To the Editor:

Extramammary Paget disease (EMPD) is a rare intraepidermal neoplasm with glandular differentiation that is classically known as a mimicker of Bowen disease (squamous cell carcinoma in situ of the skin) due to their histologic similarities.^1,2 However, acantholytic anaplastic EMPD (AAEMPD) is a rare variant that can pose a particularly difficult diagnostic challenge because of its histologic similarity to benign acantholytic disorders and other malignant neoplasms. Major histologic features suggestive of AAEMPD include full-thickness atypia of the epidermis, loss of nuclear polarity, marked cytologic anaplasia, intraepidermal acantholysis, and Paget cells.³ The differential diagnosis of EMPD typically includes Bowen disease and pagetoid Bowen disease, but the acantholytic anaplastic variant more often is confused with intraepidermal acantholytic lesions such as acantholytic dyskeratosis of the genitocrural area, familial benign pemphigus (Hailey-Hailey disease), pemphigus vulgaris, and acantholytic Bowen disease. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) studies to assist in the definitive diagnosis of AAEMPD are strongly advised because of these difficulties in diagnosis.⁴ Cases of EMPD with an acantholytic appearance have rarely been reported in the literature.^5-7

A 78-year-old man with a history of arthritis, heart disease, hypertension, and gastrointestinal disease presented for evaluation of a tender lesion of the right genitocrural crease of 5 years’ duration. He had no history of cutaneous or internal malignancy. Previously the lesion had been treated by dermatology with a variety of topical products including antifungal and antibiotic creams with no improvement. Physical examination revealed a well-defined, 7×5-cm, tender, erythematous, macerated plaque on the right upper inner thigh adjacent to the scrotum with an odor possibly due to secondary infection (Figure 1).

The biopsy specimen was examined grossly, serially sectioned, and submitted for routine processing with hematoxylin and eosin, periodic acid–Schiff, and Hale colloidal iron staining. Routine IHC was performed with antibodies to cytokeratin (CK) 7, CK20, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), pancytokeratin (CKAE1/AE3), and low- molecular-weight cytokeratin (LMWCK).

Pathologic examination of the biopsy showed prominent acanthosis of the epidermis composed of a proliferation of epithelial cells with associated full-thickness suprabasal acantholysis (Figure 2A). On inspection at higher magnification, the neoplastic cells demonstrated anaplasia as cytologic atypia with prominent and frequently multiple nucleoli, scant cytoplasm, and a high nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio (Figure 2B). There was a marked increase in mitotic activity with as many as 5 mitotic figures per high-power field. A fairly dense mixed inflammatory infiltrate comprised of lymphocytes, plasma cells, neutrophils, and eosinophils was present in the dermis. No fungal elements were observed on periodic acid–Schiff staining. The vast majority of tumor cells demonstrated moderate to abundant cytoplasmic mucin on Hale colloidal iron staining (Figure 3).

Immunohistochemistry staining of tumor cells was positive for CK7, CEA, pancytokeratin (CKAE1/AE3), and LMWCK. The tumor cells were negative for CK20. On the basis of the histopathologic and IHC findings, the patient was diagnosed with AAEMPD.

Extramammary Paget disease is a rare intraepidermal neoplasm with glandular differentiation. The most commonly involved sites are the anogenital areas including the vulvar, perianal, perineal, scrotal, and penile regions, as well as other areas rich in apocrine glands such as the axillae.⁸ Extramammary Paget disease most commonly originates as a primary intraepidermal neoplasm (type 1 EMPD), but an underlying malignant neoplasm that spreads intraepithelially is seen in a minority of cases (types 2 and 3 EMPD). In the vulva, type 1a refers to cutaneous noninvasive Paget disease, type 1b refers to dermal invasion of Paget disease, type 1c refers to vulvar adenocarcinoma–associated Paget disease, type 2 refers to rectal/anal adenocarcinoma–associated Paget disease, and type 3 refers to urogenital neoplasia–associated Paget disease.⁹

The acantholytic anaplastic variant of EMPD can be challenging to diagnose because of its similarities to many other lesions, including acantholytic dyskeratosis of the genitocrural area, familial benign pemphigus (Hailey-Hailey disease), pemphigus vulgaris, Bowen disease, pagetoid Bowen disease, and acantholytic Bowen disease. Major histologic features of AAEMPD include full-thickness atypia of the epidermis, loss of nuclear polarity, marked cytologic anaplasia, intraepidermal acantholysis, and Paget cells.³ The acantholytic anaplastic variant of EMPD can be differentiated from other diagnoses using IHC studies, with findings indicative of AAEMPD outlined below.

The proliferative neoplastic cell in EMPD is the Paget cell, which can be identified as a large round cell located in the epidermis with pale-staining cytoplasm, a large nucleus, and sometimes a prominent nucleolus. Paget cells can be distributed singly or in clusters, nests, or glandular structures within the epidermis and adjacent to adnexal structures.¹⁰ Extramammary Paget disease can have many patterns, including glandular, acantholysis-like, upper nest, tall nest, budding, and sheetlike.¹¹

Immunohistochemically, Paget cells in EMPD typically express pancytokeratins (CKAE1/AE3), low-molecular-weight/simple epithelial type keratins (CK7, CAM 5.2), sweat gland antigens (epithelial membrane antigen, CEA, gross cystic disease fluid protein 15 [GCDFP15]), mucin 5AC (MUC5AC), and often androgen receptor.^12-18 Paget cells contain cytoplasmic mucin and demonstrate prominent cytoplasmic staining with Hale colloidal iron.¹⁷ Paget cells typically do not express high-molecular-weight cytokeratin (eg, CK5/6), melanocytic antigens, estrogen receptor, or progesterone receptor.^15,18

Immunohistochemical staining has been shown to differ between primary cutaneous (type 1) and secondary (types 2 and 3) EMPD. Primary cutaneous EMPD typically expresses sweat gland markers (CK7⁺, CK20⁻, GCDFP15⁺). Secondary EMPD typically expresses an endodermal phenotype (CK7⁺, CK20⁺, GCDFP15⁻).¹²

Acantholytic dyskeratosis of the genitocrural area is a rare lesion included in the spectrum of focal acantholytic dyskeratoses described by Ackerman.¹⁹ It also has been referred to as papular acantholytic dyskeratosis of the vulva, though histologically similar lesions also have been reported in men.^20-22 Histologically, acantholytic dyskeratosis of the genitocrural area has prominent acantholysis and dyskeratosis with corps ronds and grains.¹⁹ Familial benign pemphigus (Hailey-Hailey disease) is caused by mutations of the ATP2C1 gene, which encodes for a secretory pathway Ca²⁺/Mn²⁺-ATPase pump type 1 (SPCA1) in the Golgi apparatus in keratinocytes.²³ Familial benign pemphigus has a histologic appearance similar to acantholytic dyskeratosis of the genitocrural area, but a positive family history of familial benign pemphigus can be used to differentiate the 2 entities from each other due to the autosomal-dominant inheritance pattern of familial benign pemphigus. Both of these disorders can appear similar to AAEMPD because of their extensive intraepidermal acantholysis, but they differ in the lack of Paget cells, intraepidermal atypia, and increased mitotic activity.

Acantholytic Bowen disease is a histologic variant that can be difficult to distinguish from AAEMPD on hematoxylin and eosin–stained sections because of their similar histologic features but can be differentiated by IHC stains.⁵ Acantholytic Bowen disease expresses high-molecular-weight cytokeratin (eg, CK5/6) but is negative for CK7, CAM 5.2, and CEA. Extramammary Paget disease generally has the opposite pattern: positive staining for CK7, CAM 5.2, and CEA, but negative for high-molecular-weight cytokeratin.^13,14,24

Primary cutaneous adenosquamous carcinoma is a rare malignancy of squamous and glandular differentiation known for being locally aggressive and metastatic.²⁵ Histologically, cutaneous adenosquamous carcinoma shows infiltrating nests of neoplastic cells with both squamous and glandular features. It differs notably from AAEMPD in that cutaneous adenosquamous carcinomas tend to arise in the head and arm regions, and their histologic morphology is different. The IHC profiles are similar, with positive staining for CEA, CK7, and mucin; however, they differ in that AAEMPD is negative for high-molecular-weight keratin while cutaneous adenosquamous carcinoma is positive.²⁵

Verrucous carcinoma is an uncommon variant of squamous cell carcinoma with well-differentiated keratinocytes and a blunt pushing border.²⁴ Similar to AAEMPD, this neoplasm can arise in the genital and perineal areas; however, the 2 entities differ considerably in morphology on histologic examination.

Pemphigus vulgaris is an autoimmune intraepidermal blistering disorder of the skin and mucous membranes of which pemphigus vegetans is a subtype.^26,27 Pemphigus vulgaris is another diagnosis that can possibly be mimicked by AAEMPD.²⁸ Histologic features of pemphigus vulgaris include intraepidermal acantholysis of keratinocytes immediately above the basal layer of the epidermis. Pemphigus vegetans is similar with the addition of papillomatosis, hyperkeratosis, and an eosinophilic infiltrate.^26,27 Immunofluorescence typically demonstrates intercellular C3 and IgG deposits.²⁶ These diseases mimic AAEMPD histologically but differ in their relative lack of atypia and Paget cells.

In summary, we report a case of AAEMPD in a 78-year-old man in whom routine histologic specimens showed marked intraepidermal acantholysis and atypical tumor cells with increased mitoses. The latter finding prompted IHC studies that revealed positive CK7, CEA, pancytokeratin, and LMWCK staining with negative CK20 staining. Hale colloidal iron staining showed moderate to abundant cytoplasmic mucin. The patient was diagnosed with AAEMPD. It is imperative to maintain clinical suspicion for AAEMPD and to examine acantholytic disorders with scrutiny. When there is evidence of atypia or mitoses, use of IHC stains can assist in fully characterizing the lesion.

To the Editor:

Extramammary Paget disease (EMPD) is a rare intraepidermal neoplasm with glandular differentiation that is classically known as a mimicker of Bowen disease (squamous cell carcinoma in situ of the skin) due to their histologic similarities.^1,2 However, acantholytic anaplastic EMPD (AAEMPD) is a rare variant that can pose a particularly difficult diagnostic challenge because of its histologic similarity to benign acantholytic disorders and other malignant neoplasms. Major histologic features suggestive of AAEMPD include full-thickness atypia of the epidermis, loss of nuclear polarity, marked cytologic anaplasia, intraepidermal acantholysis, and Paget cells.³ The differential diagnosis of EMPD typically includes Bowen disease and pagetoid Bowen disease, but the acantholytic anaplastic variant more often is confused with intraepidermal acantholytic lesions such as acantholytic dyskeratosis of the genitocrural area, familial benign pemphigus (Hailey-Hailey disease), pemphigus vulgaris, and acantholytic Bowen disease. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) studies to assist in the definitive diagnosis of AAEMPD are strongly advised because of these difficulties in diagnosis.⁴ Cases of EMPD with an acantholytic appearance have rarely been reported in the literature.^5-7

A 78-year-old man with a history of arthritis, heart disease, hypertension, and gastrointestinal disease presented for evaluation of a tender lesion of the right genitocrural crease of 5 years’ duration. He had no history of cutaneous or internal malignancy. Previously the lesion had been treated by dermatology with a variety of topical products including antifungal and antibiotic creams with no improvement. Physical examination revealed a well-defined, 7×5-cm, tender, erythematous, macerated plaque on the right upper inner thigh adjacent to the scrotum with an odor possibly due to secondary infection (Figure 1).

The biopsy specimen was examined grossly, serially sectioned, and submitted for routine processing with hematoxylin and eosin, periodic acid–Schiff, and Hale colloidal iron staining. Routine IHC was performed with antibodies to cytokeratin (CK) 7, CK20, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), pancytokeratin (CKAE1/AE3), and low- molecular-weight cytokeratin (LMWCK).

Pathologic examination of the biopsy showed prominent acanthosis of the epidermis composed of a proliferation of epithelial cells with associated full-thickness suprabasal acantholysis (Figure 2A). On inspection at higher magnification, the neoplastic cells demonstrated anaplasia as cytologic atypia with prominent and frequently multiple nucleoli, scant cytoplasm, and a high nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio (Figure 2B). There was a marked increase in mitotic activity with as many as 5 mitotic figures per high-power field. A fairly dense mixed inflammatory infiltrate comprised of lymphocytes, plasma cells, neutrophils, and eosinophils was present in the dermis. No fungal elements were observed on periodic acid–Schiff staining. The vast majority of tumor cells demonstrated moderate to abundant cytoplasmic mucin on Hale colloidal iron staining (Figure 3).

Immunohistochemistry staining of tumor cells was positive for CK7, CEA, pancytokeratin (CKAE1/AE3), and LMWCK. The tumor cells were negative for CK20. On the basis of the histopathologic and IHC findings, the patient was diagnosed with AAEMPD.

Extramammary Paget disease is a rare intraepidermal neoplasm with glandular differentiation. The most commonly involved sites are the anogenital areas including the vulvar, perianal, perineal, scrotal, and penile regions, as well as other areas rich in apocrine glands such as the axillae.⁸ Extramammary Paget disease most commonly originates as a primary intraepidermal neoplasm (type 1 EMPD), but an underlying malignant neoplasm that spreads intraepithelially is seen in a minority of cases (types 2 and 3 EMPD). In the vulva, type 1a refers to cutaneous noninvasive Paget disease, type 1b refers to dermal invasion of Paget disease, type 1c refers to vulvar adenocarcinoma–associated Paget disease, type 2 refers to rectal/anal adenocarcinoma–associated Paget disease, and type 3 refers to urogenital neoplasia–associated Paget disease.⁹

The acantholytic anaplastic variant of EMPD can be challenging to diagnose because of its similarities to many other lesions, including acantholytic dyskeratosis of the genitocrural area, familial benign pemphigus (Hailey-Hailey disease), pemphigus vulgaris, Bowen disease, pagetoid Bowen disease, and acantholytic Bowen disease. Major histologic features of AAEMPD include full-thickness atypia of the epidermis, loss of nuclear polarity, marked cytologic anaplasia, intraepidermal acantholysis, and Paget cells.³ The acantholytic anaplastic variant of EMPD can be differentiated from other diagnoses using IHC studies, with findings indicative of AAEMPD outlined below.

The proliferative neoplastic cell in EMPD is the Paget cell, which can be identified as a large round cell located in the epidermis with pale-staining cytoplasm, a large nucleus, and sometimes a prominent nucleolus. Paget cells can be distributed singly or in clusters, nests, or glandular structures within the epidermis and adjacent to adnexal structures.¹⁰ Extramammary Paget disease can have many patterns, including glandular, acantholysis-like, upper nest, tall nest, budding, and sheetlike.¹¹

Immunohistochemically, Paget cells in EMPD typically express pancytokeratins (CKAE1/AE3), low-molecular-weight/simple epithelial type keratins (CK7, CAM 5.2), sweat gland antigens (epithelial membrane antigen, CEA, gross cystic disease fluid protein 15 [GCDFP15]), mucin 5AC (MUC5AC), and often androgen receptor.^12-18 Paget cells contain cytoplasmic mucin and demonstrate prominent cytoplasmic staining with Hale colloidal iron.¹⁷ Paget cells typically do not express high-molecular-weight cytokeratin (eg, CK5/6), melanocytic antigens, estrogen receptor, or progesterone receptor.^15,18

Immunohistochemical staining has been shown to differ between primary cutaneous (type 1) and secondary (types 2 and 3) EMPD. Primary cutaneous EMPD typically expresses sweat gland markers (CK7⁺, CK20⁻, GCDFP15⁺). Secondary EMPD typically expresses an endodermal phenotype (CK7⁺, CK20⁺, GCDFP15⁻).¹²

Acantholytic dyskeratosis of the genitocrural area is a rare lesion included in the spectrum of focal acantholytic dyskeratoses described by Ackerman.¹⁹ It also has been referred to as papular acantholytic dyskeratosis of the vulva, though histologically similar lesions also have been reported in men.^20-22 Histologically, acantholytic dyskeratosis of the genitocrural area has prominent acantholysis and dyskeratosis with corps ronds and grains.¹⁹ Familial benign pemphigus (Hailey-Hailey disease) is caused by mutations of the ATP2C1 gene, which encodes for a secretory pathway Ca²⁺/Mn²⁺-ATPase pump type 1 (SPCA1) in the Golgi apparatus in keratinocytes.²³ Familial benign pemphigus has a histologic appearance similar to acantholytic dyskeratosis of the genitocrural area, but a positive family history of familial benign pemphigus can be used to differentiate the 2 entities from each other due to the autosomal-dominant inheritance pattern of familial benign pemphigus. Both of these disorders can appear similar to AAEMPD because of their extensive intraepidermal acantholysis, but they differ in the lack of Paget cells, intraepidermal atypia, and increased mitotic activity.

Acantholytic Bowen disease is a histologic variant that can be difficult to distinguish from AAEMPD on hematoxylin and eosin–stained sections because of their similar histologic features but can be differentiated by IHC stains.⁵ Acantholytic Bowen disease expresses high-molecular-weight cytokeratin (eg, CK5/6) but is negative for CK7, CAM 5.2, and CEA. Extramammary Paget disease generally has the opposite pattern: positive staining for CK7, CAM 5.2, and CEA, but negative for high-molecular-weight cytokeratin.^13,14,24

Primary cutaneous adenosquamous carcinoma is a rare malignancy of squamous and glandular differentiation known for being locally aggressive and metastatic.²⁵ Histologically, cutaneous adenosquamous carcinoma shows infiltrating nests of neoplastic cells with both squamous and glandular features. It differs notably from AAEMPD in that cutaneous adenosquamous carcinomas tend to arise in the head and arm regions, and their histologic morphology is different. The IHC profiles are similar, with positive staining for CEA, CK7, and mucin; however, they differ in that AAEMPD is negative for high-molecular-weight keratin while cutaneous adenosquamous carcinoma is positive.²⁵

Verrucous carcinoma is an uncommon variant of squamous cell carcinoma with well-differentiated keratinocytes and a blunt pushing border.²⁴ Similar to AAEMPD, this neoplasm can arise in the genital and perineal areas; however, the 2 entities differ considerably in morphology on histologic examination.

Pemphigus vulgaris is an autoimmune intraepidermal blistering disorder of the skin and mucous membranes of which pemphigus vegetans is a subtype.^26,27 Pemphigus vulgaris is another diagnosis that can possibly be mimicked by AAEMPD.²⁸ Histologic features of pemphigus vulgaris include intraepidermal acantholysis of keratinocytes immediately above the basal layer of the epidermis. Pemphigus vegetans is similar with the addition of papillomatosis, hyperkeratosis, and an eosinophilic infiltrate.^26,27 Immunofluorescence typically demonstrates intercellular C3 and IgG deposits.²⁶ These diseases mimic AAEMPD histologically but differ in their relative lack of atypia and Paget cells.

In summary, we report a case of AAEMPD in a 78-year-old man in whom routine histologic specimens showed marked intraepidermal acantholysis and atypical tumor cells with increased mitoses. The latter finding prompted IHC studies that revealed positive CK7, CEA, pancytokeratin, and LMWCK staining with negative CK20 staining. Hale colloidal iron staining showed moderate to abundant cytoplasmic mucin. The patient was diagnosed with AAEMPD. It is imperative to maintain clinical suspicion for AAEMPD and to examine acantholytic disorders with scrutiny. When there is evidence of atypia or mitoses, use of IHC stains can assist in fully characterizing the lesion.

To the Editor:

Extramammary Paget disease (EMPD) is a rare intraepidermal neoplasm with glandular differentiation that is classically known as a mimicker of Bowen disease (squamous cell carcinoma in situ of the skin) due to their histologic similarities.^1,2 However, acantholytic anaplastic EMPD (AAEMPD) is a rare variant that can pose a particularly difficult diagnostic challenge because of its histologic similarity to benign acantholytic disorders and other malignant neoplasms. Major histologic features suggestive of AAEMPD include full-thickness atypia of the epidermis, loss of nuclear polarity, marked cytologic anaplasia, intraepidermal acantholysis, and Paget cells.³ The differential diagnosis of EMPD typically includes Bowen disease and pagetoid Bowen disease, but the acantholytic anaplastic variant more often is confused with intraepidermal acantholytic lesions such as acantholytic dyskeratosis of the genitocrural area, familial benign pemphigus (Hailey-Hailey disease), pemphigus vulgaris, and acantholytic Bowen disease. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) studies to assist in the definitive diagnosis of AAEMPD are strongly advised because of these difficulties in diagnosis.⁴ Cases of EMPD with an acantholytic appearance have rarely been reported in the literature.^5-7

A 78-year-old man with a history of arthritis, heart disease, hypertension, and gastrointestinal disease presented for evaluation of a tender lesion of the right genitocrural crease of 5 years’ duration. He had no history of cutaneous or internal malignancy. Previously the lesion had been treated by dermatology with a variety of topical products including antifungal and antibiotic creams with no improvement. Physical examination revealed a well-defined, 7×5-cm, tender, erythematous, macerated plaque on the right upper inner thigh adjacent to the scrotum with an odor possibly due to secondary infection (Figure 1).

The biopsy specimen was examined grossly, serially sectioned, and submitted for routine processing with hematoxylin and eosin, periodic acid–Schiff, and Hale colloidal iron staining. Routine IHC was performed with antibodies to cytokeratin (CK) 7, CK20, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), pancytokeratin (CKAE1/AE3), and low- molecular-weight cytokeratin (LMWCK).

Pathologic examination of the biopsy showed prominent acanthosis of the epidermis composed of a proliferation of epithelial cells with associated full-thickness suprabasal acantholysis (Figure 2A). On inspection at higher magnification, the neoplastic cells demonstrated anaplasia as cytologic atypia with prominent and frequently multiple nucleoli, scant cytoplasm, and a high nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio (Figure 2B). There was a marked increase in mitotic activity with as many as 5 mitotic figures per high-power field. A fairly dense mixed inflammatory infiltrate comprised of lymphocytes, plasma cells, neutrophils, and eosinophils was present in the dermis. No fungal elements were observed on periodic acid–Schiff staining. The vast majority of tumor cells demonstrated moderate to abundant cytoplasmic mucin on Hale colloidal iron staining (Figure 3).

Immunohistochemistry staining of tumor cells was positive for CK7, CEA, pancytokeratin (CKAE1/AE3), and LMWCK. The tumor cells were negative for CK20. On the basis of the histopathologic and IHC findings, the patient was diagnosed with AAEMPD.

Extramammary Paget disease is a rare intraepidermal neoplasm with glandular differentiation. The most commonly involved sites are the anogenital areas including the vulvar, perianal, perineal, scrotal, and penile regions, as well as other areas rich in apocrine glands such as the axillae.⁸ Extramammary Paget disease most commonly originates as a primary intraepidermal neoplasm (type 1 EMPD), but an underlying malignant neoplasm that spreads intraepithelially is seen in a minority of cases (types 2 and 3 EMPD). In the vulva, type 1a refers to cutaneous noninvasive Paget disease, type 1b refers to dermal invasion of Paget disease, type 1c refers to vulvar adenocarcinoma–associated Paget disease, type 2 refers to rectal/anal adenocarcinoma–associated Paget disease, and type 3 refers to urogenital neoplasia–associated Paget disease.⁹

The acantholytic anaplastic variant of EMPD can be challenging to diagnose because of its similarities to many other lesions, including acantholytic dyskeratosis of the genitocrural area, familial benign pemphigus (Hailey-Hailey disease), pemphigus vulgaris, Bowen disease, pagetoid Bowen disease, and acantholytic Bowen disease. Major histologic features of AAEMPD include full-thickness atypia of the epidermis, loss of nuclear polarity, marked cytologic anaplasia, intraepidermal acantholysis, and Paget cells.³ The acantholytic anaplastic variant of EMPD can be differentiated from other diagnoses using IHC studies, with findings indicative of AAEMPD outlined below.

The proliferative neoplastic cell in EMPD is the Paget cell, which can be identified as a large round cell located in the epidermis with pale-staining cytoplasm, a large nucleus, and sometimes a prominent nucleolus. Paget cells can be distributed singly or in clusters, nests, or glandular structures within the epidermis and adjacent to adnexal structures.¹⁰ Extramammary Paget disease can have many patterns, including glandular, acantholysis-like, upper nest, tall nest, budding, and sheetlike.¹¹

Immunohistochemically, Paget cells in EMPD typically express pancytokeratins (CKAE1/AE3), low-molecular-weight/simple epithelial type keratins (CK7, CAM 5.2), sweat gland antigens (epithelial membrane antigen, CEA, gross cystic disease fluid protein 15 [GCDFP15]), mucin 5AC (MUC5AC), and often androgen receptor.^12-18 Paget cells contain cytoplasmic mucin and demonstrate prominent cytoplasmic staining with Hale colloidal iron.¹⁷ Paget cells typically do not express high-molecular-weight cytokeratin (eg, CK5/6), melanocytic antigens, estrogen receptor, or progesterone receptor.^15,18

Immunohistochemical staining has been shown to differ between primary cutaneous (type 1) and secondary (types 2 and 3) EMPD. Primary cutaneous EMPD typically expresses sweat gland markers (CK7⁺, CK20⁻, GCDFP15⁺). Secondary EMPD typically expresses an endodermal phenotype (CK7⁺, CK20⁺, GCDFP15⁻).¹²

Acantholytic dyskeratosis of the genitocrural area is a rare lesion included in the spectrum of focal acantholytic dyskeratoses described by Ackerman.¹⁹ It also has been referred to as papular acantholytic dyskeratosis of the vulva, though histologically similar lesions also have been reported in men.^20-22 Histologically, acantholytic dyskeratosis of the genitocrural area has prominent acantholysis and dyskeratosis with corps ronds and grains.¹⁹ Familial benign pemphigus (Hailey-Hailey disease) is caused by mutations of the ATP2C1 gene, which encodes for a secretory pathway Ca²⁺/Mn²⁺-ATPase pump type 1 (SPCA1) in the Golgi apparatus in keratinocytes.²³ Familial benign pemphigus has a histologic appearance similar to acantholytic dyskeratosis of the genitocrural area, but a positive family history of familial benign pemphigus can be used to differentiate the 2 entities from each other due to the autosomal-dominant inheritance pattern of familial benign pemphigus. Both of these disorders can appear similar to AAEMPD because of their extensive intraepidermal acantholysis, but they differ in the lack of Paget cells, intraepidermal atypia, and increased mitotic activity.

Acantholytic Bowen disease is a histologic variant that can be difficult to distinguish from AAEMPD on hematoxylin and eosin–stained sections because of their similar histologic features but can be differentiated by IHC stains.⁵ Acantholytic Bowen disease expresses high-molecular-weight cytokeratin (eg, CK5/6) but is negative for CK7, CAM 5.2, and CEA. Extramammary Paget disease generally has the opposite pattern: positive staining for CK7, CAM 5.2, and CEA, but negative for high-molecular-weight cytokeratin.^13,14,24

Primary cutaneous adenosquamous carcinoma is a rare malignancy of squamous and glandular differentiation known for being locally aggressive and metastatic.²⁵ Histologically, cutaneous adenosquamous carcinoma shows infiltrating nests of neoplastic cells with both squamous and glandular features. It differs notably from AAEMPD in that cutaneous adenosquamous carcinomas tend to arise in the head and arm regions, and their histologic morphology is different. The IHC profiles are similar, with positive staining for CEA, CK7, and mucin; however, they differ in that AAEMPD is negative for high-molecular-weight keratin while cutaneous adenosquamous carcinoma is positive.²⁵

Verrucous carcinoma is an uncommon variant of squamous cell carcinoma with well-differentiated keratinocytes and a blunt pushing border.²⁴ Similar to AAEMPD, this neoplasm can arise in the genital and perineal areas; however, the 2 entities differ considerably in morphology on histologic examination.

Pemphigus vulgaris is an autoimmune intraepidermal blistering disorder of the skin and mucous membranes of which pemphigus vegetans is a subtype.^26,27 Pemphigus vulgaris is another diagnosis that can possibly be mimicked by AAEMPD.²⁸ Histologic features of pemphigus vulgaris include intraepidermal acantholysis of keratinocytes immediately above the basal layer of the epidermis. Pemphigus vegetans is similar with the addition of papillomatosis, hyperkeratosis, and an eosinophilic infiltrate.^26,27 Immunofluorescence typically demonstrates intercellular C3 and IgG deposits.²⁶ These diseases mimic AAEMPD histologically but differ in their relative lack of atypia and Paget cells.

In summary, we report a case of AAEMPD in a 78-year-old man in whom routine histologic specimens showed marked intraepidermal acantholysis and atypical tumor cells with increased mitoses. The latter finding prompted IHC studies that revealed positive CK7, CEA, pancytokeratin, and LMWCK staining with negative CK20 staining. Hale colloidal iron staining showed moderate to abundant cytoplasmic mucin. The patient was diagnosed with AAEMPD. It is imperative to maintain clinical suspicion for AAEMPD and to examine acantholytic disorders with scrutiny. When there is evidence of atypia or mitoses, use of IHC stains can assist in fully characterizing the lesion.

MADRID – Pirfenidone was shown to be effective for slowing decline in lung function among patients with unclassifiable interstitial lung diseases (uILD), according to results of a late breaker, placebo-controlled, multinational trial presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

For preservation of lung function as monitored with forced vital capacity (FVC), pirfenidone provided a large and highly statistically significant advantage over placebo in a phase 2 trial that randomized 253 uILD patients to 2,403 mg pirfenidone or placebo, according to Toby M. Maher, MD, head of the Fibrosis Research Group for the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London.

At 24 weeks, FVC lung function declined by just 17.8 mL in the pirfenidone group vs. 113 mL in the placebo group (P = .002). The results, published simultaneously with Dr. Maher’s ERS presentation in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, are particularly encouraging because there are no currently approved treatments for uILD, according to Dr. Maher.

However, the data from this study, even though it was double blind and involved 70 participating centers in 14 countries, come with an asterisk. The significant FVC advantage was documented with in-hospital measurements, but this was a secondary, not the primary, endpoint. Measurements with hand-held spirometry, which was the primary endpoint, proved to be uninterpretable due to intra-individual variability.

“We had hoped that daily home spirometry would give us more information of the patient’s trajectory over time,” said Dr. Maher, who blames himself for selecting hand-held device measurements as the primary endpoint. In the end, the variability in the home hand-held spirometry data prevented the planned statistical testing.

“There were issues with the hand-held devices we had not anticipated,” Dr. Maher reported. However, hospital-based measurement, which has long been the “regulatory standard” in ILD trials “supports the conclusion that pirfenidone was effective.”

The conclusion is also supported by other secondary outcomes and analyses. For example, the categorical declines in FVC of greater than 5% (37.0% vs. 58.7%; P = .001) and greater than 10% (14.2% vs. 27.9%; P = .011) both favored pirfenidone. There were no between-group differences in progression-free survival at 24 weeks, but events were low in both study arms over this time period.

There was evidence of functional benefit for pirfenidone relative to placebo, such as a smaller decline in the 6-minute walk test (–2 vs. –26.7 M, P = .04). Treatment favoring pirfenidone over placebo was observed across subgroups defined by age, gender, baseline lung function, and presence or absence of interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features.

Pirfenidone was generally well tolerated with side effects similar to those reported in other studies. The rate of treatment-related discontinuation was 12.6% on pirfenidone versus 0.8% on placebo. The most frequent adverse events, all of which were more common in the pirfenidone group, were gastrointestinal complaints (47.2% vs. 25.8%), rash (10.2% vs. 7.3%), and dizziness (7.9% vs. 0.8%). Rates of photosensitivity were higher in the experimental arm (7.9% vs. 1.8%), but low relative to previous studies, potentially because of greater emphasis on sun protection, Dr. Maher reported.

About 10%-15% of patients with ILD have an unclassifiable type, he noted. Although it is possible for uILD to be a missed diagnosis of an established ILD type, Dr. Maher reported that participating centers for this study were specifically selected for their expertise in ILD. He noted that more than 45% of patients were deemed uILD on the basis of biopsy.

The ERS-invited discussant of this trial, Martin Kolb, MD, professor of respirology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., called the data “strong.” He suggested the data are particularly encouraging in the context of the lack of approved therapies for uILD.

Despite the fact that benefit of pirfenidone was not established on the primary endpoint, Dr. Maher contended that this is a positive study that can be used to design future investigations. “When we use the normal standard endpoint for the study, we see a clear benefit of pirfenidone over placebo.”

Dr. Maher reported no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Maher TM et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019 Sep 29. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30341-8.

MADRID – Pirfenidone was shown to be effective for slowing decline in lung function among patients with unclassifiable interstitial lung diseases (uILD), according to results of a late breaker, placebo-controlled, multinational trial presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

For preservation of lung function as monitored with forced vital capacity (FVC), pirfenidone provided a large and highly statistically significant advantage over placebo in a phase 2 trial that randomized 253 uILD patients to 2,403 mg pirfenidone or placebo, according to Toby M. Maher, MD, head of the Fibrosis Research Group for the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London.

At 24 weeks, FVC lung function declined by just 17.8 mL in the pirfenidone group vs. 113 mL in the placebo group (P = .002). The results, published simultaneously with Dr. Maher’s ERS presentation in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, are particularly encouraging because there are no currently approved treatments for uILD, according to Dr. Maher.

However, the data from this study, even though it was double blind and involved 70 participating centers in 14 countries, come with an asterisk. The significant FVC advantage was documented with in-hospital measurements, but this was a secondary, not the primary, endpoint. Measurements with hand-held spirometry, which was the primary endpoint, proved to be uninterpretable due to intra-individual variability.

“We had hoped that daily home spirometry would give us more information of the patient’s trajectory over time,” said Dr. Maher, who blames himself for selecting hand-held device measurements as the primary endpoint. In the end, the variability in the home hand-held spirometry data prevented the planned statistical testing.

“There were issues with the hand-held devices we had not anticipated,” Dr. Maher reported. However, hospital-based measurement, which has long been the “regulatory standard” in ILD trials “supports the conclusion that pirfenidone was effective.”

The conclusion is also supported by other secondary outcomes and analyses. For example, the categorical declines in FVC of greater than 5% (37.0% vs. 58.7%; P = .001) and greater than 10% (14.2% vs. 27.9%; P = .011) both favored pirfenidone. There were no between-group differences in progression-free survival at 24 weeks, but events were low in both study arms over this time period.

There was evidence of functional benefit for pirfenidone relative to placebo, such as a smaller decline in the 6-minute walk test (–2 vs. –26.7 M, P = .04). Treatment favoring pirfenidone over placebo was observed across subgroups defined by age, gender, baseline lung function, and presence or absence of interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features.

Pirfenidone was generally well tolerated with side effects similar to those reported in other studies. The rate of treatment-related discontinuation was 12.6% on pirfenidone versus 0.8% on placebo. The most frequent adverse events, all of which were more common in the pirfenidone group, were gastrointestinal complaints (47.2% vs. 25.8%), rash (10.2% vs. 7.3%), and dizziness (7.9% vs. 0.8%). Rates of photosensitivity were higher in the experimental arm (7.9% vs. 1.8%), but low relative to previous studies, potentially because of greater emphasis on sun protection, Dr. Maher reported.

About 10%-15% of patients with ILD have an unclassifiable type, he noted. Although it is possible for uILD to be a missed diagnosis of an established ILD type, Dr. Maher reported that participating centers for this study were specifically selected for their expertise in ILD. He noted that more than 45% of patients were deemed uILD on the basis of biopsy.

The ERS-invited discussant of this trial, Martin Kolb, MD, professor of respirology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., called the data “strong.” He suggested the data are particularly encouraging in the context of the lack of approved therapies for uILD.

Despite the fact that benefit of pirfenidone was not established on the primary endpoint, Dr. Maher contended that this is a positive study that can be used to design future investigations. “When we use the normal standard endpoint for the study, we see a clear benefit of pirfenidone over placebo.”

Dr. Maher reported no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Maher TM et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019 Sep 29. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30341-8.

MADRID – Pirfenidone was shown to be effective for slowing decline in lung function among patients with unclassifiable interstitial lung diseases (uILD), according to results of a late breaker, placebo-controlled, multinational trial presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

For preservation of lung function as monitored with forced vital capacity (FVC), pirfenidone provided a large and highly statistically significant advantage over placebo in a phase 2 trial that randomized 253 uILD patients to 2,403 mg pirfenidone or placebo, according to Toby M. Maher, MD, head of the Fibrosis Research Group for the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London.

At 24 weeks, FVC lung function declined by just 17.8 mL in the pirfenidone group vs. 113 mL in the placebo group (P = .002). The results, published simultaneously with Dr. Maher’s ERS presentation in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, are particularly encouraging because there are no currently approved treatments for uILD, according to Dr. Maher.

However, the data from this study, even though it was double blind and involved 70 participating centers in 14 countries, come with an asterisk. The significant FVC advantage was documented with in-hospital measurements, but this was a secondary, not the primary, endpoint. Measurements with hand-held spirometry, which was the primary endpoint, proved to be uninterpretable due to intra-individual variability.

“We had hoped that daily home spirometry would give us more information of the patient’s trajectory over time,” said Dr. Maher, who blames himself for selecting hand-held device measurements as the primary endpoint. In the end, the variability in the home hand-held spirometry data prevented the planned statistical testing.

“There were issues with the hand-held devices we had not anticipated,” Dr. Maher reported. However, hospital-based measurement, which has long been the “regulatory standard” in ILD trials “supports the conclusion that pirfenidone was effective.”

The conclusion is also supported by other secondary outcomes and analyses. For example, the categorical declines in FVC of greater than 5% (37.0% vs. 58.7%; P = .001) and greater than 10% (14.2% vs. 27.9%; P = .011) both favored pirfenidone. There were no between-group differences in progression-free survival at 24 weeks, but events were low in both study arms over this time period.

There was evidence of functional benefit for pirfenidone relative to placebo, such as a smaller decline in the 6-minute walk test (–2 vs. –26.7 M, P = .04). Treatment favoring pirfenidone over placebo was observed across subgroups defined by age, gender, baseline lung function, and presence or absence of interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features.

Pirfenidone was generally well tolerated with side effects similar to those reported in other studies. The rate of treatment-related discontinuation was 12.6% on pirfenidone versus 0.8% on placebo. The most frequent adverse events, all of which were more common in the pirfenidone group, were gastrointestinal complaints (47.2% vs. 25.8%), rash (10.2% vs. 7.3%), and dizziness (7.9% vs. 0.8%). Rates of photosensitivity were higher in the experimental arm (7.9% vs. 1.8%), but low relative to previous studies, potentially because of greater emphasis on sun protection, Dr. Maher reported.

About 10%-15% of patients with ILD have an unclassifiable type, he noted. Although it is possible for uILD to be a missed diagnosis of an established ILD type, Dr. Maher reported that participating centers for this study were specifically selected for their expertise in ILD. He noted that more than 45% of patients were deemed uILD on the basis of biopsy.

The ERS-invited discussant of this trial, Martin Kolb, MD, professor of respirology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., called the data “strong.” He suggested the data are particularly encouraging in the context of the lack of approved therapies for uILD.

Despite the fact that benefit of pirfenidone was not established on the primary endpoint, Dr. Maher contended that this is a positive study that can be used to design future investigations. “When we use the normal standard endpoint for the study, we see a clear benefit of pirfenidone over placebo.”

Dr. Maher reported no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Maher TM et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019 Sep 29. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30341-8.

To the Editor:

Barber’s sinus, or interdigital pilonidal sinus, is an occupational dermatosis with a pathognomonic clinical picture. Nearly all reports of barber’s sinus in the literature have involved the hands of male barbers and hairdressers. We present an uncommon case of barber’s sinus between the toes of a female hairdresser. If left untreated, potential complications of barber’s sinus include abscess formation, cellulitis, lymphangitis, and osteomyelitis. Clinicians should advise patients with an occupational risk of barber’s sinus to wear protective footwear and maintain hygiene in the interdigital spaces.

A 23-year-old female hairdresser was referred to our outpatient dermatology clinic by general surgery for evaluation of an asymptomatic interdigital toe lesion of several months’ duration. She was otherwise healthy. Physical examination revealed a 3-mm sinus in the interdigital web space between the fourth and fifth digits of the left foot, creating a partial fistula terminating in an umbilicated pink papule on the dorsal aspect of the interdigital space (Figure). While at work, the patient reported that she usually wore open-toed flip-flops. A diagnosis of barber’s sinus was made clinically. She returned for follow-up to the referring surgeon within 2 months and was offered surgical debridement, but the patient declined treatment, instead opting to wait and monitor for any potential complications. The lesion showed no change in clinical appearance and remained asymptomatic.

Barber’s sinus is caused by sharp fragments of clipped hair that penetrate the fragile interdigital skin and cause a foreign-body reaction. Males are almost exclusively contributory to the reported cases of barber’s sinus in the literature.^1,2

The clinical picture of barber’s sinus is pathognomonic, as demonstrated in our case. Other potential diagnoses to consider include atypical mycobacterial infection, deep fungal infection, other foreign-body granuloma, and erosio interdigitalis blastomycetica. Although thorough removal of embedded hair fragments may be curative, most cases require surgical excision, often by curette, and subsequent skin closure. Pathology shows a foreign-body granulomatous reaction to hair fragments. If left untreated, potential complications of barber’s sinus include abscess formation, cellulitis, lymphangitis, and osteomyelitis. This lesion is preventable by maintaining hygiene of the interdigital spaces, use of barrier creams, and wearing protective footwear.^3,4

To the Editor:

Barber’s sinus, or interdigital pilonidal sinus, is an occupational dermatosis with a pathognomonic clinical picture. Nearly all reports of barber’s sinus in the literature have involved the hands of male barbers and hairdressers. We present an uncommon case of barber’s sinus between the toes of a female hairdresser. If left untreated, potential complications of barber’s sinus include abscess formation, cellulitis, lymphangitis, and osteomyelitis. Clinicians should advise patients with an occupational risk of barber’s sinus to wear protective footwear and maintain hygiene in the interdigital spaces.

A 23-year-old female hairdresser was referred to our outpatient dermatology clinic by general surgery for evaluation of an asymptomatic interdigital toe lesion of several months’ duration. She was otherwise healthy. Physical examination revealed a 3-mm sinus in the interdigital web space between the fourth and fifth digits of the left foot, creating a partial fistula terminating in an umbilicated pink papule on the dorsal aspect of the interdigital space (Figure). While at work, the patient reported that she usually wore open-toed flip-flops. A diagnosis of barber’s sinus was made clinically. She returned for follow-up to the referring surgeon within 2 months and was offered surgical debridement, but the patient declined treatment, instead opting to wait and monitor for any potential complications. The lesion showed no change in clinical appearance and remained asymptomatic.

Barber’s sinus is caused by sharp fragments of clipped hair that penetrate the fragile interdigital skin and cause a foreign-body reaction. Males are almost exclusively contributory to the reported cases of barber’s sinus in the literature.^1,2

The clinical picture of barber’s sinus is pathognomonic, as demonstrated in our case. Other potential diagnoses to consider include atypical mycobacterial infection, deep fungal infection, other foreign-body granuloma, and erosio interdigitalis blastomycetica. Although thorough removal of embedded hair fragments may be curative, most cases require surgical excision, often by curette, and subsequent skin closure. Pathology shows a foreign-body granulomatous reaction to hair fragments. If left untreated, potential complications of barber’s sinus include abscess formation, cellulitis, lymphangitis, and osteomyelitis. This lesion is preventable by maintaining hygiene of the interdigital spaces, use of barrier creams, and wearing protective footwear.^3,4

To the Editor:

Barber’s sinus, or interdigital pilonidal sinus, is an occupational dermatosis with a pathognomonic clinical picture. Nearly all reports of barber’s sinus in the literature have involved the hands of male barbers and hairdressers. We present an uncommon case of barber’s sinus between the toes of a female hairdresser. If left untreated, potential complications of barber’s sinus include abscess formation, cellulitis, lymphangitis, and osteomyelitis. Clinicians should advise patients with an occupational risk of barber’s sinus to wear protective footwear and maintain hygiene in the interdigital spaces.

A 23-year-old female hairdresser was referred to our outpatient dermatology clinic by general surgery for evaluation of an asymptomatic interdigital toe lesion of several months’ duration. She was otherwise healthy. Physical examination revealed a 3-mm sinus in the interdigital web space between the fourth and fifth digits of the left foot, creating a partial fistula terminating in an umbilicated pink papule on the dorsal aspect of the interdigital space (Figure). While at work, the patient reported that she usually wore open-toed flip-flops. A diagnosis of barber’s sinus was made clinically. She returned for follow-up to the referring surgeon within 2 months and was offered surgical debridement, but the patient declined treatment, instead opting to wait and monitor for any potential complications. The lesion showed no change in clinical appearance and remained asymptomatic.

Barber’s sinus is caused by sharp fragments of clipped hair that penetrate the fragile interdigital skin and cause a foreign-body reaction. Males are almost exclusively contributory to the reported cases of barber’s sinus in the literature.^1,2

The clinical picture of barber’s sinus is pathognomonic, as demonstrated in our case. Other potential diagnoses to consider include atypical mycobacterial infection, deep fungal infection, other foreign-body granuloma, and erosio interdigitalis blastomycetica. Although thorough removal of embedded hair fragments may be curative, most cases require surgical excision, often by curette, and subsequent skin closure. Pathology shows a foreign-body granulomatous reaction to hair fragments. If left untreated, potential complications of barber’s sinus include abscess formation, cellulitis, lymphangitis, and osteomyelitis. This lesion is preventable by maintaining hygiene of the interdigital spaces, use of barrier creams, and wearing protective footwear.^3,4

There is no significant difference in response or survival rates between the combination of ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi-nivo) and immuno-oncology plus vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition (IOVE) for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Therefore, the treatment should probably be directed by patient preferences, among other things, Shaan Dudani, MD, and colleagues wrote in European Oncology.

“Given the current lack of evidence to suggest a difference in efficacy between treatment strategies, patients, clinicians and policy makers are likely to take into account other considerations, such as toxicity, cost, logistics, prognostic categories, and patient preferences in deciding between the various front-line [immuno-oncology] combination regimens,” wrote Dr. Dudani, of the University of Calgary, and coauthors.

The team examined response rates among 263 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma from the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) dataset. Patients treated with any first-line IOVE combination (n = 113) were compared with those treated with ipi-nivo (n = 75). Patients were about 62 years old. The most common sites of metastasis were liver (about 20%) and bone (about 33%), and about 20% had sarcomatoid features (about 20%). Most (about 75%) had multiple metastatic sites.

Thirty percent of those in the IOVE group and 40% in the ipi-nivo group had received second-line treatments. These included axitinib, levantinib plus severolimus, nivolumab alone, pazopanib, and sunitinib, as well as other treatments.

At a mean follow-up of 11.7 months, the response rates were 33% for IOVE and 40% for ipi-nivo. This difference was not statistically significant (between group difference, 7%; 95% confidence interval, –8% to 22%; P = .4). Complete response occurred in 2% in IOVE and 5% of the ipi-nivo group.

The time to treatment failure was 14.3 months for IOVE and 10.2 months for ipi-nivo – again not a significant difference (P = .2). Time to next treatment also was not significantly different (19.7 vs. 17.9 months; P = .4). Neither group met the study’s overall survival goal.

After adjustment for IMDC risk score, hazard ratios for death were 0.71 for IOVE and 1.74 for ipi-nivo. There were no significant between-group differences when comparing intermediate- and poor-risk patients or when the analysis was restricted only to favorable-risk patients. Among 55 who received second-line therapy, there was also no significant difference in time to treatment failure.

“It was interesting, though not surprising, to observe that the majority [88%] of second-line therapies in this cohort were VEGF-based following ipi-nivo vs. IOVE combinations,” the authors noted. “The higher response rates observed in patients receiving second-line VEGF combinations is noteworthy and thought provoking. Biologically, it is plausible that VEGF-based second-line therapy would be more likely to be effective in the VEGF-naive ipi-nivo cohort. It remains to be seen whether the numerical difference in time to treatment failure becomes significant with increased sample size and further follow-up, and whether this contributes to differences in overall survival, which ultimately impacts treatment selections in the first-line setting.”

Dr. Dudani had no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Dudani S et al. Euro Onc. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.048.
 

There is no significant difference in response or survival rates between the combination of ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi-nivo) and immuno-oncology plus vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition (IOVE) for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Therefore, the treatment should probably be directed by patient preferences, among other things, Shaan Dudani, MD, and colleagues wrote in European Oncology.

“Given the current lack of evidence to suggest a difference in efficacy between treatment strategies, patients, clinicians and policy makers are likely to take into account other considerations, such as toxicity, cost, logistics, prognostic categories, and patient preferences in deciding between the various front-line [immuno-oncology] combination regimens,” wrote Dr. Dudani, of the University of Calgary, and coauthors.

The team examined response rates among 263 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma from the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) dataset. Patients treated with any first-line IOVE combination (n = 113) were compared with those treated with ipi-nivo (n = 75). Patients were about 62 years old. The most common sites of metastasis were liver (about 20%) and bone (about 33%), and about 20% had sarcomatoid features (about 20%). Most (about 75%) had multiple metastatic sites.

Thirty percent of those in the IOVE group and 40% in the ipi-nivo group had received second-line treatments. These included axitinib, levantinib plus severolimus, nivolumab alone, pazopanib, and sunitinib, as well as other treatments.

At a mean follow-up of 11.7 months, the response rates were 33% for IOVE and 40% for ipi-nivo. This difference was not statistically significant (between group difference, 7%; 95% confidence interval, –8% to 22%; P = .4). Complete response occurred in 2% in IOVE and 5% of the ipi-nivo group.

The time to treatment failure was 14.3 months for IOVE and 10.2 months for ipi-nivo – again not a significant difference (P = .2). Time to next treatment also was not significantly different (19.7 vs. 17.9 months; P = .4). Neither group met the study’s overall survival goal.

After adjustment for IMDC risk score, hazard ratios for death were 0.71 for IOVE and 1.74 for ipi-nivo. There were no significant between-group differences when comparing intermediate- and poor-risk patients or when the analysis was restricted only to favorable-risk patients. Among 55 who received second-line therapy, there was also no significant difference in time to treatment failure.

“It was interesting, though not surprising, to observe that the majority [88%] of second-line therapies in this cohort were VEGF-based following ipi-nivo vs. IOVE combinations,” the authors noted. “The higher response rates observed in patients receiving second-line VEGF combinations is noteworthy and thought provoking. Biologically, it is plausible that VEGF-based second-line therapy would be more likely to be effective in the VEGF-naive ipi-nivo cohort. It remains to be seen whether the numerical difference in time to treatment failure becomes significant with increased sample size and further follow-up, and whether this contributes to differences in overall survival, which ultimately impacts treatment selections in the first-line setting.”

Dr. Dudani had no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Dudani S et al. Euro Onc. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.048.
 

There is no significant difference in response or survival rates between the combination of ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi-nivo) and immuno-oncology plus vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition (IOVE) for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Therefore, the treatment should probably be directed by patient preferences, among other things, Shaan Dudani, MD, and colleagues wrote in European Oncology.

“Given the current lack of evidence to suggest a difference in efficacy between treatment strategies, patients, clinicians and policy makers are likely to take into account other considerations, such as toxicity, cost, logistics, prognostic categories, and patient preferences in deciding between the various front-line [immuno-oncology] combination regimens,” wrote Dr. Dudani, of the University of Calgary, and coauthors.

The team examined response rates among 263 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma from the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) dataset. Patients treated with any first-line IOVE combination (n = 113) were compared with those treated with ipi-nivo (n = 75). Patients were about 62 years old. The most common sites of metastasis were liver (about 20%) and bone (about 33%), and about 20% had sarcomatoid features (about 20%). Most (about 75%) had multiple metastatic sites.

Thirty percent of those in the IOVE group and 40% in the ipi-nivo group had received second-line treatments. These included axitinib, levantinib plus severolimus, nivolumab alone, pazopanib, and sunitinib, as well as other treatments.

At a mean follow-up of 11.7 months, the response rates were 33% for IOVE and 40% for ipi-nivo. This difference was not statistically significant (between group difference, 7%; 95% confidence interval, –8% to 22%; P = .4). Complete response occurred in 2% in IOVE and 5% of the ipi-nivo group.

The time to treatment failure was 14.3 months for IOVE and 10.2 months for ipi-nivo – again not a significant difference (P = .2). Time to next treatment also was not significantly different (19.7 vs. 17.9 months; P = .4). Neither group met the study’s overall survival goal.

After adjustment for IMDC risk score, hazard ratios for death were 0.71 for IOVE and 1.74 for ipi-nivo. There were no significant between-group differences when comparing intermediate- and poor-risk patients or when the analysis was restricted only to favorable-risk patients. Among 55 who received second-line therapy, there was also no significant difference in time to treatment failure.

“It was interesting, though not surprising, to observe that the majority [88%] of second-line therapies in this cohort were VEGF-based following ipi-nivo vs. IOVE combinations,” the authors noted. “The higher response rates observed in patients receiving second-line VEGF combinations is noteworthy and thought provoking. Biologically, it is plausible that VEGF-based second-line therapy would be more likely to be effective in the VEGF-naive ipi-nivo cohort. It remains to be seen whether the numerical difference in time to treatment failure becomes significant with increased sample size and further follow-up, and whether this contributes to differences in overall survival, which ultimately impacts treatment selections in the first-line setting.”

Dr. Dudani had no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Dudani S et al. Euro Onc. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.048.
 

It’s 6:30 on a Friday night, and I am triaging three admissions to the leukemia service at once. The call from the ED about you makes me pause. I recognize your name – you were my patient a few years before. At the time, you were undergoing chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia, and I cared for you during the aftermath. I now pull up your chart and fill in the gaps of the last 2 years. You got into remission and received a bone marrow transplant. For 2 years, you were cured. But today, you are back. The ED has picked up an abundance of blasts – cancer cells – in your blood. I walk to your ED gurney slowly, thinking of how to tell you this. You recognize me, too. And I can see in your eyes that you already know. “I am so sorry this is happening,” I say.

You are here for your third cycle of chemotherapy. It’s a standard check-in. The first cycle was tolerable, the second cycle was rough, and now you are exhausted. You wonder if it’s normal to be so beat up from this. You ask how much nausea is too much nausea. But your hair didn’t fall out – isn’t that strange? Is it a sure thing that it will? And, by the way, is there anything to prevent the neuropathy? You wiggle your fingers as if to emphasize the point. We go through each of your symptoms and strategize ways to make this cycle better than the last. “OK,” you conclude triumphantly. “I got this!”

It’s your 1-month follow-up and it’s time to pivot. After you were diagnosed with an aggressive triple-negative breast cancer, you met with a medical oncologist and a surgeon. Chemotherapy first, they agreed. The chemo would shrink the tumor, they said, so that it could all be scooped out with surgery. The medications were rough, but you knew it was for the best. But now it’s been two cycles and the lump in your breast is getting bigger not smaller. I ask if I may draw on your skin, promising I’ll wash it off. I gently trace the mass in pen and pull out a tape measure. Yes. It is bigger. I listen to your heart and hear it racing. “What now?” you ask.

When you saw your doctor for bloating and were told it’s not gas, actually, but stage 4 cancer, you didn’t cry. You didn’t deny it. You prepared. You called your lawyer and made a will. You contacted your job and planned for retirement. You organized your things so your children wouldn’t have to. Your oncologist recommended palliative chemotherapy as it could give you some more good days. The best case scenario would be 1 year. That was 2½ years ago. You still like to be prepared, you tell me, but that’s on the back burner now. You are busy, after all – your feet still ache from dancing all night in heels at your niece’s wedding last weekend. I pull up your latest PET scan and we look together: Again, wonderfully, everything appears stable. “See you in 3 months,” I say.

You called three times to move up this appointment because you didn’t know if you’d be alive this long. You want a second opinion. When your kidney cancer grew after surgery, two immunotherapy drugs, and a chemotherapy pill, the latest setback has been fevers up to 104 ° with drenching night sweats. They found a deep infection gnawing around the edges of your tumor, and antibiotics aren’t touching it. The only chance to stop the cancer is more chemotherapy, but that could make the infection worse and lead to a rapid demise. You can’t decide. Today, in the exam room, you are sweating. Your temperature is 101 °. Your partner is trying to keep it together, but the crumpled tissues in her hand give it away. She looks at me earnestly: “What would you do if this were your family member?”

You teach about this disease in your classes and never thought it would happen to you. It started simply enough – you were bruising. Your joints ached. Small things; odd things. The ER doctor cleverly noticed that some numbers were off in your blood counts and sent you to a hematology-oncology doctor, who then cleverly ordered a molecular blood test. It was a long shot. He didn’t really expect it to come back with chronic myeloid leukemia. But there it is, and here we are. You return to talk about treatment options. You understand in detail the biology of how they work. What you don’t know is which is best for you. I go through the four choices and unpleasant effects of each. Muscle aches; diarrhea; risk of bleeding; twice a day dosing tied to mealtimes. “Is there an Option 5?” you wonder.

You have been in the hospital for 34 days, but who’s counting? You are. Because it has been Thirty. Four. Days. You knew the chemotherapy would suppress your blood counts. Now you know what “impaired immune system” really means. You had the bloodstream bacterial infection, requiring 2 days in the ICU. You had the invasive fungus growing in your lungs. The nurses post a calendar on your wall and kindly fill it in every day with your white blood cell count so you don’t have to ask. For days, it’s the same. Your bag stays packed – “just in case,” you explain. Your spouse diligently keeps your children – 2 and 4 years old – away, as kids are notorious germ factories. Then one Sunday morning and – finally! “Put me on speakerphone,” you tell your spouse. “Daddy is coming home!”

One of the most precious parts of hematology and oncology is the relationships. You are there not just for one difficult moment, but for the journey. I await getting to help you over the years to come. For now, I will settle for snapshots.
 

Dr. Yurkiewicz is a fellow in hematology and oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University. Follow her on Twitter @ilanayurkiewicz and listen to her each week on the Blood & Cancer podcast.

It’s 6:30 on a Friday night, and I am triaging three admissions to the leukemia service at once. The call from the ED about you makes me pause. I recognize your name – you were my patient a few years before. At the time, you were undergoing chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia, and I cared for you during the aftermath. I now pull up your chart and fill in the gaps of the last 2 years. You got into remission and received a bone marrow transplant. For 2 years, you were cured. But today, you are back. The ED has picked up an abundance of blasts – cancer cells – in your blood. I walk to your ED gurney slowly, thinking of how to tell you this. You recognize me, too. And I can see in your eyes that you already know. “I am so sorry this is happening,” I say.

You are here for your third cycle of chemotherapy. It’s a standard check-in. The first cycle was tolerable, the second cycle was rough, and now you are exhausted. You wonder if it’s normal to be so beat up from this. You ask how much nausea is too much nausea. But your hair didn’t fall out – isn’t that strange? Is it a sure thing that it will? And, by the way, is there anything to prevent the neuropathy? You wiggle your fingers as if to emphasize the point. We go through each of your symptoms and strategize ways to make this cycle better than the last. “OK,” you conclude triumphantly. “I got this!”

It’s your 1-month follow-up and it’s time to pivot. After you were diagnosed with an aggressive triple-negative breast cancer, you met with a medical oncologist and a surgeon. Chemotherapy first, they agreed. The chemo would shrink the tumor, they said, so that it could all be scooped out with surgery. The medications were rough, but you knew it was for the best. But now it’s been two cycles and the lump in your breast is getting bigger not smaller. I ask if I may draw on your skin, promising I’ll wash it off. I gently trace the mass in pen and pull out a tape measure. Yes. It is bigger. I listen to your heart and hear it racing. “What now?” you ask.

When you saw your doctor for bloating and were told it’s not gas, actually, but stage 4 cancer, you didn’t cry. You didn’t deny it. You prepared. You called your lawyer and made a will. You contacted your job and planned for retirement. You organized your things so your children wouldn’t have to. Your oncologist recommended palliative chemotherapy as it could give you some more good days. The best case scenario would be 1 year. That was 2½ years ago. You still like to be prepared, you tell me, but that’s on the back burner now. You are busy, after all – your feet still ache from dancing all night in heels at your niece’s wedding last weekend. I pull up your latest PET scan and we look together: Again, wonderfully, everything appears stable. “See you in 3 months,” I say.

You called three times to move up this appointment because you didn’t know if you’d be alive this long. You want a second opinion. When your kidney cancer grew after surgery, two immunotherapy drugs, and a chemotherapy pill, the latest setback has been fevers up to 104 ° with drenching night sweats. They found a deep infection gnawing around the edges of your tumor, and antibiotics aren’t touching it. The only chance to stop the cancer is more chemotherapy, but that could make the infection worse and lead to a rapid demise. You can’t decide. Today, in the exam room, you are sweating. Your temperature is 101 °. Your partner is trying to keep it together, but the crumpled tissues in her hand give it away. She looks at me earnestly: “What would you do if this were your family member?”

You teach about this disease in your classes and never thought it would happen to you. It started simply enough – you were bruising. Your joints ached. Small things; odd things. The ER doctor cleverly noticed that some numbers were off in your blood counts and sent you to a hematology-oncology doctor, who then cleverly ordered a molecular blood test. It was a long shot. He didn’t really expect it to come back with chronic myeloid leukemia. But there it is, and here we are. You return to talk about treatment options. You understand in detail the biology of how they work. What you don’t know is which is best for you. I go through the four choices and unpleasant effects of each. Muscle aches; diarrhea; risk of bleeding; twice a day dosing tied to mealtimes. “Is there an Option 5?” you wonder.

You have been in the hospital for 34 days, but who’s counting? You are. Because it has been Thirty. Four. Days. You knew the chemotherapy would suppress your blood counts. Now you know what “impaired immune system” really means. You had the bloodstream bacterial infection, requiring 2 days in the ICU. You had the invasive fungus growing in your lungs. The nurses post a calendar on your wall and kindly fill it in every day with your white blood cell count so you don’t have to ask. For days, it’s the same. Your bag stays packed – “just in case,” you explain. Your spouse diligently keeps your children – 2 and 4 years old – away, as kids are notorious germ factories. Then one Sunday morning and – finally! “Put me on speakerphone,” you tell your spouse. “Daddy is coming home!”

One of the most precious parts of hematology and oncology is the relationships. You are there not just for one difficult moment, but for the journey. I await getting to help you over the years to come. For now, I will settle for snapshots.
 

Dr. Yurkiewicz is a fellow in hematology and oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University. Follow her on Twitter @ilanayurkiewicz and listen to her each week on the Blood & Cancer podcast.

It’s 6:30 on a Friday night, and I am triaging three admissions to the leukemia service at once. The call from the ED about you makes me pause. I recognize your name – you were my patient a few years before. At the time, you were undergoing chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia, and I cared for you during the aftermath. I now pull up your chart and fill in the gaps of the last 2 years. You got into remission and received a bone marrow transplant. For 2 years, you were cured. But today, you are back. The ED has picked up an abundance of blasts – cancer cells – in your blood. I walk to your ED gurney slowly, thinking of how to tell you this. You recognize me, too. And I can see in your eyes that you already know. “I am so sorry this is happening,” I say.

You are here for your third cycle of chemotherapy. It’s a standard check-in. The first cycle was tolerable, the second cycle was rough, and now you are exhausted. You wonder if it’s normal to be so beat up from this. You ask how much nausea is too much nausea. But your hair didn’t fall out – isn’t that strange? Is it a sure thing that it will? And, by the way, is there anything to prevent the neuropathy? You wiggle your fingers as if to emphasize the point. We go through each of your symptoms and strategize ways to make this cycle better than the last. “OK,” you conclude triumphantly. “I got this!”

It’s your 1-month follow-up and it’s time to pivot. After you were diagnosed with an aggressive triple-negative breast cancer, you met with a medical oncologist and a surgeon. Chemotherapy first, they agreed. The chemo would shrink the tumor, they said, so that it could all be scooped out with surgery. The medications were rough, but you knew it was for the best. But now it’s been two cycles and the lump in your breast is getting bigger not smaller. I ask if I may draw on your skin, promising I’ll wash it off. I gently trace the mass in pen and pull out a tape measure. Yes. It is bigger. I listen to your heart and hear it racing. “What now?” you ask.

When you saw your doctor for bloating and were told it’s not gas, actually, but stage 4 cancer, you didn’t cry. You didn’t deny it. You prepared. You called your lawyer and made a will. You contacted your job and planned for retirement. You organized your things so your children wouldn’t have to. Your oncologist recommended palliative chemotherapy as it could give you some more good days. The best case scenario would be 1 year. That was 2½ years ago. You still like to be prepared, you tell me, but that’s on the back burner now. You are busy, after all – your feet still ache from dancing all night in heels at your niece’s wedding last weekend. I pull up your latest PET scan and we look together: Again, wonderfully, everything appears stable. “See you in 3 months,” I say.

You called three times to move up this appointment because you didn’t know if you’d be alive this long. You want a second opinion. When your kidney cancer grew after surgery, two immunotherapy drugs, and a chemotherapy pill, the latest setback has been fevers up to 104 ° with drenching night sweats. They found a deep infection gnawing around the edges of your tumor, and antibiotics aren’t touching it. The only chance to stop the cancer is more chemotherapy, but that could make the infection worse and lead to a rapid demise. You can’t decide. Today, in the exam room, you are sweating. Your temperature is 101 °. Your partner is trying to keep it together, but the crumpled tissues in her hand give it away. She looks at me earnestly: “What would you do if this were your family member?”

You teach about this disease in your classes and never thought it would happen to you. It started simply enough – you were bruising. Your joints ached. Small things; odd things. The ER doctor cleverly noticed that some numbers were off in your blood counts and sent you to a hematology-oncology doctor, who then cleverly ordered a molecular blood test. It was a long shot. He didn’t really expect it to come back with chronic myeloid leukemia. But there it is, and here we are. You return to talk about treatment options. You understand in detail the biology of how they work. What you don’t know is which is best for you. I go through the four choices and unpleasant effects of each. Muscle aches; diarrhea; risk of bleeding; twice a day dosing tied to mealtimes. “Is there an Option 5?” you wonder.

You have been in the hospital for 34 days, but who’s counting? You are. Because it has been Thirty. Four. Days. You knew the chemotherapy would suppress your blood counts. Now you know what “impaired immune system” really means. You had the bloodstream bacterial infection, requiring 2 days in the ICU. You had the invasive fungus growing in your lungs. The nurses post a calendar on your wall and kindly fill it in every day with your white blood cell count so you don’t have to ask. For days, it’s the same. Your bag stays packed – “just in case,” you explain. Your spouse diligently keeps your children – 2 and 4 years old – away, as kids are notorious germ factories. Then one Sunday morning and – finally! “Put me on speakerphone,” you tell your spouse. “Daddy is coming home!”

One of the most precious parts of hematology and oncology is the relationships. You are there not just for one difficult moment, but for the journey. I await getting to help you over the years to come. For now, I will settle for snapshots.
 

Dr. Yurkiewicz is a fellow in hematology and oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University. Follow her on Twitter @ilanayurkiewicz and listen to her each week on the Blood & Cancer podcast.

Click here to access October 2019 Advances in Federal Mental Health Care

Table of Contents

• Research News
• Open Clinical Trials for Veterans With Suicidal Ideation
• Validation of the Timberlawn Couple and Family Evaluation Scales-Self-Report in Veterans with PTSD
• Perceived Barriers and Facilitators of Clozapine Use: A National Survey of Veterans Affairs Prescribers
• Standardizing the Use of Mental Health Screening Instruments in Patients With Pain
• Assessing Refill Data Among Different Classes of Antidepressants

Click here to access October 2019 Advances in Federal Mental Health Care

Table of Contents

• Research News
• Open Clinical Trials for Veterans With Suicidal Ideation
• Validation of the Timberlawn Couple and Family Evaluation Scales-Self-Report in Veterans with PTSD
• Perceived Barriers and Facilitators of Clozapine Use: A National Survey of Veterans Affairs Prescribers
• Standardizing the Use of Mental Health Screening Instruments in Patients With Pain
• Assessing Refill Data Among Different Classes of Antidepressants

Click here to access October 2019 Advances in Federal Mental Health Care

Table of Contents

• Research News
• Open Clinical Trials for Veterans With Suicidal Ideation
• Validation of the Timberlawn Couple and Family Evaluation Scales-Self-Report in Veterans with PTSD
• Perceived Barriers and Facilitators of Clozapine Use: A National Survey of Veterans Affairs Prescribers
• Standardizing the Use of Mental Health Screening Instruments in Patients With Pain
• Assessing Refill Data Among Different Classes of Antidepressants

The updated smoking policy goes into effect for employees, patients, visitors, volunteers, contractors, and vendors, whether they smoke cigarettes, cigars, pipes, or even electronic and vaping devices, and whenever they are on the grounds of VA health care facilities, including parking areas.

The new policy comes after the VA reviewed research on second- and thirdhand smoke and best practices in the health care industry. “There is no risk-free level of exposure to tobacco smoke,” the VA’s Smokefree website says. Overwhelming evidence shows exposure to secondhand smoke has significant medical risks. Moreover, a growing body of evidence shows exposure to thirdhand smoke (residual nicotine and other chemicals left on indoor surfaces) also is a health hazard. The residue is thought to react with indoor pollutants to create a toxic mix that clings long after smoking has stopped and cannot be eliminated by opening windows, or using fans, or other means of clearing rooms.

“We are not alone in recognizing the importance of creating a smoke-free campus,” said VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. He notes that as of 2014, 4000 health care facilities and 4 national health care systems in the US have implemented smoke-free grounds.

National Association of Government employees will begin implementing the policy as of October 1, and have until January 1, 2020, to fully comply. Smoking shelters will be closed, although each facility will independently determine the disposition of smoking areas and shelters.

The new policy does not mean anyone has to quit smoking but to encourage quitting, the VA offers resources, including www.publichealth.va.gov/smoking/quit/index.asp. More tips and tools are available at the Smokefree Veteran website: https://veterans.smokefree.gov. SmokefreeVET is a text-messaging program (https://veterans.smokefree.gov/tools-tips-vet/smokefreevet) that provides 24/7 support to help veterans quit for good. Employees can contact their facility for resources.

The policies are available at https://www.va.gov/health/smokefree.

The updated smoking policy goes into effect for employees, patients, visitors, volunteers, contractors, and vendors, whether they smoke cigarettes, cigars, pipes, or even electronic and vaping devices, and whenever they are on the grounds of VA health care facilities, including parking areas.

The new policy comes after the VA reviewed research on second- and thirdhand smoke and best practices in the health care industry. “There is no risk-free level of exposure to tobacco smoke,” the VA’s Smokefree website says. Overwhelming evidence shows exposure to secondhand smoke has significant medical risks. Moreover, a growing body of evidence shows exposure to thirdhand smoke (residual nicotine and other chemicals left on indoor surfaces) also is a health hazard. The residue is thought to react with indoor pollutants to create a toxic mix that clings long after smoking has stopped and cannot be eliminated by opening windows, or using fans, or other means of clearing rooms.

“We are not alone in recognizing the importance of creating a smoke-free campus,” said VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. He notes that as of 2014, 4000 health care facilities and 4 national health care systems in the US have implemented smoke-free grounds.

National Association of Government employees will begin implementing the policy as of October 1, and have until January 1, 2020, to fully comply. Smoking shelters will be closed, although each facility will independently determine the disposition of smoking areas and shelters.

The new policy does not mean anyone has to quit smoking but to encourage quitting, the VA offers resources, including www.publichealth.va.gov/smoking/quit/index.asp. More tips and tools are available at the Smokefree Veteran website: https://veterans.smokefree.gov. SmokefreeVET is a text-messaging program (https://veterans.smokefree.gov/tools-tips-vet/smokefreevet) that provides 24/7 support to help veterans quit for good. Employees can contact their facility for resources.

The policies are available at https://www.va.gov/health/smokefree.

The updated smoking policy goes into effect for employees, patients, visitors, volunteers, contractors, and vendors, whether they smoke cigarettes, cigars, pipes, or even electronic and vaping devices, and whenever they are on the grounds of VA health care facilities, including parking areas.

The new policy comes after the VA reviewed research on second- and thirdhand smoke and best practices in the health care industry. “There is no risk-free level of exposure to tobacco smoke,” the VA’s Smokefree website says. Overwhelming evidence shows exposure to secondhand smoke has significant medical risks. Moreover, a growing body of evidence shows exposure to thirdhand smoke (residual nicotine and other chemicals left on indoor surfaces) also is a health hazard. The residue is thought to react with indoor pollutants to create a toxic mix that clings long after smoking has stopped and cannot be eliminated by opening windows, or using fans, or other means of clearing rooms.

“We are not alone in recognizing the importance of creating a smoke-free campus,” said VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. He notes that as of 2014, 4000 health care facilities and 4 national health care systems in the US have implemented smoke-free grounds.

National Association of Government employees will begin implementing the policy as of October 1, and have until January 1, 2020, to fully comply. Smoking shelters will be closed, although each facility will independently determine the disposition of smoking areas and shelters.

The new policy does not mean anyone has to quit smoking but to encourage quitting, the VA offers resources, including www.publichealth.va.gov/smoking/quit/index.asp. More tips and tools are available at the Smokefree Veteran website: https://veterans.smokefree.gov. SmokefreeVET is a text-messaging program (https://veterans.smokefree.gov/tools-tips-vet/smokefreevet) that provides 24/7 support to help veterans quit for good. Employees can contact their facility for resources.

The policies are available at https://www.va.gov/health/smokefree.

The Diagnosis: Bleomycin-Induced Flagellate Hyperpigmentation 

Histopathology of the affected skin demonstrated a slight increase in collagen bundle thickness, a chronic dermal perivascular inflammation, and associated pigment incontinence with dermal melanophages compared to unaffected skin (Figure). CD34 was faintly decreased, and dermal mucin increased in affected skin. This postinflammatory pigmentary alteration with subtle dermal sclerosis had persisted unchanged for more than 5 years after cessation of bleomycin therapy. Topical hydroquinone, physical blocker photoprotection, and laser modalities such as the Q-switched alexandrite (755-nm)/Nd:YAG (1064-nm) and ablative CO₂ resurfacing lasers were attempted with minimal overall impact on cosmesis. 

Bleomycin is a chemotherapeutic antibiotic that has been commonly used to treat Hodgkin lymphoma, germ cell tumors, and recurrent malignant pleural effusions.¹ The drug is inactivated in most tissues by the enzyme bleomycin hydrolase. This enzyme is not present in skin and lung tissue; as a result, these organs are the most common sites of bleomycin toxicity.¹ There are a variety of cutaneous effects associated with bleomycin including alopecia, hyperpigmentation, acral erythema, Raynaud phenomenon, and nail dystrophy.² Flagellate hyperpigmentation is a less common cutaneous toxicity. It is an unusual eruption that appears as whiplike linear streaks on the upper chest and back, limbs, and flanks.³ This cutaneous manifestation was once thought to be specific to bleomycin use; however, it also has been described in dermatomyositis, adult-onset Still disease, and after the ingestion of uncooked or undercooked shiitake mushrooms.⁴ Flagellate hyperpigmentation also was once thought to be dose dependent; however, it has been described in even very small doses.⁵ The eruption has been described as independent of the route of drug administration, appearing with intravenous, subcutaneous, and intramuscular bleomycin.² The association of bleomycin and flagellate hyperpigmentation has been reported since 1970; however, it is less commonly seen in clinical practice with the declining use of bleomycin.¹  

The exact mechanism for the hyperpigmentation is unknown. It has been proposed that the linear lesions are related to areas of pruritus and subsequent excoriations.¹ Dermatographism may be present to a limited extent, but it is unlikely to be a chief cause of flagellate hyperpigmentation, as linear streaks have been reported in the absence of trauma. It also has been proposed that bleomycin has a direct toxic effect on the melanocytes, which stimulates increased melanin secretion.² The hyperpigmentation also may be due to pigmentary incontinence secondary to inflammation.⁵ Histopathologic findings usually are varied and nonspecific.² There may be a deep perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate, which is nonspecific but can be associated with drug-induced pathology.⁴ Bleomycin also is used to induce localized scleroderma in mouse-model research⁶ and has been reported to cause localized scleroderma at an infusion site or after an intralesional injection,^7,8 which is not typically reported in flagellate erythema, but bleomycin's sclerosing effects may have played a role in the visible and sclerosing atrophy noted in our patient. Yamamoto et al⁹ reported a similar case of dermal sclerosis induced by bleomycin.  

Flagellate hyperpigmentation typically lasts for up to 6 months.³ Patients with cutaneous manifestations from bleomycin therapy usually respond to steroid therapy and discontinuation of the drug. Bleomycin re-exposure should be avoided, as it may cause extension or widespread recurrence of flagellate hyperpigmentation.³ Postinflammatory pigment alteration may persist in patients with darker skin types and in patients with dramatic inciting inflammation.  

Atrophoderma of Pasini and Pierini is a form of dermal atrophy that presents with 1 or more sharply demarcated depressed patches. There is some debate whether it is a distinct entity or a primary atrophic morphea.¹⁰ Linear atrophoderma of Moulin has a similar morphology with hyperpigmented depressions and "cliff-drop" borders, but these lesions follow the lines of Blaschko.¹¹ Linear morphea initially can present as a linear erythematous streak but more commonly appears as a plaque-type morphea lesion that forms a scarlike band.¹² Erythema dyschromicum perstans is an ashy dermatosis characterized by gray or blue-brown macules seen in Fitzpatrick skin types III through V and typically is chronic and progressive.¹³  

The Diagnosis: Bleomycin-Induced Flagellate Hyperpigmentation 

Histopathology of the affected skin demonstrated a slight increase in collagen bundle thickness, a chronic dermal perivascular inflammation, and associated pigment incontinence with dermal melanophages compared to unaffected skin (Figure). CD34 was faintly decreased, and dermal mucin increased in affected skin. This postinflammatory pigmentary alteration with subtle dermal sclerosis had persisted unchanged for more than 5 years after cessation of bleomycin therapy. Topical hydroquinone, physical blocker photoprotection, and laser modalities such as the Q-switched alexandrite (755-nm)/Nd:YAG (1064-nm) and ablative CO₂ resurfacing lasers were attempted with minimal overall impact on cosmesis. 

Bleomycin is a chemotherapeutic antibiotic that has been commonly used to treat Hodgkin lymphoma, germ cell tumors, and recurrent malignant pleural effusions.¹ The drug is inactivated in most tissues by the enzyme bleomycin hydrolase. This enzyme is not present in skin and lung tissue; as a result, these organs are the most common sites of bleomycin toxicity.¹ There are a variety of cutaneous effects associated with bleomycin including alopecia, hyperpigmentation, acral erythema, Raynaud phenomenon, and nail dystrophy.² Flagellate hyperpigmentation is a less common cutaneous toxicity. It is an unusual eruption that appears as whiplike linear streaks on the upper chest and back, limbs, and flanks.³ This cutaneous manifestation was once thought to be specific to bleomycin use; however, it also has been described in dermatomyositis, adult-onset Still disease, and after the ingestion of uncooked or undercooked shiitake mushrooms.⁴ Flagellate hyperpigmentation also was once thought to be dose dependent; however, it has been described in even very small doses.⁵ The eruption has been described as independent of the route of drug administration, appearing with intravenous, subcutaneous, and intramuscular bleomycin.² The association of bleomycin and flagellate hyperpigmentation has been reported since 1970; however, it is less commonly seen in clinical practice with the declining use of bleomycin.¹  

The exact mechanism for the hyperpigmentation is unknown. It has been proposed that the linear lesions are related to areas of pruritus and subsequent excoriations.¹ Dermatographism may be present to a limited extent, but it is unlikely to be a chief cause of flagellate hyperpigmentation, as linear streaks have been reported in the absence of trauma. It also has been proposed that bleomycin has a direct toxic effect on the melanocytes, which stimulates increased melanin secretion.² The hyperpigmentation also may be due to pigmentary incontinence secondary to inflammation.⁵ Histopathologic findings usually are varied and nonspecific.² There may be a deep perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate, which is nonspecific but can be associated with drug-induced pathology.⁴ Bleomycin also is used to induce localized scleroderma in mouse-model research⁶ and has been reported to cause localized scleroderma at an infusion site or after an intralesional injection,^7,8 which is not typically reported in flagellate erythema, but bleomycin's sclerosing effects may have played a role in the visible and sclerosing atrophy noted in our patient. Yamamoto et al⁹ reported a similar case of dermal sclerosis induced by bleomycin.  

Flagellate hyperpigmentation typically lasts for up to 6 months.³ Patients with cutaneous manifestations from bleomycin therapy usually respond to steroid therapy and discontinuation of the drug. Bleomycin re-exposure should be avoided, as it may cause extension or widespread recurrence of flagellate hyperpigmentation.³ Postinflammatory pigment alteration may persist in patients with darker skin types and in patients with dramatic inciting inflammation.  

Atrophoderma of Pasini and Pierini is a form of dermal atrophy that presents with 1 or more sharply demarcated depressed patches. There is some debate whether it is a distinct entity or a primary atrophic morphea.¹⁰ Linear atrophoderma of Moulin has a similar morphology with hyperpigmented depressions and "cliff-drop" borders, but these lesions follow the lines of Blaschko.¹¹ Linear morphea initially can present as a linear erythematous streak but more commonly appears as a plaque-type morphea lesion that forms a scarlike band.¹² Erythema dyschromicum perstans is an ashy dermatosis characterized by gray or blue-brown macules seen in Fitzpatrick skin types III through V and typically is chronic and progressive.¹³  

The Diagnosis: Bleomycin-Induced Flagellate Hyperpigmentation 

Histopathology of the affected skin demonstrated a slight increase in collagen bundle thickness, a chronic dermal perivascular inflammation, and associated pigment incontinence with dermal melanophages compared to unaffected skin (Figure). CD34 was faintly decreased, and dermal mucin increased in affected skin. This postinflammatory pigmentary alteration with subtle dermal sclerosis had persisted unchanged for more than 5 years after cessation of bleomycin therapy. Topical hydroquinone, physical blocker photoprotection, and laser modalities such as the Q-switched alexandrite (755-nm)/Nd:YAG (1064-nm) and ablative CO₂ resurfacing lasers were attempted with minimal overall impact on cosmesis. 

Bleomycin is a chemotherapeutic antibiotic that has been commonly used to treat Hodgkin lymphoma, germ cell tumors, and recurrent malignant pleural effusions.¹ The drug is inactivated in most tissues by the enzyme bleomycin hydrolase. This enzyme is not present in skin and lung tissue; as a result, these organs are the most common sites of bleomycin toxicity.¹ There are a variety of cutaneous effects associated with bleomycin including alopecia, hyperpigmentation, acral erythema, Raynaud phenomenon, and nail dystrophy.² Flagellate hyperpigmentation is a less common cutaneous toxicity. It is an unusual eruption that appears as whiplike linear streaks on the upper chest and back, limbs, and flanks.³ This cutaneous manifestation was once thought to be specific to bleomycin use; however, it also has been described in dermatomyositis, adult-onset Still disease, and after the ingestion of uncooked or undercooked shiitake mushrooms.⁴ Flagellate hyperpigmentation also was once thought to be dose dependent; however, it has been described in even very small doses.⁵ The eruption has been described as independent of the route of drug administration, appearing with intravenous, subcutaneous, and intramuscular bleomycin.² The association of bleomycin and flagellate hyperpigmentation has been reported since 1970; however, it is less commonly seen in clinical practice with the declining use of bleomycin.¹  

The exact mechanism for the hyperpigmentation is unknown. It has been proposed that the linear lesions are related to areas of pruritus and subsequent excoriations.¹ Dermatographism may be present to a limited extent, but it is unlikely to be a chief cause of flagellate hyperpigmentation, as linear streaks have been reported in the absence of trauma. It also has been proposed that bleomycin has a direct toxic effect on the melanocytes, which stimulates increased melanin secretion.² The hyperpigmentation also may be due to pigmentary incontinence secondary to inflammation.⁵ Histopathologic findings usually are varied and nonspecific.² There may be a deep perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate, which is nonspecific but can be associated with drug-induced pathology.⁴ Bleomycin also is used to induce localized scleroderma in mouse-model research⁶ and has been reported to cause localized scleroderma at an infusion site or after an intralesional injection,^7,8 which is not typically reported in flagellate erythema, but bleomycin's sclerosing effects may have played a role in the visible and sclerosing atrophy noted in our patient. Yamamoto et al⁹ reported a similar case of dermal sclerosis induced by bleomycin.  

Flagellate hyperpigmentation typically lasts for up to 6 months.³ Patients with cutaneous manifestations from bleomycin therapy usually respond to steroid therapy and discontinuation of the drug. Bleomycin re-exposure should be avoided, as it may cause extension or widespread recurrence of flagellate hyperpigmentation.³ Postinflammatory pigment alteration may persist in patients with darker skin types and in patients with dramatic inciting inflammation.  

Atrophoderma of Pasini and Pierini is a form of dermal atrophy that presents with 1 or more sharply demarcated depressed patches. There is some debate whether it is a distinct entity or a primary atrophic morphea.¹⁰ Linear atrophoderma of Moulin has a similar morphology with hyperpigmented depressions and "cliff-drop" borders, but these lesions follow the lines of Blaschko.¹¹ Linear morphea initially can present as a linear erythematous streak but more commonly appears as a plaque-type morphea lesion that forms a scarlike band.¹² Erythema dyschromicum perstans is an ashy dermatosis characterized by gray or blue-brown macules seen in Fitzpatrick skin types III through V and typically is chronic and progressive.¹³  

Most physicians know that migraine with aura is a risk factor for ischemic stroke and that the use of an estrogen-containing contraceptive further increases this risk.^1-3 Additional important and prevalent risk factors for ischemic stroke include cigarette smoking, hypertension, diabetes, and ischemic heart disease.¹ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)² and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)³ recommend against the use of estrogen-containing contraceptives for women with migraine with aura because of the increased risk of ischemic stroke (Medical Eligibility Criteria [MEC] category 4—unacceptable health risk, method not to be used).

However, those who have migraine with aura can use nonhormonal and progestin-only forms of contraception, including copper- and levonorgestrel-intrauterine devices, the etonogestrel subdermal implant, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, and progestin-only pills (MEC category 1—no restriction).^2,3 ACOG and the CDC advise that estrogen-containing contraceptives can be used for those with migraine without aura who have no other risk factors for stroke (MEC category 2—advantages generally outweigh theoretical or proven risks).^2,3 Given the high prevalence of migraine in reproductive-age women, accurate diagnosis of aura is of paramount importance in order to provide appropriate contraceptive counseling.

When is migraine with aura the right diagnosis?

In clinical practice, there is a high level of confusion about the migraine symptoms that warrant a diagnosis of migraine with aura. One approach to improving the accuracy of such a diagnosis is to refer every woman seeking contraceptive counseling who has migraine headaches to a neurologist for expert adjudication of the presence or absence of aura. But in the clinical context of contraceptive counseling, neurology consultation is not always readily available, and requiring consultation increases barriers to care. However, there are tools—such as the Visual Aura Rating Scale (VARS), which is discussed below—that may help non-neurologists identify migraine with aura.⁴ First, let us review the data that links migraine with aura with increased risk of ischemic stroke.

Migraine with aura is a risk factor for stroke

Multiple case-control studies report that migraine with aura is a risk factor for ischemic stroke.^1,5,6 Studies also report that women with migraine with aura who use estrogen-containing contraceptives have an even greater risk of ischemic stroke. For example, one recent case-control study used a commercial claims database of 1,884 cases of ischemic stroke among individuals who identify as women 15 to 49 years of age matched to 7,536 controls without ischemic stroke.¹ In this study, the risk of ischemic stroke was increased more than 2.5-fold by cigarette smoking (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.59), hypertension (aOR, 2.73), diabetes (aOR, 2.78), migraine with aura (aOR, 2.89), and ischemic heart disease (aOR, 5.49). For those with migraine with aura who also used an estrogen-containing contraceptive, the aOR for ischemic stroke was 6.08. By contrast, the risk for stroke among those with migraine with aura who were not using an estrogen-containing contraceptive was 2.65. Furthermore, among those with migraine without aura, the risk of ischemic stroke was only 1.77 with the use of an estrogen-containing contraceptive.

Continue to: Although women with migraine...

Although women with migraine with and without aura are at increased risk for stroke, the absolute risk is still very low. For example, one review reported that the incidence of ischemic stroke per 100,000 person-years among women 20 to 44 years of age was 2.5 for those without migraine not taking estrogen-containing contraceptives, 5.9 for those with migraine with aura not taking estrogen-containing contraceptives, and 14.5 among those with migraine with aura and taking estrogen-containing contraceptives.⁶ Another important observation is that the incidence of thrombotic stroke dramatically increases from adolescence (3.4 per 100,000 person-years) to 45-49 years of age (64.4 per 100,000 person-years).⁷ Therefore, older women with migraine are at greater risk for stroke than adolescents.

Diagnostic criteria for migraine with and without aura

In contraceptive counseling, if an estrogen-containing contraceptive is being considered, it is important to identify women with migraine headache, determine migraine subtype, assess the frequency of migraines and identify other cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and cigarette smoking. The International Headache Society has evolved the diagnostic criteria for migraine with and without aura, and now endorses the criteria published in the 3rd edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3; TABLES 1 and 2).⁸ For non-neurologists, these criteria may be difficult to remember and impractical to utilize in daily contraceptive counseling. Two simplified tools, the ID Migraine Questionnaire⁹ and the Visual Aura Rating Scale (TABLE 3)⁴ may help identify women who have migraine headaches and assess for the presence of aura.

The ID Migraine Questionnaire

In a study of 563 people seeking primary care who had headaches in the past 3 months, 3 questions were identified as being helpful in identifying women with migraine. This 3-question screening tool had reasonable sensitivity (81%), specificity (75%), and positive predictive value (93%) compared with expert diagnosis using the ICHD-3.⁹ The 3 questions in this screening tool, which are answered “Yes” or “No,” are:

During the last 3 months did you have the following symptoms with your headaches:

1. Feel nauseated or sick to your stomach?
2. Light bothered you?
3. Your headaches limited your ability to work, study or do what you needed to do for at least 1 day?

If two questions are answered “Yes” the patient may have migraine headaches.

Visual Aura Rating Scale for the diagnosis of migraine with aura

More than 90% of women with migraine with aura have visual auras, leaving only a minority with non–visual aura, such as tingling or numbness in a limb, speech or language problems, or muscle weakness. Hence for non-neurologists, it is reasonable to focus on the accurate diagnosis of visual aura to identify those with migraine with aura.

In the clinical context of contraceptive counseling, the Visual Aura Rating Scale (VARS) is especially useful because it has good sensitivity and specificity, and it is easy to use in practice (TABLE 3).⁴ VARS assesses for 5 characteristics of a visual aura, and each characteristic is associated with a weighted risk score. The 5 symptoms assessed include:

1. duration of visual symptom between 5 and 60 minutes (3 points)
2. visual symptom develops gradually over 5 minutes (2 points)
3. scotoma (2 points)
4. zig-zag line (2 points)
5. unilateral (1 point).

Continue to: Of note, visual aura is usually...

Of note, visual aura is usually slow-spreading and persists for more than 5 minutes but less than 60 minutes. If a visual symptom has a sudden onset and persists for much longer than 60 minutes, concern is heightened for a more serious neurologic diagnosis such as transient ischemic attack or stroke. A summed score of 5 or more points supports the diagnosis of migraine with aura. In one study, VARS had a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 96% for identifying women with migraine with aura diagnosed by the ICHD-3 criteria.⁴

Consider using VARS to identify migraine with aura

Epidemiologic studies report that about 17% of adults have migraine, and about 5% have migraine with aura.^10,11 Consequently, migraine with aura is one of the most common medical conditions encountered during contraceptive counseling. The CDC MEC recommend against the use of estrogen-containing contraceptives in women with migraine with aura (Category 4 rating). The VARS may help clinicians identify those who have migraine with aura who should not be offered estrogen-containing contraceptives. Equally important, the use of VARS could help reduce the number of women who are inappropriately diagnosed as having migraine with aura based on fleeting visual symptoms lasting far less than 5 minutes during a migraine headache.

Most physicians know that migraine with aura is a risk factor for ischemic stroke and that the use of an estrogen-containing contraceptive further increases this risk.^1-3 Additional important and prevalent risk factors for ischemic stroke include cigarette smoking, hypertension, diabetes, and ischemic heart disease.¹ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)² and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)³ recommend against the use of estrogen-containing contraceptives for women with migraine with aura because of the increased risk of ischemic stroke (Medical Eligibility Criteria [MEC] category 4—unacceptable health risk, method not to be used).

However, those who have migraine with aura can use nonhormonal and progestin-only forms of contraception, including copper- and levonorgestrel-intrauterine devices, the etonogestrel subdermal implant, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, and progestin-only pills (MEC category 1—no restriction).^2,3 ACOG and the CDC advise that estrogen-containing contraceptives can be used for those with migraine without aura who have no other risk factors for stroke (MEC category 2—advantages generally outweigh theoretical or proven risks).^2,3 Given the high prevalence of migraine in reproductive-age women, accurate diagnosis of aura is of paramount importance in order to provide appropriate contraceptive counseling.

When is migraine with aura the right diagnosis?

In clinical practice, there is a high level of confusion about the migraine symptoms that warrant a diagnosis of migraine with aura. One approach to improving the accuracy of such a diagnosis is to refer every woman seeking contraceptive counseling who has migraine headaches to a neurologist for expert adjudication of the presence or absence of aura. But in the clinical context of contraceptive counseling, neurology consultation is not always readily available, and requiring consultation increases barriers to care. However, there are tools—such as the Visual Aura Rating Scale (VARS), which is discussed below—that may help non-neurologists identify migraine with aura.⁴ First, let us review the data that links migraine with aura with increased risk of ischemic stroke.

Migraine with aura is a risk factor for stroke

Multiple case-control studies report that migraine with aura is a risk factor for ischemic stroke.^1,5,6 Studies also report that women with migraine with aura who use estrogen-containing contraceptives have an even greater risk of ischemic stroke. For example, one recent case-control study used a commercial claims database of 1,884 cases of ischemic stroke among individuals who identify as women 15 to 49 years of age matched to 7,536 controls without ischemic stroke.¹ In this study, the risk of ischemic stroke was increased more than 2.5-fold by cigarette smoking (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.59), hypertension (aOR, 2.73), diabetes (aOR, 2.78), migraine with aura (aOR, 2.89), and ischemic heart disease (aOR, 5.49). For those with migraine with aura who also used an estrogen-containing contraceptive, the aOR for ischemic stroke was 6.08. By contrast, the risk for stroke among those with migraine with aura who were not using an estrogen-containing contraceptive was 2.65. Furthermore, among those with migraine without aura, the risk of ischemic stroke was only 1.77 with the use of an estrogen-containing contraceptive.

Continue to: Although women with migraine...

Although women with migraine with and without aura are at increased risk for stroke, the absolute risk is still very low. For example, one review reported that the incidence of ischemic stroke per 100,000 person-years among women 20 to 44 years of age was 2.5 for those without migraine not taking estrogen-containing contraceptives, 5.9 for those with migraine with aura not taking estrogen-containing contraceptives, and 14.5 among those with migraine with aura and taking estrogen-containing contraceptives.⁶ Another important observation is that the incidence of thrombotic stroke dramatically increases from adolescence (3.4 per 100,000 person-years) to 45-49 years of age (64.4 per 100,000 person-years).⁷ Therefore, older women with migraine are at greater risk for stroke than adolescents.

Diagnostic criteria for migraine with and without aura

In contraceptive counseling, if an estrogen-containing contraceptive is being considered, it is important to identify women with migraine headache, determine migraine subtype, assess the frequency of migraines and identify other cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and cigarette smoking. The International Headache Society has evolved the diagnostic criteria for migraine with and without aura, and now endorses the criteria published in the 3rd edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3; TABLES 1 and 2).⁸ For non-neurologists, these criteria may be difficult to remember and impractical to utilize in daily contraceptive counseling. Two simplified tools, the ID Migraine Questionnaire⁹ and the Visual Aura Rating Scale (TABLE 3)⁴ may help identify women who have migraine headaches and assess for the presence of aura.

The ID Migraine Questionnaire

In a study of 563 people seeking primary care who had headaches in the past 3 months, 3 questions were identified as being helpful in identifying women with migraine. This 3-question screening tool had reasonable sensitivity (81%), specificity (75%), and positive predictive value (93%) compared with expert diagnosis using the ICHD-3.⁹ The 3 questions in this screening tool, which are answered “Yes” or “No,” are:

During the last 3 months did you have the following symptoms with your headaches:

1. Feel nauseated or sick to your stomach?
2. Light bothered you?
3. Your headaches limited your ability to work, study or do what you needed to do for at least 1 day?

If two questions are answered “Yes” the patient may have migraine headaches.

Visual Aura Rating Scale for the diagnosis of migraine with aura

More than 90% of women with migraine with aura have visual auras, leaving only a minority with non–visual aura, such as tingling or numbness in a limb, speech or language problems, or muscle weakness. Hence for non-neurologists, it is reasonable to focus on the accurate diagnosis of visual aura to identify those with migraine with aura.

In the clinical context of contraceptive counseling, the Visual Aura Rating Scale (VARS) is especially useful because it has good sensitivity and specificity, and it is easy to use in practice (TABLE 3).⁴ VARS assesses for 5 characteristics of a visual aura, and each characteristic is associated with a weighted risk score. The 5 symptoms assessed include:

1. duration of visual symptom between 5 and 60 minutes (3 points)
2. visual symptom develops gradually over 5 minutes (2 points)
3. scotoma (2 points)
4. zig-zag line (2 points)
5. unilateral (1 point).

Continue to: Of note, visual aura is usually...

Of note, visual aura is usually slow-spreading and persists for more than 5 minutes but less than 60 minutes. If a visual symptom has a sudden onset and persists for much longer than 60 minutes, concern is heightened for a more serious neurologic diagnosis such as transient ischemic attack or stroke. A summed score of 5 or more points supports the diagnosis of migraine with aura. In one study, VARS had a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 96% for identifying women with migraine with aura diagnosed by the ICHD-3 criteria.⁴

Consider using VARS to identify migraine with aura

Epidemiologic studies report that about 17% of adults have migraine, and about 5% have migraine with aura.^10,11 Consequently, migraine with aura is one of the most common medical conditions encountered during contraceptive counseling. The CDC MEC recommend against the use of estrogen-containing contraceptives in women with migraine with aura (Category 4 rating). The VARS may help clinicians identify those who have migraine with aura who should not be offered estrogen-containing contraceptives. Equally important, the use of VARS could help reduce the number of women who are inappropriately diagnosed as having migraine with aura based on fleeting visual symptoms lasting far less than 5 minutes during a migraine headache.

Most physicians know that migraine with aura is a risk factor for ischemic stroke and that the use of an estrogen-containing contraceptive further increases this risk.^1-3 Additional important and prevalent risk factors for ischemic stroke include cigarette smoking, hypertension, diabetes, and ischemic heart disease.¹ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)² and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)³ recommend against the use of estrogen-containing contraceptives for women with migraine with aura because of the increased risk of ischemic stroke (Medical Eligibility Criteria [MEC] category 4—unacceptable health risk, method not to be used).

However, those who have migraine with aura can use nonhormonal and progestin-only forms of contraception, including copper- and levonorgestrel-intrauterine devices, the etonogestrel subdermal implant, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, and progestin-only pills (MEC category 1—no restriction).^2,3 ACOG and the CDC advise that estrogen-containing contraceptives can be used for those with migraine without aura who have no other risk factors for stroke (MEC category 2—advantages generally outweigh theoretical or proven risks).^2,3 Given the high prevalence of migraine in reproductive-age women, accurate diagnosis of aura is of paramount importance in order to provide appropriate contraceptive counseling.

When is migraine with aura the right diagnosis?

In clinical practice, there is a high level of confusion about the migraine symptoms that warrant a diagnosis of migraine with aura. One approach to improving the accuracy of such a diagnosis is to refer every woman seeking contraceptive counseling who has migraine headaches to a neurologist for expert adjudication of the presence or absence of aura. But in the clinical context of contraceptive counseling, neurology consultation is not always readily available, and requiring consultation increases barriers to care. However, there are tools—such as the Visual Aura Rating Scale (VARS), which is discussed below—that may help non-neurologists identify migraine with aura.⁴ First, let us review the data that links migraine with aura with increased risk of ischemic stroke.

Migraine with aura is a risk factor for stroke

Multiple case-control studies report that migraine with aura is a risk factor for ischemic stroke.^1,5,6 Studies also report that women with migraine with aura who use estrogen-containing contraceptives have an even greater risk of ischemic stroke. For example, one recent case-control study used a commercial claims database of 1,884 cases of ischemic stroke among individuals who identify as women 15 to 49 years of age matched to 7,536 controls without ischemic stroke.¹ In this study, the risk of ischemic stroke was increased more than 2.5-fold by cigarette smoking (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.59), hypertension (aOR, 2.73), diabetes (aOR, 2.78), migraine with aura (aOR, 2.89), and ischemic heart disease (aOR, 5.49). For those with migraine with aura who also used an estrogen-containing contraceptive, the aOR for ischemic stroke was 6.08. By contrast, the risk for stroke among those with migraine with aura who were not using an estrogen-containing contraceptive was 2.65. Furthermore, among those with migraine without aura, the risk of ischemic stroke was only 1.77 with the use of an estrogen-containing contraceptive.

Continue to: Although women with migraine...

Although women with migraine with and without aura are at increased risk for stroke, the absolute risk is still very low. For example, one review reported that the incidence of ischemic stroke per 100,000 person-years among women 20 to 44 years of age was 2.5 for those without migraine not taking estrogen-containing contraceptives, 5.9 for those with migraine with aura not taking estrogen-containing contraceptives, and 14.5 among those with migraine with aura and taking estrogen-containing contraceptives.⁶ Another important observation is that the incidence of thrombotic stroke dramatically increases from adolescence (3.4 per 100,000 person-years) to 45-49 years of age (64.4 per 100,000 person-years).⁷ Therefore, older women with migraine are at greater risk for stroke than adolescents.

Diagnostic criteria for migraine with and without aura

In contraceptive counseling, if an estrogen-containing contraceptive is being considered, it is important to identify women with migraine headache, determine migraine subtype, assess the frequency of migraines and identify other cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and cigarette smoking. The International Headache Society has evolved the diagnostic criteria for migraine with and without aura, and now endorses the criteria published in the 3rd edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3; TABLES 1 and 2).⁸ For non-neurologists, these criteria may be difficult to remember and impractical to utilize in daily contraceptive counseling. Two simplified tools, the ID Migraine Questionnaire⁹ and the Visual Aura Rating Scale (TABLE 3)⁴ may help identify women who have migraine headaches and assess for the presence of aura.

The ID Migraine Questionnaire

In a study of 563 people seeking primary care who had headaches in the past 3 months, 3 questions were identified as being helpful in identifying women with migraine. This 3-question screening tool had reasonable sensitivity (81%), specificity (75%), and positive predictive value (93%) compared with expert diagnosis using the ICHD-3.⁹ The 3 questions in this screening tool, which are answered “Yes” or “No,” are:

During the last 3 months did you have the following symptoms with your headaches:

1. Feel nauseated or sick to your stomach?
2. Light bothered you?
3. Your headaches limited your ability to work, study or do what you needed to do for at least 1 day?

If two questions are answered “Yes” the patient may have migraine headaches.

Visual Aura Rating Scale for the diagnosis of migraine with aura

More than 90% of women with migraine with aura have visual auras, leaving only a minority with non–visual aura, such as tingling or numbness in a limb, speech or language problems, or muscle weakness. Hence for non-neurologists, it is reasonable to focus on the accurate diagnosis of visual aura to identify those with migraine with aura.

In the clinical context of contraceptive counseling, the Visual Aura Rating Scale (VARS) is especially useful because it has good sensitivity and specificity, and it is easy to use in practice (TABLE 3).⁴ VARS assesses for 5 characteristics of a visual aura, and each characteristic is associated with a weighted risk score. The 5 symptoms assessed include:

1. duration of visual symptom between 5 and 60 minutes (3 points)
2. visual symptom develops gradually over 5 minutes (2 points)
3. scotoma (2 points)
4. zig-zag line (2 points)
5. unilateral (1 point).

Continue to: Of note, visual aura is usually...

Of note, visual aura is usually slow-spreading and persists for more than 5 minutes but less than 60 minutes. If a visual symptom has a sudden onset and persists for much longer than 60 minutes, concern is heightened for a more serious neurologic diagnosis such as transient ischemic attack or stroke. A summed score of 5 or more points supports the diagnosis of migraine with aura. In one study, VARS had a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 96% for identifying women with migraine with aura diagnosed by the ICHD-3 criteria.⁴

Consider using VARS to identify migraine with aura

Epidemiologic studies report that about 17% of adults have migraine, and about 5% have migraine with aura.^10,11 Consequently, migraine with aura is one of the most common medical conditions encountered during contraceptive counseling. The CDC MEC recommend against the use of estrogen-containing contraceptives in women with migraine with aura (Category 4 rating). The VARS may help clinicians identify those who have migraine with aura who should not be offered estrogen-containing contraceptives. Equally important, the use of VARS could help reduce the number of women who are inappropriately diagnosed as having migraine with aura based on fleeting visual symptoms lasting far less than 5 minutes during a migraine headache.

In a recent systematic review, Fink and colleagues attempted to summarize the published evidence of the efficacy and safety of long-term (> 3 years) therapy for osteoporosis.¹ Unfortunately, they arrived at very limited and tentative conclusions because, as they point out, of the paucity of such evidence.

Why long-term studies stop short

Only 3 of the several tens of placebo-controlled fracture end-point studies (about 58 trials and observational studies) that Fink and colleagues reviewed evaluated treatment for more than 3 years. The nonavailability of longer-term studies is the direct consequence of a requirement by regulatory agencies for a 3-year fracture end-point study in order to register a new drug for osteoporosis. Hence, longer, placebo-controlled studies do not benefit the industry sponsor, and enrolling patients with osteoporosis or who are at high risk for fracture in any, much less long, placebo-controlled trials is now considered to be unethical.

What the authors did observe

From this limited set of information with which to evaluate, Fink and colleagues observed that long-term therapy with raloxifene reduces the risk of vertebral fractures but is associated with thromboembolic complications. In addition, treatment for more than 3 years with bisphosphonates reduces the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures but may increase risk of rare adverse events (including femoral shaft fractures with atypical radiographic features).

The bisphosphonate holiday. The authors refer to the even more limited evidence about the effects of discontinuing bisphosphonate therapy. Unlike the rapid loss of bone mass density (BMD) and fracture protection upon stopping estrogen or denosumab, the offset of these treatment benefits is slower when bisphosphonates are discontinued. This, coupled with concern about increasing risk with long-term bisphosphonate therapy, led to the confusing concept of a “bisphosphonate holiday.” While recommendations to consider temporary discontinuation of bisphosphonates in patients at low risk for fracture have been made by expert panels,² very little information exists about the benefits/risks of this strategy, how long the treatment interruption should be, or how to decide when and with what to restart therapy. Unfortunately, overall, Fink and colleagues’ observations provide little practical guidance for clinicians.

Continue to: What we can learn from longer term and recent studies of ideal treatment...

What we can learn from longer term and recent studies of ideal treatment

Since we have no “cure” for osteoporosis, and since the benefits of therapy, including protection from fractures, abate upon stopping treatment (as they do when we stop treating hypertension or diabetes), very long term if not lifelong management is required for patients with osteoporosis. Persistent or even greater reduction of fracture risk with treatment up to 10 years, compared with the rate of fracture in the placebo or treated group during the first 3 years of the study, has been observed with zoledronate and denosumab.^3-5 Denosumab was not included in the systematic review by Fink and colleagues since the pivotal fracture trial with that agent was placebo-controlled for only 3 years.⁶

Sequential drug treatment may be best. Fink and colleagues also did not consider new evidence, which suggests that the use of osteoporosis drugs in sequence—rather than a single agent for a long time—may be the most effective management strategy.^7,8

More consideration should be given to the use of estrogen and raloxifene in younger postmenopausal women at risk for vertebral but not hip fracture.

Only treat high-risk patients. Using osteoporosis therapies to only treat patients at high risk for fracture will optimize the benefit:risk ratio and cost-effectiveness of therapy.

Bisphosphonate holidays may not be as important as once thought. BMD and fracture risk reduction does not improve after 5 years of bisphosphonate therapy, and longer treatment may increase the risk of atypical fractures, while switching to another agent can increase BMD and perhaps mitigate the safety concern, suggesting that there is little justification for continuous use of bisphosphonates for more than 5 years, thereby minimizing the importance of a bisphosphonate holiday.

Hip BMD may serve as indicator for treatment decisions. Recent evidence indicating that the change in hip BMD with treatment or the level of hip BMD achieved on treatment correlates with fracture risk reduction may provide a useful clinical target to guide treatment decisions.^9,10

Because we have a lack of pristine evidence does not mean that we shouldn’t treat osteoporosis; we have to do the best we can with the limited evidence we have. Therapy must be individualized, for we are not just treating osteoporosis, we are treating patients with osteoporosis.

In a recent systematic review, Fink and colleagues attempted to summarize the published evidence of the efficacy and safety of long-term (> 3 years) therapy for osteoporosis.¹ Unfortunately, they arrived at very limited and tentative conclusions because, as they point out, of the paucity of such evidence.

Why long-term studies stop short

Only 3 of the several tens of placebo-controlled fracture end-point studies (about 58 trials and observational studies) that Fink and colleagues reviewed evaluated treatment for more than 3 years. The nonavailability of longer-term studies is the direct consequence of a requirement by regulatory agencies for a 3-year fracture end-point study in order to register a new drug for osteoporosis. Hence, longer, placebo-controlled studies do not benefit the industry sponsor, and enrolling patients with osteoporosis or who are at high risk for fracture in any, much less long, placebo-controlled trials is now considered to be unethical.

What the authors did observe

From this limited set of information with which to evaluate, Fink and colleagues observed that long-term therapy with raloxifene reduces the risk of vertebral fractures but is associated with thromboembolic complications. In addition, treatment for more than 3 years with bisphosphonates reduces the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures but may increase risk of rare adverse events (including femoral shaft fractures with atypical radiographic features).

The bisphosphonate holiday. The authors refer to the even more limited evidence about the effects of discontinuing bisphosphonate therapy. Unlike the rapid loss of bone mass density (BMD) and fracture protection upon stopping estrogen or denosumab, the offset of these treatment benefits is slower when bisphosphonates are discontinued. This, coupled with concern about increasing risk with long-term bisphosphonate therapy, led to the confusing concept of a “bisphosphonate holiday.” While recommendations to consider temporary discontinuation of bisphosphonates in patients at low risk for fracture have been made by expert panels,² very little information exists about the benefits/risks of this strategy, how long the treatment interruption should be, or how to decide when and with what to restart therapy. Unfortunately, overall, Fink and colleagues’ observations provide little practical guidance for clinicians.

Continue to: What we can learn from longer term and recent studies of ideal treatment...

What we can learn from longer term and recent studies of ideal treatment

Since we have no “cure” for osteoporosis, and since the benefits of therapy, including protection from fractures, abate upon stopping treatment (as they do when we stop treating hypertension or diabetes), very long term if not lifelong management is required for patients with osteoporosis. Persistent or even greater reduction of fracture risk with treatment up to 10 years, compared with the rate of fracture in the placebo or treated group during the first 3 years of the study, has been observed with zoledronate and denosumab.^3-5 Denosumab was not included in the systematic review by Fink and colleagues since the pivotal fracture trial with that agent was placebo-controlled for only 3 years.⁶

Sequential drug treatment may be best. Fink and colleagues also did not consider new evidence, which suggests that the use of osteoporosis drugs in sequence—rather than a single agent for a long time—may be the most effective management strategy.^7,8

More consideration should be given to the use of estrogen and raloxifene in younger postmenopausal women at risk for vertebral but not hip fracture.

Only treat high-risk patients. Using osteoporosis therapies to only treat patients at high risk for fracture will optimize the benefit:risk ratio and cost-effectiveness of therapy.

Bisphosphonate holidays may not be as important as once thought. BMD and fracture risk reduction does not improve after 5 years of bisphosphonate therapy, and longer treatment may increase the risk of atypical fractures, while switching to another agent can increase BMD and perhaps mitigate the safety concern, suggesting that there is little justification for continuous use of bisphosphonates for more than 5 years, thereby minimizing the importance of a bisphosphonate holiday.

Hip BMD may serve as indicator for treatment decisions. Recent evidence indicating that the change in hip BMD with treatment or the level of hip BMD achieved on treatment correlates with fracture risk reduction may provide a useful clinical target to guide treatment decisions.^9,10

Because we have a lack of pristine evidence does not mean that we shouldn’t treat osteoporosis; we have to do the best we can with the limited evidence we have. Therapy must be individualized, for we are not just treating osteoporosis, we are treating patients with osteoporosis.

In a recent systematic review, Fink and colleagues attempted to summarize the published evidence of the efficacy and safety of long-term (> 3 years) therapy for osteoporosis.¹ Unfortunately, they arrived at very limited and tentative conclusions because, as they point out, of the paucity of such evidence.

Why long-term studies stop short

Only 3 of the several tens of placebo-controlled fracture end-point studies (about 58 trials and observational studies) that Fink and colleagues reviewed evaluated treatment for more than 3 years. The nonavailability of longer-term studies is the direct consequence of a requirement by regulatory agencies for a 3-year fracture end-point study in order to register a new drug for osteoporosis. Hence, longer, placebo-controlled studies do not benefit the industry sponsor, and enrolling patients with osteoporosis or who are at high risk for fracture in any, much less long, placebo-controlled trials is now considered to be unethical.

What the authors did observe

From this limited set of information with which to evaluate, Fink and colleagues observed that long-term therapy with raloxifene reduces the risk of vertebral fractures but is associated with thromboembolic complications. In addition, treatment for more than 3 years with bisphosphonates reduces the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures but may increase risk of rare adverse events (including femoral shaft fractures with atypical radiographic features).

The bisphosphonate holiday. The authors refer to the even more limited evidence about the effects of discontinuing bisphosphonate therapy. Unlike the rapid loss of bone mass density (BMD) and fracture protection upon stopping estrogen or denosumab, the offset of these treatment benefits is slower when bisphosphonates are discontinued. This, coupled with concern about increasing risk with long-term bisphosphonate therapy, led to the confusing concept of a “bisphosphonate holiday.” While recommendations to consider temporary discontinuation of bisphosphonates in patients at low risk for fracture have been made by expert panels,² very little information exists about the benefits/risks of this strategy, how long the treatment interruption should be, or how to decide when and with what to restart therapy. Unfortunately, overall, Fink and colleagues’ observations provide little practical guidance for clinicians.

Continue to: What we can learn from longer term and recent studies of ideal treatment...

What we can learn from longer term and recent studies of ideal treatment

Since we have no “cure” for osteoporosis, and since the benefits of therapy, including protection from fractures, abate upon stopping treatment (as they do when we stop treating hypertension or diabetes), very long term if not lifelong management is required for patients with osteoporosis. Persistent or even greater reduction of fracture risk with treatment up to 10 years, compared with the rate of fracture in the placebo or treated group during the first 3 years of the study, has been observed with zoledronate and denosumab.^3-5 Denosumab was not included in the systematic review by Fink and colleagues since the pivotal fracture trial with that agent was placebo-controlled for only 3 years.⁶

Sequential drug treatment may be best. Fink and colleagues also did not consider new evidence, which suggests that the use of osteoporosis drugs in sequence—rather than a single agent for a long time—may be the most effective management strategy.^7,8

More consideration should be given to the use of estrogen and raloxifene in younger postmenopausal women at risk for vertebral but not hip fracture.

Only treat high-risk patients. Using osteoporosis therapies to only treat patients at high risk for fracture will optimize the benefit:risk ratio and cost-effectiveness of therapy.

Bisphosphonate holidays may not be as important as once thought. BMD and fracture risk reduction does not improve after 5 years of bisphosphonate therapy, and longer treatment may increase the risk of atypical fractures, while switching to another agent can increase BMD and perhaps mitigate the safety concern, suggesting that there is little justification for continuous use of bisphosphonates for more than 5 years, thereby minimizing the importance of a bisphosphonate holiday.

Hip BMD may serve as indicator for treatment decisions. Recent evidence indicating that the change in hip BMD with treatment or the level of hip BMD achieved on treatment correlates with fracture risk reduction may provide a useful clinical target to guide treatment decisions.^9,10

Because we have a lack of pristine evidence does not mean that we shouldn’t treat osteoporosis; we have to do the best we can with the limited evidence we have. Therapy must be individualized, for we are not just treating osteoporosis, we are treating patients with osteoporosis.