or unilateral plaques.³ LSC can extend onto labia minora, mons pubis, and medial thighs. However, the vagina is spared.¹ Excoriations, marked by their geometric, angular appearance, often can be appreciated overlying plaques of LSC. Additionally, crusting, scale, broken hairs, hyperpigmentation, and scarring may be seen in LSC.²

In this case, white discharge was noted on vaginal examination, which was suspicious for vaginal candidiasis. Wet mount examination revealed multiple candida hyphae and spores (FIGURE 2), confirming vaginal candidiasis. This vulvovaginal fungal infection caused persistent vulvar pruritus, with subsequent development of LSC due to prolonged scratching. The patient was treated with both oral fluconazole and topical mometasone ointment, for vaginal candidiasis and vulvar LSC, respectively. Mometasone ointment is categorized as a class II (high potency) topical steroid. However, it is worth noting that mometasone cream is categorized as a class IV (medium potency) topical steroid.
 

FIGURE 2 Wet mount of vaginal discharge, revealing candida hyphae and spores

Treatment

Successful treatment of LSC requires addressing 4 elements, including recognizing and treating the underlying etiology, restoring barrier function, reducing inflammation, and interrupting the itch-scratch cycle.³

Identifying the underlying etiology. Knowing the etiology of vulvar pruritus is a key step in resolution of the condition because LSC is driven by repetitive rubbing and scratching behaviors in response to the itch. The differential diagnosis for vulvar pruritus is broad. Evaluation and workup should be tailored to suit each unique patient presentation. A review of past medical history and full-body skin examination can identify a contributing inflammatory skin disease, such as atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, lichen planus, lichen sclerosus, or autoimmune vesiculobullous disease (pemphigus).^1,2 Careful review of products applied in the genital area can reveal an underlying irritant or allergic contact dermatitis. Scented soap or detergent commonly cause vulvar dermatitis.¹ A speculum examination may suggest inflammatory vaginitis or atrophic vaginitis (genitourinary syndrome of menopause); run off of vaginal discharge onto the vulvar skin can result in vulvar pruritus. Vaginal wet mount can diagnose vulvovaginal candidiasis, trichomonas infection, and bacterial vaginitis.¹ A skin scraping with mineral oil or potassium hydroxide can suggest scabies infestation or cutaneous dermatophyte infection, respectively.² Treatment of vulvar pruritus should be initiated based on diagnosis.

Restoring barrier function. The repetitive scratching and rubbing behaviors disrupt the cutaneous barrier layer and lead to stimulation of the local nerves. This creates more itch and further traumatization to the barrier. Barrier function can be restored through soaking the area, with sitz baths or damp towels. Following 20- to 30-minute soaks, a lubricant, such as petroleum jelly, should be applied to the area.³

Reducing inflammation. To reduce inflammation, topical steroids should be applied to areas of LSC.³ In severe cases, high potency topical steroids should be prescribed. Examples of high potency topical steroids include:

• clobetasol propionate 0.05%
• betamethasone dipropionate 0.05%
• halobetasol propionate 0.05%.

Ointment is the choice vehicle because it is both more potent and associated with decreased stinging sensation. High potency steroid ointment should be applied twice daily for at least 2 to 4 weeks. The transition to lower potency topical steroids, such as triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% ointment, can be made as the LSC improves.²

Interrupting the itch-scratch cycle. As noted above, persistent rubbing and scratching generates increased itch sensation. Thus, breaking the itch-scratch cycle is essential. Nighttime scratching can be improved with hydroxyzine. The effective dosage ranges between 25 and 75 mg and should be titrated up slowly every 5 to 7 days. Sedation is a major adverse effect of hydroxyzine, limiting the treatment of daytime itching. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), such as citalopram, also have been found to be effective. Over the counter, nonsedation antihistamines have not been found to be useful in breaking the itch-scratch cycle. The clinical course of LSC is chronic (as the name implies), waxing and waning, and sometimes can be challenging to treat—some patients require years-long continued follow-up and treatment.³
 

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) has been met with controversy since its inception in the 1930s. Current debate centers on the types of tumors treated with MMS, increasing utilization, third-party payer reimbursement, the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC), and subspecialty certification.

Controversies in Applications

Controversy surrounding treatment with MMS for certain tumor types is abundant, in large part due to a lack of well-designed studies. Perhaps most notably, the surgical management of melanoma has been hotly contested for decades.¹ An increasing number of Mohs surgeons advocate the use of MMS for treatment of melanoma. Advocates reason that tumor margins may be ill-defined, necessitating histologic examination of the margin for tumor clearance. In a study by Zitelli et al,² 5-year survival and metastatic rates for 535 patients with melanomas treated by MMS with frozen sections were the same or better when compared to historical controls treated with conventional wide local excision. Melanoma-associated antigen recognized by T cells (MART-1) immunostaining may offer improved diagnostic accuracy.³ Others believe that staged excision with permanent sections processed vertically, en face, or horizontally (“slow Mohs”) is more accurate and efficacious for the treatment of melanoma.¹ Advocates of this approach maintain that when compared to MMS with frozen sections, staged excision with permanent sections enables more accurate interpretation of residual melanoma and atypical junctional melanocytic hyperplasia as well as circumvents difficulty in interpreting freeze artifact.⁴

Although Merkel cell carcinoma has traditionally been treated with wide local excision, MMS with or without adjuvant radiotherapy has gained traction as a treatment option. Advocates for treatment by MMS hold that Merkel cell carcinoma is a contiguous tumor with a high rate of residual tumor persistence, making histologic margin control an ideal characteristic of treatment. However, in the absence of large randomized controlled studies comparing MMS to wide local excision, controversy surrounds the most appropriate surgical approach.¹ In a retrospective study of 86 patients by O’Connor et al,⁵ MMS was demonstrated to compare favorably to standard surgical excision. Standard surgical excision was associated with a 31.7% (13/41) local persistence rate and 48.8% (20/41) regional metastasis rate compared to 8.3% (1/12) and 33.3% (4/12) for MMS, respectively.⁵

Controversies in Increasing Utilization

The incidence of skin cancers has increased in recent years. As a result, it is reasonable to expect the rates of MMS to increase. Nonetheless, there is escalating concern among groups of third-party payers, the public, and physicians that MMS is being overused.⁶ Growth of the body of evidence supporting the appropriateness of MMS remains essential. Such studies continue to support reasons for increased MMS usage, demonstrating the stability of the percentage of skin cancers treated with MMS in the setting of increasing skin cancer incidence, the procedure’s superior efficacy for appropriately chosen cases, its expanding application to melanoma and other tumors, and an emphasis of MMS in residency training programs.^6-9

A current hot topic of controversy focuses on the wide variation among Mohs surgeons in the mean number of stages used to resect a tumor. Overuse among outliers has been proposed to stem from lack of technical expertise or from abuse of the current fee-for-service payment model, which bases compensation on the number of stages performed. A study by Krishnan et al¹⁰ determined that the mean number of stages per tumor in the studied population (all physicians [N=2305] receiving Medicare payments for MMS from January 2012 to December 2014) was 1.74, with a range of 1.09 to 4.11. Persistently high outliers were more likely to perform MMS in a solo practice, with an odds ratio of 2.35.¹⁰ In response to the wide variation in mean stages used to resect a skin cancer and its implications on increased financial burden and surgery to individual patients, intervention has been proposed. Notably, it has been demonstrated that mailing out individual reports of practice patterns to high-outlier physicians resulted in a reduction in mean stages per tumor as well as an associated cost savings when compared to outlier physicians who did not receive these reports.¹¹

Controversies in Reimbursement

Mohs micrographic surgery also has been in the spotlight for debate regarding reimbursement. The procedure has been targeted partly in response to its substantial contribution to total Medicare reimbursements paid out. In 2013, primary MMS billing codes constituted nearly 19% of total reimbursements to dermatologists and approximately 0.5% of total reimbursements to all physicians participating in Medicare.¹² Mohs micrographic surgery codes have correspondingly received frequent review by the Relative Value Scale Update Committee and remained on a list of potentially misvalued services according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for years.¹³ Due to continued scrutiny and review, especially by the Relative Value Scale Update Committee and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, reimbursement to perform MMS and reconstructive surgery has gone down by more than 20% in the last 15 years.¹⁴ Public perception mirrors third-party payer concerns for overcompensation. An article title in the New York Times theatrically postures “Patients’ Costs Skyrocket, Specialists’ Incomes Soar.” The article recounts an MMS patient’s “outrage at charges” associated with treatment of her “minor medical problem” and the simultaneous “sharp climb” in dermatologist income over the last 2 decades.¹⁵

However, studies continue to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of MMS. A study by Ravitskiy et al¹⁶ demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of MMS, regardless of place of service or type of tumor. Of 406 tumors studied, MMS was the least expensive surgical procedure evaluated ($805 per tumor) when compared to standard surgical excision with permanent margins ($1026 per tumor), standard surgical excision with frozen margins ($1200 per tumor), and ambulatory surgery center standard surgical excision ($2507 per tumor). Furthermore, adjusted for inflation, the cost of MMS was lower in 2009 vs 1998.¹⁶ Similar results have been consistently demonstrated.¹⁷

Controversies in the AUC

To provide clinicians, policy makers, and insurers guidance for utilization of MMS in the setting of concerns for overutilization, overcompensation, and inappropriate application, the MMS AUC were established in 2012. The guidelines were developed by a process integrating evidence-based medicine, clinical experience, and expert opinion and is applicable to 270 clinical scenarios.¹⁸

A unique set of debate accompanies the guidelines. Namely, controversy has surrounded the classification of most primary superficial basal cell carcinomas as appropriate for treatment by MMS. These tumors have comparable cure rates when treated by MMS or curettage and cryosurgery, are often multifocal and require more Mohs stages than other basal cell carcinoma subtypes, and largely lack data on recurrence and invasion.¹⁹ The guidelines also have been scrutinized for including only studies from the United States.²⁰ Furthermore, the report is largely based on expert opinion rather than evidence.

Some Mohs surgeons have concerns that the guidelines will minimize clinical judgment. Nonetheless, deviations from the AUC practiced by Mohs surgeons have been reported where clinical judgment supplants guideline criteria. The most commonly cited reasons for performing MMS on tumors classified as uncertain or inappropriate, according to one study by Ruiz et al,²¹ included performing multiple MMSs on the same day, tumor location on the lower legs, and incorporation into an adjacent wound. Reported discrepancies in the AUC further emphasize the importance of clinical judgment and call into question the need for future revision of the criteria.²² For example, a primary squamous cell carcinoma in situ greater than or equal to 2 cm located on the trunk and extremities (excluding pretibial surfaces, hands, feet, nail units, and ankles) in a healthy patient is categorized as appropriate, while a recurrent but otherwise identical squamous cell carcinoma in situ is categorized as uncertain. These counterintuitive criteria are unsupported by existing studies.

Controversies in Subspecialty Certification

Recently, debate also has surfaced regarding subspecialty certification. Over the last decade, proponents of subspecialty certification have argued that board certification would bring consistency and decrease divisiveness among dermatologists; help to prevent exclusion of Mohs surgeons from insurance networks and teaching opportunities at the Veterans Administration; and demonstrate competence to patients, the media, and payers. Those in opposition contest that practices may be restricted by insurers using lack of certification to eliminate dermatologists from their networks, economic credentialing may be applied to dermatologists such that those without the subspecialty certification may not be deemed qualified to manage skin cancer, major limitations may be set determining which dermatologists can sit for the certification examination, and subspecialty certification could create disenfranchisement of many dermatologists. A 2017 American Academy of Dermatology member survey demonstrated ambivalence regarding subcertification, with 51% of respondents pro-subcertification and 48% anti-subcertification.²³

Nonetheless, after years of debate the American Board of Dermatology proposed subspecialty certification in Micrographic Dermatologic Surgery, which was approved by the American Board of Medical Specialties on October 26, 2018. The first certification examination will likely take place in 2 years, and a maintenance of certification examination will be required every 10 years.²⁴

Final Thoughts

Further investigation is needed to elucidate and optimize solutions to many of the current controversies associated with MMS.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) has been met with controversy since its inception in the 1930s. Current debate centers on the types of tumors treated with MMS, increasing utilization, third-party payer reimbursement, the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC), and subspecialty certification.

Controversies in Applications

Controversy surrounding treatment with MMS for certain tumor types is abundant, in large part due to a lack of well-designed studies. Perhaps most notably, the surgical management of melanoma has been hotly contested for decades.¹ An increasing number of Mohs surgeons advocate the use of MMS for treatment of melanoma. Advocates reason that tumor margins may be ill-defined, necessitating histologic examination of the margin for tumor clearance. In a study by Zitelli et al,² 5-year survival and metastatic rates for 535 patients with melanomas treated by MMS with frozen sections were the same or better when compared to historical controls treated with conventional wide local excision. Melanoma-associated antigen recognized by T cells (MART-1) immunostaining may offer improved diagnostic accuracy.³ Others believe that staged excision with permanent sections processed vertically, en face, or horizontally (“slow Mohs”) is more accurate and efficacious for the treatment of melanoma.¹ Advocates of this approach maintain that when compared to MMS with frozen sections, staged excision with permanent sections enables more accurate interpretation of residual melanoma and atypical junctional melanocytic hyperplasia as well as circumvents difficulty in interpreting freeze artifact.⁴

Although Merkel cell carcinoma has traditionally been treated with wide local excision, MMS with or without adjuvant radiotherapy has gained traction as a treatment option. Advocates for treatment by MMS hold that Merkel cell carcinoma is a contiguous tumor with a high rate of residual tumor persistence, making histologic margin control an ideal characteristic of treatment. However, in the absence of large randomized controlled studies comparing MMS to wide local excision, controversy surrounds the most appropriate surgical approach.¹ In a retrospective study of 86 patients by O’Connor et al,⁵ MMS was demonstrated to compare favorably to standard surgical excision. Standard surgical excision was associated with a 31.7% (13/41) local persistence rate and 48.8% (20/41) regional metastasis rate compared to 8.3% (1/12) and 33.3% (4/12) for MMS, respectively.⁵

Controversies in Increasing Utilization

The incidence of skin cancers has increased in recent years. As a result, it is reasonable to expect the rates of MMS to increase. Nonetheless, there is escalating concern among groups of third-party payers, the public, and physicians that MMS is being overused.⁶ Growth of the body of evidence supporting the appropriateness of MMS remains essential. Such studies continue to support reasons for increased MMS usage, demonstrating the stability of the percentage of skin cancers treated with MMS in the setting of increasing skin cancer incidence, the procedure’s superior efficacy for appropriately chosen cases, its expanding application to melanoma and other tumors, and an emphasis of MMS in residency training programs.^6-9

A current hot topic of controversy focuses on the wide variation among Mohs surgeons in the mean number of stages used to resect a tumor. Overuse among outliers has been proposed to stem from lack of technical expertise or from abuse of the current fee-for-service payment model, which bases compensation on the number of stages performed. A study by Krishnan et al¹⁰ determined that the mean number of stages per tumor in the studied population (all physicians [N=2305] receiving Medicare payments for MMS from January 2012 to December 2014) was 1.74, with a range of 1.09 to 4.11. Persistently high outliers were more likely to perform MMS in a solo practice, with an odds ratio of 2.35.¹⁰ In response to the wide variation in mean stages used to resect a skin cancer and its implications on increased financial burden and surgery to individual patients, intervention has been proposed. Notably, it has been demonstrated that mailing out individual reports of practice patterns to high-outlier physicians resulted in a reduction in mean stages per tumor as well as an associated cost savings when compared to outlier physicians who did not receive these reports.¹¹

Controversies in Reimbursement

Mohs micrographic surgery also has been in the spotlight for debate regarding reimbursement. The procedure has been targeted partly in response to its substantial contribution to total Medicare reimbursements paid out. In 2013, primary MMS billing codes constituted nearly 19% of total reimbursements to dermatologists and approximately 0.5% of total reimbursements to all physicians participating in Medicare.¹² Mohs micrographic surgery codes have correspondingly received frequent review by the Relative Value Scale Update Committee and remained on a list of potentially misvalued services according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for years.¹³ Due to continued scrutiny and review, especially by the Relative Value Scale Update Committee and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, reimbursement to perform MMS and reconstructive surgery has gone down by more than 20% in the last 15 years.¹⁴ Public perception mirrors third-party payer concerns for overcompensation. An article title in the New York Times theatrically postures “Patients’ Costs Skyrocket, Specialists’ Incomes Soar.” The article recounts an MMS patient’s “outrage at charges” associated with treatment of her “minor medical problem” and the simultaneous “sharp climb” in dermatologist income over the last 2 decades.¹⁵

However, studies continue to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of MMS. A study by Ravitskiy et al¹⁶ demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of MMS, regardless of place of service or type of tumor. Of 406 tumors studied, MMS was the least expensive surgical procedure evaluated ($805 per tumor) when compared to standard surgical excision with permanent margins ($1026 per tumor), standard surgical excision with frozen margins ($1200 per tumor), and ambulatory surgery center standard surgical excision ($2507 per tumor). Furthermore, adjusted for inflation, the cost of MMS was lower in 2009 vs 1998.¹⁶ Similar results have been consistently demonstrated.¹⁷

Controversies in the AUC

To provide clinicians, policy makers, and insurers guidance for utilization of MMS in the setting of concerns for overutilization, overcompensation, and inappropriate application, the MMS AUC were established in 2012. The guidelines were developed by a process integrating evidence-based medicine, clinical experience, and expert opinion and is applicable to 270 clinical scenarios.¹⁸

A unique set of debate accompanies the guidelines. Namely, controversy has surrounded the classification of most primary superficial basal cell carcinomas as appropriate for treatment by MMS. These tumors have comparable cure rates when treated by MMS or curettage and cryosurgery, are often multifocal and require more Mohs stages than other basal cell carcinoma subtypes, and largely lack data on recurrence and invasion.¹⁹ The guidelines also have been scrutinized for including only studies from the United States.²⁰ Furthermore, the report is largely based on expert opinion rather than evidence.

Some Mohs surgeons have concerns that the guidelines will minimize clinical judgment. Nonetheless, deviations from the AUC practiced by Mohs surgeons have been reported where clinical judgment supplants guideline criteria. The most commonly cited reasons for performing MMS on tumors classified as uncertain or inappropriate, according to one study by Ruiz et al,²¹ included performing multiple MMSs on the same day, tumor location on the lower legs, and incorporation into an adjacent wound. Reported discrepancies in the AUC further emphasize the importance of clinical judgment and call into question the need for future revision of the criteria.²² For example, a primary squamous cell carcinoma in situ greater than or equal to 2 cm located on the trunk and extremities (excluding pretibial surfaces, hands, feet, nail units, and ankles) in a healthy patient is categorized as appropriate, while a recurrent but otherwise identical squamous cell carcinoma in situ is categorized as uncertain. These counterintuitive criteria are unsupported by existing studies.

Controversies in Subspecialty Certification

Recently, debate also has surfaced regarding subspecialty certification. Over the last decade, proponents of subspecialty certification have argued that board certification would bring consistency and decrease divisiveness among dermatologists; help to prevent exclusion of Mohs surgeons from insurance networks and teaching opportunities at the Veterans Administration; and demonstrate competence to patients, the media, and payers. Those in opposition contest that practices may be restricted by insurers using lack of certification to eliminate dermatologists from their networks, economic credentialing may be applied to dermatologists such that those without the subspecialty certification may not be deemed qualified to manage skin cancer, major limitations may be set determining which dermatologists can sit for the certification examination, and subspecialty certification could create disenfranchisement of many dermatologists. A 2017 American Academy of Dermatology member survey demonstrated ambivalence regarding subcertification, with 51% of respondents pro-subcertification and 48% anti-subcertification.²³

Nonetheless, after years of debate the American Board of Dermatology proposed subspecialty certification in Micrographic Dermatologic Surgery, which was approved by the American Board of Medical Specialties on October 26, 2018. The first certification examination will likely take place in 2 years, and a maintenance of certification examination will be required every 10 years.²⁴

Final Thoughts

Further investigation is needed to elucidate and optimize solutions to many of the current controversies associated with MMS.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) has been met with controversy since its inception in the 1930s. Current debate centers on the types of tumors treated with MMS, increasing utilization, third-party payer reimbursement, the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC), and subspecialty certification.

Controversies in Applications

Controversy surrounding treatment with MMS for certain tumor types is abundant, in large part due to a lack of well-designed studies. Perhaps most notably, the surgical management of melanoma has been hotly contested for decades.¹ An increasing number of Mohs surgeons advocate the use of MMS for treatment of melanoma. Advocates reason that tumor margins may be ill-defined, necessitating histologic examination of the margin for tumor clearance. In a study by Zitelli et al,² 5-year survival and metastatic rates for 535 patients with melanomas treated by MMS with frozen sections were the same or better when compared to historical controls treated with conventional wide local excision. Melanoma-associated antigen recognized by T cells (MART-1) immunostaining may offer improved diagnostic accuracy.³ Others believe that staged excision with permanent sections processed vertically, en face, or horizontally (“slow Mohs”) is more accurate and efficacious for the treatment of melanoma.¹ Advocates of this approach maintain that when compared to MMS with frozen sections, staged excision with permanent sections enables more accurate interpretation of residual melanoma and atypical junctional melanocytic hyperplasia as well as circumvents difficulty in interpreting freeze artifact.⁴

Although Merkel cell carcinoma has traditionally been treated with wide local excision, MMS with or without adjuvant radiotherapy has gained traction as a treatment option. Advocates for treatment by MMS hold that Merkel cell carcinoma is a contiguous tumor with a high rate of residual tumor persistence, making histologic margin control an ideal characteristic of treatment. However, in the absence of large randomized controlled studies comparing MMS to wide local excision, controversy surrounds the most appropriate surgical approach.¹ In a retrospective study of 86 patients by O’Connor et al,⁵ MMS was demonstrated to compare favorably to standard surgical excision. Standard surgical excision was associated with a 31.7% (13/41) local persistence rate and 48.8% (20/41) regional metastasis rate compared to 8.3% (1/12) and 33.3% (4/12) for MMS, respectively.⁵

Controversies in Increasing Utilization

The incidence of skin cancers has increased in recent years. As a result, it is reasonable to expect the rates of MMS to increase. Nonetheless, there is escalating concern among groups of third-party payers, the public, and physicians that MMS is being overused.⁶ Growth of the body of evidence supporting the appropriateness of MMS remains essential. Such studies continue to support reasons for increased MMS usage, demonstrating the stability of the percentage of skin cancers treated with MMS in the setting of increasing skin cancer incidence, the procedure’s superior efficacy for appropriately chosen cases, its expanding application to melanoma and other tumors, and an emphasis of MMS in residency training programs.^6-9

A current hot topic of controversy focuses on the wide variation among Mohs surgeons in the mean number of stages used to resect a tumor. Overuse among outliers has been proposed to stem from lack of technical expertise or from abuse of the current fee-for-service payment model, which bases compensation on the number of stages performed. A study by Krishnan et al¹⁰ determined that the mean number of stages per tumor in the studied population (all physicians [N=2305] receiving Medicare payments for MMS from January 2012 to December 2014) was 1.74, with a range of 1.09 to 4.11. Persistently high outliers were more likely to perform MMS in a solo practice, with an odds ratio of 2.35.¹⁰ In response to the wide variation in mean stages used to resect a skin cancer and its implications on increased financial burden and surgery to individual patients, intervention has been proposed. Notably, it has been demonstrated that mailing out individual reports of practice patterns to high-outlier physicians resulted in a reduction in mean stages per tumor as well as an associated cost savings when compared to outlier physicians who did not receive these reports.¹¹

Controversies in Reimbursement

Mohs micrographic surgery also has been in the spotlight for debate regarding reimbursement. The procedure has been targeted partly in response to its substantial contribution to total Medicare reimbursements paid out. In 2013, primary MMS billing codes constituted nearly 19% of total reimbursements to dermatologists and approximately 0.5% of total reimbursements to all physicians participating in Medicare.¹² Mohs micrographic surgery codes have correspondingly received frequent review by the Relative Value Scale Update Committee and remained on a list of potentially misvalued services according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for years.¹³ Due to continued scrutiny and review, especially by the Relative Value Scale Update Committee and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, reimbursement to perform MMS and reconstructive surgery has gone down by more than 20% in the last 15 years.¹⁴ Public perception mirrors third-party payer concerns for overcompensation. An article title in the New York Times theatrically postures “Patients’ Costs Skyrocket, Specialists’ Incomes Soar.” The article recounts an MMS patient’s “outrage at charges” associated with treatment of her “minor medical problem” and the simultaneous “sharp climb” in dermatologist income over the last 2 decades.¹⁵

However, studies continue to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of MMS. A study by Ravitskiy et al¹⁶ demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of MMS, regardless of place of service or type of tumor. Of 406 tumors studied, MMS was the least expensive surgical procedure evaluated ($805 per tumor) when compared to standard surgical excision with permanent margins ($1026 per tumor), standard surgical excision with frozen margins ($1200 per tumor), and ambulatory surgery center standard surgical excision ($2507 per tumor). Furthermore, adjusted for inflation, the cost of MMS was lower in 2009 vs 1998.¹⁶ Similar results have been consistently demonstrated.¹⁷

Controversies in the AUC

To provide clinicians, policy makers, and insurers guidance for utilization of MMS in the setting of concerns for overutilization, overcompensation, and inappropriate application, the MMS AUC were established in 2012. The guidelines were developed by a process integrating evidence-based medicine, clinical experience, and expert opinion and is applicable to 270 clinical scenarios.¹⁸

A unique set of debate accompanies the guidelines. Namely, controversy has surrounded the classification of most primary superficial basal cell carcinomas as appropriate for treatment by MMS. These tumors have comparable cure rates when treated by MMS or curettage and cryosurgery, are often multifocal and require more Mohs stages than other basal cell carcinoma subtypes, and largely lack data on recurrence and invasion.¹⁹ The guidelines also have been scrutinized for including only studies from the United States.²⁰ Furthermore, the report is largely based on expert opinion rather than evidence.

Some Mohs surgeons have concerns that the guidelines will minimize clinical judgment. Nonetheless, deviations from the AUC practiced by Mohs surgeons have been reported where clinical judgment supplants guideline criteria. The most commonly cited reasons for performing MMS on tumors classified as uncertain or inappropriate, according to one study by Ruiz et al,²¹ included performing multiple MMSs on the same day, tumor location on the lower legs, and incorporation into an adjacent wound. Reported discrepancies in the AUC further emphasize the importance of clinical judgment and call into question the need for future revision of the criteria.²² For example, a primary squamous cell carcinoma in situ greater than or equal to 2 cm located on the trunk and extremities (excluding pretibial surfaces, hands, feet, nail units, and ankles) in a healthy patient is categorized as appropriate, while a recurrent but otherwise identical squamous cell carcinoma in situ is categorized as uncertain. These counterintuitive criteria are unsupported by existing studies.

Controversies in Subspecialty Certification

Recently, debate also has surfaced regarding subspecialty certification. Over the last decade, proponents of subspecialty certification have argued that board certification would bring consistency and decrease divisiveness among dermatologists; help to prevent exclusion of Mohs surgeons from insurance networks and teaching opportunities at the Veterans Administration; and demonstrate competence to patients, the media, and payers. Those in opposition contest that practices may be restricted by insurers using lack of certification to eliminate dermatologists from their networks, economic credentialing may be applied to dermatologists such that those without the subspecialty certification may not be deemed qualified to manage skin cancer, major limitations may be set determining which dermatologists can sit for the certification examination, and subspecialty certification could create disenfranchisement of many dermatologists. A 2017 American Academy of Dermatology member survey demonstrated ambivalence regarding subcertification, with 51% of respondents pro-subcertification and 48% anti-subcertification.²³

Nonetheless, after years of debate the American Board of Dermatology proposed subspecialty certification in Micrographic Dermatologic Surgery, which was approved by the American Board of Medical Specialties on October 26, 2018. The first certification examination will likely take place in 2 years, and a maintenance of certification examination will be required every 10 years.²⁴

Final Thoughts

Further investigation is needed to elucidate and optimize solutions to many of the current controversies associated with MMS.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Changes in the accounting for polypharmacy in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ star rating system are on their way, and managed care organizations should start preparing now for the shift.

Panelists at an Oct. 30 session at the annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy presented strategies for addressing the three areas of polypharmacy that will be tracked in the new rating system, which will replace the current high-risk medication measurement that is being retired this year.

Anticholinergic medications

The first area presented by the panelists was polypharmacy use of multiple anticholinergic medications in older adults (Poly-ACH). The new quality measure will examine the percentage of members aged 65 years or older who are using two or more anticholinergic medications concurrently.

“We know that anticholinergic burden increases the risk of cognitive decline in particular, but it’s also associated with a higher risk of falls, an increased number of hospitalizations, and [diminished] physical function,” said Marti Groeneweg, PharmD, supervisor of clinical pharmacy services at Kaiser Permanente.

Dr. Groeneweg noted that, in addition to using multiple drugs in this class, patients can also benefit from a decrease in the dosage of their drugs, so that should also be considered in managing the medication of beneficiaries.

She highlighted a program Kaiser Permanente started in the Northwest United States to reduce the concurrent use of these drugs. The program targeted tricyclic antidepressants – nortriptyline, in particular.

The company instituted a multipronged approach that included provider detailing of the risks of using multiple drugs and how they could taper schedules, as well as providing them with other supporting resources and a list of safer, alternative drugs. It also reached out to patients to educate them about the risks of their medications and why it was important for them to taper their medications. The third part of the approach was to use the EHR to provide doctors with the best-available information at the point of prescribing. And finally, there was a pharmacist review process put in place for more complex cases.

Dr. Groeneweg emphasized that this information was incorporated into existing programs.

The intervention, which is fairly new, has not been in place long enough to know exactly how well it is working, but early indicators suggest “we are on the right track,” she said, noting that to date there has been a decrease of 28% in the number of tricyclic antidepressant prescriptions per 1,000 Medicare members per month.
 

CNS medications

The second area the panelists addressed was the polypharmacy use of multiple CNS-active medications in older adults (Poly-CNS).

Rainelle Gaddy, PharmD, Rx clinical programs pharmacy lead at Humana Pharmacy Solutions, , noted that the clinical rationale for this measure was the “increased risk of falls and fractures when these medications are taken concurrently.”

She pointed out that taking one or more of the CNS medications can result in a 1.5-fold increase in the risk for falls, and that risk increases to 2.5-fold if two or more drugs are taken. In addition, a high-dose of these medications can lead to a threefold increase in risk of recurrent falls.

Dr. Gaddy highlighted a number of interventions that could be implemented when the managed care organization is not integrated in the way Kaiser Permanente is.

“Pharmacists can pay a pivotal role [in helping] patients who are receiving these Poly-CNS medications because they are able to interact and talk through the actual patient picture for all their medications ... because pharmacists have always been seen as being a trusted source,” she said.

Dr. Gaddy added that health plans can take a more direct role in reaching out to patients, for example, through telephone outreach, as well as direct mail, email, and newsletters.

“We want to make sure that members have as much information as possible,” she said.

She added that it is very important to include physicians and other prescribers in this process through faxes and information included in EHRs.


 

Opioids and benzodiazepines

The final measure highlighted during the session was the one measuring the concurrent use of opioids and benzodiazepines.

Dr. Gaddy noted that taking the two concurrently is associated with a fourfold increase in risk of opioid overdose and death, compared with opioid use without a benzodiazepine.

She noted that a black box warning on the risks of concurrent use was added to both opioids and benzodiazepines in August 2016 and that resulted in a 10% decrease in the concurrent use.

“This new measure is intended to ensure that the downward trend continues. CMS has indicated as such,” Dr. Gaddy said.

Most of the intervention strategies she highlighted were similar to those for the Poly-CNS category, including the use of medication therapy management programs and targeted interventions, telephone outreach to members, and provider detailing and outreach.

“Provider detailing is really key,” Dr. Gaddy said. “On any given day, it’s so easy for physicians to see 30 patients. The great thing about the provider detailing is that you are able to give the provider a ‘packet’ of their members, you can identify and/or aid in showing them the risk assessment associated with members taking these medications, and then equip them with pocket guides and [materials so they can] streamline the medications.”

[email protected]

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Changes in the accounting for polypharmacy in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ star rating system are on their way, and managed care organizations should start preparing now for the shift.

Panelists at an Oct. 30 session at the annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy presented strategies for addressing the three areas of polypharmacy that will be tracked in the new rating system, which will replace the current high-risk medication measurement that is being retired this year.

Anticholinergic medications

The first area presented by the panelists was polypharmacy use of multiple anticholinergic medications in older adults (Poly-ACH). The new quality measure will examine the percentage of members aged 65 years or older who are using two or more anticholinergic medications concurrently.

“We know that anticholinergic burden increases the risk of cognitive decline in particular, but it’s also associated with a higher risk of falls, an increased number of hospitalizations, and [diminished] physical function,” said Marti Groeneweg, PharmD, supervisor of clinical pharmacy services at Kaiser Permanente.

Dr. Groeneweg noted that, in addition to using multiple drugs in this class, patients can also benefit from a decrease in the dosage of their drugs, so that should also be considered in managing the medication of beneficiaries.

She highlighted a program Kaiser Permanente started in the Northwest United States to reduce the concurrent use of these drugs. The program targeted tricyclic antidepressants – nortriptyline, in particular.

The company instituted a multipronged approach that included provider detailing of the risks of using multiple drugs and how they could taper schedules, as well as providing them with other supporting resources and a list of safer, alternative drugs. It also reached out to patients to educate them about the risks of their medications and why it was important for them to taper their medications. The third part of the approach was to use the EHR to provide doctors with the best-available information at the point of prescribing. And finally, there was a pharmacist review process put in place for more complex cases.

Dr. Groeneweg emphasized that this information was incorporated into existing programs.

The intervention, which is fairly new, has not been in place long enough to know exactly how well it is working, but early indicators suggest “we are on the right track,” she said, noting that to date there has been a decrease of 28% in the number of tricyclic antidepressant prescriptions per 1,000 Medicare members per month.
 

CNS medications

The second area the panelists addressed was the polypharmacy use of multiple CNS-active medications in older adults (Poly-CNS).

Rainelle Gaddy, PharmD, Rx clinical programs pharmacy lead at Humana Pharmacy Solutions, , noted that the clinical rationale for this measure was the “increased risk of falls and fractures when these medications are taken concurrently.”

She pointed out that taking one or more of the CNS medications can result in a 1.5-fold increase in the risk for falls, and that risk increases to 2.5-fold if two or more drugs are taken. In addition, a high-dose of these medications can lead to a threefold increase in risk of recurrent falls.

Dr. Gaddy highlighted a number of interventions that could be implemented when the managed care organization is not integrated in the way Kaiser Permanente is.

“Pharmacists can pay a pivotal role [in helping] patients who are receiving these Poly-CNS medications because they are able to interact and talk through the actual patient picture for all their medications ... because pharmacists have always been seen as being a trusted source,” she said.

Dr. Gaddy added that health plans can take a more direct role in reaching out to patients, for example, through telephone outreach, as well as direct mail, email, and newsletters.

“We want to make sure that members have as much information as possible,” she said.

She added that it is very important to include physicians and other prescribers in this process through faxes and information included in EHRs.


 

Opioids and benzodiazepines

The final measure highlighted during the session was the one measuring the concurrent use of opioids and benzodiazepines.

Dr. Gaddy noted that taking the two concurrently is associated with a fourfold increase in risk of opioid overdose and death, compared with opioid use without a benzodiazepine.

She noted that a black box warning on the risks of concurrent use was added to both opioids and benzodiazepines in August 2016 and that resulted in a 10% decrease in the concurrent use.

“This new measure is intended to ensure that the downward trend continues. CMS has indicated as such,” Dr. Gaddy said.

Most of the intervention strategies she highlighted were similar to those for the Poly-CNS category, including the use of medication therapy management programs and targeted interventions, telephone outreach to members, and provider detailing and outreach.

“Provider detailing is really key,” Dr. Gaddy said. “On any given day, it’s so easy for physicians to see 30 patients. The great thing about the provider detailing is that you are able to give the provider a ‘packet’ of their members, you can identify and/or aid in showing them the risk assessment associated with members taking these medications, and then equip them with pocket guides and [materials so they can] streamline the medications.”

[email protected]

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Changes in the accounting for polypharmacy in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ star rating system are on their way, and managed care organizations should start preparing now for the shift.

Panelists at an Oct. 30 session at the annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy presented strategies for addressing the three areas of polypharmacy that will be tracked in the new rating system, which will replace the current high-risk medication measurement that is being retired this year.

Anticholinergic medications

The first area presented by the panelists was polypharmacy use of multiple anticholinergic medications in older adults (Poly-ACH). The new quality measure will examine the percentage of members aged 65 years or older who are using two or more anticholinergic medications concurrently.

“We know that anticholinergic burden increases the risk of cognitive decline in particular, but it’s also associated with a higher risk of falls, an increased number of hospitalizations, and [diminished] physical function,” said Marti Groeneweg, PharmD, supervisor of clinical pharmacy services at Kaiser Permanente.

Dr. Groeneweg noted that, in addition to using multiple drugs in this class, patients can also benefit from a decrease in the dosage of their drugs, so that should also be considered in managing the medication of beneficiaries.

She highlighted a program Kaiser Permanente started in the Northwest United States to reduce the concurrent use of these drugs. The program targeted tricyclic antidepressants – nortriptyline, in particular.

The company instituted a multipronged approach that included provider detailing of the risks of using multiple drugs and how they could taper schedules, as well as providing them with other supporting resources and a list of safer, alternative drugs. It also reached out to patients to educate them about the risks of their medications and why it was important for them to taper their medications. The third part of the approach was to use the EHR to provide doctors with the best-available information at the point of prescribing. And finally, there was a pharmacist review process put in place for more complex cases.

Dr. Groeneweg emphasized that this information was incorporated into existing programs.

The intervention, which is fairly new, has not been in place long enough to know exactly how well it is working, but early indicators suggest “we are on the right track,” she said, noting that to date there has been a decrease of 28% in the number of tricyclic antidepressant prescriptions per 1,000 Medicare members per month.
 

CNS medications

The second area the panelists addressed was the polypharmacy use of multiple CNS-active medications in older adults (Poly-CNS).

Rainelle Gaddy, PharmD, Rx clinical programs pharmacy lead at Humana Pharmacy Solutions, , noted that the clinical rationale for this measure was the “increased risk of falls and fractures when these medications are taken concurrently.”

She pointed out that taking one or more of the CNS medications can result in a 1.5-fold increase in the risk for falls, and that risk increases to 2.5-fold if two or more drugs are taken. In addition, a high-dose of these medications can lead to a threefold increase in risk of recurrent falls.

Dr. Gaddy highlighted a number of interventions that could be implemented when the managed care organization is not integrated in the way Kaiser Permanente is.

“Pharmacists can pay a pivotal role [in helping] patients who are receiving these Poly-CNS medications because they are able to interact and talk through the actual patient picture for all their medications ... because pharmacists have always been seen as being a trusted source,” she said.

Dr. Gaddy added that health plans can take a more direct role in reaching out to patients, for example, through telephone outreach, as well as direct mail, email, and newsletters.

“We want to make sure that members have as much information as possible,” she said.

She added that it is very important to include physicians and other prescribers in this process through faxes and information included in EHRs.


 

Opioids and benzodiazepines

The final measure highlighted during the session was the one measuring the concurrent use of opioids and benzodiazepines.

Dr. Gaddy noted that taking the two concurrently is associated with a fourfold increase in risk of opioid overdose and death, compared with opioid use without a benzodiazepine.

She noted that a black box warning on the risks of concurrent use was added to both opioids and benzodiazepines in August 2016 and that resulted in a 10% decrease in the concurrent use.

“This new measure is intended to ensure that the downward trend continues. CMS has indicated as such,” Dr. Gaddy said.

Most of the intervention strategies she highlighted were similar to those for the Poly-CNS category, including the use of medication therapy management programs and targeted interventions, telephone outreach to members, and provider detailing and outreach.

“Provider detailing is really key,” Dr. Gaddy said. “On any given day, it’s so easy for physicians to see 30 patients. The great thing about the provider detailing is that you are able to give the provider a ‘packet’ of their members, you can identify and/or aid in showing them the risk assessment associated with members taking these medications, and then equip them with pocket guides and [materials so they can] streamline the medications.”

[email protected]

Vaping-associated lung injury cases have now reached 1,888, according to the latest update provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Thirty-seven deaths have been confirmed.

Deaths have occurred in 24 states and the District of Columbia: Alabama, California (3), Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia (3), Illinois (2), Indiana (3), Kansas (2), Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota (3), Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon (2), Pennsylvania, Tennessee (2), Texas, Utah, and Virginia. As on Oct. 28, the median age of deceased patients was 49 years and ranged from 17 to 75 years.

The CDC is now doing additional testing on available samples for chemical in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, blood, or urine, as well as lung biopsy or autopsy specimens. It also is validating methods for aerosol emission testing of case-associated product samples from vaping products and e-liquids.

For more information and resources visit For the Public, For Healthcare Providers, and For State and Local Health Departments pages, as well as the CDC’s Publications and Resources page.

[email protected]

Vaping-associated lung injury cases have now reached 1,888, according to the latest update provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Thirty-seven deaths have been confirmed.

Deaths have occurred in 24 states and the District of Columbia: Alabama, California (3), Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia (3), Illinois (2), Indiana (3), Kansas (2), Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota (3), Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon (2), Pennsylvania, Tennessee (2), Texas, Utah, and Virginia. As on Oct. 28, the median age of deceased patients was 49 years and ranged from 17 to 75 years.

The CDC is now doing additional testing on available samples for chemical in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, blood, or urine, as well as lung biopsy or autopsy specimens. It also is validating methods for aerosol emission testing of case-associated product samples from vaping products and e-liquids.

For more information and resources visit For the Public, For Healthcare Providers, and For State and Local Health Departments pages, as well as the CDC’s Publications and Resources page.

[email protected]

Vaping-associated lung injury cases have now reached 1,888, according to the latest update provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Thirty-seven deaths have been confirmed.

Deaths have occurred in 24 states and the District of Columbia: Alabama, California (3), Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia (3), Illinois (2), Indiana (3), Kansas (2), Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota (3), Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon (2), Pennsylvania, Tennessee (2), Texas, Utah, and Virginia. As on Oct. 28, the median age of deceased patients was 49 years and ranged from 17 to 75 years.

The CDC is now doing additional testing on available samples for chemical in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, blood, or urine, as well as lung biopsy or autopsy specimens. It also is validating methods for aerosol emission testing of case-associated product samples from vaping products and e-liquids.

For more information and resources visit For the Public, For Healthcare Providers, and For State and Local Health Departments pages, as well as the CDC’s Publications and Resources page.

[email protected]

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Synchronizing medication refills resulted in higher adherence, fewer hospitalizations, and lower health care costs in a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

Investigators with Pharmacy Quality Alliance (PQA) used data from Truven MarketScan Research Databases to conduct a retrospective cohort study of more than 20,000 patients eligible for inclusion in PQA’s diabetes medication adherence measure. To be included, patients needed to have two or more prescriptions for diabetes medications (excluding insulin), statins, or renin-angiotensin system antagonists. About 80% of patients were commercially insured and 20% came from Medicare supplement insurance (Medigap) plans.

Commercially insured patients whose medication refills were synchronized had better medication adherence than did matched controls (67.7% vs. 57.4%) and lower median health care expenditures ($3,687 vs. $7,480).

The same was true for patients with Medicare supplemental insurance. Synchronized patients in this group also had better medication adherence than controls, at 86.5% vs. 70.4% and lower median health care expenditures ($7,353 vs. $10,592).

Based on their findings in diabetes patients, “I think we should synchronize refills,” Matthew K. Pickering, PharmD, senior director of research and quality strategies at PQA, said. “However, there are populations that were not represented in this, like COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]. That’s another high-comorbidity, high-cost population that should be studied.”

Session moderator Laura Happe, PharmD, editor in chief of the Journal of Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy, questioned Dr. Pickering about the barriers to medication synchronization.

In previous research, “we discovered that some patients were resistant to synchronizing their medication refills because of the copays – having all of their copays at one time, rather than spreading them out over the month,” Dr. Happe said.

“Certainly, patients may not be able to afford all their copays at one time, so that can be a barrier,” Dr. Pickering said. “With medication synchronization programs, there’s a lot of variation across the board. Patients can choose which medication to synchronize in some programs. Others only synchronize the three-star medication, etc. But there are real barriers and they should be explored.”

Pharmacy Quality Alliance is a nonprofit public-private partnership that develops pharmacy quality measures in collaboration with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Dr. Pickering disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Synchronizing medication refills resulted in higher adherence, fewer hospitalizations, and lower health care costs in a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

Investigators with Pharmacy Quality Alliance (PQA) used data from Truven MarketScan Research Databases to conduct a retrospective cohort study of more than 20,000 patients eligible for inclusion in PQA’s diabetes medication adherence measure. To be included, patients needed to have two or more prescriptions for diabetes medications (excluding insulin), statins, or renin-angiotensin system antagonists. About 80% of patients were commercially insured and 20% came from Medicare supplement insurance (Medigap) plans.

Commercially insured patients whose medication refills were synchronized had better medication adherence than did matched controls (67.7% vs. 57.4%) and lower median health care expenditures ($3,687 vs. $7,480).

The same was true for patients with Medicare supplemental insurance. Synchronized patients in this group also had better medication adherence than controls, at 86.5% vs. 70.4% and lower median health care expenditures ($7,353 vs. $10,592).

Based on their findings in diabetes patients, “I think we should synchronize refills,” Matthew K. Pickering, PharmD, senior director of research and quality strategies at PQA, said. “However, there are populations that were not represented in this, like COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]. That’s another high-comorbidity, high-cost population that should be studied.”

Session moderator Laura Happe, PharmD, editor in chief of the Journal of Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy, questioned Dr. Pickering about the barriers to medication synchronization.

In previous research, “we discovered that some patients were resistant to synchronizing their medication refills because of the copays – having all of their copays at one time, rather than spreading them out over the month,” Dr. Happe said.

“Certainly, patients may not be able to afford all their copays at one time, so that can be a barrier,” Dr. Pickering said. “With medication synchronization programs, there’s a lot of variation across the board. Patients can choose which medication to synchronize in some programs. Others only synchronize the three-star medication, etc. But there are real barriers and they should be explored.”

Pharmacy Quality Alliance is a nonprofit public-private partnership that develops pharmacy quality measures in collaboration with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Dr. Pickering disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Synchronizing medication refills resulted in higher adherence, fewer hospitalizations, and lower health care costs in a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

Investigators with Pharmacy Quality Alliance (PQA) used data from Truven MarketScan Research Databases to conduct a retrospective cohort study of more than 20,000 patients eligible for inclusion in PQA’s diabetes medication adherence measure. To be included, patients needed to have two or more prescriptions for diabetes medications (excluding insulin), statins, or renin-angiotensin system antagonists. About 80% of patients were commercially insured and 20% came from Medicare supplement insurance (Medigap) plans.

Commercially insured patients whose medication refills were synchronized had better medication adherence than did matched controls (67.7% vs. 57.4%) and lower median health care expenditures ($3,687 vs. $7,480).

The same was true for patients with Medicare supplemental insurance. Synchronized patients in this group also had better medication adherence than controls, at 86.5% vs. 70.4% and lower median health care expenditures ($7,353 vs. $10,592).

Based on their findings in diabetes patients, “I think we should synchronize refills,” Matthew K. Pickering, PharmD, senior director of research and quality strategies at PQA, said. “However, there are populations that were not represented in this, like COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]. That’s another high-comorbidity, high-cost population that should be studied.”

Session moderator Laura Happe, PharmD, editor in chief of the Journal of Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy, questioned Dr. Pickering about the barriers to medication synchronization.

In previous research, “we discovered that some patients were resistant to synchronizing their medication refills because of the copays – having all of their copays at one time, rather than spreading them out over the month,” Dr. Happe said.

“Certainly, patients may not be able to afford all their copays at one time, so that can be a barrier,” Dr. Pickering said. “With medication synchronization programs, there’s a lot of variation across the board. Patients can choose which medication to synchronize in some programs. Others only synchronize the three-star medication, etc. But there are real barriers and they should be explored.”

Pharmacy Quality Alliance is a nonprofit public-private partnership that develops pharmacy quality measures in collaboration with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Dr. Pickering disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

Through the years, the surgical approach to hysterectomy has expanded from its early beginnings of being performed only through an abdominal or transvaginal route with traditional surgical clamps and suture. The late 1980s saw the advent of the laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH), and from that point forward several additional hysterectomy methods evolved, including today’s robotic approaches.

Although clinical evidence and societal endorsements support vaginal hysterectomy as a superior high-value modality, it remains one of the least performed among all available routes.^1-3 In an analysis of inpatient hysterectomies published by Wright and colleagues in 2013, 16.7% of hysterectomies were performed vaginally, a number that essentially has remained steady throughout the ensuing years.⁴

Attempts to improve the application of vaginal hysterectomy have been made.⁵ These include the development of various curriculum and simulation-based medical education programs on vaginal surgical skills training and acquisition in the hopes of improving utilization.⁶ An interesting recent development is the rethinking of vaginal hysterectomy by several surgeons globally who are applying facets of the various hysterectomy methods to a transvaginal approach known as vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES).^7,8 Unique to this thinking is the incorporation of conventional laparoscopic instrumentation.

Although I have not yet incorporated this approach in my surgical armamentarium at Columbia University Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital, I am intrigued by the possibility that this technique may serve as a rescue for vaginal hysterectomies that are at risk of conversion or of not being performed at all.⁹

At this time, vNOTES is not a standard of care and should be performed only by highly specialized surgeons. However, in the spirit of this Update on minimally invasive surgery and to keep our readers abreast of burgeoning techniques, I am delighted to bring you this overview by Dr. Xiaoming Guan, one of the pioneers of this surgical approach, and Dr. Tamisa Koythong and Dr. Juan Liu. I hope you find this recent development in hysterectomy of interest.

—Arnold P. Advincula, MD

Continue to: Development and evolution of NOTES...

Development and evolution of NOTES 

Over the past few decades, emphasis has shifted from laparotomy to minimally invasive surgery because of its proven significant advantages in patient care, such as improved cosmesis, shorter hospital stay, shorter postoperative recovery, and decreased postoperative pain and blood loss.¹⁰  Advances in laparoendoscopic surgery and instrumentation, including robot-assisted laparoscopy (RAL), single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), and most recently natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), reflect ongoing innovative developments in the field of minimally invasive surgery. 

Here, we provide a brief literature review of the NOTES technique, focus on its application in gynecologic surgery, and describe how we perform NOTES at our institution. 

NOTES application in gynecology 

With NOTES, peritoneal access is gained through a natural orifice (such as the mouth, vagina, urethra, or anus) to perform endoscopic surgery, occasionally without requiring an abdominal incision. First described in 2004, transgastric peritoneoscopy was performed in a porcine model, and shortly thereafter the first transgastric appendectomy was performed in humans.^11,12 The technique has further been adopted in cholecystectomy, appendectomy, gastrectomy, and nephrectomy procedures.¹³ 

Given rapid interest in a possible paradigm shift in the field of minimally invasive surgery, the Natural Orifice Surgery Consortiumfor Assessment and Research (NOSCAR) was formed, and the group published an article on potential barriers to accepted practice and adoption of NOTES as a realistic alternative to traditional laparoscopic surgery.¹⁴ 

While transgastric and transanal access to the peritoneum were initially more popular, the risk of anastomotic leaks associated with incomplete closure and subsequent infection were thought to be prohibitively high.¹⁵ Transvaginal access was considered a safer and simpler alternative, allowing for complete closure without increased risk of infection, and this is now the route through which the majority of NOTES procedures are completed.^16,17 

The eventual application of NOTES in the field of gynecology seemed inevitable. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated that transvaginal surgery is the most minimally invasive and preferred surgical route in the management of patients with benign gynecologic diseases.¹⁸ However, performing it can be challenging at times due to limited visualization and lack of the required skills for single-site surgery. NOTES allows a gynecologic surgeon to improve visualization through the use of laparoendoscopic instruments and to complete surgery through a transvaginal route. 

In 2012, Ahn and colleagues demonstrated the feasibility of the NOTES technique in gynecologic surgery after using it to successfully complete benign adnexal surgery in 10 patients.¹⁹ Vaginal NOTES (vNOTES) has since been further developed to include successful hysterectomy, myomectomy, sacrocolpopexy, tubal anastomosis, and even lymphadenectomy in the treatment of early- stage endometrial carcinoma.^20-26 vNOTES also can be considered a rescue approach for traditional vaginal hysterectomy in instances in which it is necessary to evaluate adnexal pathology.⁹ Most recently, vNOTES hysterectomy has been reported with da Vinci Si or Xi robotic platforms.^27,28 

Continue to: Operative time, post-op stay shorter in NAOC-treated patients...

Few studies have compared outcomes with vNOTES to those with traditional laparoscopy. In 2016, Wang and colleagues compared surgical outcomes between NOTES-assisted ovarian cystectomy (NAOC) and laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy (LOC) in a case-matched study that included 277 patients.²⁹ Although mean (SD) blood loss in patients who underwent LOC was significantly less compared with those who underwent NAOC (21.4 [14.7] mL vs 31.6 [24.1] mL; P = .028), absolute blood loss in both groups was deemed minimal. Additionally, mean (SD) operative time and postoperative stay were significantly less in patients undergoing NAOC compared with those having LOC (38.23 [10.19] minutes vs 53.82 [18.61] minutes; P≤.001; and 1.38 [0.55] days vs 1.82 [0.52] days; P≤.001; respectively).²⁹ 

How vNOTES hysterectomy stacked up against TLH 

In 2018, Baekelandt and colleagues compared outcomes between vNOTES hysterectomy and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) in a noninferiority single-blinded trial of 70 women.⁸ Compared with TLH, vNOTES hysterectomy was associated with shorter operative time (41 vs 75 minutes; P<.001), shorter hospital stay (0.8 vs 1.3 days; P = .004), and lower postoperative analgesic requirement (8 vs 14 U; P = .006). Additionally, there were no differences between the 2 groups in postoperative infection rate, intraoperative complications, or hospital readmissions within 6 weeks.⁸

Approach for performing vNOTES procedures 

At our institution, Baylor College of Medicine, the majority of gynecologic surgeries are performed via either transumbilical robot-assisted single-incision laparoscopy or vNOTES. Preoperative selection of appropriate candidates for vNOTES includes: 

• low suspicion for or prior diagnosis of endometriosis with obliteration of the posterior cul-de-sac 
• no surgical history suggestive of severe adhesive disease, and 
• adequate vaginal sidewall access and sufficient descent for instrumentation for entry into the peritoneal cavity. 

In general, a key concept in vNOTES is "vaginal pull, laparoscopic push," which means that the surgeon must pull the cervix while performing vaginal entry and then push the uterus back in the peritoneal cavity to increase surgical space during laparoscopic surgery. 

Continue to: Overview of vNOTES steps...

Below we break down a description of vNOTES in 6 sections. Our patients are always placed in dorsal lithotomy position with TrenGuard (D.A. Surgical) Trendelenburg restraint. We prep the abdomen in case we need to convert to transabdominal surgery via transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic surgery or traditional laparoscopic surgery. 

1. Vaginal entry 

Accessing the peritoneal cavity through the vagina initially proceeds like a vaginal hysterectomy. We inject dilute vasopressin (20 U in 20 mL of normal saline) circumferentially in the cervix (for hysterectomy) or in the posterior cervix in the cervicovaginal junction (for adnexal surgery without hysterectomy) for vasoconstriction and hydrodissection. 

We then incise the vaginal mucosa circumferentially with electrosurgical cautery and follow with posterior colpotomy. We find that reapproximating the posterior peritoneum to the posterior vagina with either figure-of-8 stitches or a running stitch of polyglactin 910 suture (2-0 Vicryl) assists in port placement, bleeding at the peritoneal edge, and closure of the cuff or colpotomy at the end of the case. We tag this suture with a curved hemostat. 

Depending on whether a hysterectomy is being performed, anterior colpotomy is made. Again, the anterior peritoneum is then tagged to the anterior vaginal cuff in similar fashion, and this suture is tagged with a different instrument; we typically use a straight hemostat or Sarot clamp (FIGURE 1). 

2. Traditional vaginal hysterectomy 

After colpotomy, we prefer to perform progressive clamping of the broad ligament from the uterosacral and cardinal ligaments to the level of uterine artery as in traditional vaginal hysterectomy, if feasible. 

3. Single-site port placement 

The assembled GelPOINT Mini advanced access platform (Applied Medical) (FIGURE 2) is introduced through the vagina after the Alexis wound protector (included with the kit) is first placed through the colpotomy with assistance of Babcock clamps (FIGURE 3). 

After ensuring that the green rigid ring of the Alexis wound protector is contained and completely expanded within the peritoneal cavity, we cross our previously tagged sutures as we find this helps with preventing the GelPOINT Mini access platform from inadvertently shifting out of the peritoneal cavity during surgery. The GelSeal cap is then secured and pneumoperitoneum is established (FIGURE 4). 

Continue to: 4. Laparoendoscopic surgery...

Instruments used in our surgeries include a 10-mm rigid 30° 43-cm working length laparoscope; a 44-cm LigaSure device (Medtronic); a 5-mm, 37-cm laparoscopic cobra grasping forceps and fenestrated grasper (Karl Storz); and a 5-mm, 45-cm laparoscopic suction with hydrodissection tip (Stryker) (FIGURE 5). 

vNOTES allows a gynecologic surgeon the unique ability to survey the upper abdomen. The remainder of the surgery proceeds using basic laparoscopic single-site skills. 

During vNOTES, as with all single-site surgical procedures, understanding the optimal placement of crossed instruments is important for successful completion. For example, when securing the right uterine artery, the surgeon needs to push the cervix toward the patient's left and slightly into the peritoneal cavity using a laparoscopic cobra grasper with his or her left hand while then securing the uterine pedicle using the LigaSure device with his or her right hand. This is then reversed when securing the left uterine artery, where the assistant surgeon pushes the cervix toward the patient's right while the surgeon secures the pedicle ("vaginal pull, laparoscopic push") (FIGURE 6). 

This again is reiterated in securing the ovarian pedicles, which are pushed into the peritoneal cavity while being secured with the LigaSure device. 

5. Specimen removal 

For large uteri or specimens that need morcellation, a 15-mm Endo Catch specimen retrieval bag (Medtronic) is introduced through the GelPOINT Mini system. The specimen is then placed in the bag and delivered to the vagina, where contained bag morcellation is performed in standard fashion (FIGURES 7 AND 8). We utilized the "big C" technique by first grasping the specimen with a penetrating clamp. The clamp is then held in our nondominant hand and a No. 10 blade scalpel is used to create a reverse c-incision, keeping one surface of the specimen intact. This is continued until the specimen can be completely delivered through the vagina. 

Specimens that do not require morcellation can be grasped laparoscopically, brought to the GelPOINT Mini port, which is quickly disassembled, and delivered. The GelSeal cap is then reassembled. 

6. Vaginal cuff closure 

The colpotomy or vaginal cuff is closed with barbed suture continuously, as in traditional vaginal hysterectomy cuff closure. Uterosacral ligament suspension should be performed for vaginal cuff support.  
 

Through the years, the surgical approach to hysterectomy has expanded from its early beginnings of being performed only through an abdominal or transvaginal route with traditional surgical clamps and suture. The late 1980s saw the advent of the laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH), and from that point forward several additional hysterectomy methods evolved, including today’s robotic approaches.

Although clinical evidence and societal endorsements support vaginal hysterectomy as a superior high-value modality, it remains one of the least performed among all available routes.^1-3 In an analysis of inpatient hysterectomies published by Wright and colleagues in 2013, 16.7% of hysterectomies were performed vaginally, a number that essentially has remained steady throughout the ensuing years.⁴

Attempts to improve the application of vaginal hysterectomy have been made.⁵ These include the development of various curriculum and simulation-based medical education programs on vaginal surgical skills training and acquisition in the hopes of improving utilization.⁶ An interesting recent development is the rethinking of vaginal hysterectomy by several surgeons globally who are applying facets of the various hysterectomy methods to a transvaginal approach known as vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES).^7,8 Unique to this thinking is the incorporation of conventional laparoscopic instrumentation.

Although I have not yet incorporated this approach in my surgical armamentarium at Columbia University Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital, I am intrigued by the possibility that this technique may serve as a rescue for vaginal hysterectomies that are at risk of conversion or of not being performed at all.⁹

At this time, vNOTES is not a standard of care and should be performed only by highly specialized surgeons. However, in the spirit of this Update on minimally invasive surgery and to keep our readers abreast of burgeoning techniques, I am delighted to bring you this overview by Dr. Xiaoming Guan, one of the pioneers of this surgical approach, and Dr. Tamisa Koythong and Dr. Juan Liu. I hope you find this recent development in hysterectomy of interest.

—Arnold P. Advincula, MD

Continue to: Development and evolution of NOTES...

Development and evolution of NOTES 

Over the past few decades, emphasis has shifted from laparotomy to minimally invasive surgery because of its proven significant advantages in patient care, such as improved cosmesis, shorter hospital stay, shorter postoperative recovery, and decreased postoperative pain and blood loss.¹⁰  Advances in laparoendoscopic surgery and instrumentation, including robot-assisted laparoscopy (RAL), single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), and most recently natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), reflect ongoing innovative developments in the field of minimally invasive surgery. 

Here, we provide a brief literature review of the NOTES technique, focus on its application in gynecologic surgery, and describe how we perform NOTES at our institution. 

NOTES application in gynecology 

With NOTES, peritoneal access is gained through a natural orifice (such as the mouth, vagina, urethra, or anus) to perform endoscopic surgery, occasionally without requiring an abdominal incision. First described in 2004, transgastric peritoneoscopy was performed in a porcine model, and shortly thereafter the first transgastric appendectomy was performed in humans.^11,12 The technique has further been adopted in cholecystectomy, appendectomy, gastrectomy, and nephrectomy procedures.¹³ 

Given rapid interest in a possible paradigm shift in the field of minimally invasive surgery, the Natural Orifice Surgery Consortiumfor Assessment and Research (NOSCAR) was formed, and the group published an article on potential barriers to accepted practice and adoption of NOTES as a realistic alternative to traditional laparoscopic surgery.¹⁴ 

While transgastric and transanal access to the peritoneum were initially more popular, the risk of anastomotic leaks associated with incomplete closure and subsequent infection were thought to be prohibitively high.¹⁵ Transvaginal access was considered a safer and simpler alternative, allowing for complete closure without increased risk of infection, and this is now the route through which the majority of NOTES procedures are completed.^16,17 

The eventual application of NOTES in the field of gynecology seemed inevitable. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated that transvaginal surgery is the most minimally invasive and preferred surgical route in the management of patients with benign gynecologic diseases.¹⁸ However, performing it can be challenging at times due to limited visualization and lack of the required skills for single-site surgery. NOTES allows a gynecologic surgeon to improve visualization through the use of laparoendoscopic instruments and to complete surgery through a transvaginal route. 

In 2012, Ahn and colleagues demonstrated the feasibility of the NOTES technique in gynecologic surgery after using it to successfully complete benign adnexal surgery in 10 patients.¹⁹ Vaginal NOTES (vNOTES) has since been further developed to include successful hysterectomy, myomectomy, sacrocolpopexy, tubal anastomosis, and even lymphadenectomy in the treatment of early- stage endometrial carcinoma.^20-26 vNOTES also can be considered a rescue approach for traditional vaginal hysterectomy in instances in which it is necessary to evaluate adnexal pathology.⁹ Most recently, vNOTES hysterectomy has been reported with da Vinci Si or Xi robotic platforms.^27,28 

Continue to: Operative time, post-op stay shorter in NAOC-treated patients...

Few studies have compared outcomes with vNOTES to those with traditional laparoscopy. In 2016, Wang and colleagues compared surgical outcomes between NOTES-assisted ovarian cystectomy (NAOC) and laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy (LOC) in a case-matched study that included 277 patients.²⁹ Although mean (SD) blood loss in patients who underwent LOC was significantly less compared with those who underwent NAOC (21.4 [14.7] mL vs 31.6 [24.1] mL; P = .028), absolute blood loss in both groups was deemed minimal. Additionally, mean (SD) operative time and postoperative stay were significantly less in patients undergoing NAOC compared with those having LOC (38.23 [10.19] minutes vs 53.82 [18.61] minutes; P≤.001; and 1.38 [0.55] days vs 1.82 [0.52] days; P≤.001; respectively).²⁹ 

How vNOTES hysterectomy stacked up against TLH 

In 2018, Baekelandt and colleagues compared outcomes between vNOTES hysterectomy and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) in a noninferiority single-blinded trial of 70 women.⁸ Compared with TLH, vNOTES hysterectomy was associated with shorter operative time (41 vs 75 minutes; P<.001), shorter hospital stay (0.8 vs 1.3 days; P = .004), and lower postoperative analgesic requirement (8 vs 14 U; P = .006). Additionally, there were no differences between the 2 groups in postoperative infection rate, intraoperative complications, or hospital readmissions within 6 weeks.⁸

Approach for performing vNOTES procedures 

At our institution, Baylor College of Medicine, the majority of gynecologic surgeries are performed via either transumbilical robot-assisted single-incision laparoscopy or vNOTES. Preoperative selection of appropriate candidates for vNOTES includes: 

• low suspicion for or prior diagnosis of endometriosis with obliteration of the posterior cul-de-sac 
• no surgical history suggestive of severe adhesive disease, and 
• adequate vaginal sidewall access and sufficient descent for instrumentation for entry into the peritoneal cavity. 

In general, a key concept in vNOTES is "vaginal pull, laparoscopic push," which means that the surgeon must pull the cervix while performing vaginal entry and then push the uterus back in the peritoneal cavity to increase surgical space during laparoscopic surgery. 

Continue to: Overview of vNOTES steps...

Below we break down a description of vNOTES in 6 sections. Our patients are always placed in dorsal lithotomy position with TrenGuard (D.A. Surgical) Trendelenburg restraint. We prep the abdomen in case we need to convert to transabdominal surgery via transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic surgery or traditional laparoscopic surgery. 

1. Vaginal entry 

Accessing the peritoneal cavity through the vagina initially proceeds like a vaginal hysterectomy. We inject dilute vasopressin (20 U in 20 mL of normal saline) circumferentially in the cervix (for hysterectomy) or in the posterior cervix in the cervicovaginal junction (for adnexal surgery without hysterectomy) for vasoconstriction and hydrodissection. 

We then incise the vaginal mucosa circumferentially with electrosurgical cautery and follow with posterior colpotomy. We find that reapproximating the posterior peritoneum to the posterior vagina with either figure-of-8 stitches or a running stitch of polyglactin 910 suture (2-0 Vicryl) assists in port placement, bleeding at the peritoneal edge, and closure of the cuff or colpotomy at the end of the case. We tag this suture with a curved hemostat. 

Depending on whether a hysterectomy is being performed, anterior colpotomy is made. Again, the anterior peritoneum is then tagged to the anterior vaginal cuff in similar fashion, and this suture is tagged with a different instrument; we typically use a straight hemostat or Sarot clamp (FIGURE 1). 

2. Traditional vaginal hysterectomy 

After colpotomy, we prefer to perform progressive clamping of the broad ligament from the uterosacral and cardinal ligaments to the level of uterine artery as in traditional vaginal hysterectomy, if feasible. 

3. Single-site port placement 

The assembled GelPOINT Mini advanced access platform (Applied Medical) (FIGURE 2) is introduced through the vagina after the Alexis wound protector (included with the kit) is first placed through the colpotomy with assistance of Babcock clamps (FIGURE 3). 

After ensuring that the green rigid ring of the Alexis wound protector is contained and completely expanded within the peritoneal cavity, we cross our previously tagged sutures as we find this helps with preventing the GelPOINT Mini access platform from inadvertently shifting out of the peritoneal cavity during surgery. The GelSeal cap is then secured and pneumoperitoneum is established (FIGURE 4). 

Continue to: 4. Laparoendoscopic surgery...

Instruments used in our surgeries include a 10-mm rigid 30° 43-cm working length laparoscope; a 44-cm LigaSure device (Medtronic); a 5-mm, 37-cm laparoscopic cobra grasping forceps and fenestrated grasper (Karl Storz); and a 5-mm, 45-cm laparoscopic suction with hydrodissection tip (Stryker) (FIGURE 5). 

vNOTES allows a gynecologic surgeon the unique ability to survey the upper abdomen. The remainder of the surgery proceeds using basic laparoscopic single-site skills. 

During vNOTES, as with all single-site surgical procedures, understanding the optimal placement of crossed instruments is important for successful completion. For example, when securing the right uterine artery, the surgeon needs to push the cervix toward the patient's left and slightly into the peritoneal cavity using a laparoscopic cobra grasper with his or her left hand while then securing the uterine pedicle using the LigaSure device with his or her right hand. This is then reversed when securing the left uterine artery, where the assistant surgeon pushes the cervix toward the patient's right while the surgeon secures the pedicle ("vaginal pull, laparoscopic push") (FIGURE 6). 

This again is reiterated in securing the ovarian pedicles, which are pushed into the peritoneal cavity while being secured with the LigaSure device. 

5. Specimen removal 

For large uteri or specimens that need morcellation, a 15-mm Endo Catch specimen retrieval bag (Medtronic) is introduced through the GelPOINT Mini system. The specimen is then placed in the bag and delivered to the vagina, where contained bag morcellation is performed in standard fashion (FIGURES 7 AND 8). We utilized the "big C" technique by first grasping the specimen with a penetrating clamp. The clamp is then held in our nondominant hand and a No. 10 blade scalpel is used to create a reverse c-incision, keeping one surface of the specimen intact. This is continued until the specimen can be completely delivered through the vagina. 

Specimens that do not require morcellation can be grasped laparoscopically, brought to the GelPOINT Mini port, which is quickly disassembled, and delivered. The GelSeal cap is then reassembled. 

6. Vaginal cuff closure 

The colpotomy or vaginal cuff is closed with barbed suture continuously, as in traditional vaginal hysterectomy cuff closure. Uterosacral ligament suspension should be performed for vaginal cuff support.  
 

Through the years, the surgical approach to hysterectomy has expanded from its early beginnings of being performed only through an abdominal or transvaginal route with traditional surgical clamps and suture. The late 1980s saw the advent of the laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH), and from that point forward several additional hysterectomy methods evolved, including today’s robotic approaches.

Although clinical evidence and societal endorsements support vaginal hysterectomy as a superior high-value modality, it remains one of the least performed among all available routes.^1-3 In an analysis of inpatient hysterectomies published by Wright and colleagues in 2013, 16.7% of hysterectomies were performed vaginally, a number that essentially has remained steady throughout the ensuing years.⁴

Attempts to improve the application of vaginal hysterectomy have been made.⁵ These include the development of various curriculum and simulation-based medical education programs on vaginal surgical skills training and acquisition in the hopes of improving utilization.⁶ An interesting recent development is the rethinking of vaginal hysterectomy by several surgeons globally who are applying facets of the various hysterectomy methods to a transvaginal approach known as vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES).^7,8 Unique to this thinking is the incorporation of conventional laparoscopic instrumentation.

Although I have not yet incorporated this approach in my surgical armamentarium at Columbia University Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital, I am intrigued by the possibility that this technique may serve as a rescue for vaginal hysterectomies that are at risk of conversion or of not being performed at all.⁹

At this time, vNOTES is not a standard of care and should be performed only by highly specialized surgeons. However, in the spirit of this Update on minimally invasive surgery and to keep our readers abreast of burgeoning techniques, I am delighted to bring you this overview by Dr. Xiaoming Guan, one of the pioneers of this surgical approach, and Dr. Tamisa Koythong and Dr. Juan Liu. I hope you find this recent development in hysterectomy of interest.

—Arnold P. Advincula, MD

Continue to: Development and evolution of NOTES...

Development and evolution of NOTES 

Over the past few decades, emphasis has shifted from laparotomy to minimally invasive surgery because of its proven significant advantages in patient care, such as improved cosmesis, shorter hospital stay, shorter postoperative recovery, and decreased postoperative pain and blood loss.¹⁰  Advances in laparoendoscopic surgery and instrumentation, including robot-assisted laparoscopy (RAL), single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), and most recently natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), reflect ongoing innovative developments in the field of minimally invasive surgery. 

Here, we provide a brief literature review of the NOTES technique, focus on its application in gynecologic surgery, and describe how we perform NOTES at our institution. 

NOTES application in gynecology 

With NOTES, peritoneal access is gained through a natural orifice (such as the mouth, vagina, urethra, or anus) to perform endoscopic surgery, occasionally without requiring an abdominal incision. First described in 2004, transgastric peritoneoscopy was performed in a porcine model, and shortly thereafter the first transgastric appendectomy was performed in humans.^11,12 The technique has further been adopted in cholecystectomy, appendectomy, gastrectomy, and nephrectomy procedures.¹³ 

Given rapid interest in a possible paradigm shift in the field of minimally invasive surgery, the Natural Orifice Surgery Consortiumfor Assessment and Research (NOSCAR) was formed, and the group published an article on potential barriers to accepted practice and adoption of NOTES as a realistic alternative to traditional laparoscopic surgery.¹⁴ 

While transgastric and transanal access to the peritoneum were initially more popular, the risk of anastomotic leaks associated with incomplete closure and subsequent infection were thought to be prohibitively high.¹⁵ Transvaginal access was considered a safer and simpler alternative, allowing for complete closure without increased risk of infection, and this is now the route through which the majority of NOTES procedures are completed.^16,17 

The eventual application of NOTES in the field of gynecology seemed inevitable. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated that transvaginal surgery is the most minimally invasive and preferred surgical route in the management of patients with benign gynecologic diseases.¹⁸ However, performing it can be challenging at times due to limited visualization and lack of the required skills for single-site surgery. NOTES allows a gynecologic surgeon to improve visualization through the use of laparoendoscopic instruments and to complete surgery through a transvaginal route. 

In 2012, Ahn and colleagues demonstrated the feasibility of the NOTES technique in gynecologic surgery after using it to successfully complete benign adnexal surgery in 10 patients.¹⁹ Vaginal NOTES (vNOTES) has since been further developed to include successful hysterectomy, myomectomy, sacrocolpopexy, tubal anastomosis, and even lymphadenectomy in the treatment of early- stage endometrial carcinoma.^20-26 vNOTES also can be considered a rescue approach for traditional vaginal hysterectomy in instances in which it is necessary to evaluate adnexal pathology.⁹ Most recently, vNOTES hysterectomy has been reported with da Vinci Si or Xi robotic platforms.^27,28 

Continue to: Operative time, post-op stay shorter in NAOC-treated patients...

Few studies have compared outcomes with vNOTES to those with traditional laparoscopy. In 2016, Wang and colleagues compared surgical outcomes between NOTES-assisted ovarian cystectomy (NAOC) and laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy (LOC) in a case-matched study that included 277 patients.²⁹ Although mean (SD) blood loss in patients who underwent LOC was significantly less compared with those who underwent NAOC (21.4 [14.7] mL vs 31.6 [24.1] mL; P = .028), absolute blood loss in both groups was deemed minimal. Additionally, mean (SD) operative time and postoperative stay were significantly less in patients undergoing NAOC compared with those having LOC (38.23 [10.19] minutes vs 53.82 [18.61] minutes; P≤.001; and 1.38 [0.55] days vs 1.82 [0.52] days; P≤.001; respectively).²⁹ 

How vNOTES hysterectomy stacked up against TLH 

In 2018, Baekelandt and colleagues compared outcomes between vNOTES hysterectomy and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) in a noninferiority single-blinded trial of 70 women.⁸ Compared with TLH, vNOTES hysterectomy was associated with shorter operative time (41 vs 75 minutes; P<.001), shorter hospital stay (0.8 vs 1.3 days; P = .004), and lower postoperative analgesic requirement (8 vs 14 U; P = .006). Additionally, there were no differences between the 2 groups in postoperative infection rate, intraoperative complications, or hospital readmissions within 6 weeks.⁸

Approach for performing vNOTES procedures 

At our institution, Baylor College of Medicine, the majority of gynecologic surgeries are performed via either transumbilical robot-assisted single-incision laparoscopy or vNOTES. Preoperative selection of appropriate candidates for vNOTES includes: 

• low suspicion for or prior diagnosis of endometriosis with obliteration of the posterior cul-de-sac 
• no surgical history suggestive of severe adhesive disease, and 
• adequate vaginal sidewall access and sufficient descent for instrumentation for entry into the peritoneal cavity. 

In general, a key concept in vNOTES is "vaginal pull, laparoscopic push," which means that the surgeon must pull the cervix while performing vaginal entry and then push the uterus back in the peritoneal cavity to increase surgical space during laparoscopic surgery. 

Continue to: Overview of vNOTES steps...

Below we break down a description of vNOTES in 6 sections. Our patients are always placed in dorsal lithotomy position with TrenGuard (D.A. Surgical) Trendelenburg restraint. We prep the abdomen in case we need to convert to transabdominal surgery via transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic surgery or traditional laparoscopic surgery. 

1. Vaginal entry 

Accessing the peritoneal cavity through the vagina initially proceeds like a vaginal hysterectomy. We inject dilute vasopressin (20 U in 20 mL of normal saline) circumferentially in the cervix (for hysterectomy) or in the posterior cervix in the cervicovaginal junction (for adnexal surgery without hysterectomy) for vasoconstriction and hydrodissection. 

We then incise the vaginal mucosa circumferentially with electrosurgical cautery and follow with posterior colpotomy. We find that reapproximating the posterior peritoneum to the posterior vagina with either figure-of-8 stitches or a running stitch of polyglactin 910 suture (2-0 Vicryl) assists in port placement, bleeding at the peritoneal edge, and closure of the cuff or colpotomy at the end of the case. We tag this suture with a curved hemostat. 

Depending on whether a hysterectomy is being performed, anterior colpotomy is made. Again, the anterior peritoneum is then tagged to the anterior vaginal cuff in similar fashion, and this suture is tagged with a different instrument; we typically use a straight hemostat or Sarot clamp (FIGURE 1). 

2. Traditional vaginal hysterectomy 

After colpotomy, we prefer to perform progressive clamping of the broad ligament from the uterosacral and cardinal ligaments to the level of uterine artery as in traditional vaginal hysterectomy, if feasible. 

3. Single-site port placement 

The assembled GelPOINT Mini advanced access platform (Applied Medical) (FIGURE 2) is introduced through the vagina after the Alexis wound protector (included with the kit) is first placed through the colpotomy with assistance of Babcock clamps (FIGURE 3). 

After ensuring that the green rigid ring of the Alexis wound protector is contained and completely expanded within the peritoneal cavity, we cross our previously tagged sutures as we find this helps with preventing the GelPOINT Mini access platform from inadvertently shifting out of the peritoneal cavity during surgery. The GelSeal cap is then secured and pneumoperitoneum is established (FIGURE 4). 

Continue to: 4. Laparoendoscopic surgery...

Instruments used in our surgeries include a 10-mm rigid 30° 43-cm working length laparoscope; a 44-cm LigaSure device (Medtronic); a 5-mm, 37-cm laparoscopic cobra grasping forceps and fenestrated grasper (Karl Storz); and a 5-mm, 45-cm laparoscopic suction with hydrodissection tip (Stryker) (FIGURE 5). 

vNOTES allows a gynecologic surgeon the unique ability to survey the upper abdomen. The remainder of the surgery proceeds using basic laparoscopic single-site skills. 

During vNOTES, as with all single-site surgical procedures, understanding the optimal placement of crossed instruments is important for successful completion. For example, when securing the right uterine artery, the surgeon needs to push the cervix toward the patient's left and slightly into the peritoneal cavity using a laparoscopic cobra grasper with his or her left hand while then securing the uterine pedicle using the LigaSure device with his or her right hand. This is then reversed when securing the left uterine artery, where the assistant surgeon pushes the cervix toward the patient's right while the surgeon secures the pedicle ("vaginal pull, laparoscopic push") (FIGURE 6). 

This again is reiterated in securing the ovarian pedicles, which are pushed into the peritoneal cavity while being secured with the LigaSure device. 

5. Specimen removal 

For large uteri or specimens that need morcellation, a 15-mm Endo Catch specimen retrieval bag (Medtronic) is introduced through the GelPOINT Mini system. The specimen is then placed in the bag and delivered to the vagina, where contained bag morcellation is performed in standard fashion (FIGURES 7 AND 8). We utilized the "big C" technique by first grasping the specimen with a penetrating clamp. The clamp is then held in our nondominant hand and a No. 10 blade scalpel is used to create a reverse c-incision, keeping one surface of the specimen intact. This is continued until the specimen can be completely delivered through the vagina. 

Specimens that do not require morcellation can be grasped laparoscopically, brought to the GelPOINT Mini port, which is quickly disassembled, and delivered. The GelSeal cap is then reassembled. 

6. Vaginal cuff closure 

The colpotomy or vaginal cuff is closed with barbed suture continuously, as in traditional vaginal hysterectomy cuff closure. Uterosacral ligament suspension should be performed for vaginal cuff support.  
 

The rapid development and identification of novel drugs has translated into innovative therapies in hematology and oncology. The aim of this piece is to present newly approved drugs and expanded indications to serve as a reference guide for practicing clinicians.

This article reviews therapies that were newly approved so far in 2019, as well as those previously approved whose indications were expanded this past year. The list highlights the most clinically important approvals, as well as adverse events that are unique or especially severe.
 

New approvals

Fedratinib (Inrebic)

Class: JAK2 and FLT3 selective kinase inhibitor.

Disease: Intermediate or high-risk primary or secondary (postpolycythemia vera or postessential thrombocythemia) myelofibrosis.

Dose: 400 mg orally once daily, with or without food.

Adverse events (AEs): Black box warning: Fatal encephalopathy, including Wernicke’s (thiamine level monitoring suggested).

Trials: In JAKARTA (NCT01437787), 37% of patients achieved a 35% or greater reduction in spleen volume and 40% received a 50% or greater reduction in myelofibrosis-related symptoms. In Jakarta-2, there was a 55% spleen response in patients resistant or intolerant to ruxolitinib.

Entrectinib (Rozlytrek)

Class: Tropomyosin receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Disease: Solid tumors that have a neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusion and for ROS-1 positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Dose: 600 mg orally once daily.

AEs: Heart failure, QT prolongation, skeletal fractures, hepatotoxicity, central nervous system effects, and hyperuricemia.

Trial: ALKA, STARTRK-1 (NCT02097810) and STARTRK-2 (NCT02568267): Overall response rate of 57% for NTRK positive patients; response rate of 77% in ROS-1 positive NSCLC.

Pexidartinib (Turalio)

Class: Small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting CSF1R.

Disease: Symptomatic tenosynovial giant cell tumor.

Dose: 400 mg orally twice daily without food.

AEs: Black box warning on hepatotoxicity.

Trial: ENLIVEN (NCT02371369): Overall response rate of 38% at 25 weeks, with a 15% complete response rate and a 23% partial response rate.

Darolutamide (Nubeqa)

Class: Androgen receptor inhibitor.

Disease: Nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Dose: 600 mg orally twice daily with food with concomitant androgen deprivation therapy.

AEs: Fatigue, extremity pain, and rash.

Trial: ARAMIS (NCT02200614): Median metastasis free survival was 40.4 months for patients with darolutamide, compared with 18.4 months for controls.

Selinexor (Xpovio)

Class: Reversible inhibitor of nuclear export of tumor suppressor proteins, growth regulators, and mRNAs of oncogenic proteins.

Disease: Relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Indicated for patients who have received at least four prior therapies, including at least two immunomodulatory agents and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

Dose: 80 mg orally in combination with oral dexamethasone on days 1 and 3 of each week.

AEs: Thrombocytopenia, fatigue, pancytopenia, and hyponatremia.

Trial: STORM (NCT02336815): Overall response rate 25.3% with a median time to first response of 4 weeks and 3.8-month median duration of response.

Polatuzumab vedotin-piiq (Polivy)

Class: CD79b-directed antibody-drug conjugate.

Disease: Relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Indicated for patients who have had at least two prior therapies.

Dose: 1.8 mg/kg intravenous infusion every 21 days for six cycles in combination with bendamustine and a rituximab product.

AEs: Pancytopenia, peripheral neuropathy.

Trial: GO29365 (NCT02257567): Complete response rate was 40% for polatuzumab vedotin-piiq plus bendamustine/rituximab, compared with 18% with bendamustine/rituximab alone.*

Caplacizumab-yhdp (Cablivi)

Class: Monoclonal antibody fragment directed against von Willebrand factor.

Disease: Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

Dose: 11 mg IV initially, then daily subcutaneously; in combination with plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapy.

AEs: Epistaxis, headache, and gingival bleeding.

Trial: Hercules trial (NCT02553317): More rapid normalization of platelets, lower incidence of composite TTP-related death, and lower rate of recurrence when added to plasma exchange and steroids.
 

Alpelisib (Piqray)

Class: Phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor.

Disease: Hormone receptor positive HER2-negative PIK3CA-mutated, advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Dose: 300 mg orally once daily with food with concomitant fulvestrant.

AEs: Hyperglycemia, pancytopenia.

Trial: SOLAR-1 (NCT02437318): 11-month progression-free survival among patients treated with alpelisib and fulvestrant, compared with 5.7 months in fulvestrant alone control arm; overall response rate of 36% versus 16%, respectively.

Erdafitinib (Balversa)

Class: Fibroblast growth factor receptor kinase inhibitor.

Disease: Locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma with FGFR3 or FGFR2 mutations.

Dose: 8 mg orally once daily, with or without food.

AEs: Ocular disorders including retinopathy or retinal detachment.

Trial: BLC2001 (NCT02365597): Objective response rate of 32.2%, with a complete response in 2.3% of patients and partial response in 29.9% of patients.

Biosimilar approvals

Trastuzumab and hyaluronidase-oysk (Herceptin Hylecta)

Biosimilar to: Trastuzumab.

Indication: HER2-overexpressing breast cancer.
 

Dr. Bryer is a resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Mintzer is chief of hematology-oncology at Pennsylvania Hospital and professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Henry is a hematologist-oncologist at Pennsylvania Hospital and professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

*Correction, 11/7/2019: An earlier version of this article misstated the drug combination in the GO29365 trial. 

The rapid development and identification of novel drugs has translated into innovative therapies in hematology and oncology. The aim of this piece is to present newly approved drugs and expanded indications to serve as a reference guide for practicing clinicians.

This article reviews therapies that were newly approved so far in 2019, as well as those previously approved whose indications were expanded this past year. The list highlights the most clinically important approvals, as well as adverse events that are unique or especially severe.
 

New approvals

Fedratinib (Inrebic)

Class: JAK2 and FLT3 selective kinase inhibitor.

Disease: Intermediate or high-risk primary or secondary (postpolycythemia vera or postessential thrombocythemia) myelofibrosis.

Dose: 400 mg orally once daily, with or without food.

Adverse events (AEs): Black box warning: Fatal encephalopathy, including Wernicke’s (thiamine level monitoring suggested).

Trials: In JAKARTA (NCT01437787), 37% of patients achieved a 35% or greater reduction in spleen volume and 40% received a 50% or greater reduction in myelofibrosis-related symptoms. In Jakarta-2, there was a 55% spleen response in patients resistant or intolerant to ruxolitinib.

Entrectinib (Rozlytrek)

Class: Tropomyosin receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Disease: Solid tumors that have a neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusion and for ROS-1 positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Dose: 600 mg orally once daily.

AEs: Heart failure, QT prolongation, skeletal fractures, hepatotoxicity, central nervous system effects, and hyperuricemia.

Trial: ALKA, STARTRK-1 (NCT02097810) and STARTRK-2 (NCT02568267): Overall response rate of 57% for NTRK positive patients; response rate of 77% in ROS-1 positive NSCLC.

Pexidartinib (Turalio)

Class: Small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting CSF1R.

Disease: Symptomatic tenosynovial giant cell tumor.

Dose: 400 mg orally twice daily without food.

AEs: Black box warning on hepatotoxicity.

Trial: ENLIVEN (NCT02371369): Overall response rate of 38% at 25 weeks, with a 15% complete response rate and a 23% partial response rate.

Darolutamide (Nubeqa)

Class: Androgen receptor inhibitor.

Disease: Nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Dose: 600 mg orally twice daily with food with concomitant androgen deprivation therapy.

AEs: Fatigue, extremity pain, and rash.

Trial: ARAMIS (NCT02200614): Median metastasis free survival was 40.4 months for patients with darolutamide, compared with 18.4 months for controls.

Selinexor (Xpovio)

Class: Reversible inhibitor of nuclear export of tumor suppressor proteins, growth regulators, and mRNAs of oncogenic proteins.

Disease: Relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Indicated for patients who have received at least four prior therapies, including at least two immunomodulatory agents and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

Dose: 80 mg orally in combination with oral dexamethasone on days 1 and 3 of each week.

AEs: Thrombocytopenia, fatigue, pancytopenia, and hyponatremia.

Trial: STORM (NCT02336815): Overall response rate 25.3% with a median time to first response of 4 weeks and 3.8-month median duration of response.

Polatuzumab vedotin-piiq (Polivy)

Class: CD79b-directed antibody-drug conjugate.

Disease: Relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Indicated for patients who have had at least two prior therapies.

Dose: 1.8 mg/kg intravenous infusion every 21 days for six cycles in combination with bendamustine and a rituximab product.

AEs: Pancytopenia, peripheral neuropathy.

Trial: GO29365 (NCT02257567): Complete response rate was 40% for polatuzumab vedotin-piiq plus bendamustine/rituximab, compared with 18% with bendamustine/rituximab alone.*

Caplacizumab-yhdp (Cablivi)

Class: Monoclonal antibody fragment directed against von Willebrand factor.

Disease: Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

Dose: 11 mg IV initially, then daily subcutaneously; in combination with plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapy.

AEs: Epistaxis, headache, and gingival bleeding.

Trial: Hercules trial (NCT02553317): More rapid normalization of platelets, lower incidence of composite TTP-related death, and lower rate of recurrence when added to plasma exchange and steroids.
 

Alpelisib (Piqray)

Class: Phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor.

Disease: Hormone receptor positive HER2-negative PIK3CA-mutated, advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Dose: 300 mg orally once daily with food with concomitant fulvestrant.

AEs: Hyperglycemia, pancytopenia.

Trial: SOLAR-1 (NCT02437318): 11-month progression-free survival among patients treated with alpelisib and fulvestrant, compared with 5.7 months in fulvestrant alone control arm; overall response rate of 36% versus 16%, respectively.

Erdafitinib (Balversa)

Class: Fibroblast growth factor receptor kinase inhibitor.

Disease: Locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma with FGFR3 or FGFR2 mutations.

Dose: 8 mg orally once daily, with or without food.

AEs: Ocular disorders including retinopathy or retinal detachment.

Trial: BLC2001 (NCT02365597): Objective response rate of 32.2%, with a complete response in 2.3% of patients and partial response in 29.9% of patients.

Biosimilar approvals

Trastuzumab and hyaluronidase-oysk (Herceptin Hylecta)

Biosimilar to: Trastuzumab.

Indication: HER2-overexpressing breast cancer.
 

Dr. Bryer is a resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Mintzer is chief of hematology-oncology at Pennsylvania Hospital and professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Henry is a hematologist-oncologist at Pennsylvania Hospital and professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

*Correction, 11/7/2019: An earlier version of this article misstated the drug combination in the GO29365 trial. 

The rapid development and identification of novel drugs has translated into innovative therapies in hematology and oncology. The aim of this piece is to present newly approved drugs and expanded indications to serve as a reference guide for practicing clinicians.

This article reviews therapies that were newly approved so far in 2019, as well as those previously approved whose indications were expanded this past year. The list highlights the most clinically important approvals, as well as adverse events that are unique or especially severe.
 

New approvals

Fedratinib (Inrebic)

Class: JAK2 and FLT3 selective kinase inhibitor.

Disease: Intermediate or high-risk primary or secondary (postpolycythemia vera or postessential thrombocythemia) myelofibrosis.

Dose: 400 mg orally once daily, with or without food.

Adverse events (AEs): Black box warning: Fatal encephalopathy, including Wernicke’s (thiamine level monitoring suggested).

Trials: In JAKARTA (NCT01437787), 37% of patients achieved a 35% or greater reduction in spleen volume and 40% received a 50% or greater reduction in myelofibrosis-related symptoms. In Jakarta-2, there was a 55% spleen response in patients resistant or intolerant to ruxolitinib.

Entrectinib (Rozlytrek)

Class: Tropomyosin receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Disease: Solid tumors that have a neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusion and for ROS-1 positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Dose: 600 mg orally once daily.

AEs: Heart failure, QT prolongation, skeletal fractures, hepatotoxicity, central nervous system effects, and hyperuricemia.

Trial: ALKA, STARTRK-1 (NCT02097810) and STARTRK-2 (NCT02568267): Overall response rate of 57% for NTRK positive patients; response rate of 77% in ROS-1 positive NSCLC.

Pexidartinib (Turalio)

Class: Small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting CSF1R.

Disease: Symptomatic tenosynovial giant cell tumor.

Dose: 400 mg orally twice daily without food.

AEs: Black box warning on hepatotoxicity.

Trial: ENLIVEN (NCT02371369): Overall response rate of 38% at 25 weeks, with a 15% complete response rate and a 23% partial response rate.

Darolutamide (Nubeqa)

Class: Androgen receptor inhibitor.

Disease: Nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Dose: 600 mg orally twice daily with food with concomitant androgen deprivation therapy.

AEs: Fatigue, extremity pain, and rash.

Trial: ARAMIS (NCT02200614): Median metastasis free survival was 40.4 months for patients with darolutamide, compared with 18.4 months for controls.

Selinexor (Xpovio)

Class: Reversible inhibitor of nuclear export of tumor suppressor proteins, growth regulators, and mRNAs of oncogenic proteins.

Disease: Relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Indicated for patients who have received at least four prior therapies, including at least two immunomodulatory agents and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

Dose: 80 mg orally in combination with oral dexamethasone on days 1 and 3 of each week.

AEs: Thrombocytopenia, fatigue, pancytopenia, and hyponatremia.

Trial: STORM (NCT02336815): Overall response rate 25.3% with a median time to first response of 4 weeks and 3.8-month median duration of response.

Polatuzumab vedotin-piiq (Polivy)

Class: CD79b-directed antibody-drug conjugate.

Disease: Relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Indicated for patients who have had at least two prior therapies.

Dose: 1.8 mg/kg intravenous infusion every 21 days for six cycles in combination with bendamustine and a rituximab product.

AEs: Pancytopenia, peripheral neuropathy.

Trial: GO29365 (NCT02257567): Complete response rate was 40% for polatuzumab vedotin-piiq plus bendamustine/rituximab, compared with 18% with bendamustine/rituximab alone.*

Caplacizumab-yhdp (Cablivi)

Class: Monoclonal antibody fragment directed against von Willebrand factor.

Disease: Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

Dose: 11 mg IV initially, then daily subcutaneously; in combination with plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapy.

AEs: Epistaxis, headache, and gingival bleeding.

Trial: Hercules trial (NCT02553317): More rapid normalization of platelets, lower incidence of composite TTP-related death, and lower rate of recurrence when added to plasma exchange and steroids.
 

Alpelisib (Piqray)

Class: Phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor.

Disease: Hormone receptor positive HER2-negative PIK3CA-mutated, advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Dose: 300 mg orally once daily with food with concomitant fulvestrant.

AEs: Hyperglycemia, pancytopenia.

Trial: SOLAR-1 (NCT02437318): 11-month progression-free survival among patients treated with alpelisib and fulvestrant, compared with 5.7 months in fulvestrant alone control arm; overall response rate of 36% versus 16%, respectively.

Erdafitinib (Balversa)

Class: Fibroblast growth factor receptor kinase inhibitor.

Disease: Locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma with FGFR3 or FGFR2 mutations.

Dose: 8 mg orally once daily, with or without food.

AEs: Ocular disorders including retinopathy or retinal detachment.

Trial: BLC2001 (NCT02365597): Objective response rate of 32.2%, with a complete response in 2.3% of patients and partial response in 29.9% of patients.

Biosimilar approvals

Trastuzumab and hyaluronidase-oysk (Herceptin Hylecta)

Biosimilar to: Trastuzumab.

Indication: HER2-overexpressing breast cancer.
 

Dr. Bryer is a resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Mintzer is chief of hematology-oncology at Pennsylvania Hospital and professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Henry is a hematologist-oncologist at Pennsylvania Hospital and professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

*Correction, 11/7/2019: An earlier version of this article misstated the drug combination in the GO29365 trial. 

Patients whose clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tumors lack the cytoskeleton linker protein ezrin have a poorer prognosis, finds a single-center retrospective cohort study.

The number of small renal masses discovered incidentally is rising, and some of these tumors can or must be treated less aggressively, according to lead investigator Marcos Vinicius O. Ferrari, MD, urology division, A.C. Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, and coinvestigators. “Thus, it is important to identify molecular markers that have prognostic value that can assist physicians in therapeutic strategies.”

The investigators studied 575 consecutive patients who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy for clear cell RCC during 1985-2016. A single pathologist reclassified all cases and determined the most representative tumor areas for tissue immunohistochemistry for ezrin and moesin, proteins that link the actin cytoskeleton to the cell membrane and that play roles in cell adhesion, migration, and growth.

Results reported in Urologic Oncology showed that 18.3% of tumors were negative for ezrin and 2.8% were negative for moesin.

Compared with counterparts who had ezrin-positive tumors, patients with ezrin-negative tumors had higher pathologic T stage (P less than .001); were less likely to have incidentally discovered tumors (P = .007); and were more likely to have clinical stage III or IV disease (P = .012), synchronous metastasis (P less than .001), and an International Society of Urological Pathology histologic grade of 3 or 4 (P = .025).

Similarly, compared with counterparts who had moesin-positive tumors, patients with moesin-negative tumors had higher pathologic T stage (P = .025) and pathologic N stage (P = .007), and were more likely to have clinical stage III or IV disease (P = .027).

The 10-year rate of disease-specific survival was poorer for patients with ezrin-negative vs. ezrin-positive tumors (70% vs. 88%; P less than .001) and for patients with moesin-negative vs. moesin-positive tumors (68% vs. 86%; P = .065). Similarly, the 10-year rate of overall survival was poorer for patients with ezrin-negative vs. ezrin-positive tumors (68% vs. 86%; P = .001) and for patients with moesin-negative vs. moesin-positive tumors (68% vs. 84%; P = .142).

In multivariate analyses, ezrin negativity was associated with a near doubling of the risk of disease-specific survival events (hazard ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-3.20) and with a trend toward poorer overall survival. Moesin negativity was not independently associated with either outcome.

“Negative expression of ezrin was associated with major prognostic factors in renal cancer and significantly influenced tumor-related death,” Dr. Ferrari and coinvestigators summarize, noting that this aligns with the pattern seen in bladder and ovarian cancers, but contrasts with the pattern seen in head and neck, colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers.

“The exact mechanism by which negative ezrin expression influences tumor progression and survival rates is unknown,” they conclude. “We encourage further prospective studies to analyze ezrin to determine its value in the prognosis of clear cell RCC.”

Dr. Ferrari disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.

SOURCE: Ferrari MVO et al. Urol Oncol. 2019 Oct 22. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.09.011.
 

Patients whose clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tumors lack the cytoskeleton linker protein ezrin have a poorer prognosis, finds a single-center retrospective cohort study.

The number of small renal masses discovered incidentally is rising, and some of these tumors can or must be treated less aggressively, according to lead investigator Marcos Vinicius O. Ferrari, MD, urology division, A.C. Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, and coinvestigators. “Thus, it is important to identify molecular markers that have prognostic value that can assist physicians in therapeutic strategies.”

The investigators studied 575 consecutive patients who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy for clear cell RCC during 1985-2016. A single pathologist reclassified all cases and determined the most representative tumor areas for tissue immunohistochemistry for ezrin and moesin, proteins that link the actin cytoskeleton to the cell membrane and that play roles in cell adhesion, migration, and growth.

Results reported in Urologic Oncology showed that 18.3% of tumors were negative for ezrin and 2.8% were negative for moesin.

Compared with counterparts who had ezrin-positive tumors, patients with ezrin-negative tumors had higher pathologic T stage (P less than .001); were less likely to have incidentally discovered tumors (P = .007); and were more likely to have clinical stage III or IV disease (P = .012), synchronous metastasis (P less than .001), and an International Society of Urological Pathology histologic grade of 3 or 4 (P = .025).

Similarly, compared with counterparts who had moesin-positive tumors, patients with moesin-negative tumors had higher pathologic T stage (P = .025) and pathologic N stage (P = .007), and were more likely to have clinical stage III or IV disease (P = .027).

The 10-year rate of disease-specific survival was poorer for patients with ezrin-negative vs. ezrin-positive tumors (70% vs. 88%; P less than .001) and for patients with moesin-negative vs. moesin-positive tumors (68% vs. 86%; P = .065). Similarly, the 10-year rate of overall survival was poorer for patients with ezrin-negative vs. ezrin-positive tumors (68% vs. 86%; P = .001) and for patients with moesin-negative vs. moesin-positive tumors (68% vs. 84%; P = .142).

In multivariate analyses, ezrin negativity was associated with a near doubling of the risk of disease-specific survival events (hazard ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-3.20) and with a trend toward poorer overall survival. Moesin negativity was not independently associated with either outcome.

“Negative expression of ezrin was associated with major prognostic factors in renal cancer and significantly influenced tumor-related death,” Dr. Ferrari and coinvestigators summarize, noting that this aligns with the pattern seen in bladder and ovarian cancers, but contrasts with the pattern seen in head and neck, colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers.

“The exact mechanism by which negative ezrin expression influences tumor progression and survival rates is unknown,” they conclude. “We encourage further prospective studies to analyze ezrin to determine its value in the prognosis of clear cell RCC.”

Dr. Ferrari disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.

SOURCE: Ferrari MVO et al. Urol Oncol. 2019 Oct 22. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.09.011.
 

Patients whose clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tumors lack the cytoskeleton linker protein ezrin have a poorer prognosis, finds a single-center retrospective cohort study.

The number of small renal masses discovered incidentally is rising, and some of these tumors can or must be treated less aggressively, according to lead investigator Marcos Vinicius O. Ferrari, MD, urology division, A.C. Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, and coinvestigators. “Thus, it is important to identify molecular markers that have prognostic value that can assist physicians in therapeutic strategies.”

The investigators studied 575 consecutive patients who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy for clear cell RCC during 1985-2016. A single pathologist reclassified all cases and determined the most representative tumor areas for tissue immunohistochemistry for ezrin and moesin, proteins that link the actin cytoskeleton to the cell membrane and that play roles in cell adhesion, migration, and growth.

Results reported in Urologic Oncology showed that 18.3% of tumors were negative for ezrin and 2.8% were negative for moesin.

Compared with counterparts who had ezrin-positive tumors, patients with ezrin-negative tumors had higher pathologic T stage (P less than .001); were less likely to have incidentally discovered tumors (P = .007); and were more likely to have clinical stage III or IV disease (P = .012), synchronous metastasis (P less than .001), and an International Society of Urological Pathology histologic grade of 3 or 4 (P = .025).

Similarly, compared with counterparts who had moesin-positive tumors, patients with moesin-negative tumors had higher pathologic T stage (P = .025) and pathologic N stage (P = .007), and were more likely to have clinical stage III or IV disease (P = .027).

The 10-year rate of disease-specific survival was poorer for patients with ezrin-negative vs. ezrin-positive tumors (70% vs. 88%; P less than .001) and for patients with moesin-negative vs. moesin-positive tumors (68% vs. 86%; P = .065). Similarly, the 10-year rate of overall survival was poorer for patients with ezrin-negative vs. ezrin-positive tumors (68% vs. 86%; P = .001) and for patients with moesin-negative vs. moesin-positive tumors (68% vs. 84%; P = .142).

In multivariate analyses, ezrin negativity was associated with a near doubling of the risk of disease-specific survival events (hazard ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-3.20) and with a trend toward poorer overall survival. Moesin negativity was not independently associated with either outcome.

“Negative expression of ezrin was associated with major prognostic factors in renal cancer and significantly influenced tumor-related death,” Dr. Ferrari and coinvestigators summarize, noting that this aligns with the pattern seen in bladder and ovarian cancers, but contrasts with the pattern seen in head and neck, colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers.

“The exact mechanism by which negative ezrin expression influences tumor progression and survival rates is unknown,” they conclude. “We encourage further prospective studies to analyze ezrin to determine its value in the prognosis of clear cell RCC.”

Dr. Ferrari disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.

SOURCE: Ferrari MVO et al. Urol Oncol. 2019 Oct 22. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.09.011.