TORONTO – A brief stress management intervention left a lasting effect on adolescents referred for mental health–related complaints, significantly reducing perceived distress, and heart rate variability. The majority of recipients expressed interest in additional training at follow-up.

“This model can be easily implemented in a primary health care clinic to better reach adolescents who are unable or unwilling to seek mental health care,” Elizabeth B. Mason, MD, and her colleagues from Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital in Cleveland, reported in a poster presentation at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

Steve Debenport/Getty Images

TORONTO – A brief stress management intervention left a lasting effect on adolescents referred for mental health–related complaints, significantly reducing perceived distress, and heart rate variability. The majority of recipients expressed interest in additional training at follow-up.

“This model can be easily implemented in a primary health care clinic to better reach adolescents who are unable or unwilling to seek mental health care,” Elizabeth B. Mason, MD, and her colleagues from Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital in Cleveland, reported in a poster presentation at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

Steve Debenport/Getty Images

TORONTO – A brief stress management intervention left a lasting effect on adolescents referred for mental health–related complaints, significantly reducing perceived distress, and heart rate variability. The majority of recipients expressed interest in additional training at follow-up.

“This model can be easily implemented in a primary health care clinic to better reach adolescents who are unable or unwilling to seek mental health care,” Elizabeth B. Mason, MD, and her colleagues from Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital in Cleveland, reported in a poster presentation at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

Steve Debenport/Getty Images

SILVER SPRING, MD—On May 30, 2018, President Donald Trump signed into law the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017 (Right to Try Act). This new law amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to establish a new pathway aimed at increasing access to unapproved, investigational treatments for patients diagnosed with life-threatening diseases or conditions who have exhausted approved treatment options and who are unable to participate in a clinical trial. “Our implementation of the Right to Try Act will build on our long-standing efforts to help patients and families who are facing life-threatening diseases or conditions, in a way that seeks to protect their autonomy, their safety, and the safety of others following in their paths,” said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD.

“For patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases, the FDA remains committed to enhancing access to promising investigational medicines for those unable to access products through clinical trials,” said Dr. Gottlieb. “This is the mission of our expanded access program. The agency is dedicated to these purposes, and it has been for more than three decades.”

“We’ve taken many steps to improve our process through which patients can access promising investigational drugs,” said Dr. Gottlieb. “We understand that treatment decisions for those facing terminal illnesses are best made by patients and families, with the support of their treating physicians. When appropriate, those suffering from a terminal illness who’ve exhausted available options should be able to access promising treatments being studied in clinical trials, or products under active review by the FDA. The agency is faithfully committed to these goals, to protecting patients, and to making sure they’re able to make informed decisions.”

“We stand ready to implement this legislation in a way that achieves Congress’ intent to promote access and protect patients. The FDA is dedicated to achieving the goals that Congress set forth in this legislation, so that patients facing terminal conditions have an additional avenue to access promising investigational medicines.”

“The decisions we reach related to products that can serve as an effective treatment for a terminal illness, or that can arrest a devastating and debilitating condition, are among the most important and carefully considered judgments that we make,” said Dr. Gottlieb. “We recognize the important balance between making sure patients have the assurances Congress intends, while enabling timely access to promising treatments in these devastating circumstances. And we’ll implement this new law consistent with these longstanding values.”

SILVER SPRING, MD—On May 30, 2018, President Donald Trump signed into law the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017 (Right to Try Act). This new law amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to establish a new pathway aimed at increasing access to unapproved, investigational treatments for patients diagnosed with life-threatening diseases or conditions who have exhausted approved treatment options and who are unable to participate in a clinical trial. “Our implementation of the Right to Try Act will build on our long-standing efforts to help patients and families who are facing life-threatening diseases or conditions, in a way that seeks to protect their autonomy, their safety, and the safety of others following in their paths,” said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD.

“For patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases, the FDA remains committed to enhancing access to promising investigational medicines for those unable to access products through clinical trials,” said Dr. Gottlieb. “This is the mission of our expanded access program. The agency is dedicated to these purposes, and it has been for more than three decades.”

“We’ve taken many steps to improve our process through which patients can access promising investigational drugs,” said Dr. Gottlieb. “We understand that treatment decisions for those facing terminal illnesses are best made by patients and families, with the support of their treating physicians. When appropriate, those suffering from a terminal illness who’ve exhausted available options should be able to access promising treatments being studied in clinical trials, or products under active review by the FDA. The agency is faithfully committed to these goals, to protecting patients, and to making sure they’re able to make informed decisions.”

“We stand ready to implement this legislation in a way that achieves Congress’ intent to promote access and protect patients. The FDA is dedicated to achieving the goals that Congress set forth in this legislation, so that patients facing terminal conditions have an additional avenue to access promising investigational medicines.”

“The decisions we reach related to products that can serve as an effective treatment for a terminal illness, or that can arrest a devastating and debilitating condition, are among the most important and carefully considered judgments that we make,” said Dr. Gottlieb. “We recognize the important balance between making sure patients have the assurances Congress intends, while enabling timely access to promising treatments in these devastating circumstances. And we’ll implement this new law consistent with these longstanding values.”

SILVER SPRING, MD—On May 30, 2018, President Donald Trump signed into law the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017 (Right to Try Act). This new law amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to establish a new pathway aimed at increasing access to unapproved, investigational treatments for patients diagnosed with life-threatening diseases or conditions who have exhausted approved treatment options and who are unable to participate in a clinical trial. “Our implementation of the Right to Try Act will build on our long-standing efforts to help patients and families who are facing life-threatening diseases or conditions, in a way that seeks to protect their autonomy, their safety, and the safety of others following in their paths,” said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD.

“For patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases, the FDA remains committed to enhancing access to promising investigational medicines for those unable to access products through clinical trials,” said Dr. Gottlieb. “This is the mission of our expanded access program. The agency is dedicated to these purposes, and it has been for more than three decades.”

“We’ve taken many steps to improve our process through which patients can access promising investigational drugs,” said Dr. Gottlieb. “We understand that treatment decisions for those facing terminal illnesses are best made by patients and families, with the support of their treating physicians. When appropriate, those suffering from a terminal illness who’ve exhausted available options should be able to access promising treatments being studied in clinical trials, or products under active review by the FDA. The agency is faithfully committed to these goals, to protecting patients, and to making sure they’re able to make informed decisions.”

“We stand ready to implement this legislation in a way that achieves Congress’ intent to promote access and protect patients. The FDA is dedicated to achieving the goals that Congress set forth in this legislation, so that patients facing terminal conditions have an additional avenue to access promising investigational medicines.”

“The decisions we reach related to products that can serve as an effective treatment for a terminal illness, or that can arrest a devastating and debilitating condition, are among the most important and carefully considered judgments that we make,” said Dr. Gottlieb. “We recognize the important balance between making sure patients have the assurances Congress intends, while enabling timely access to promising treatments in these devastating circumstances. And we’ll implement this new law consistent with these longstanding values.”

A methylene blue dye pill increases the adenoma detection rate in patients undergoing colonoscopy screenings.

“An oral, delayed-release, methylene blue tablet taken during the standard bowel preparation for colonoscopy has the potential to increase the adenoma detection rate and could assist in the early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer,” according to Michael B. Wallace, MD, professor of medicine and director of digestive disease research at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

“The number of polyps that providers find during a screening colonoscopy and remove is referred to as the adenoma detection rate. This is the most widely accepted national benchmark on quality for screening colonoscopy,”  Dr. Wallace said in a media briefing in advance of the annual Digestive Disease Week®. 

Dr. Wallace pointed out that missed adenomas tend to go on and develop into cancer.

“The ones that are most frequently missed are typically called ‘flat’ or ‘subtle’ polyps, making them very difficult to identify,” he said. “If they cannot be identified, they cannot be removed.”

The study involved more than 1,200 patients scheduled for colonoscopies at 20 centers around the world. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a full dose of the methylene blue dye, a half dose, or placebo. Patients receiving a half dose were not included in the statistical analysis, but served the purpose of not allowing doctors to know which patients were in the study group. Dr. Wallace noted that the nature of this study made it impossible to perform a truly double-blind study because the blue dye is visible during colonoscopy.

For the patients who took the full dose of methylene blue, the adenoma detection rate increased by nearly 9%, compared with the placebo group, with detection rates of 56.29% and 47.81%, respectively.

“While 9% may not actually seem like a large number, it is actually very clinically significant,” Dr. Wallace said. For every 1% increase in the absolute adenoma detection rate, there was a corresponding 3% decline in the incidence of colorectal cancer and a 5% decline in colorectal cancer deaths.

While the results of this study are overwhelmingly positive, Dr. Wallace pointed out that utilizing blue dye to increase adenoma detection rate is not a new concept, with a number of clinical trials showing its benefit.

Apart from improving adenoma detection rates, the tablet formulation of methylene blue dye no longer requires on-site mixing by providers. This was a limiting factor because the dye itself is difficult to mix and hard to obtain for many health care centers around the world. The mixed solution was also not as effective because it was sprayed during colonoscopies. Dr. Wallace asserted that spraying through the colonoscope could be imprecise, time consuming, and localized. For these reasons, this technique was never widely adopted. The primary advantage of the tablet formulation is that it releases the dye in the colon at or near the time of the colonoscopy.

Dr. Wallace emphasized that there is no substitute for good colonoscopy practice and that methylene blue is just another tool to help improve the practice.

“The oral, delayed-release methylene blue provides gastroenterologists with a new and supplemental method to improve their adenoma detection rate on top of what is otherwise a high-quality examination.

[email protected]

A methylene blue dye pill increases the adenoma detection rate in patients undergoing colonoscopy screenings.

“An oral, delayed-release, methylene blue tablet taken during the standard bowel preparation for colonoscopy has the potential to increase the adenoma detection rate and could assist in the early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer,” according to Michael B. Wallace, MD, professor of medicine and director of digestive disease research at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

“The number of polyps that providers find during a screening colonoscopy and remove is referred to as the adenoma detection rate. This is the most widely accepted national benchmark on quality for screening colonoscopy,”  Dr. Wallace said in a media briefing in advance of the annual Digestive Disease Week®. 

Dr. Wallace pointed out that missed adenomas tend to go on and develop into cancer.

“The ones that are most frequently missed are typically called ‘flat’ or ‘subtle’ polyps, making them very difficult to identify,” he said. “If they cannot be identified, they cannot be removed.”

The study involved more than 1,200 patients scheduled for colonoscopies at 20 centers around the world. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a full dose of the methylene blue dye, a half dose, or placebo. Patients receiving a half dose were not included in the statistical analysis, but served the purpose of not allowing doctors to know which patients were in the study group. Dr. Wallace noted that the nature of this study made it impossible to perform a truly double-blind study because the blue dye is visible during colonoscopy.

For the patients who took the full dose of methylene blue, the adenoma detection rate increased by nearly 9%, compared with the placebo group, with detection rates of 56.29% and 47.81%, respectively.

“While 9% may not actually seem like a large number, it is actually very clinically significant,” Dr. Wallace said. For every 1% increase in the absolute adenoma detection rate, there was a corresponding 3% decline in the incidence of colorectal cancer and a 5% decline in colorectal cancer deaths.

While the results of this study are overwhelmingly positive, Dr. Wallace pointed out that utilizing blue dye to increase adenoma detection rate is not a new concept, with a number of clinical trials showing its benefit.

Apart from improving adenoma detection rates, the tablet formulation of methylene blue dye no longer requires on-site mixing by providers. This was a limiting factor because the dye itself is difficult to mix and hard to obtain for many health care centers around the world. The mixed solution was also not as effective because it was sprayed during colonoscopies. Dr. Wallace asserted that spraying through the colonoscope could be imprecise, time consuming, and localized. For these reasons, this technique was never widely adopted. The primary advantage of the tablet formulation is that it releases the dye in the colon at or near the time of the colonoscopy.

Dr. Wallace emphasized that there is no substitute for good colonoscopy practice and that methylene blue is just another tool to help improve the practice.

“The oral, delayed-release methylene blue provides gastroenterologists with a new and supplemental method to improve their adenoma detection rate on top of what is otherwise a high-quality examination.

[email protected]

A methylene blue dye pill increases the adenoma detection rate in patients undergoing colonoscopy screenings.

“An oral, delayed-release, methylene blue tablet taken during the standard bowel preparation for colonoscopy has the potential to increase the adenoma detection rate and could assist in the early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer,” according to Michael B. Wallace, MD, professor of medicine and director of digestive disease research at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

“The number of polyps that providers find during a screening colonoscopy and remove is referred to as the adenoma detection rate. This is the most widely accepted national benchmark on quality for screening colonoscopy,”  Dr. Wallace said in a media briefing in advance of the annual Digestive Disease Week®. 

Dr. Wallace pointed out that missed adenomas tend to go on and develop into cancer.

“The ones that are most frequently missed are typically called ‘flat’ or ‘subtle’ polyps, making them very difficult to identify,” he said. “If they cannot be identified, they cannot be removed.”

The study involved more than 1,200 patients scheduled for colonoscopies at 20 centers around the world. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a full dose of the methylene blue dye, a half dose, or placebo. Patients receiving a half dose were not included in the statistical analysis, but served the purpose of not allowing doctors to know which patients were in the study group. Dr. Wallace noted that the nature of this study made it impossible to perform a truly double-blind study because the blue dye is visible during colonoscopy.

For the patients who took the full dose of methylene blue, the adenoma detection rate increased by nearly 9%, compared with the placebo group, with detection rates of 56.29% and 47.81%, respectively.

“While 9% may not actually seem like a large number, it is actually very clinically significant,” Dr. Wallace said. For every 1% increase in the absolute adenoma detection rate, there was a corresponding 3% decline in the incidence of colorectal cancer and a 5% decline in colorectal cancer deaths.

While the results of this study are overwhelmingly positive, Dr. Wallace pointed out that utilizing blue dye to increase adenoma detection rate is not a new concept, with a number of clinical trials showing its benefit.

Apart from improving adenoma detection rates, the tablet formulation of methylene blue dye no longer requires on-site mixing by providers. This was a limiting factor because the dye itself is difficult to mix and hard to obtain for many health care centers around the world. The mixed solution was also not as effective because it was sprayed during colonoscopies. Dr. Wallace asserted that spraying through the colonoscope could be imprecise, time consuming, and localized. For these reasons, this technique was never widely adopted. The primary advantage of the tablet formulation is that it releases the dye in the colon at or near the time of the colonoscopy.

Dr. Wallace emphasized that there is no substitute for good colonoscopy practice and that methylene blue is just another tool to help improve the practice.

“The oral, delayed-release methylene blue provides gastroenterologists with a new and supplemental method to improve their adenoma detection rate on top of what is otherwise a high-quality examination.

[email protected]

Colonic diverticulosis was not associated with mucosal inflammation or gastrointestinal symptoms in a single-center, prospective study of adults undergoing their first screening colonoscopy.

After adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index, there were no significant links between diverticulosis and tumor necrosis factor, CD4+ cells, CD8+ cells, CD57+ cells, irritable bowel syndrome, or chronic abdominal pain, reported Anne F. Peery, MD, with her associates at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Our findings strongly question the rationale for treating symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease with mesalamine,” they wrote in the June issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.05.051).

Colonic diverticula affect more than half of individuals in the United States over the age of 60 years, according to the results of past studies. “Although colonic diverticulosis can be complicated by the overt inflammation of acute diverticulitis, there is some thought that colonic diverticulosis is associated with low-grade mucosal inflammation,” the researchers said. “Moreover, this low-grade diverticular inflammation is believed to contribute to chronic gastrointestinal symptoms.” However, no rigorous prospective study had tested these assertions.

Accordingly, the researchers evaluated prospective data from 619 outpatients aged 30 years and older who underwent screening colonoscopies for the first time during 2013-2015. These patients had consented to participate in a study of risk factors for colonic diverticulosis. Most were white (76%) or black (21%), and most were aged 50-59 years.

A total of 255 individuals had diverticula while 364 controls did not. Patients with diverticula tended to be older and were more often male (47% vs. 41% of controls) and overweight or obese (72% vs. 62%). After adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index, there was no evidence linking diverticulosis with tumor necrosis factor alpha expression (odds ratio, 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.2), CD4+ cells (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9-1.6), CD8+ cells (OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.7-1.3), or CD57+ cells (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-1.1).

Among 42 patients who met Rome III criteria for irritable bowel syndrome, 11 had diverticulosis. Diverticulosis in IBS was not associated with changes in expression of the mucosal inflammatory markers interleukin-6, interleukin-10, tumor necrosis factor, CD4, CD8, or mast cell tryptase, said the researchers. A total of 63 patients had chronic abdominal pain, of whom 22 also had diverticulosis. There were no significant differences in mucosal inflammatory markers between symptomatic patients with diverticula and those without. Adjusted analysis found no association between number of diverticula and chronic abdominal pain (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.4-1.2) or IBS (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-1.1).

The number of patients with IBS in this study was small, and the researchers did not ascertain IBS symptom severity, they noted. “Although we studied several immune markers and cytokines, there are other potential markers that may be associated with chronic inflammation,” they added. “Multianalyte profiling could be used to assess an array of cytokines, and markers for macrophages (CD68), global T cells (CD3), and B cells (CD19). Whether there is utility in further studies given our negative results is debatable.”

The National Institutes of Health provided funding. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Peery AF et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Jun 8. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.05.051.

Colonic diverticulosis was not associated with mucosal inflammation or gastrointestinal symptoms in a single-center, prospective study of adults undergoing their first screening colonoscopy.

After adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index, there were no significant links between diverticulosis and tumor necrosis factor, CD4+ cells, CD8+ cells, CD57+ cells, irritable bowel syndrome, or chronic abdominal pain, reported Anne F. Peery, MD, with her associates at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Our findings strongly question the rationale for treating symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease with mesalamine,” they wrote in the June issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.05.051).

Colonic diverticula affect more than half of individuals in the United States over the age of 60 years, according to the results of past studies. “Although colonic diverticulosis can be complicated by the overt inflammation of acute diverticulitis, there is some thought that colonic diverticulosis is associated with low-grade mucosal inflammation,” the researchers said. “Moreover, this low-grade diverticular inflammation is believed to contribute to chronic gastrointestinal symptoms.” However, no rigorous prospective study had tested these assertions.

Accordingly, the researchers evaluated prospective data from 619 outpatients aged 30 years and older who underwent screening colonoscopies for the first time during 2013-2015. These patients had consented to participate in a study of risk factors for colonic diverticulosis. Most were white (76%) or black (21%), and most were aged 50-59 years.

A total of 255 individuals had diverticula while 364 controls did not. Patients with diverticula tended to be older and were more often male (47% vs. 41% of controls) and overweight or obese (72% vs. 62%). After adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index, there was no evidence linking diverticulosis with tumor necrosis factor alpha expression (odds ratio, 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.2), CD4+ cells (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9-1.6), CD8+ cells (OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.7-1.3), or CD57+ cells (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-1.1).

Among 42 patients who met Rome III criteria for irritable bowel syndrome, 11 had diverticulosis. Diverticulosis in IBS was not associated with changes in expression of the mucosal inflammatory markers interleukin-6, interleukin-10, tumor necrosis factor, CD4, CD8, or mast cell tryptase, said the researchers. A total of 63 patients had chronic abdominal pain, of whom 22 also had diverticulosis. There were no significant differences in mucosal inflammatory markers between symptomatic patients with diverticula and those without. Adjusted analysis found no association between number of diverticula and chronic abdominal pain (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.4-1.2) or IBS (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-1.1).

The number of patients with IBS in this study was small, and the researchers did not ascertain IBS symptom severity, they noted. “Although we studied several immune markers and cytokines, there are other potential markers that may be associated with chronic inflammation,” they added. “Multianalyte profiling could be used to assess an array of cytokines, and markers for macrophages (CD68), global T cells (CD3), and B cells (CD19). Whether there is utility in further studies given our negative results is debatable.”

The National Institutes of Health provided funding. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Peery AF et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Jun 8. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.05.051.

Colonic diverticulosis was not associated with mucosal inflammation or gastrointestinal symptoms in a single-center, prospective study of adults undergoing their first screening colonoscopy.

After adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index, there were no significant links between diverticulosis and tumor necrosis factor, CD4+ cells, CD8+ cells, CD57+ cells, irritable bowel syndrome, or chronic abdominal pain, reported Anne F. Peery, MD, with her associates at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Our findings strongly question the rationale for treating symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease with mesalamine,” they wrote in the June issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.05.051).

Colonic diverticula affect more than half of individuals in the United States over the age of 60 years, according to the results of past studies. “Although colonic diverticulosis can be complicated by the overt inflammation of acute diverticulitis, there is some thought that colonic diverticulosis is associated with low-grade mucosal inflammation,” the researchers said. “Moreover, this low-grade diverticular inflammation is believed to contribute to chronic gastrointestinal symptoms.” However, no rigorous prospective study had tested these assertions.

Accordingly, the researchers evaluated prospective data from 619 outpatients aged 30 years and older who underwent screening colonoscopies for the first time during 2013-2015. These patients had consented to participate in a study of risk factors for colonic diverticulosis. Most were white (76%) or black (21%), and most were aged 50-59 years.

A total of 255 individuals had diverticula while 364 controls did not. Patients with diverticula tended to be older and were more often male (47% vs. 41% of controls) and overweight or obese (72% vs. 62%). After adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index, there was no evidence linking diverticulosis with tumor necrosis factor alpha expression (odds ratio, 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.2), CD4+ cells (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9-1.6), CD8+ cells (OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.7-1.3), or CD57+ cells (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-1.1).

Among 42 patients who met Rome III criteria for irritable bowel syndrome, 11 had diverticulosis. Diverticulosis in IBS was not associated with changes in expression of the mucosal inflammatory markers interleukin-6, interleukin-10, tumor necrosis factor, CD4, CD8, or mast cell tryptase, said the researchers. A total of 63 patients had chronic abdominal pain, of whom 22 also had diverticulosis. There were no significant differences in mucosal inflammatory markers between symptomatic patients with diverticula and those without. Adjusted analysis found no association between number of diverticula and chronic abdominal pain (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.4-1.2) or IBS (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-1.1).

The number of patients with IBS in this study was small, and the researchers did not ascertain IBS symptom severity, they noted. “Although we studied several immune markers and cytokines, there are other potential markers that may be associated with chronic inflammation,” they added. “Multianalyte profiling could be used to assess an array of cytokines, and markers for macrophages (CD68), global T cells (CD3), and B cells (CD19). Whether there is utility in further studies given our negative results is debatable.”

The National Institutes of Health provided funding. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Peery AF et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Jun 8. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.05.051.

CASE Failure to perform cesarean delivery^1–4

A 19-year-old woman (G1P0) received prenatal care at a federally funded health center. Her pregnancy was normal without complications. She presented to the hospital after spontaneous rupture of membranes (SROM). The on-call ObGyn employed by the clinic was offsite when the mother was admitted.

The mother signed a standard consent form for vaginal and cesarean deliveries and any other surgical procedure required during the course of giving birth.

The ObGyn ordered low-dose oxytocin to augment labor in light of her SROM. Oxytocin was started at 9:46 am and labor was uneventful until 1:20 pm when fetal heart monitoring showed deceleration of the baby’s heart rate. At 1:30 pm, oxytocin was discontinued because the fetal heart rate was nonreassuring. When the ObGyn arrived at the patient’s bedside at 1:49 pm, he ordered the oxytocin to be restarted because of irregular contractions. Oxytocin was given from 1:50 pm until delivery at 3:21 pm. During delivery, the ObGyn applied a Kiwi vacuum 3 times. Despite evidence of fetal distress, the ObGyn left the room several times.

Upon delivery, the infant was flaccid and not breathing. His Apgar scores were 2, 3, and 6 at 1, 5, and 10 minutes, respectively, and the cord pH was 7. The neonatal intensive care (NICU) team provided aggressive resuscitation.

At the time of trial, the 18-month-old boy was being fed through a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube and had a tracheostomy that required periodic suctioning. The child was not able to stand, crawl, or support himself, and will require 24-hour nursing care for the rest of his life.

LAWSUIT. The parents filed a lawsuit in federal court for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (see “Notes about this case,”). The mother claimed that she had requested a cesarean delivery early in labor when FHR tracings showed fetal distress, and again prior to vacuum extraction; the ObGyn refused both times.

The ObGyn claimed that when he noted a category III tracing, he recommended cesarean delivery, but the patient refused. He recorded the refusal in the chart some time later, after he had noted the neonate’s appearance.

The parents’ expert testified that restarting oxytocin and using vacuum extraction multiple times were dangerous and gross deviations from acceptable practice. Prolonged and repetitive use of the vacuum extractor caused a large subgaleal hematoma that decreased blood flow to the fetal brain, resulting in irreversible central nervous system (CNS) damage secondary to hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. An emergency cesarean delivery should have been performed at the first sign of fetal distress.

The defense expert pointed out that the ObGyn discussed the need for cesarean delivery with the patient when fetal distress occurred and that the ObGyn was bedside and monitoring the fetus and the mother. Although the mother consented to a cesarean delivery at time of admission, she refused to allow the procedure.

The labor and delivery (L&D) nurse corroborated the mother’s story that a cesarean delivery was not offered by the ObGyn, and when the patient asked for a cesarean delivery, he refused. The nurse stated that the note added to the records by the ObGyn about the mother’s refusal was a lie. If the mother had refused a cesarean, the nurse would have documented the refusal by completing a Refusal of Treatment form that would have been faxed to the risk manager. No such form was required because nothing was ever offered that the mother refused.

The nurse also testified that during the course of the latter part of labor, the ObGyn left the room several times to assist other patients, deliver another baby, and make an 8-minute phone call to his stockbroker. She reported that the ObGyn was out of the room when delivery occurred.

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

Read about the verdict and medical considerations.

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

The medical care and the federal-court bench trial held in front of a judge (not a jury) occurred in Florida. The verdict suggests that the ObGyn breached the standard of care by not offering or proceeding with a cesarean delivery and this management resulted in the child’s injuries. The court awarded damages in the amount of $33,813,495.91, including $29,413,495.91 for the infant; $3,300,000.00 for the plaintiff; and $1,100,000.00 for her spouse.⁴

Medical considerations

Refusal of medical care

Although it appears that in this case the patient did not actually refuse medical care (cesarean delivery), the case does raise the question of refusal. Refusal of medical care has been addressed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) predicated upon care that supports maternal and fetal wellbeing.⁵ There may be a fine balance between safeguarding the pregnant woman’s autonomy and optimization of fetal wellbeing. “Forced compliance,” on the other hand, is the alternative to respecting refusal of treatment. Ethical issues come into play: patient rights; respect for autonomy; violations of bodily integrity; power differentials; and gender equality.⁵ The use of coercion is “not only ethically impermissible but also medically inadvisable secondary to the realities of prognostic uncertainty and the limitations of medical knowledge.”⁵ There is an obligation to elicit the patient’s reasoning and lived experience. Perhaps most importantly, as clinicians working to achieve a resolution, consideration of the following is appropriate⁵:

• reliability and validity of evidence-based medicine
• severity of the prospective outcome
• degree of risk or burden placed on the patient
• patient understanding of the gravity of the situation and risks
• degree of urgency.

Much of this boils down to the obligation to discuss “risks and benefits of treatment, alternatives and consequences of refusing treatment.”⁶

Complications from vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery

Ghidini and associates, in a multicenter retrospective study, evaluated complications relating to vacuum-assisted delivery. They listed major primary outcomes of subgaleal hemorrhage, skull fracture, and intracranial bleeding, and minor primary outcomes of cephalohematoma, scalp laceration, and extensive skin abrasions. Secondary outcomes included a 5-minute Apgar score of <7, umbilical artery pH of <7.10, shoulder dystocia, and NICU admission.⁷

A retrospective study from Sweden assessing all vacuum deliveries over a 2-year period compared the use of the Kiwi OmniCup (Clinical Innovations) to use of the Malmström metal cup (Medela). No statistical differences in maternal or neonatal outcomes as well as failure rates were noted. However, the duration of the procedure was longer and the requirement for fundal pressure was higher with the Malmström device.⁸

Subgaleal hemorrhage. Ghidini and colleagues reported a heightened incidence of head injury related to the duration of vacuum application and birth weight.⁷ Specifically, vacuum delivery devices increase the risk of subgaleal hemorrhage. Blood can accumulate between the scalp’s epicranial aponeurosis and the periosteum and potentially can extend forward to the orbital margins, backward to the nuchal ridge, and laterally to the temporal fascia. As much as 260 mL of blood can get into this subaponeurotic space in term babies.⁹ Up to one-quarter of babies who require NICU admission for this condition die.¹⁰ This injury seldom occurs with forceps.

Shoulder dystocia. In a meta-analysisfrom Italy, the vacuum extractor was associated with increased risk of shoulder dystocia compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery.¹¹

Intrapartum hypoxia. In 2003, the ACOG Task Force on Neonatal Encephalopathy and Cerebral Palsy defined an acute intrapartum hypoxic event (TABLE).¹²

Cerebral palsy (CP) is defined as “a chronic neuromuscular disability characterized by aberrant control of movement or posture appearing early in life and not the result of recognized progressive disease.”^13,14

The Collaborative Perinatal Project concluded that birth trauma plays a minimal role in development of CP.¹⁵ Arrested labor, use of oxytocin, or prolonged labor did not play a role. CP can develop following significant cerebral or posterior fossa hemorrhage in term infants.¹⁶

Perinatal asphyxia is a poor and imprecise term and use of the expression should be abandoned. Overall, 90% of children with CP do not have birth asphyxia as the underlying etiology.¹⁴

Prognostic assessment can be made, in part, by using the Sarnat classification system (classification scale for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy of the newborn) or an electroencephalogram to stratify the severity of neonatal encephalopathy.¹² Such tests are not stand-alone but a segment of assessment. At this point “a better understanding of the processes leading to neonatal encephalopathy and associated outcomes” appear to be required to understand and associate outcomes.¹² “More accurate and reliable tools (are required) for prognostic forecasting.”¹²

Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy involves multisystem organ failure including renal, hepatic, hematologic, cardiac, gastrointestinal, and metabolic abnormalities. There is no correlation between the degree of CNS injury and level of other organ abnormalities.¹²

Differential diagnosis

When events such as those described in this case occur, develop a differential diagnosis by considering the following¹²:

• uterine rupture
• severe placental abruption
• umbilical cord prolapse
• amniotic fluid embolus
• maternal cardiovascular collapse
• fetal exsanguination.

Read about the legal considerations.

Legal considerations

Although ObGyns are among the specialties most likely to experience malpractice claims,¹⁷ a verdict of more than $33 million is unusual.¹⁸ Despite the failure of adequate care, and the enormous damages, the ObGyn involved probably will not be responsible for paying the verdict (see “Notes about this case”). The case presents a number of important lessons and reminders for anyone practicing obstetrics.

Very large verdict

The extraordinary size of this verdict ($33 million without any punitive damages) is a reminder that in obstetrics, mistakes can have catastrophic consequences and very high costs.¹⁹ This fact is reflected in malpractice insurance rates.

A substantial amount of this case’s award will provide around-the-clock care for the child. This verdict was not the result of a runaway jury—it was a judge’s decision. It is also noteworthy to report that a small percentage of physicians (1%) appear responsible for a significant number (about one-third) of paid claims.²⁰

Although the size of the verdict is unusual, the case is a fairly straightforward negligence tort. The judge found that the ObGyn had breached the duty of care for his patient. The actions that fell below the standard of care included restarting the oxytocin, using the Kiwi vacuum device 3 times, and failing to perform a cesarean delivery in light of obvious fetal distress. That negligence caused injury to the infant (and his parents).²¹ The judge determined that the 4 elements of negligence were present: 1) duty of care, 2) breach of that duty, 3) injury, and 4) a causal link between the breach of duty and the injury. The failure to adhere to good practice standards practically defines breach of duty.²²

Multitasking

One important lesson is that multitasking, absence, and inattention can look terrible when things go wrong. Known as “hindsight bias,” the awareness that there was a disastrous result makes it easier to attribute the outcome to small mistakes that otherwise might seem trivial. This ObGyn was in and out of the room during a difficult labor. Perhaps that was understandable if it were unavoidable because of another delivery, but being absent frequently and not present for the delivery now looks very significant.²³ And, of course, the 8-minute phone call to the stockbroker shines as a heartless, self-centered act of inattention.

Manipulating the record

Another lesson of this case: Do not manipulate the record. The ObGyn recorded that the patient had refused the cesarean delivery he recommended. Had that been the truth, it would have substantially improved his case. But apparently it was not the truth. Although there was circumstantial evidence (the charting of the patient’s refusal only after the newborn’s condition was obvious, failure to complete appropriate hospital forms), the most damning evidence was the direct testimony of the L&D nurse. She reported that, contrary to what the ObGyn put in the chart, the patient requested a cesarean delivery. In truth, it was the ObGyn who had refused.

A physician who is dishonest with charting—making false statements or going back or “correcting” a chart later—loses credibility and the presumption of acting in good faith. That is disastrous for the physician.²⁴

A hidden lesson

Another lesson, more human than legal, is that it matters how patients are treated when things go wrong. According to press reports, the parents felt that the ObGyn had not recognized that he had made any errors, did not apologize, and had even blamed the mother for the outcome. It does not require graduate work in psychology to expect that this approach would make the parents angry enough to pursue legal action. True regret, respect, and apologies are not panaceas, but they are important.²⁵ Who gets sued and why is a key question that is part of a larger risk management plan. In this case, the magnitude of the injuries made a suit very likely, which is not the case with all bad outcomes.²⁶ Honest communication with patients in the face of bad results remains the goal.²⁷

Pulling it all together

Clinicians must always remain cognizant that the patient comes first and of the importance of working as a team with nursing staff and other allied health professionals. Excellent communication and support staff interaction in good times and bad can make a difference in patient outcomes and, indeed, in medical malpractice verdicts.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

CASE Failure to perform cesarean delivery^1–4

A 19-year-old woman (G1P0) received prenatal care at a federally funded health center. Her pregnancy was normal without complications. She presented to the hospital after spontaneous rupture of membranes (SROM). The on-call ObGyn employed by the clinic was offsite when the mother was admitted.

The mother signed a standard consent form for vaginal and cesarean deliveries and any other surgical procedure required during the course of giving birth.

The ObGyn ordered low-dose oxytocin to augment labor in light of her SROM. Oxytocin was started at 9:46 am and labor was uneventful until 1:20 pm when fetal heart monitoring showed deceleration of the baby’s heart rate. At 1:30 pm, oxytocin was discontinued because the fetal heart rate was nonreassuring. When the ObGyn arrived at the patient’s bedside at 1:49 pm, he ordered the oxytocin to be restarted because of irregular contractions. Oxytocin was given from 1:50 pm until delivery at 3:21 pm. During delivery, the ObGyn applied a Kiwi vacuum 3 times. Despite evidence of fetal distress, the ObGyn left the room several times.

Upon delivery, the infant was flaccid and not breathing. His Apgar scores were 2, 3, and 6 at 1, 5, and 10 minutes, respectively, and the cord pH was 7. The neonatal intensive care (NICU) team provided aggressive resuscitation.

At the time of trial, the 18-month-old boy was being fed through a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube and had a tracheostomy that required periodic suctioning. The child was not able to stand, crawl, or support himself, and will require 24-hour nursing care for the rest of his life.

LAWSUIT. The parents filed a lawsuit in federal court for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (see “Notes about this case,”). The mother claimed that she had requested a cesarean delivery early in labor when FHR tracings showed fetal distress, and again prior to vacuum extraction; the ObGyn refused both times.

The ObGyn claimed that when he noted a category III tracing, he recommended cesarean delivery, but the patient refused. He recorded the refusal in the chart some time later, after he had noted the neonate’s appearance.

The parents’ expert testified that restarting oxytocin and using vacuum extraction multiple times were dangerous and gross deviations from acceptable practice. Prolonged and repetitive use of the vacuum extractor caused a large subgaleal hematoma that decreased blood flow to the fetal brain, resulting in irreversible central nervous system (CNS) damage secondary to hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. An emergency cesarean delivery should have been performed at the first sign of fetal distress.

The defense expert pointed out that the ObGyn discussed the need for cesarean delivery with the patient when fetal distress occurred and that the ObGyn was bedside and monitoring the fetus and the mother. Although the mother consented to a cesarean delivery at time of admission, she refused to allow the procedure.

The labor and delivery (L&D) nurse corroborated the mother’s story that a cesarean delivery was not offered by the ObGyn, and when the patient asked for a cesarean delivery, he refused. The nurse stated that the note added to the records by the ObGyn about the mother’s refusal was a lie. If the mother had refused a cesarean, the nurse would have documented the refusal by completing a Refusal of Treatment form that would have been faxed to the risk manager. No such form was required because nothing was ever offered that the mother refused.

The nurse also testified that during the course of the latter part of labor, the ObGyn left the room several times to assist other patients, deliver another baby, and make an 8-minute phone call to his stockbroker. She reported that the ObGyn was out of the room when delivery occurred.

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

Read about the verdict and medical considerations.

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

The medical care and the federal-court bench trial held in front of a judge (not a jury) occurred in Florida. The verdict suggests that the ObGyn breached the standard of care by not offering or proceeding with a cesarean delivery and this management resulted in the child’s injuries. The court awarded damages in the amount of $33,813,495.91, including $29,413,495.91 for the infant; $3,300,000.00 for the plaintiff; and $1,100,000.00 for her spouse.⁴

Medical considerations

Refusal of medical care

Although it appears that in this case the patient did not actually refuse medical care (cesarean delivery), the case does raise the question of refusal. Refusal of medical care has been addressed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) predicated upon care that supports maternal and fetal wellbeing.⁵ There may be a fine balance between safeguarding the pregnant woman’s autonomy and optimization of fetal wellbeing. “Forced compliance,” on the other hand, is the alternative to respecting refusal of treatment. Ethical issues come into play: patient rights; respect for autonomy; violations of bodily integrity; power differentials; and gender equality.⁵ The use of coercion is “not only ethically impermissible but also medically inadvisable secondary to the realities of prognostic uncertainty and the limitations of medical knowledge.”⁵ There is an obligation to elicit the patient’s reasoning and lived experience. Perhaps most importantly, as clinicians working to achieve a resolution, consideration of the following is appropriate⁵:

• reliability and validity of evidence-based medicine
• severity of the prospective outcome
• degree of risk or burden placed on the patient
• patient understanding of the gravity of the situation and risks
• degree of urgency.

Much of this boils down to the obligation to discuss “risks and benefits of treatment, alternatives and consequences of refusing treatment.”⁶

Complications from vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery

Ghidini and associates, in a multicenter retrospective study, evaluated complications relating to vacuum-assisted delivery. They listed major primary outcomes of subgaleal hemorrhage, skull fracture, and intracranial bleeding, and minor primary outcomes of cephalohematoma, scalp laceration, and extensive skin abrasions. Secondary outcomes included a 5-minute Apgar score of <7, umbilical artery pH of <7.10, shoulder dystocia, and NICU admission.⁷

A retrospective study from Sweden assessing all vacuum deliveries over a 2-year period compared the use of the Kiwi OmniCup (Clinical Innovations) to use of the Malmström metal cup (Medela). No statistical differences in maternal or neonatal outcomes as well as failure rates were noted. However, the duration of the procedure was longer and the requirement for fundal pressure was higher with the Malmström device.⁸

Subgaleal hemorrhage. Ghidini and colleagues reported a heightened incidence of head injury related to the duration of vacuum application and birth weight.⁷ Specifically, vacuum delivery devices increase the risk of subgaleal hemorrhage. Blood can accumulate between the scalp’s epicranial aponeurosis and the periosteum and potentially can extend forward to the orbital margins, backward to the nuchal ridge, and laterally to the temporal fascia. As much as 260 mL of blood can get into this subaponeurotic space in term babies.⁹ Up to one-quarter of babies who require NICU admission for this condition die.¹⁰ This injury seldom occurs with forceps.

Shoulder dystocia. In a meta-analysisfrom Italy, the vacuum extractor was associated with increased risk of shoulder dystocia compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery.¹¹

Intrapartum hypoxia. In 2003, the ACOG Task Force on Neonatal Encephalopathy and Cerebral Palsy defined an acute intrapartum hypoxic event (TABLE).¹²

Cerebral palsy (CP) is defined as “a chronic neuromuscular disability characterized by aberrant control of movement or posture appearing early in life and not the result of recognized progressive disease.”^13,14

The Collaborative Perinatal Project concluded that birth trauma plays a minimal role in development of CP.¹⁵ Arrested labor, use of oxytocin, or prolonged labor did not play a role. CP can develop following significant cerebral or posterior fossa hemorrhage in term infants.¹⁶

Perinatal asphyxia is a poor and imprecise term and use of the expression should be abandoned. Overall, 90% of children with CP do not have birth asphyxia as the underlying etiology.¹⁴

Prognostic assessment can be made, in part, by using the Sarnat classification system (classification scale for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy of the newborn) or an electroencephalogram to stratify the severity of neonatal encephalopathy.¹² Such tests are not stand-alone but a segment of assessment. At this point “a better understanding of the processes leading to neonatal encephalopathy and associated outcomes” appear to be required to understand and associate outcomes.¹² “More accurate and reliable tools (are required) for prognostic forecasting.”¹²

Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy involves multisystem organ failure including renal, hepatic, hematologic, cardiac, gastrointestinal, and metabolic abnormalities. There is no correlation between the degree of CNS injury and level of other organ abnormalities.¹²

Differential diagnosis

When events such as those described in this case occur, develop a differential diagnosis by considering the following¹²:

• uterine rupture
• severe placental abruption
• umbilical cord prolapse
• amniotic fluid embolus
• maternal cardiovascular collapse
• fetal exsanguination.

Read about the legal considerations.

Legal considerations

Although ObGyns are among the specialties most likely to experience malpractice claims,¹⁷ a verdict of more than $33 million is unusual.¹⁸ Despite the failure of adequate care, and the enormous damages, the ObGyn involved probably will not be responsible for paying the verdict (see “Notes about this case”). The case presents a number of important lessons and reminders for anyone practicing obstetrics.

Very large verdict

The extraordinary size of this verdict ($33 million without any punitive damages) is a reminder that in obstetrics, mistakes can have catastrophic consequences and very high costs.¹⁹ This fact is reflected in malpractice insurance rates.

A substantial amount of this case’s award will provide around-the-clock care for the child. This verdict was not the result of a runaway jury—it was a judge’s decision. It is also noteworthy to report that a small percentage of physicians (1%) appear responsible for a significant number (about one-third) of paid claims.²⁰

Although the size of the verdict is unusual, the case is a fairly straightforward negligence tort. The judge found that the ObGyn had breached the duty of care for his patient. The actions that fell below the standard of care included restarting the oxytocin, using the Kiwi vacuum device 3 times, and failing to perform a cesarean delivery in light of obvious fetal distress. That negligence caused injury to the infant (and his parents).²¹ The judge determined that the 4 elements of negligence were present: 1) duty of care, 2) breach of that duty, 3) injury, and 4) a causal link between the breach of duty and the injury. The failure to adhere to good practice standards practically defines breach of duty.²²

Multitasking

One important lesson is that multitasking, absence, and inattention can look terrible when things go wrong. Known as “hindsight bias,” the awareness that there was a disastrous result makes it easier to attribute the outcome to small mistakes that otherwise might seem trivial. This ObGyn was in and out of the room during a difficult labor. Perhaps that was understandable if it were unavoidable because of another delivery, but being absent frequently and not present for the delivery now looks very significant.²³ And, of course, the 8-minute phone call to the stockbroker shines as a heartless, self-centered act of inattention.

Manipulating the record

Another lesson of this case: Do not manipulate the record. The ObGyn recorded that the patient had refused the cesarean delivery he recommended. Had that been the truth, it would have substantially improved his case. But apparently it was not the truth. Although there was circumstantial evidence (the charting of the patient’s refusal only after the newborn’s condition was obvious, failure to complete appropriate hospital forms), the most damning evidence was the direct testimony of the L&D nurse. She reported that, contrary to what the ObGyn put in the chart, the patient requested a cesarean delivery. In truth, it was the ObGyn who had refused.

A physician who is dishonest with charting—making false statements or going back or “correcting” a chart later—loses credibility and the presumption of acting in good faith. That is disastrous for the physician.²⁴

A hidden lesson

Another lesson, more human than legal, is that it matters how patients are treated when things go wrong. According to press reports, the parents felt that the ObGyn had not recognized that he had made any errors, did not apologize, and had even blamed the mother for the outcome. It does not require graduate work in psychology to expect that this approach would make the parents angry enough to pursue legal action. True regret, respect, and apologies are not panaceas, but they are important.²⁵ Who gets sued and why is a key question that is part of a larger risk management plan. In this case, the magnitude of the injuries made a suit very likely, which is not the case with all bad outcomes.²⁶ Honest communication with patients in the face of bad results remains the goal.²⁷

Pulling it all together

Clinicians must always remain cognizant that the patient comes first and of the importance of working as a team with nursing staff and other allied health professionals. Excellent communication and support staff interaction in good times and bad can make a difference in patient outcomes and, indeed, in medical malpractice verdicts.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

CASE Failure to perform cesarean delivery^1–4

A 19-year-old woman (G1P0) received prenatal care at a federally funded health center. Her pregnancy was normal without complications. She presented to the hospital after spontaneous rupture of membranes (SROM). The on-call ObGyn employed by the clinic was offsite when the mother was admitted.

The mother signed a standard consent form for vaginal and cesarean deliveries and any other surgical procedure required during the course of giving birth.

The ObGyn ordered low-dose oxytocin to augment labor in light of her SROM. Oxytocin was started at 9:46 am and labor was uneventful until 1:20 pm when fetal heart monitoring showed deceleration of the baby’s heart rate. At 1:30 pm, oxytocin was discontinued because the fetal heart rate was nonreassuring. When the ObGyn arrived at the patient’s bedside at 1:49 pm, he ordered the oxytocin to be restarted because of irregular contractions. Oxytocin was given from 1:50 pm until delivery at 3:21 pm. During delivery, the ObGyn applied a Kiwi vacuum 3 times. Despite evidence of fetal distress, the ObGyn left the room several times.

Upon delivery, the infant was flaccid and not breathing. His Apgar scores were 2, 3, and 6 at 1, 5, and 10 minutes, respectively, and the cord pH was 7. The neonatal intensive care (NICU) team provided aggressive resuscitation.

At the time of trial, the 18-month-old boy was being fed through a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube and had a tracheostomy that required periodic suctioning. The child was not able to stand, crawl, or support himself, and will require 24-hour nursing care for the rest of his life.

LAWSUIT. The parents filed a lawsuit in federal court for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (see “Notes about this case,”). The mother claimed that she had requested a cesarean delivery early in labor when FHR tracings showed fetal distress, and again prior to vacuum extraction; the ObGyn refused both times.

The ObGyn claimed that when he noted a category III tracing, he recommended cesarean delivery, but the patient refused. He recorded the refusal in the chart some time later, after he had noted the neonate’s appearance.

The parents’ expert testified that restarting oxytocin and using vacuum extraction multiple times were dangerous and gross deviations from acceptable practice. Prolonged and repetitive use of the vacuum extractor caused a large subgaleal hematoma that decreased blood flow to the fetal brain, resulting in irreversible central nervous system (CNS) damage secondary to hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. An emergency cesarean delivery should have been performed at the first sign of fetal distress.

The defense expert pointed out that the ObGyn discussed the need for cesarean delivery with the patient when fetal distress occurred and that the ObGyn was bedside and monitoring the fetus and the mother. Although the mother consented to a cesarean delivery at time of admission, she refused to allow the procedure.

The labor and delivery (L&D) nurse corroborated the mother’s story that a cesarean delivery was not offered by the ObGyn, and when the patient asked for a cesarean delivery, he refused. The nurse stated that the note added to the records by the ObGyn about the mother’s refusal was a lie. If the mother had refused a cesarean, the nurse would have documented the refusal by completing a Refusal of Treatment form that would have been faxed to the risk manager. No such form was required because nothing was ever offered that the mother refused.

The nurse also testified that during the course of the latter part of labor, the ObGyn left the room several times to assist other patients, deliver another baby, and make an 8-minute phone call to his stockbroker. She reported that the ObGyn was out of the room when delivery occurred.

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

Read about the verdict and medical considerations.

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

The medical care and the federal-court bench trial held in front of a judge (not a jury) occurred in Florida. The verdict suggests that the ObGyn breached the standard of care by not offering or proceeding with a cesarean delivery and this management resulted in the child’s injuries. The court awarded damages in the amount of $33,813,495.91, including $29,413,495.91 for the infant; $3,300,000.00 for the plaintiff; and $1,100,000.00 for her spouse.⁴

Medical considerations

Refusal of medical care

Although it appears that in this case the patient did not actually refuse medical care (cesarean delivery), the case does raise the question of refusal. Refusal of medical care has been addressed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) predicated upon care that supports maternal and fetal wellbeing.⁵ There may be a fine balance between safeguarding the pregnant woman’s autonomy and optimization of fetal wellbeing. “Forced compliance,” on the other hand, is the alternative to respecting refusal of treatment. Ethical issues come into play: patient rights; respect for autonomy; violations of bodily integrity; power differentials; and gender equality.⁵ The use of coercion is “not only ethically impermissible but also medically inadvisable secondary to the realities of prognostic uncertainty and the limitations of medical knowledge.”⁵ There is an obligation to elicit the patient’s reasoning and lived experience. Perhaps most importantly, as clinicians working to achieve a resolution, consideration of the following is appropriate⁵:

• reliability and validity of evidence-based medicine
• severity of the prospective outcome
• degree of risk or burden placed on the patient
• patient understanding of the gravity of the situation and risks
• degree of urgency.

Much of this boils down to the obligation to discuss “risks and benefits of treatment, alternatives and consequences of refusing treatment.”⁶

Complications from vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery

Ghidini and associates, in a multicenter retrospective study, evaluated complications relating to vacuum-assisted delivery. They listed major primary outcomes of subgaleal hemorrhage, skull fracture, and intracranial bleeding, and minor primary outcomes of cephalohematoma, scalp laceration, and extensive skin abrasions. Secondary outcomes included a 5-minute Apgar score of <7, umbilical artery pH of <7.10, shoulder dystocia, and NICU admission.⁷

A retrospective study from Sweden assessing all vacuum deliveries over a 2-year period compared the use of the Kiwi OmniCup (Clinical Innovations) to use of the Malmström metal cup (Medela). No statistical differences in maternal or neonatal outcomes as well as failure rates were noted. However, the duration of the procedure was longer and the requirement for fundal pressure was higher with the Malmström device.⁸

Subgaleal hemorrhage. Ghidini and colleagues reported a heightened incidence of head injury related to the duration of vacuum application and birth weight.⁷ Specifically, vacuum delivery devices increase the risk of subgaleal hemorrhage. Blood can accumulate between the scalp’s epicranial aponeurosis and the periosteum and potentially can extend forward to the orbital margins, backward to the nuchal ridge, and laterally to the temporal fascia. As much as 260 mL of blood can get into this subaponeurotic space in term babies.⁹ Up to one-quarter of babies who require NICU admission for this condition die.¹⁰ This injury seldom occurs with forceps.

Shoulder dystocia. In a meta-analysisfrom Italy, the vacuum extractor was associated with increased risk of shoulder dystocia compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery.¹¹

Intrapartum hypoxia. In 2003, the ACOG Task Force on Neonatal Encephalopathy and Cerebral Palsy defined an acute intrapartum hypoxic event (TABLE).¹²

Cerebral palsy (CP) is defined as “a chronic neuromuscular disability characterized by aberrant control of movement or posture appearing early in life and not the result of recognized progressive disease.”^13,14

The Collaborative Perinatal Project concluded that birth trauma plays a minimal role in development of CP.¹⁵ Arrested labor, use of oxytocin, or prolonged labor did not play a role. CP can develop following significant cerebral or posterior fossa hemorrhage in term infants.¹⁶

Perinatal asphyxia is a poor and imprecise term and use of the expression should be abandoned. Overall, 90% of children with CP do not have birth asphyxia as the underlying etiology.¹⁴

Prognostic assessment can be made, in part, by using the Sarnat classification system (classification scale for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy of the newborn) or an electroencephalogram to stratify the severity of neonatal encephalopathy.¹² Such tests are not stand-alone but a segment of assessment. At this point “a better understanding of the processes leading to neonatal encephalopathy and associated outcomes” appear to be required to understand and associate outcomes.¹² “More accurate and reliable tools (are required) for prognostic forecasting.”¹²

Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy involves multisystem organ failure including renal, hepatic, hematologic, cardiac, gastrointestinal, and metabolic abnormalities. There is no correlation between the degree of CNS injury and level of other organ abnormalities.¹²

Differential diagnosis

When events such as those described in this case occur, develop a differential diagnosis by considering the following¹²:

• uterine rupture
• severe placental abruption
• umbilical cord prolapse
• amniotic fluid embolus
• maternal cardiovascular collapse
• fetal exsanguination.

Read about the legal considerations.

Legal considerations

Although ObGyns are among the specialties most likely to experience malpractice claims,¹⁷ a verdict of more than $33 million is unusual.¹⁸ Despite the failure of adequate care, and the enormous damages, the ObGyn involved probably will not be responsible for paying the verdict (see “Notes about this case”). The case presents a number of important lessons and reminders for anyone practicing obstetrics.

Very large verdict

The extraordinary size of this verdict ($33 million without any punitive damages) is a reminder that in obstetrics, mistakes can have catastrophic consequences and very high costs.¹⁹ This fact is reflected in malpractice insurance rates.

A substantial amount of this case’s award will provide around-the-clock care for the child. This verdict was not the result of a runaway jury—it was a judge’s decision. It is also noteworthy to report that a small percentage of physicians (1%) appear responsible for a significant number (about one-third) of paid claims.²⁰

Although the size of the verdict is unusual, the case is a fairly straightforward negligence tort. The judge found that the ObGyn had breached the duty of care for his patient. The actions that fell below the standard of care included restarting the oxytocin, using the Kiwi vacuum device 3 times, and failing to perform a cesarean delivery in light of obvious fetal distress. That negligence caused injury to the infant (and his parents).²¹ The judge determined that the 4 elements of negligence were present: 1) duty of care, 2) breach of that duty, 3) injury, and 4) a causal link between the breach of duty and the injury. The failure to adhere to good practice standards practically defines breach of duty.²²

Multitasking

One important lesson is that multitasking, absence, and inattention can look terrible when things go wrong. Known as “hindsight bias,” the awareness that there was a disastrous result makes it easier to attribute the outcome to small mistakes that otherwise might seem trivial. This ObGyn was in and out of the room during a difficult labor. Perhaps that was understandable if it were unavoidable because of another delivery, but being absent frequently and not present for the delivery now looks very significant.²³ And, of course, the 8-minute phone call to the stockbroker shines as a heartless, self-centered act of inattention.

Manipulating the record

Another lesson of this case: Do not manipulate the record. The ObGyn recorded that the patient had refused the cesarean delivery he recommended. Had that been the truth, it would have substantially improved his case. But apparently it was not the truth. Although there was circumstantial evidence (the charting of the patient’s refusal only after the newborn’s condition was obvious, failure to complete appropriate hospital forms), the most damning evidence was the direct testimony of the L&D nurse. She reported that, contrary to what the ObGyn put in the chart, the patient requested a cesarean delivery. In truth, it was the ObGyn who had refused.

A physician who is dishonest with charting—making false statements or going back or “correcting” a chart later—loses credibility and the presumption of acting in good faith. That is disastrous for the physician.²⁴

A hidden lesson

Another lesson, more human than legal, is that it matters how patients are treated when things go wrong. According to press reports, the parents felt that the ObGyn had not recognized that he had made any errors, did not apologize, and had even blamed the mother for the outcome. It does not require graduate work in psychology to expect that this approach would make the parents angry enough to pursue legal action. True regret, respect, and apologies are not panaceas, but they are important.²⁵ Who gets sued and why is a key question that is part of a larger risk management plan. In this case, the magnitude of the injuries made a suit very likely, which is not the case with all bad outcomes.²⁶ Honest communication with patients in the face of bad results remains the goal.²⁷

Pulling it all together

Clinicians must always remain cognizant that the patient comes first and of the importance of working as a team with nursing staff and other allied health professionals. Excellent communication and support staff interaction in good times and bad can make a difference in patient outcomes and, indeed, in medical malpractice verdicts.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

To the Editor:

Palisaded neutrophilic granulomatous dermatitis (PNGD) is a rare disorder that often is associated with systemic disease. It has been shown to manifest in the presence of systemic lupus erythematosus; rheumatoid arthritis; Wegener granulomatosis; and other diseases, mainly autoimmune conditions. Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis (IGD) associated with arthritis was first described by Ackerman et al¹ in 1993. In 1994, IGD was placed among the spectrum of PNGD by Chu et al.² The disease entities included in the spectrum of PNGD of the immune complex disease are Churg-Strauss granuloma, cutaneous extravascular necrotizing granuloma, rheumatoid papules, superficial ulcerating rheumatoid necrobiosis, and IGD with arthritis.² It has been suggested that IGD has a distinct clinical presentation with associated histopathology, while others suggest it still is part of the PNGD spectrum.^2,3 We present 2 cases of granulomatous dermatitis and their findings related to IGD and PNGD.

A 58-year-old woman presented with recurrent painful lesions on the trunk, arms, and legs of 2 years’ duration. The lesions spontaneously resolved without scarring or hyperpigmentation but would recur in different areas on the trunk. She was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis following a recent autoimmune workup. At presentation, physical examination revealed tender erythematous edematous plaques on the bilateral upper back (Figure 1) and erythematous nodules on the bilateral upper arms. The patient previously had an antinuclear antibody titer of 1:320 with a speckled pattern. A repeat antinuclear antibody titer taken 1 year later was negative. Her rheumatoid factor initially was positive and remained positive upon repeat testing. Punch biopsies were performed for histologic evaluation of the lesions and immunofluorescence. Biopsies examined with hematoxylin and eosin stain revealed perivascular and interstitial mixed (lymphocytic, neutrophilic, eosinophilic) bottom-heavy inflammation with nuclear dust and basophilic degeneration of collagen (Figure 2). Immunofluorescence studies were negative. The patient deferred treatment.

A 74-year-old man presented with a rash on the flank and back with associated pruritus and occasional pain of 2 months’ duration. His primary care physician prescribed a course of cephalexin, but the rash did not improve. Review of systems was positive for intermittent swelling of the hands, feet, and lips, and negative for arthritis. His medical history included 2 episodes of rheumatic fever, one complicated by pneumonia. His medications included finasteride, simvastatin, bisoprolol-hydrochlorothiazide, aspirin, tiotropium, vitamin D, and fish oil. At presentation, physical examination revealed tender violaceous plaques with induration and central clearing distributed on the left side of the back, left side of the flank, and left axilla. The lesion on the axilla measured 30.0×3.5 cm and the lesions on the left side of the back measured 30.0×9.0 cm. The rims of the lesions were elevated and consistent with the rope sign (Figure 3). A punch biopsy of the lesion on the left axilla showed perivascular and interstitial infiltrate of lymphocytes, neutrophils, histiocytes, and eosinophils. There was no evidence of fibrin deposition in the blood vessels. Small areas of necrobiotic collagen surrounded by multinucleated giant cells and lymphocytes were noted (Figure 4). The rash improved spontaneously at the time of suture removal. No treatment was initiated.

Granulomatous dermatitis in the presence of an autoimmune disorder can present as IGD or PNGD. Both forms of granulomatous dermatitis are rare conditions and considered to be part of the same clinicopathological spectrum. These conditions can be difficult to distinguish clinically but are histologically unique.

Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis and PNGD can have a variable clinical expression. Palisaded neutrophilic granulomatous dermatitis generally presents as flesh-colored to erythematous papules or plaques, most commonly located on the upper arms. The lesions may have a central umbilication with perforation and ulceration.⁴ Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis most commonly presents as erythematous plaques and papules. The lesions are symmetric and asymptomatic. They most commonly appear on the trunk, axillae, buttocks, thighs, and groin. Subcutaneous linear cords (the rope sign) is a characteristic associated with IGD.^3,5 However, the rope sign also has been reported in a patient with PNGD with systemic lupus,⁶ which further demonstrates the overlapping spectrum of clinical expression seen in these 2 forms of granulomatous dermatitis. Therefore, a diagnosis cannot be made by clinical expression alone; histologic findings are needed for confirmation.

When differentiating IGD and PNGD histologically, it is important to keep in mind that these features exist on a spectrum and depend on the age of the lesion. Deposition of the immune complex around the dermal blood vessel initiates the pathogenesis. Early lesions of PNGD show a neutrophilic infiltrate, focal leukocytoclastic vasculitis, and dense nuclear dust. Developed lesions show zones of basophilic degenerated collagen surrounded by palisades of histiocytes, neutrophils, and nuclear debris.² The histologic pattern of IGD features smaller areas of palisading histiocytes surrounding foci of degenerated collagen. Neutrophils and eosinophils are seen among the degenerated collagen. There is no evidence of vasculitis and dermal mucin usually is absent.⁷

Palisaded neutrophilic granulomatous dermatitis has been reported to improve with systemic steroids and dapsone.⁸ The lesions may resolve spontaneously and with treatment of the underlying systemic disease. Similarly, IGD has been reported to resolve with systemic or topical steroids.^3,5 The rash in our patient with IGD (patient 2) spontaneously resolved. Our patient with PNGD (patient 1) reported that her lesions would spontaneously resolve, then recur. She had deferred all other treatment.

Some authors have disputed the spectrum that Chu et al² had determined in their study and proposed IGD is a separate entity from the PNGD spectrum. Verneuil et al⁹ stated that the clinical presentations in Chu et al’s² study (symmetric papules of the extremities) had not been reported in a patient with IGD. However, in a study of IGD by Peroni et al,³ 7 of 12 patients presented with symmetrical papules of the extremities. We believe that the spectrum proposed by Chu et al² still holds true.

These 2 reports demonstrate the diverse presentation of IGD and PNGD. It is important for dermatologists to keep in mind the PNGD spectrum when a patient presents with granulomatous dermatitis in the presence of an autoimmune disorder.

To the Editor:

Palisaded neutrophilic granulomatous dermatitis (PNGD) is a rare disorder that often is associated with systemic disease. It has been shown to manifest in the presence of systemic lupus erythematosus; rheumatoid arthritis; Wegener granulomatosis; and other diseases, mainly autoimmune conditions. Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis (IGD) associated with arthritis was first described by Ackerman et al¹ in 1993. In 1994, IGD was placed among the spectrum of PNGD by Chu et al.² The disease entities included in the spectrum of PNGD of the immune complex disease are Churg-Strauss granuloma, cutaneous extravascular necrotizing granuloma, rheumatoid papules, superficial ulcerating rheumatoid necrobiosis, and IGD with arthritis.² It has been suggested that IGD has a distinct clinical presentation with associated histopathology, while others suggest it still is part of the PNGD spectrum.^2,3 We present 2 cases of granulomatous dermatitis and their findings related to IGD and PNGD.

A 58-year-old woman presented with recurrent painful lesions on the trunk, arms, and legs of 2 years’ duration. The lesions spontaneously resolved without scarring or hyperpigmentation but would recur in different areas on the trunk. She was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis following a recent autoimmune workup. At presentation, physical examination revealed tender erythematous edematous plaques on the bilateral upper back (Figure 1) and erythematous nodules on the bilateral upper arms. The patient previously had an antinuclear antibody titer of 1:320 with a speckled pattern. A repeat antinuclear antibody titer taken 1 year later was negative. Her rheumatoid factor initially was positive and remained positive upon repeat testing. Punch biopsies were performed for histologic evaluation of the lesions and immunofluorescence. Biopsies examined with hematoxylin and eosin stain revealed perivascular and interstitial mixed (lymphocytic, neutrophilic, eosinophilic) bottom-heavy inflammation with nuclear dust and basophilic degeneration of collagen (Figure 2). Immunofluorescence studies were negative. The patient deferred treatment.

A 74-year-old man presented with a rash on the flank and back with associated pruritus and occasional pain of 2 months’ duration. His primary care physician prescribed a course of cephalexin, but the rash did not improve. Review of systems was positive for intermittent swelling of the hands, feet, and lips, and negative for arthritis. His medical history included 2 episodes of rheumatic fever, one complicated by pneumonia. His medications included finasteride, simvastatin, bisoprolol-hydrochlorothiazide, aspirin, tiotropium, vitamin D, and fish oil. At presentation, physical examination revealed tender violaceous plaques with induration and central clearing distributed on the left side of the back, left side of the flank, and left axilla. The lesion on the axilla measured 30.0×3.5 cm and the lesions on the left side of the back measured 30.0×9.0 cm. The rims of the lesions were elevated and consistent with the rope sign (Figure 3). A punch biopsy of the lesion on the left axilla showed perivascular and interstitial infiltrate of lymphocytes, neutrophils, histiocytes, and eosinophils. There was no evidence of fibrin deposition in the blood vessels. Small areas of necrobiotic collagen surrounded by multinucleated giant cells and lymphocytes were noted (Figure 4). The rash improved spontaneously at the time of suture removal. No treatment was initiated.

Granulomatous dermatitis in the presence of an autoimmune disorder can present as IGD or PNGD. Both forms of granulomatous dermatitis are rare conditions and considered to be part of the same clinicopathological spectrum. These conditions can be difficult to distinguish clinically but are histologically unique.

Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis and PNGD can have a variable clinical expression. Palisaded neutrophilic granulomatous dermatitis generally presents as flesh-colored to erythematous papules or plaques, most commonly located on the upper arms. The lesions may have a central umbilication with perforation and ulceration.⁴ Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis most commonly presents as erythematous plaques and papules. The lesions are symmetric and asymptomatic. They most commonly appear on the trunk, axillae, buttocks, thighs, and groin. Subcutaneous linear cords (the rope sign) is a characteristic associated with IGD.^3,5 However, the rope sign also has been reported in a patient with PNGD with systemic lupus,⁶ which further demonstrates the overlapping spectrum of clinical expression seen in these 2 forms of granulomatous dermatitis. Therefore, a diagnosis cannot be made by clinical expression alone; histologic findings are needed for confirmation.

When differentiating IGD and PNGD histologically, it is important to keep in mind that these features exist on a spectrum and depend on the age of the lesion. Deposition of the immune complex around the dermal blood vessel initiates the pathogenesis. Early lesions of PNGD show a neutrophilic infiltrate, focal leukocytoclastic vasculitis, and dense nuclear dust. Developed lesions show zones of basophilic degenerated collagen surrounded by palisades of histiocytes, neutrophils, and nuclear debris.² The histologic pattern of IGD features smaller areas of palisading histiocytes surrounding foci of degenerated collagen. Neutrophils and eosinophils are seen among the degenerated collagen. There is no evidence of vasculitis and dermal mucin usually is absent.⁷

Palisaded neutrophilic granulomatous dermatitis has been reported to improve with systemic steroids and dapsone.⁸ The lesions may resolve spontaneously and with treatment of the underlying systemic disease. Similarly, IGD has been reported to resolve with systemic or topical steroids.^3,5 The rash in our patient with IGD (patient 2) spontaneously resolved. Our patient with PNGD (patient 1) reported that her lesions would spontaneously resolve, then recur. She had deferred all other treatment.

Some authors have disputed the spectrum that Chu et al² had determined in their study and proposed IGD is a separate entity from the PNGD spectrum. Verneuil et al⁹ stated that the clinical presentations in Chu et al’s² study (symmetric papules of the extremities) had not been reported in a patient with IGD. However, in a study of IGD by Peroni et al,³ 7 of 12 patients presented with symmetrical papules of the extremities. We believe that the spectrum proposed by Chu et al² still holds true.

These 2 reports demonstrate the diverse presentation of IGD and PNGD. It is important for dermatologists to keep in mind the PNGD spectrum when a patient presents with granulomatous dermatitis in the presence of an autoimmune disorder.

To the Editor:

Palisaded neutrophilic granulomatous dermatitis (PNGD) is a rare disorder that often is associated with systemic disease. It has been shown to manifest in the presence of systemic lupus erythematosus; rheumatoid arthritis; Wegener granulomatosis; and other diseases, mainly autoimmune conditions. Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis (IGD) associated with arthritis was first described by Ackerman et al¹ in 1993. In 1994, IGD was placed among the spectrum of PNGD by Chu et al.² The disease entities included in the spectrum of PNGD of the immune complex disease are Churg-Strauss granuloma, cutaneous extravascular necrotizing granuloma, rheumatoid papules, superficial ulcerating rheumatoid necrobiosis, and IGD with arthritis.² It has been suggested that IGD has a distinct clinical presentation with associated histopathology, while others suggest it still is part of the PNGD spectrum.^2,3 We present 2 cases of granulomatous dermatitis and their findings related to IGD and PNGD.

A 58-year-old woman presented with recurrent painful lesions on the trunk, arms, and legs of 2 years’ duration. The lesions spontaneously resolved without scarring or hyperpigmentation but would recur in different areas on the trunk. She was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis following a recent autoimmune workup. At presentation, physical examination revealed tender erythematous edematous plaques on the bilateral upper back (Figure 1) and erythematous nodules on the bilateral upper arms. The patient previously had an antinuclear antibody titer of 1:320 with a speckled pattern. A repeat antinuclear antibody titer taken 1 year later was negative. Her rheumatoid factor initially was positive and remained positive upon repeat testing. Punch biopsies were performed for histologic evaluation of the lesions and immunofluorescence. Biopsies examined with hematoxylin and eosin stain revealed perivascular and interstitial mixed (lymphocytic, neutrophilic, eosinophilic) bottom-heavy inflammation with nuclear dust and basophilic degeneration of collagen (Figure 2). Immunofluorescence studies were negative. The patient deferred treatment.

A 74-year-old man presented with a rash on the flank and back with associated pruritus and occasional pain of 2 months’ duration. His primary care physician prescribed a course of cephalexin, but the rash did not improve. Review of systems was positive for intermittent swelling of the hands, feet, and lips, and negative for arthritis. His medical history included 2 episodes of rheumatic fever, one complicated by pneumonia. His medications included finasteride, simvastatin, bisoprolol-hydrochlorothiazide, aspirin, tiotropium, vitamin D, and fish oil. At presentation, physical examination revealed tender violaceous plaques with induration and central clearing distributed on the left side of the back, left side of the flank, and left axilla. The lesion on the axilla measured 30.0×3.5 cm and the lesions on the left side of the back measured 30.0×9.0 cm. The rims of the lesions were elevated and consistent with the rope sign (Figure 3). A punch biopsy of the lesion on the left axilla showed perivascular and interstitial infiltrate of lymphocytes, neutrophils, histiocytes, and eosinophils. There was no evidence of fibrin deposition in the blood vessels. Small areas of necrobiotic collagen surrounded by multinucleated giant cells and lymphocytes were noted (Figure 4). The rash improved spontaneously at the time of suture removal. No treatment was initiated.

Granulomatous dermatitis in the presence of an autoimmune disorder can present as IGD or PNGD. Both forms of granulomatous dermatitis are rare conditions and considered to be part of the same clinicopathological spectrum. These conditions can be difficult to distinguish clinically but are histologically unique.

Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis and PNGD can have a variable clinical expression. Palisaded neutrophilic granulomatous dermatitis generally presents as flesh-colored to erythematous papules or plaques, most commonly located on the upper arms. The lesions may have a central umbilication with perforation and ulceration.⁴ Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis most commonly presents as erythematous plaques and papules. The lesions are symmetric and asymptomatic. They most commonly appear on the trunk, axillae, buttocks, thighs, and groin. Subcutaneous linear cords (the rope sign) is a characteristic associated with IGD.^3,5 However, the rope sign also has been reported in a patient with PNGD with systemic lupus,⁶ which further demonstrates the overlapping spectrum of clinical expression seen in these 2 forms of granulomatous dermatitis. Therefore, a diagnosis cannot be made by clinical expression alone; histologic findings are needed for confirmation.

When differentiating IGD and PNGD histologically, it is important to keep in mind that these features exist on a spectrum and depend on the age of the lesion. Deposition of the immune complex around the dermal blood vessel initiates the pathogenesis. Early lesions of PNGD show a neutrophilic infiltrate, focal leukocytoclastic vasculitis, and dense nuclear dust. Developed lesions show zones of basophilic degenerated collagen surrounded by palisades of histiocytes, neutrophils, and nuclear debris.² The histologic pattern of IGD features smaller areas of palisading histiocytes surrounding foci of degenerated collagen. Neutrophils and eosinophils are seen among the degenerated collagen. There is no evidence of vasculitis and dermal mucin usually is absent.⁷

Palisaded neutrophilic granulomatous dermatitis has been reported to improve with systemic steroids and dapsone.⁸ The lesions may resolve spontaneously and with treatment of the underlying systemic disease. Similarly, IGD has been reported to resolve with systemic or topical steroids.^3,5 The rash in our patient with IGD (patient 2) spontaneously resolved. Our patient with PNGD (patient 1) reported that her lesions would spontaneously resolve, then recur. She had deferred all other treatment.

Some authors have disputed the spectrum that Chu et al² had determined in their study and proposed IGD is a separate entity from the PNGD spectrum. Verneuil et al⁹ stated that the clinical presentations in Chu et al’s² study (symmetric papules of the extremities) had not been reported in a patient with IGD. However, in a study of IGD by Peroni et al,³ 7 of 12 patients presented with symmetrical papules of the extremities. We believe that the spectrum proposed by Chu et al² still holds true.

These 2 reports demonstrate the diverse presentation of IGD and PNGD. It is important for dermatologists to keep in mind the PNGD spectrum when a patient presents with granulomatous dermatitis in the presence of an autoimmune disorder.

TORONTO – Implementation of a simple screening tool improved the influenza vaccination status of hospitalized children, results from a single-center study showed.

“When we looked at the immunization status of children in New York City, we found that one of the vaccines most commonly missed was influenza vaccine, especially from 2011 through 2014,” one of the study authors, Anmol Goyal, MD, of SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, N.Y., said in an interview at the Pediatric Academic Societies meeting.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Given this year’s epidemic of influenza and the increasing deaths, we decided to look back on interventions we had done in the past to see if any can be reimplemented to help improve the vaccination status for these children,” he said. “The national goal is 80%, but if we look at the recent trend, even though we have been able to improve vaccination status, it is still below the national goal.” For example, he said, according to New York Department of Health data, the 2012-2013 influenza vaccination rates in New York City were 65% among children 6 months to 5 years old, 47% among those 5-8 years old, and 31% among those 9-18 years old, which were well below the national goal.

In an effort to improve influenza vaccine access, lead author Stephan Kohlhoff, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the medical center, and his associates, implemented a simple vaccine screening tool to use in the inpatient setting as an opportunity to improve vaccination rates among children in New York City. It consisted of nursing staff assessing the patient’s influenza immunization status on admission and conducting source verification using the citywide immunization registry, or with vaccine cards brought by parents or guardians during admission. Influenza vaccine was administered as a standing order before discharge, unless refused by the parents or guardians. The study population comprised 602 patients between the ages of 6 months and 21 years who were admitted to the inpatient unit during 2 months of the influenza season (November and December) from 2011 to 2013.

Dr. Goyal, a second-year pediatric resident at the medical center, reported that the influenza vaccination status on admission was positive in only 31% of children in 2011, 30% in 2012, and 34% in 2013. The vaccine screening tool was implemented in 64% of admitted children in 2012 and 70% in 2013. Following implementation, the researchers observed a 5% increase in immunization rates in 2012 and an 11% increase in 2013, with an overall increase of 8% over 2 years (P less than .001). He was quick to point out that the influenza rate could have been improved by an additional 22% had 77% of patients not refused vaccination.

“Unfortunately, as our primary objective was to assess the utility of our screening tool in improving inpatient immunization status, we had very limited data points toward refusal of vaccine,” Dr. Goyal said. “Some of the reasons for refusal that were gathered during screening included preferred vaccination by their primary care provider after discharge. Or, maybe they don’t want the vaccine because they feel that the vaccine will make their kids sick. We don’t have enough data to point to any particular reason. This study provides information on acceptance rate of inpatient immunization, which may be useful for implementing additional educational initiatives to overcome potential barriers and help us reach our national goal.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

TORONTO – Implementation of a simple screening tool improved the influenza vaccination status of hospitalized children, results from a single-center study showed.

“When we looked at the immunization status of children in New York City, we found that one of the vaccines most commonly missed was influenza vaccine, especially from 2011 through 2014,” one of the study authors, Anmol Goyal, MD, of SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, N.Y., said in an interview at the Pediatric Academic Societies meeting.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Given this year’s epidemic of influenza and the increasing deaths, we decided to look back on interventions we had done in the past to see if any can be reimplemented to help improve the vaccination status for these children,” he said. “The national goal is 80%, but if we look at the recent trend, even though we have been able to improve vaccination status, it is still below the national goal.” For example, he said, according to New York Department of Health data, the 2012-2013 influenza vaccination rates in New York City were 65% among children 6 months to 5 years old, 47% among those 5-8 years old, and 31% among those 9-18 years old, which were well below the national goal.

In an effort to improve influenza vaccine access, lead author Stephan Kohlhoff, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the medical center, and his associates, implemented a simple vaccine screening tool to use in the inpatient setting as an opportunity to improve vaccination rates among children in New York City. It consisted of nursing staff assessing the patient’s influenza immunization status on admission and conducting source verification using the citywide immunization registry, or with vaccine cards brought by parents or guardians during admission. Influenza vaccine was administered as a standing order before discharge, unless refused by the parents or guardians. The study population comprised 602 patients between the ages of 6 months and 21 years who were admitted to the inpatient unit during 2 months of the influenza season (November and December) from 2011 to 2013.

Dr. Goyal, a second-year pediatric resident at the medical center, reported that the influenza vaccination status on admission was positive in only 31% of children in 2011, 30% in 2012, and 34% in 2013. The vaccine screening tool was implemented in 64% of admitted children in 2012 and 70% in 2013. Following implementation, the researchers observed a 5% increase in immunization rates in 2012 and an 11% increase in 2013, with an overall increase of 8% over 2 years (P less than .001). He was quick to point out that the influenza rate could have been improved by an additional 22% had 77% of patients not refused vaccination.

“Unfortunately, as our primary objective was to assess the utility of our screening tool in improving inpatient immunization status, we had very limited data points toward refusal of vaccine,” Dr. Goyal said. “Some of the reasons for refusal that were gathered during screening included preferred vaccination by their primary care provider after discharge. Or, maybe they don’t want the vaccine because they feel that the vaccine will make their kids sick. We don’t have enough data to point to any particular reason. This study provides information on acceptance rate of inpatient immunization, which may be useful for implementing additional educational initiatives to overcome potential barriers and help us reach our national goal.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

TORONTO – Implementation of a simple screening tool improved the influenza vaccination status of hospitalized children, results from a single-center study showed.

“When we looked at the immunization status of children in New York City, we found that one of the vaccines most commonly missed was influenza vaccine, especially from 2011 through 2014,” one of the study authors, Anmol Goyal, MD, of SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, N.Y., said in an interview at the Pediatric Academic Societies meeting.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Given this year’s epidemic of influenza and the increasing deaths, we decided to look back on interventions we had done in the past to see if any can be reimplemented to help improve the vaccination status for these children,” he said. “The national goal is 80%, but if we look at the recent trend, even though we have been able to improve vaccination status, it is still below the national goal.” For example, he said, according to New York Department of Health data, the 2012-2013 influenza vaccination rates in New York City were 65% among children 6 months to 5 years old, 47% among those 5-8 years old, and 31% among those 9-18 years old, which were well below the national goal.

In an effort to improve influenza vaccine access, lead author Stephan Kohlhoff, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the medical center, and his associates, implemented a simple vaccine screening tool to use in the inpatient setting as an opportunity to improve vaccination rates among children in New York City. It consisted of nursing staff assessing the patient’s influenza immunization status on admission and conducting source verification using the citywide immunization registry, or with vaccine cards brought by parents or guardians during admission. Influenza vaccine was administered as a standing order before discharge, unless refused by the parents or guardians. The study population comprised 602 patients between the ages of 6 months and 21 years who were admitted to the inpatient unit during 2 months of the influenza season (November and December) from 2011 to 2013.

Dr. Goyal, a second-year pediatric resident at the medical center, reported that the influenza vaccination status on admission was positive in only 31% of children in 2011, 30% in 2012, and 34% in 2013. The vaccine screening tool was implemented in 64% of admitted children in 2012 and 70% in 2013. Following implementation, the researchers observed a 5% increase in immunization rates in 2012 and an 11% increase in 2013, with an overall increase of 8% over 2 years (P less than .001). He was quick to point out that the influenza rate could have been improved by an additional 22% had 77% of patients not refused vaccination.

“Unfortunately, as our primary objective was to assess the utility of our screening tool in improving inpatient immunization status, we had very limited data points toward refusal of vaccine,” Dr. Goyal said. “Some of the reasons for refusal that were gathered during screening included preferred vaccination by their primary care provider after discharge. Or, maybe they don’t want the vaccine because they feel that the vaccine will make their kids sick. We don’t have enough data to point to any particular reason. This study provides information on acceptance rate of inpatient immunization, which may be useful for implementing additional educational initiatives to overcome potential barriers and help us reach our national goal.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

In light of changing clinical practice guidelines and changing provider attitudes, endocrinologists have the opportunity to step up and become community experts on transgender health care, according to Joshua D. Safer, MD, executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, New York.

“It’s not that we have to be the experts on making diagnoses or other elements of transgender care, necessarily,” Dr. Safer said in an interview here at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

MDedge News

For example, an individual who reaches Tanner stage 2 at age 9-10 years might be at risk of bone health issues if puberty is suppressed for 6-7 years before initiating sex hormones. Other risks could include inappropriate height or emotional/social isolation if the adolescent has to wait until age 16 years for initiation of secondary sex characteristics. On the adult side, one of the biggest changes is removing the idea that a mental health professional is necessary to make the diagnosis. In truth, any knowledgeable clinician could make that diagnosis, according to Dr. Safer.

A transgender individual’s treatment team should include several providers, according to guidelines: a medical provider who is knowledgeable in transgender hormone therapy, a mental health provider who is knowledgeable in gender dysphoria/gender incongruence and transition-associated mental health concerns, plus a primary care provider who can provide care appropriate to transgender needs.

Nonbinary persons (that is, those not exclusively identifying as either male or female) might need some “special tailoring” of treatment within accepted safety guidelines, Dr. Safer noted. Endocrinologists should provide education regarding onset and time course of physical changes induced by sex hormones for transgender individuals undergoing treatment, the guidelines also recommend.

It’s very important for endocrinologists to be familiar with why the landscape has changed for transgender health care, Dr. Safer said at the meeting.

“It’s not that we’ve all decided to be more tolerant or something along those lines,” he said in the interview. “It’s that even those of us who have been very skeptical in the medical and scientific community have recognized that there is clearly a biological component to gender identity.”

In light of changing clinical practice guidelines and changing provider attitudes, endocrinologists have the opportunity to step up and become community experts on transgender health care, according to Joshua D. Safer, MD, executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, New York.

“It’s not that we have to be the experts on making diagnoses or other elements of transgender care, necessarily,” Dr. Safer said in an interview here at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

MDedge News

For example, an individual who reaches Tanner stage 2 at age 9-10 years might be at risk of bone health issues if puberty is suppressed for 6-7 years before initiating sex hormones. Other risks could include inappropriate height or emotional/social isolation if the adolescent has to wait until age 16 years for initiation of secondary sex characteristics. On the adult side, one of the biggest changes is removing the idea that a mental health professional is necessary to make the diagnosis. In truth, any knowledgeable clinician could make that diagnosis, according to Dr. Safer.

A transgender individual’s treatment team should include several providers, according to guidelines: a medical provider who is knowledgeable in transgender hormone therapy, a mental health provider who is knowledgeable in gender dysphoria/gender incongruence and transition-associated mental health concerns, plus a primary care provider who can provide care appropriate to transgender needs.

Nonbinary persons (that is, those not exclusively identifying as either male or female) might need some “special tailoring” of treatment within accepted safety guidelines, Dr. Safer noted. Endocrinologists should provide education regarding onset and time course of physical changes induced by sex hormones for transgender individuals undergoing treatment, the guidelines also recommend.

It’s very important for endocrinologists to be familiar with why the landscape has changed for transgender health care, Dr. Safer said at the meeting.

“It’s not that we’ve all decided to be more tolerant or something along those lines,” he said in the interview. “It’s that even those of us who have been very skeptical in the medical and scientific community have recognized that there is clearly a biological component to gender identity.”

In light of changing clinical practice guidelines and changing provider attitudes, endocrinologists have the opportunity to step up and become community experts on transgender health care, according to Joshua D. Safer, MD, executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, New York.

“It’s not that we have to be the experts on making diagnoses or other elements of transgender care, necessarily,” Dr. Safer said in an interview here at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

MDedge News

For example, an individual who reaches Tanner stage 2 at age 9-10 years might be at risk of bone health issues if puberty is suppressed for 6-7 years before initiating sex hormones. Other risks could include inappropriate height or emotional/social isolation if the adolescent has to wait until age 16 years for initiation of secondary sex characteristics. On the adult side, one of the biggest changes is removing the idea that a mental health professional is necessary to make the diagnosis. In truth, any knowledgeable clinician could make that diagnosis, according to Dr. Safer.

A transgender individual’s treatment team should include several providers, according to guidelines: a medical provider who is knowledgeable in transgender hormone therapy, a mental health provider who is knowledgeable in gender dysphoria/gender incongruence and transition-associated mental health concerns, plus a primary care provider who can provide care appropriate to transgender needs.

Nonbinary persons (that is, those not exclusively identifying as either male or female) might need some “special tailoring” of treatment within accepted safety guidelines, Dr. Safer noted. Endocrinologists should provide education regarding onset and time course of physical changes induced by sex hormones for transgender individuals undergoing treatment, the guidelines also recommend.

It’s very important for endocrinologists to be familiar with why the landscape has changed for transgender health care, Dr. Safer said at the meeting.

“It’s not that we’ve all decided to be more tolerant or something along those lines,” he said in the interview. “It’s that even those of us who have been very skeptical in the medical and scientific community have recognized that there is clearly a biological component to gender identity.”

A meaningful evolution has occurred over the past 30 years in the evaluation of ovarian tumors. In the 1980s, any palpable ovarian tumor was recommended for surgical removal.¹ In the early 2000s, studies showed that unilocular cysts were at very low risk for malignancy, and surveillance was recommended.² In the following decade, septate cysts were added to the list of ovarian tumors unlikely to be malignant, and nonsurgical therapy was suggested.³ It is estimated that 10% of women will undergo surgery for an adnexal mass in their lifetime, despite the fact that only 1 in 6 (13%–21%) of these masses is found to be malignant.^4,5

A comprehensive, morphology-based pelvic ultrasonography is the first and most important step in evaluating an ovarian tumor’s risk of malignancy to determine whether surgery or surveillance is required.

Ovarian cancer continues to be the leading cause of gynecologic cancer death. Despite achieving superior surgical and cancer outcomes, a gynecologic oncologist performs only 40% of the initial ovarian cancer surgeries.⁶ Premenopausal and menopausal ovarian tumors are different in cause and consequence. Only 15% of premenopausal tumors are malignant, most commonly germ cell tumors, borderline ovarian tumors, and epithelial ovarian cancers. Tumors in menopausal women are less common but are more likely to be malignant. In actuality, up to 50% of tumors in this population are malignant. The most common of these malignancies are epithelial ovarian cancers, cancers metastatic to the ovary, and malignant stromal tumors.

Effective and evidence-based preoperative evaluations are available to help the clinician estimate a tumor’s risk of malignancy and determine which tumors are appropriate for referral to a specialist for surgery.

The actual incidence and prevalence of ovarian tumors are not known. From a review of almost 40,000 ultrasonography scans performed in the University of Kentucky Ovarian Cancer Screening Program, the estimated incidence and prevalence of ovarian abnormalities are 8.2 per 100 women annuallyand 17%, respectively.⁷ Seventy percent of these abnormalities have a unilocular or simple septate morphology and are at low risk for malignancy.⁷ The remaining 30% of abnormalities are high risk, although this represents only 9% of the total population evaluated. Since the vast majority of these abnormalities are expected to be asymptomatic, most will go unrecognized in the general population. For women who have an ovarian abnormality on ultrasonography, the majority will be at low risk for malignancy and will not require surgery.

Ovarian ultrasonography plus morphologic scoring comprise a comprehensive approach

The recently published recommendations of the First International Consensus Conference report on adnexal masses are summarized in TABLE 1.⁸ The expert panel reviewed the evidence and concluded that effective ultrasonography strategies exist and are well validated, and that low-risk asymptomatic ovarian cysts do not require surgical removal.

While no single ultrasonographic findingcan differentiate a benign from a malignant mass, morphologic scoring systems improve our ability to estimate a tumor’s malignant potential. In the United States, most practitioners in women’s health have ready access to gynecologic ultrasonography, but individual training and proficiency vary. Since not everyone is an expert sonographer, it is useful to employ an objective strategy when evaluating an ovarian tumor. The focus of a comprehensive ovarian ultrasonography is to recognize morphologic patterns that reflect a tumor’s malignant potential. While tumor volume is useful, tumor morphology is the most prognostic feature.

International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group

The International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group has published extensively on sonographic definitions and patterns that categorize tumors based on appearance.⁹ Simple rules and the ADNEX risk model are 2 of the group’s approaches (FIGURE 1).^10,11 Both methods have been validated as effective for differentiating benign from malignant ovarian tumors, but neither has been used to study serial changes in ovarian morphology.

Regardless of the strategy employed, 25% of ovarian ultrasonography evaluations will be interpreted as “indeterminate” or “risk unknown.”¹⁰ The IOTA strategies have been successfully used in Europe for years, but they have not yet been studied or adopted in the United States.

Kentucky morphology index

The morphology index (MI) from the University of Kentucky is an ultrasonography-based scoring system that combines tumor volume and tumor structure into a simple and effective index with a score ranging from 0 to 10 (FIGURE 2).¹² A rising Kentucky MI score has a linear and predictable increase in the risk of ovarian malignancy. In a review of almost 40,000 sonograms, 85% of the malignancies had an MI score of 5 or greater (TABLE 2).¹² Using this as a cutoff, the sensitivity and specificity for predicting malignancy was 86% and 98%, respectively.¹²

When comparing the ADNEX risk model with the Kentucky MI, investigators reviewed 45,000 ultrasound results and found that the majority of cancers were categorized by the ADNEX model in the lowest 4 of the 10 risk-of-malignancy groups, compared with only 15% for the MI.¹³ This clustering or skew is potentially problematic, since we expect higher scores to be more predictive of cancer than lower scores. It also infers that the ADNEX model may not be useful in serial surveillance strategies. Moreover, the ADNEX model identified only 30% of early stage cancers compared with identification of 80% with use of the MI.¹³

Serial ultrasonography

Serial ultrasonography is a concept similar to any longitudinal biomarker evaluation. In the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) program, the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) employs serial measurements of cancer antigen 125 (CA 125) to improve cancer detection. Serial ultrasonography similarly can be applied to better characterize a tumor’s physiology as well as its morphology. Over time, malignant ovarian tumors grow naturally in volume and complexity, and they do so at a rate faster than nonmalignant tumors. If this physical change can be measured objectively with ultrasonography, then serial sonography becomes a valuable diagnostic aid.

In comparing serial MI scores with clinical outcomes, studies have shown that malignant tumors exhibit a rapid increase, nonmalignant tumors have a stable or gradual rise, and resolving cysts show a decrease in MI score over time (FIGURE 3).¹² An increase in the MI score of 1 or more per month (≥1 per month) is concerning for malignancy, and surgical removal should be considered. If the MI score of an asymptomatic ovarian tumor does not increase by 1 per month, it can be surveilled with intermittent ultrasonography.

Read about evaluating with serum biomarkers and sonography.

Serum biomarkers useful for determining risk, need for referral

Serum biomarkers can be used to complement an ultrasonographic evaluation. They are particularly useful when surgery is recommended but the sonographic evaluation is indeterminate for malignancy risk. Many serum biomarkers are commonly used for the preoperative evaluation of an ovarian tumor or for surveillance of a malignancy following diagnosis (TABLE 3).

CA 125 is the most commonly ordered serum biomarker test for ovarian cancer. It is estimated that three‐quarters of CA 125 tests are ordered for preoperative use, which is not the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved indication. Despite our clinical reliance on CA 125 as a diagnostic test prior to surgery, its utility is limited because of a low sensitivity for predicting cancer in premenopausal women and early stage disease.^14,15 CA 125 specificity also varies widely, depending on patient age and other clinical factors, ranging from as low as 26% in premenopausal women to as high as 100% in postmenopausal women.¹⁶ Because CA 125 often is negative when early stage cancer is present, or positive when cancer is not, it is not recommended for preoperative use for determining whether an ovarian tumor is malignant or whether surgery is indicated. CA 125 should be used to monitor patients with a known ovarian malignancy.

The new triage serum biomarkers, Overa, Ova1, and ROMA (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm), are FDA cleared for preoperative use to help determine whether a woman needing surgery for an ovarian mass should be referred to a gynecologic oncologist.^17–20 These tests should not be used to decide if surgery is indicated, but rather should be considered when the decision for surgery has already been made but the malignancy risk is unknown. A woman with a “high risk” result should be referred to a gynecologic oncologist, while one with a “low risk” score is very unlikely to have a malignancy and referral to a specialist is not necessary. TABLE 4 lists a comparison of the relative performance of these serum biomarkers.^{14,15,17–20} There are no published data on the use of serial triage biomarkers.

How to evaluate an ovarian tumor

Approximately 65% of the time, ovarian cystic tumors can be identified accurately as low risk based on the initial sonographic evaluation (TABLE 5). In this scenario, the risk of malignancy is very low (<1%), no secondary testing is needed, and no surgery is recommended.^1,3,21

About 10% of tumors are expected to have a high-risk morphology on ultrasonography, where the risk of malignancy exceeds 25% and referral to a gynecologic oncologist is required.

The remaining 25% of tumors cannot be accurately classified with a single ultrasonographic evaluation and are considered indeterminate.²² Indeterminate tumors require secondary testing to ascertain whether surgery is indicated. Secondary testing may consist of serial ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or serum triage biomarker testing if the decision for surgery has been made.

A 2-step process is recommended for evaluating an ovarian tumor.

Step 1. Perform a detailed ultrasonography study using a morphology-based system. Classify the tumor as:

• low risk (65%): unilocular, simple septate, no flow on color Doppler

• simple rules: benign
• MI score 0–3
• no secondary testing; no referral is recommended

• high risk (10%): irregular, mostly solid, papillary projections, very strong flow on color Doppler

• simple rules: malignant
• MI score ≥5
• no secondary testing; refer to a gynecologic oncologist

• indeterminate (25%): partly solid, small wall abnormalities, minimal or moderate flow on color Doppler

• simple rules: both M and B rules apply or no rule applies
• MI score usually 4–6
• perform secondary testing (step 2).

Step 2. Perform secondary testing as follows:

• serum triage biomarkers if surgery is planned (Ova1, ROMA, Overa), or
• MRI, or
• serial sonography.

The 3 case scenarios that follow illustrate how the ovarian tumor evaluation process may be applied in clinical practice, with referral to a gynecologic oncologist as appropriate.

CASE 1 Postmenopausal woman with urinary symptoms and pelvic pressure

A 61-year-old woman is referred with a newly identified ovarian tumor. She has had 1 month of urinary urgency, frequency, and pelvic pressure, but she denies vaginal bleeding or fever. She has no family history of cancer. The referring physician included results of a serum CA 125 (48 U/mL; normal, ≤35 U/mL). A pelvic examination reveals a palpable, irregular mass in the anterior pelvis with limited mobility.

What would be your next step in the evaluation of this patient?

Start with ultrasonography

Step 1. Perform pelvic ultrasonography. In this patient, transvaginal sonography revealed a 6-cm (volume, 89 mL) mostly solid tumor (FIGURE 4). The maximum solid diameter of the tumor was 4.0 cm. There was a 20-mL pocket of pelvic ascites.

Results of morphology-based classification were as follows:

• simple rules: M1 and M5 positive; B rules: negative (malignant; high risk)
• ADNEX: 51.6% risk of malignancy (high risk)
• MI: 7 (high risk).

Step 2. Consider secondary testing. In this case, no secondary testing was recommended. Treatment plan. The patient was referred to a gynecologic oncologist for surgery and was found to have a stage IIA serous ovarian carcinoma.

CASE 2 Woman with history of pelvic symptoms and worsening pain

A 46-year-old woman presents with worsening pelvic pain over the last month. She has a long-standing history of pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, and dyspareunia from suspected endometriosis. She has no family history of cancer. The referring physician included the following serum biomarker results: CA 125, 48 U/mL (normal, ≤35 U/mL), and HE4, 60 pM (normal, ≤150 pM). On pelvic examination, there is a palpable mass with limited mobility in the posterior cul-de-sac.

Based on the patient’s available history, physical examination, and biomarker information, how would you proceed?

Follow the 2-step process

Step 1. Perform pelvic ultrasonography. Transvaginal sonography revealed a 6-cm (volume, 89 mL) partly solid tumor with regular internal borders (FIGURE 5). The maximum solid diameter of the tumor was 4.5 cm. There was no pelvic ascites.

Morphology classification was as follows:

• simple rules: M5 equivocal; B4 positive (indeterminate risk)
• ADNEX: 42.7% risk of malignancy (high risk)
• MI: 6 (indeterminate risk).

Step 2. Secondary testing was recommended for this patient. Test results were:

• repeat ultrasonography in 4 weeks with MI of 7 (volume score increase from 2 to 3, structure score unchanged at 4). Change in MI score +1 per month (high risk)
• Overa: 5.2 (high risk)
• ROMA: 11.8% (low risk).

Treatment plan. The patient was referred to a gynecologic oncologist because of an increasing MI score on serial sonography. Surgery revealed a stage IA grade 2 endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the ovary with surrounding endometriosis.

Read about treating a woman with postmenstrual bleeding.

CASE 3 Woman with postmenopausal bleeding seeks medical care

A 62-year-old woman is referred with new-onset postmenopausal spotting for 1 month. She was recently prescribed antibiotics for diverticulitis. She has no family history of cancer. The referring physician included the results of a serum CA 125, which was 48 U/mL (normal, ≤35 U/mL). On pelvic examination, a mobile cystic mass is noted in the posterior cul-de-sac.

Use the stepwise protocol to sort out findings

Step 1. Pelvic ultrasonography. Transvaginal sonography suggested the presence of an endometrial polyp and revealed a 6-cm (volume, 89 mL) septate ovarian cyst (FIGURE 6).

Based on morphology classification, risk was categorized as:

• simple rules: M rules negative; B2, B4, B5 positive (benign; low risk)
• ADNEX: 2.9% risk of malignancy (low risk)
• MI: 2 (low risk).

Step 2. No secondary testing was recommended in this case.

Treatment plan. The patient’s gynecologist performed a hysteroscopic polypectomy that revealed no cancer. Serial monitoring was recommended for the low-risk ovarian cyst. The next ultrasonography scan, at 6 months, was unchanged; a subsequent scan was ordered for 12 months later, and at that time the cyst had resolved.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

A meaningful evolution has occurred over the past 30 years in the evaluation of ovarian tumors. In the 1980s, any palpable ovarian tumor was recommended for surgical removal.¹ In the early 2000s, studies showed that unilocular cysts were at very low risk for malignancy, and surveillance was recommended.² In the following decade, septate cysts were added to the list of ovarian tumors unlikely to be malignant, and nonsurgical therapy was suggested.³ It is estimated that 10% of women will undergo surgery for an adnexal mass in their lifetime, despite the fact that only 1 in 6 (13%–21%) of these masses is found to be malignant.^4,5

A comprehensive, morphology-based pelvic ultrasonography is the first and most important step in evaluating an ovarian tumor’s risk of malignancy to determine whether surgery or surveillance is required.

Ovarian cancer continues to be the leading cause of gynecologic cancer death. Despite achieving superior surgical and cancer outcomes, a gynecologic oncologist performs only 40% of the initial ovarian cancer surgeries.⁶ Premenopausal and menopausal ovarian tumors are different in cause and consequence. Only 15% of premenopausal tumors are malignant, most commonly germ cell tumors, borderline ovarian tumors, and epithelial ovarian cancers. Tumors in menopausal women are less common but are more likely to be malignant. In actuality, up to 50% of tumors in this population are malignant. The most common of these malignancies are epithelial ovarian cancers, cancers metastatic to the ovary, and malignant stromal tumors.

Effective and evidence-based preoperative evaluations are available to help the clinician estimate a tumor’s risk of malignancy and determine which tumors are appropriate for referral to a specialist for surgery.

The actual incidence and prevalence of ovarian tumors are not known. From a review of almost 40,000 ultrasonography scans performed in the University of Kentucky Ovarian Cancer Screening Program, the estimated incidence and prevalence of ovarian abnormalities are 8.2 per 100 women annuallyand 17%, respectively.⁷ Seventy percent of these abnormalities have a unilocular or simple septate morphology and are at low risk for malignancy.⁷ The remaining 30% of abnormalities are high risk, although this represents only 9% of the total population evaluated. Since the vast majority of these abnormalities are expected to be asymptomatic, most will go unrecognized in the general population. For women who have an ovarian abnormality on ultrasonography, the majority will be at low risk for malignancy and will not require surgery.

Ovarian ultrasonography plus morphologic scoring comprise a comprehensive approach

The recently published recommendations of the First International Consensus Conference report on adnexal masses are summarized in TABLE 1.⁸ The expert panel reviewed the evidence and concluded that effective ultrasonography strategies exist and are well validated, and that low-risk asymptomatic ovarian cysts do not require surgical removal.

While no single ultrasonographic findingcan differentiate a benign from a malignant mass, morphologic scoring systems improve our ability to estimate a tumor’s malignant potential. In the United States, most practitioners in women’s health have ready access to gynecologic ultrasonography, but individual training and proficiency vary. Since not everyone is an expert sonographer, it is useful to employ an objective strategy when evaluating an ovarian tumor. The focus of a comprehensive ovarian ultrasonography is to recognize morphologic patterns that reflect a tumor’s malignant potential. While tumor volume is useful, tumor morphology is the most prognostic feature.

International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group

The International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group has published extensively on sonographic definitions and patterns that categorize tumors based on appearance.⁹ Simple rules and the ADNEX risk model are 2 of the group’s approaches (FIGURE 1).^10,11 Both methods have been validated as effective for differentiating benign from malignant ovarian tumors, but neither has been used to study serial changes in ovarian morphology.

Regardless of the strategy employed, 25% of ovarian ultrasonography evaluations will be interpreted as “indeterminate” or “risk unknown.”¹⁰ The IOTA strategies have been successfully used in Europe for years, but they have not yet been studied or adopted in the United States.

Kentucky morphology index

The morphology index (MI) from the University of Kentucky is an ultrasonography-based scoring system that combines tumor volume and tumor structure into a simple and effective index with a score ranging from 0 to 10 (FIGURE 2).¹² A rising Kentucky MI score has a linear and predictable increase in the risk of ovarian malignancy. In a review of almost 40,000 sonograms, 85% of the malignancies had an MI score of 5 or greater (TABLE 2).¹² Using this as a cutoff, the sensitivity and specificity for predicting malignancy was 86% and 98%, respectively.¹²

When comparing the ADNEX risk model with the Kentucky MI, investigators reviewed 45,000 ultrasound results and found that the majority of cancers were categorized by the ADNEX model in the lowest 4 of the 10 risk-of-malignancy groups, compared with only 15% for the MI.¹³ This clustering or skew is potentially problematic, since we expect higher scores to be more predictive of cancer than lower scores. It also infers that the ADNEX model may not be useful in serial surveillance strategies. Moreover, the ADNEX model identified only 30% of early stage cancers compared with identification of 80% with use of the MI.¹³

Serial ultrasonography

Serial ultrasonography is a concept similar to any longitudinal biomarker evaluation. In the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) program, the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) employs serial measurements of cancer antigen 125 (CA 125) to improve cancer detection. Serial ultrasonography similarly can be applied to better characterize a tumor’s physiology as well as its morphology. Over time, malignant ovarian tumors grow naturally in volume and complexity, and they do so at a rate faster than nonmalignant tumors. If this physical change can be measured objectively with ultrasonography, then serial sonography becomes a valuable diagnostic aid.

In comparing serial MI scores with clinical outcomes, studies have shown that malignant tumors exhibit a rapid increase, nonmalignant tumors have a stable or gradual rise, and resolving cysts show a decrease in MI score over time (FIGURE 3).¹² An increase in the MI score of 1 or more per month (≥1 per month) is concerning for malignancy, and surgical removal should be considered. If the MI score of an asymptomatic ovarian tumor does not increase by 1 per month, it can be surveilled with intermittent ultrasonography.

Read about evaluating with serum biomarkers and sonography.

Serum biomarkers useful for determining risk, need for referral

Serum biomarkers can be used to complement an ultrasonographic evaluation. They are particularly useful when surgery is recommended but the sonographic evaluation is indeterminate for malignancy risk. Many serum biomarkers are commonly used for the preoperative evaluation of an ovarian tumor or for surveillance of a malignancy following diagnosis (TABLE 3).

CA 125 is the most commonly ordered serum biomarker test for ovarian cancer. It is estimated that three‐quarters of CA 125 tests are ordered for preoperative use, which is not the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved indication. Despite our clinical reliance on CA 125 as a diagnostic test prior to surgery, its utility is limited because of a low sensitivity for predicting cancer in premenopausal women and early stage disease.^14,15 CA 125 specificity also varies widely, depending on patient age and other clinical factors, ranging from as low as 26% in premenopausal women to as high as 100% in postmenopausal women.¹⁶ Because CA 125 often is negative when early stage cancer is present, or positive when cancer is not, it is not recommended for preoperative use for determining whether an ovarian tumor is malignant or whether surgery is indicated. CA 125 should be used to monitor patients with a known ovarian malignancy.

The new triage serum biomarkers, Overa, Ova1, and ROMA (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm), are FDA cleared for preoperative use to help determine whether a woman needing surgery for an ovarian mass should be referred to a gynecologic oncologist.^17–20 These tests should not be used to decide if surgery is indicated, but rather should be considered when the decision for surgery has already been made but the malignancy risk is unknown. A woman with a “high risk” result should be referred to a gynecologic oncologist, while one with a “low risk” score is very unlikely to have a malignancy and referral to a specialist is not necessary. TABLE 4 lists a comparison of the relative performance of these serum biomarkers.^{14,15,17–20} There are no published data on the use of serial triage biomarkers.

How to evaluate an ovarian tumor

Approximately 65% of the time, ovarian cystic tumors can be identified accurately as low risk based on the initial sonographic evaluation (TABLE 5). In this scenario, the risk of malignancy is very low (<1%), no secondary testing is needed, and no surgery is recommended.^1,3,21

About 10% of tumors are expected to have a high-risk morphology on ultrasonography, where the risk of malignancy exceeds 25% and referral to a gynecologic oncologist is required.

The remaining 25% of tumors cannot be accurately classified with a single ultrasonographic evaluation and are considered indeterminate.²² Indeterminate tumors require secondary testing to ascertain whether surgery is indicated. Secondary testing may consist of serial ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or serum triage biomarker testing if the decision for surgery has been made.

A 2-step process is recommended for evaluating an ovarian tumor.

Step 1. Perform a detailed ultrasonography study using a morphology-based system. Classify the tumor as:

• low risk (65%): unilocular, simple septate, no flow on color Doppler

• simple rules: benign
• MI score 0–3
• no secondary testing; no referral is recommended

• high risk (10%): irregular, mostly solid, papillary projections, very strong flow on color Doppler

• simple rules: malignant
• MI score ≥5
• no secondary testing; refer to a gynecologic oncologist

• indeterminate (25%): partly solid, small wall abnormalities, minimal or moderate flow on color Doppler

• simple rules: both M and B rules apply or no rule applies
• MI score usually 4–6
• perform secondary testing (step 2).

Step 2. Perform secondary testing as follows:

• serum triage biomarkers if surgery is planned (Ova1, ROMA, Overa), or
• MRI, or
• serial sonography.

The 3 case scenarios that follow illustrate how the ovarian tumor evaluation process may be applied in clinical practice, with referral to a gynecologic oncologist as appropriate.

CASE 1 Postmenopausal woman with urinary symptoms and pelvic pressure

A 61-year-old woman is referred with a newly identified ovarian tumor. She has had 1 month of urinary urgency, frequency, and pelvic pressure, but she denies vaginal bleeding or fever. She has no family history of cancer. The referring physician included results of a serum CA 125 (48 U/mL; normal, ≤35 U/mL). A pelvic examination reveals a palpable, irregular mass in the anterior pelvis with limited mobility.

What would be your next step in the evaluation of this patient?

Start with ultrasonography

Step 1. Perform pelvic ultrasonography. In this patient, transvaginal sonography revealed a 6-cm (volume, 89 mL) mostly solid tumor (FIGURE 4). The maximum solid diameter of the tumor was 4.0 cm. There was a 20-mL pocket of pelvic ascites.

Results of morphology-based classification were as follows:

• simple rules: M1 and M5 positive; B rules: negative (malignant; high risk)
• ADNEX: 51.6% risk of malignancy (high risk)
• MI: 7 (high risk).

Step 2. Consider secondary testing. In this case, no secondary testing was recommended. Treatment plan. The patient was referred to a gynecologic oncologist for surgery and was found to have a stage IIA serous ovarian carcinoma.

CASE 2 Woman with history of pelvic symptoms and worsening pain

A 46-year-old woman presents with worsening pelvic pain over the last month. She has a long-standing history of pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, and dyspareunia from suspected endometriosis. She has no family history of cancer. The referring physician included the following serum biomarker results: CA 125, 48 U/mL (normal, ≤35 U/mL), and HE4, 60 pM (normal, ≤150 pM). On pelvic examination, there is a palpable mass with limited mobility in the posterior cul-de-sac.

Based on the patient’s available history, physical examination, and biomarker information, how would you proceed?

Follow the 2-step process

Step 1. Perform pelvic ultrasonography. Transvaginal sonography revealed a 6-cm (volume, 89 mL) partly solid tumor with regular internal borders (FIGURE 5). The maximum solid diameter of the tumor was 4.5 cm. There was no pelvic ascites.

Morphology classification was as follows:

• simple rules: M5 equivocal; B4 positive (indeterminate risk)
• ADNEX: 42.7% risk of malignancy (high risk)
• MI: 6 (indeterminate risk).

Step 2. Secondary testing was recommended for this patient. Test results were:

• repeat ultrasonography in 4 weeks with MI of 7 (volume score increase from 2 to 3, structure score unchanged at 4). Change in MI score +1 per month (high risk)
• Overa: 5.2 (high risk)
• ROMA: 11.8% (low risk).

Treatment plan. The patient was referred to a gynecologic oncologist because of an increasing MI score on serial sonography. Surgery revealed a stage IA grade 2 endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the ovary with surrounding endometriosis.

Read about treating a woman with postmenstrual bleeding.

CASE 3 Woman with postmenopausal bleeding seeks medical care

A 62-year-old woman is referred with new-onset postmenopausal spotting for 1 month. She was recently prescribed antibiotics for diverticulitis. She has no family history of cancer. The referring physician included the results of a serum CA 125, which was 48 U/mL (normal, ≤35 U/mL). On pelvic examination, a mobile cystic mass is noted in the posterior cul-de-sac.

Use the stepwise protocol to sort out findings

Step 1. Pelvic ultrasonography. Transvaginal sonography suggested the presence of an endometrial polyp and revealed a 6-cm (volume, 89 mL) septate ovarian cyst (FIGURE 6).

Based on morphology classification, risk was categorized as:

• simple rules: M rules negative; B2, B4, B5 positive (benign; low risk)
• ADNEX: 2.9% risk of malignancy (low risk)
• MI: 2 (low risk).

Step 2. No secondary testing was recommended in this case.

Treatment plan. The patient’s gynecologist performed a hysteroscopic polypectomy that revealed no cancer. Serial monitoring was recommended for the low-risk ovarian cyst. The next ultrasonography scan, at 6 months, was unchanged; a subsequent scan was ordered for 12 months later, and at that time the cyst had resolved.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

A meaningful evolution has occurred over the past 30 years in the evaluation of ovarian tumors. In the 1980s, any palpable ovarian tumor was recommended for surgical removal.¹ In the early 2000s, studies showed that unilocular cysts were at very low risk for malignancy, and surveillance was recommended.² In the following decade, septate cysts were added to the list of ovarian tumors unlikely to be malignant, and nonsurgical therapy was suggested.³ It is estimated that 10% of women will undergo surgery for an adnexal mass in their lifetime, despite the fact that only 1 in 6 (13%–21%) of these masses is found to be malignant.^4,5

A comprehensive, morphology-based pelvic ultrasonography is the first and most important step in evaluating an ovarian tumor’s risk of malignancy to determine whether surgery or surveillance is required.

Ovarian cancer continues to be the leading cause of gynecologic cancer death. Despite achieving superior surgical and cancer outcomes, a gynecologic oncologist performs only 40% of the initial ovarian cancer surgeries.⁶ Premenopausal and menopausal ovarian tumors are different in cause and consequence. Only 15% of premenopausal tumors are malignant, most commonly germ cell tumors, borderline ovarian tumors, and epithelial ovarian cancers. Tumors in menopausal women are less common but are more likely to be malignant. In actuality, up to 50% of tumors in this population are malignant. The most common of these malignancies are epithelial ovarian cancers, cancers metastatic to the ovary, and malignant stromal tumors.

Effective and evidence-based preoperative evaluations are available to help the clinician estimate a tumor’s risk of malignancy and determine which tumors are appropriate for referral to a specialist for surgery.

The actual incidence and prevalence of ovarian tumors are not known. From a review of almost 40,000 ultrasonography scans performed in the University of Kentucky Ovarian Cancer Screening Program, the estimated incidence and prevalence of ovarian abnormalities are 8.2 per 100 women annuallyand 17%, respectively.⁷ Seventy percent of these abnormalities have a unilocular or simple septate morphology and are at low risk for malignancy.⁷ The remaining 30% of abnormalities are high risk, although this represents only 9% of the total population evaluated. Since the vast majority of these abnormalities are expected to be asymptomatic, most will go unrecognized in the general population. For women who have an ovarian abnormality on ultrasonography, the majority will be at low risk for malignancy and will not require surgery.

Ovarian ultrasonography plus morphologic scoring comprise a comprehensive approach

The recently published recommendations of the First International Consensus Conference report on adnexal masses are summarized in TABLE 1.⁸ The expert panel reviewed the evidence and concluded that effective ultrasonography strategies exist and are well validated, and that low-risk asymptomatic ovarian cysts do not require surgical removal.

While no single ultrasonographic findingcan differentiate a benign from a malignant mass, morphologic scoring systems improve our ability to estimate a tumor’s malignant potential. In the United States, most practitioners in women’s health have ready access to gynecologic ultrasonography, but individual training and proficiency vary. Since not everyone is an expert sonographer, it is useful to employ an objective strategy when evaluating an ovarian tumor. The focus of a comprehensive ovarian ultrasonography is to recognize morphologic patterns that reflect a tumor’s malignant potential. While tumor volume is useful, tumor morphology is the most prognostic feature.

International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group

The International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group has published extensively on sonographic definitions and patterns that categorize tumors based on appearance.⁹ Simple rules and the ADNEX risk model are 2 of the group’s approaches (FIGURE 1).^10,11 Both methods have been validated as effective for differentiating benign from malignant ovarian tumors, but neither has been used to study serial changes in ovarian morphology.

Regardless of the strategy employed, 25% of ovarian ultrasonography evaluations will be interpreted as “indeterminate” or “risk unknown.”¹⁰ The IOTA strategies have been successfully used in Europe for years, but they have not yet been studied or adopted in the United States.

Kentucky morphology index

The morphology index (MI) from the University of Kentucky is an ultrasonography-based scoring system that combines tumor volume and tumor structure into a simple and effective index with a score ranging from 0 to 10 (FIGURE 2).¹² A rising Kentucky MI score has a linear and predictable increase in the risk of ovarian malignancy. In a review of almost 40,000 sonograms, 85% of the malignancies had an MI score of 5 or greater (TABLE 2).¹² Using this as a cutoff, the sensitivity and specificity for predicting malignancy was 86% and 98%, respectively.¹²

When comparing the ADNEX risk model with the Kentucky MI, investigators reviewed 45,000 ultrasound results and found that the majority of cancers were categorized by the ADNEX model in the lowest 4 of the 10 risk-of-malignancy groups, compared with only 15% for the MI.¹³ This clustering or skew is potentially problematic, since we expect higher scores to be more predictive of cancer than lower scores. It also infers that the ADNEX model may not be useful in serial surveillance strategies. Moreover, the ADNEX model identified only 30% of early stage cancers compared with identification of 80% with use of the MI.¹³

Serial ultrasonography

Serial ultrasonography is a concept similar to any longitudinal biomarker evaluation. In the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) program, the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) employs serial measurements of cancer antigen 125 (CA 125) to improve cancer detection. Serial ultrasonography similarly can be applied to better characterize a tumor’s physiology as well as its morphology. Over time, malignant ovarian tumors grow naturally in volume and complexity, and they do so at a rate faster than nonmalignant tumors. If this physical change can be measured objectively with ultrasonography, then serial sonography becomes a valuable diagnostic aid.

In comparing serial MI scores with clinical outcomes, studies have shown that malignant tumors exhibit a rapid increase, nonmalignant tumors have a stable or gradual rise, and resolving cysts show a decrease in MI score over time (FIGURE 3).¹² An increase in the MI score of 1 or more per month (≥1 per month) is concerning for malignancy, and surgical removal should be considered. If the MI score of an asymptomatic ovarian tumor does not increase by 1 per month, it can be surveilled with intermittent ultrasonography.

Read about evaluating with serum biomarkers and sonography.

Serum biomarkers useful for determining risk, need for referral

Serum biomarkers can be used to complement an ultrasonographic evaluation. They are particularly useful when surgery is recommended but the sonographic evaluation is indeterminate for malignancy risk. Many serum biomarkers are commonly used for the preoperative evaluation of an ovarian tumor or for surveillance of a malignancy following diagnosis (TABLE 3).

CA 125 is the most commonly ordered serum biomarker test for ovarian cancer. It is estimated that three‐quarters of CA 125 tests are ordered for preoperative use, which is not the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved indication. Despite our clinical reliance on CA 125 as a diagnostic test prior to surgery, its utility is limited because of a low sensitivity for predicting cancer in premenopausal women and early stage disease.^14,15 CA 125 specificity also varies widely, depending on patient age and other clinical factors, ranging from as low as 26% in premenopausal women to as high as 100% in postmenopausal women.¹⁶ Because CA 125 often is negative when early stage cancer is present, or positive when cancer is not, it is not recommended for preoperative use for determining whether an ovarian tumor is malignant or whether surgery is indicated. CA 125 should be used to monitor patients with a known ovarian malignancy.

The new triage serum biomarkers, Overa, Ova1, and ROMA (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm), are FDA cleared for preoperative use to help determine whether a woman needing surgery for an ovarian mass should be referred to a gynecologic oncologist.^17–20 These tests should not be used to decide if surgery is indicated, but rather should be considered when the decision for surgery has already been made but the malignancy risk is unknown. A woman with a “high risk” result should be referred to a gynecologic oncologist, while one with a “low risk” score is very unlikely to have a malignancy and referral to a specialist is not necessary. TABLE 4 lists a comparison of the relative performance of these serum biomarkers.^{14,15,17–20} There are no published data on the use of serial triage biomarkers.

How to evaluate an ovarian tumor

Approximately 65% of the time, ovarian cystic tumors can be identified accurately as low risk based on the initial sonographic evaluation (TABLE 5). In this scenario, the risk of malignancy is very low (<1%), no secondary testing is needed, and no surgery is recommended.^1,3,21

About 10% of tumors are expected to have a high-risk morphology on ultrasonography, where the risk of malignancy exceeds 25% and referral to a gynecologic oncologist is required.

The remaining 25% of tumors cannot be accurately classified with a single ultrasonographic evaluation and are considered indeterminate.²² Indeterminate tumors require secondary testing to ascertain whether surgery is indicated. Secondary testing may consist of serial ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or serum triage biomarker testing if the decision for surgery has been made.

A 2-step process is recommended for evaluating an ovarian tumor.

Step 1. Perform a detailed ultrasonography study using a morphology-based system. Classify the tumor as:

• low risk (65%): unilocular, simple septate, no flow on color Doppler

• simple rules: benign
• MI score 0–3
• no secondary testing; no referral is recommended

• high risk (10%): irregular, mostly solid, papillary projections, very strong flow on color Doppler

• simple rules: malignant
• MI score ≥5
• no secondary testing; refer to a gynecologic oncologist

• indeterminate (25%): partly solid, small wall abnormalities, minimal or moderate flow on color Doppler

• simple rules: both M and B rules apply or no rule applies
• MI score usually 4–6
• perform secondary testing (step 2).

Step 2. Perform secondary testing as follows:

• serum triage biomarkers if surgery is planned (Ova1, ROMA, Overa), or
• MRI, or
• serial sonography.

The 3 case scenarios that follow illustrate how the ovarian tumor evaluation process may be applied in clinical practice, with referral to a gynecologic oncologist as appropriate.

CASE 1 Postmenopausal woman with urinary symptoms and pelvic pressure

A 61-year-old woman is referred with a newly identified ovarian tumor. She has had 1 month of urinary urgency, frequency, and pelvic pressure, but she denies vaginal bleeding or fever. She has no family history of cancer. The referring physician included results of a serum CA 125 (48 U/mL; normal, ≤35 U/mL). A pelvic examination reveals a palpable, irregular mass in the anterior pelvis with limited mobility.

What would be your next step in the evaluation of this patient?

Start with ultrasonography

Step 1. Perform pelvic ultrasonography. In this patient, transvaginal sonography revealed a 6-cm (volume, 89 mL) mostly solid tumor (FIGURE 4). The maximum solid diameter of the tumor was 4.0 cm. There was a 20-mL pocket of pelvic ascites.

Results of morphology-based classification were as follows:

• simple rules: M1 and M5 positive; B rules: negative (malignant; high risk)
• ADNEX: 51.6% risk of malignancy (high risk)
• MI: 7 (high risk).

Step 2. Consider secondary testing. In this case, no secondary testing was recommended. Treatment plan. The patient was referred to a gynecologic oncologist for surgery and was found to have a stage IIA serous ovarian carcinoma.

CASE 2 Woman with history of pelvic symptoms and worsening pain

A 46-year-old woman presents with worsening pelvic pain over the last month. She has a long-standing history of pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, and dyspareunia from suspected endometriosis. She has no family history of cancer. The referring physician included the following serum biomarker results: CA 125, 48 U/mL (normal, ≤35 U/mL), and HE4, 60 pM (normal, ≤150 pM). On pelvic examination, there is a palpable mass with limited mobility in the posterior cul-de-sac.

Based on the patient’s available history, physical examination, and biomarker information, how would you proceed?

Follow the 2-step process

Step 1. Perform pelvic ultrasonography. Transvaginal sonography revealed a 6-cm (volume, 89 mL) partly solid tumor with regular internal borders (FIGURE 5). The maximum solid diameter of the tumor was 4.5 cm. There was no pelvic ascites.

Morphology classification was as follows:

• simple rules: M5 equivocal; B4 positive (indeterminate risk)
• ADNEX: 42.7% risk of malignancy (high risk)
• MI: 6 (indeterminate risk).

Step 2. Secondary testing was recommended for this patient. Test results were:

• repeat ultrasonography in 4 weeks with MI of 7 (volume score increase from 2 to 3, structure score unchanged at 4). Change in MI score +1 per month (high risk)
• Overa: 5.2 (high risk)
• ROMA: 11.8% (low risk).

Treatment plan. The patient was referred to a gynecologic oncologist because of an increasing MI score on serial sonography. Surgery revealed a stage IA grade 2 endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the ovary with surrounding endometriosis.

Read about treating a woman with postmenstrual bleeding.

CASE 3 Woman with postmenopausal bleeding seeks medical care

A 62-year-old woman is referred with new-onset postmenopausal spotting for 1 month. She was recently prescribed antibiotics for diverticulitis. She has no family history of cancer. The referring physician included the results of a serum CA 125, which was 48 U/mL (normal, ≤35 U/mL). On pelvic examination, a mobile cystic mass is noted in the posterior cul-de-sac.

Use the stepwise protocol to sort out findings

Step 1. Pelvic ultrasonography. Transvaginal sonography suggested the presence of an endometrial polyp and revealed a 6-cm (volume, 89 mL) septate ovarian cyst (FIGURE 6).

Based on morphology classification, risk was categorized as:

• simple rules: M rules negative; B2, B4, B5 positive (benign; low risk)
• ADNEX: 2.9% risk of malignancy (low risk)
• MI: 2 (low risk).

Step 2. No secondary testing was recommended in this case.

Treatment plan. The patient’s gynecologist performed a hysteroscopic polypectomy that revealed no cancer. Serial monitoring was recommended for the low-risk ovarian cyst. The next ultrasonography scan, at 6 months, was unchanged; a subsequent scan was ordered for 12 months later, and at that time the cyst had resolved.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

NASHVILLE—Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the CYP2J2 region of chromosome 1 may be associated with an increased risk of multiple sclerosis (MS) and higher levels of prolactin, according to research presented at the 2018 CMSC Annual Meeting. “To our knowledge, this is the first report to show an association between genetic variants within this region and either MS status or the level of serum prolactin,” said Samantha Jack, Research Coordinator at Saunders Medical Center in Wahoo, Nebraska, and colleagues.

Although the cause of MS is unknown, a combination of genetic, environmental, and infectious risk factors may contribute to its pathogenesis, said Ms. Jack and colleagues. Vitamin D has been suggested as the most attractive environmental factor. In addition, the CYP2J2 gene has been identified as having a role in serum vitamin D levels in cattle, and the CYP2J2-containing region on bovine chromosome 3 is syntenic with that on human chromosome 1, the researchers said.

Evaluating SNPs in the CYP2J2 Region

Ms. Jack and colleagues conducted a study to determine whether associations exist between variations in the genomic region of CYP2J2 and MS status or levels of serum markers associated with vitamin D and calcium metabolism such as prolactin, vitamin D, vitamin D–binding protein, alkaline phosphatase, and calcium.

Participants were recruited from Nebraska, Iowa, and Kansas between October 2014 and December 2016 to participate in a single blood draw.

Ms. Jack and colleagues collected blood samples from 220 patients with MS and 238 age- and sex-matched controls. DNA from blood samples was genotyped for 94 SNPs in a 255,348 base-pair region of chromosome 1 that included CYP2J2 and C1orf87. Researchers analyzed serum samples to quantify concentrations of vitamin D, vitamin D–binding protein, alkaline phosphatase, and prolactin. Almost all participants with MS took supplemental vitamin D.

The 458 participants in the study were predominately Caucasian and had an average age of about 50, said Ms. Jack.

SNPs in the CYP2J2 region were associated with an increased risk of MS. These associations were not significant following Bonferroni correction. Several other SNPs in the CYP2J2 region were associated with prolactin levels, but the associations were not significant following the Bonferroni correction. No SNPs in this region showed significant associations between levels of vitamin D, vitamin D–binding protein, calcium, or alkaline phosphatase, but vitamin D levels may have been skewed since many patients with MS were taking vitamin D supplements, said the researchers.

Overall, SNPs downstream of CYP2J2 in the C1orf87 gene were associated with prolactin levels, and SNPs in the intergenic region between CYP212 and C1orf87 may be associated with MS, said the researchers.

Study Limitations and Future Directions

Study limitations include that the study population was homogeneous (ie, middle-aged and white from the Midwest) and that samples were not always taken in the morning after fasting, which may have affected prolactin levels, said Ms. Jack.

“We are in the process of undertaking a genome-wide association study to continue this work,” Ms. Jack said. “We are currently enrolling more subjects to have a well-powered study, and we hope to have a small subset of people who have not taken vitamin D supplementation so that we will be able to analyze those values.”

—Erica Tricarico

NASHVILLE—Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the CYP2J2 region of chromosome 1 may be associated with an increased risk of multiple sclerosis (MS) and higher levels of prolactin, according to research presented at the 2018 CMSC Annual Meeting. “To our knowledge, this is the first report to show an association between genetic variants within this region and either MS status or the level of serum prolactin,” said Samantha Jack, Research Coordinator at Saunders Medical Center in Wahoo, Nebraska, and colleagues.

Although the cause of MS is unknown, a combination of genetic, environmental, and infectious risk factors may contribute to its pathogenesis, said Ms. Jack and colleagues. Vitamin D has been suggested as the most attractive environmental factor. In addition, the CYP2J2 gene has been identified as having a role in serum vitamin D levels in cattle, and the CYP2J2-containing region on bovine chromosome 3 is syntenic with that on human chromosome 1, the researchers said.

Evaluating SNPs in the CYP2J2 Region

Ms. Jack and colleagues conducted a study to determine whether associations exist between variations in the genomic region of CYP2J2 and MS status or levels of serum markers associated with vitamin D and calcium metabolism such as prolactin, vitamin D, vitamin D–binding protein, alkaline phosphatase, and calcium.

Participants were recruited from Nebraska, Iowa, and Kansas between October 2014 and December 2016 to participate in a single blood draw.

Ms. Jack and colleagues collected blood samples from 220 patients with MS and 238 age- and sex-matched controls. DNA from blood samples was genotyped for 94 SNPs in a 255,348 base-pair region of chromosome 1 that included CYP2J2 and C1orf87. Researchers analyzed serum samples to quantify concentrations of vitamin D, vitamin D–binding protein, alkaline phosphatase, and prolactin. Almost all participants with MS took supplemental vitamin D.

The 458 participants in the study were predominately Caucasian and had an average age of about 50, said Ms. Jack.

SNPs in the CYP2J2 region were associated with an increased risk of MS. These associations were not significant following Bonferroni correction. Several other SNPs in the CYP2J2 region were associated with prolactin levels, but the associations were not significant following the Bonferroni correction. No SNPs in this region showed significant associations between levels of vitamin D, vitamin D–binding protein, calcium, or alkaline phosphatase, but vitamin D levels may have been skewed since many patients with MS were taking vitamin D supplements, said the researchers.

Overall, SNPs downstream of CYP2J2 in the C1orf87 gene were associated with prolactin levels, and SNPs in the intergenic region between CYP212 and C1orf87 may be associated with MS, said the researchers.

Study Limitations and Future Directions

Study limitations include that the study population was homogeneous (ie, middle-aged and white from the Midwest) and that samples were not always taken in the morning after fasting, which may have affected prolactin levels, said Ms. Jack.

“We are in the process of undertaking a genome-wide association study to continue this work,” Ms. Jack said. “We are currently enrolling more subjects to have a well-powered study, and we hope to have a small subset of people who have not taken vitamin D supplementation so that we will be able to analyze those values.”

—Erica Tricarico

NASHVILLE—Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the CYP2J2 region of chromosome 1 may be associated with an increased risk of multiple sclerosis (MS) and higher levels of prolactin, according to research presented at the 2018 CMSC Annual Meeting. “To our knowledge, this is the first report to show an association between genetic variants within this region and either MS status or the level of serum prolactin,” said Samantha Jack, Research Coordinator at Saunders Medical Center in Wahoo, Nebraska, and colleagues.

Although the cause of MS is unknown, a combination of genetic, environmental, and infectious risk factors may contribute to its pathogenesis, said Ms. Jack and colleagues. Vitamin D has been suggested as the most attractive environmental factor. In addition, the CYP2J2 gene has been identified as having a role in serum vitamin D levels in cattle, and the CYP2J2-containing region on bovine chromosome 3 is syntenic with that on human chromosome 1, the researchers said.

Evaluating SNPs in the CYP2J2 Region

Ms. Jack and colleagues conducted a study to determine whether associations exist between variations in the genomic region of CYP2J2 and MS status or levels of serum markers associated with vitamin D and calcium metabolism such as prolactin, vitamin D, vitamin D–binding protein, alkaline phosphatase, and calcium.

Participants were recruited from Nebraska, Iowa, and Kansas between October 2014 and December 2016 to participate in a single blood draw.

Ms. Jack and colleagues collected blood samples from 220 patients with MS and 238 age- and sex-matched controls. DNA from blood samples was genotyped for 94 SNPs in a 255,348 base-pair region of chromosome 1 that included CYP2J2 and C1orf87. Researchers analyzed serum samples to quantify concentrations of vitamin D, vitamin D–binding protein, alkaline phosphatase, and prolactin. Almost all participants with MS took supplemental vitamin D.

The 458 participants in the study were predominately Caucasian and had an average age of about 50, said Ms. Jack.

SNPs in the CYP2J2 region were associated with an increased risk of MS. These associations were not significant following Bonferroni correction. Several other SNPs in the CYP2J2 region were associated with prolactin levels, but the associations were not significant following the Bonferroni correction. No SNPs in this region showed significant associations between levels of vitamin D, vitamin D–binding protein, calcium, or alkaline phosphatase, but vitamin D levels may have been skewed since many patients with MS were taking vitamin D supplements, said the researchers.

Overall, SNPs downstream of CYP2J2 in the C1orf87 gene were associated with prolactin levels, and SNPs in the intergenic region between CYP212 and C1orf87 may be associated with MS, said the researchers.

Study Limitations and Future Directions

Study limitations include that the study population was homogeneous (ie, middle-aged and white from the Midwest) and that samples were not always taken in the morning after fasting, which may have affected prolactin levels, said Ms. Jack.

“We are in the process of undertaking a genome-wide association study to continue this work,” Ms. Jack said. “We are currently enrolling more subjects to have a well-powered study, and we hope to have a small subset of people who have not taken vitamin D supplementation so that we will be able to analyze those values.”

—Erica Tricarico