Adolf Kussmaul, who lived and practiced medicine in the 19th century, is known for his clinical skills, his scientific acumen, his gift for teaching, and his mastery of diverse areas of knowledge. He was a contemporary of such luminaries as pathologist Rudolf Virchow. In the rheumatology community, he is best known for describing the first case of polyarteritis nodosa (PAN).

FIRST CASE

In the first volume of the first edition of German Archive for Clinical Medicine, Kussmaul, along with his pathology associate Rudolf Maier, reported the case of Carl Seufarth, a 27-year-old tailor’s journeyman. Seufarth arrived at the University of Freiburg internal medicine clinic on May 4, 1865, at 10 am. Kussmaul was at that time head of medicine at Freiburg. Seufarth’s journeyman’s log recorded that he had been healthy when he left his hometown of Gernsbach in southwest Germany on January 30, 1865. His entry indicated that he was 5 feet 2 inches tall, was of strong build, and had healthy facial color.

Kussmaul’s 1866 description of Seufarth upon his arrival at the clinic is among the most memorable passages in medical literature:

Despite his frail appearance, Seufarth was able to walk into the hospital and climb the two flights of stairs to the internal medicine clinic without assistance. He had had a cold followed by a productive cough in the autumn of 1864, but felt well afterward. In the 8 days prior to admission to the University of Freiburg, he developed diarrhea and frequent chills with fevers and sweats. He had felt unwell for the preceding 2 to 3 weeks, during which he was hospitalized briefly for scabies, wandered from one place to another, and eventually arrived in Freiburg. Freiburg police imprisoned him on May 2 for begging and brought him to the internal medicine department on May 4 because of weakness.

Over the next several days, Seufarth experienced rapidly developing weakness, numbness in the left hand and eventually other extremities, and paralysis of the arm and hand muscles. He was closely monitored at the clinic with his temperature recorded every morning and evening. On the 28th day of hospitalization, pea-sized nodules were discovered in the subcutaneous skin of the abdomen and chest. By June 2, the patient was in a state of extreme weakness. He died on June 3, 1865, at 2 am.

Source: Kussmaul A, Maier R. Über eine bisher nicht beschriebene, eigentümliche Arterienerkrankung (Periarteritis nodosa), die mit Morbus Brightii und rapid fortschreitender allgemeiner Muskellähmung einhergeht. Deutsches Arch klin Med 1866; 1:484–518.

This description is what we understand today as typical of vascular involvement in PAN. Maier also examined the tissue microscopically. In his report, he described the aneurysmal dilatations, narrowings, and inflammation occurring at the branches of the arteries. His sketch of involved organs depicted neutrophilic infiltration into the walls of the vessels.

When consulted by Kussmaul for a second opinion, pathologist Rudolf Virchow said he had not observed patients with disease similar to that of Seufarth. In his archives, however, he later found a specimen of an aneurysm in a branch of the superior mesenteric artery.

Kussmaul and Maier published the case under the title “On a previously undescribed peculiar arterial disease (periarteritis nodosa) accompanied by Bright’s disease and rapidly progressive general muscle weakness.” “Periarteritis nodosa” was later termed “polyarteritis nodosa” to better describe the inflammation of multiple medium-and small-vessel arteries rather than inflammation around the arteries as Maier had initially envisioned it.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

The son of a German army surgeon, Kussmaul was born in 1822 in Graben near Karlsruhe, a small town in the Black Forest of southwestern Germany. Kussmaul began his medical studies at the University of Heidelberg in 1840. That same year, he constructed the first ophthalmoscope. The device did not function as intended because he had not discovered the light orientation needed to prevent the iris from contracting. But, as he later said, “It was the best ophthalmoscope of the time. Its only drawback was that it did not work.”

After graduating from the University of Heidelberg, Kussmaul went into private practice in Wiesloch. He returned to the University a year later, after having developed pericarditis, where he served as an assistant in 1846 and 1847 and engaged not only in medicine and medical discovery, but also poetry, publishing, and social movements. He founded a magazine that published short stories, poetry, and spoofs on the government; and he coined the term “Biedermeier,” which refers to a furniture style as well as a German social movement.

With plans to further his medical education, Kussmaul and his friend, Edward Bronner, traveled to Vienna and Prague in 1847 and 1848. In Vienna, they met the anatomic pathologist Karl Rokitansky. Although the young men hoped to study with the renowned scientist, they were soon dissuaded by Rokitansky’s clear dislike of working with students. He also had little use for patients, holding that the best patient was a dead patient because of all that one could learn by doing an autopsy.

Kussmaul and Bronner returned to Germany, Kussmaul having been called to serve as a physician in the Baden battalion during the German-Danish war. There, he contributed significantly to the health of the army by insisting that wounded soldiers not be bled—a common treatment at that time that actually accelerated the deaths of many soldiers in the field.

ACADEMICIAN, SCIENTIST, AND CLINICIAN

Shortly after his 1850 marriage to Luise Amanda Wolf, the daughter of a famous surgeon, Kussmaul developed an ascending polyradiculopathy, which at one time was called Landry-Kussmaul paralysis and later Guillain-Barré syndrome. This condition, along with his previous history of pericarditis, stimulated Kussmaul’s pursuit of medical knowledge for better understanding of his own afflictions as well as medicine in general.

He completed his doctoral dissertation at the University of Würzburg in 1853. There, he worked with pathology professor Virchow, who is known as the father of the theory of coagulation and the cellular theory of disease. It is perhaps less well known that in a treatise on histopathology in 1847, Virchow proposed that vasculitis actually might occur in blood vessels and originate in the adventitia. This profound insight was lost at the time because of inadequate understanding of vasculitic disorders.

Returning to the University of Heidelberg in 1854, Kussmaul earned the rank of assistant professor of medicine and, by 1857, professor of medicine. Two years later, he relocated to the University of Erlangen as a professor of medicine. His inaugural lecture at the University of Erlangen was the presentation of two cases of Landry-Kussmaul paralysis. Kussmaul’s research at Erlangen focused on differentiating the symptoms of mercurialism from syphilis (mercury was used for the treatment of syphilis).

Kussmaul was then called to the University of Freiburg in 1863 as head of the department of medicine. Among Kussmaul’s achievements at the University of Freiburg in the 1860s were the description of paradoxical pulse in obstructive pericarditis that we know as the Kussmaul pulse, and the description of the breathing characteristic of diabetic acidotic coma that we know as Kussmaul respiration. There he also performed the first gastroscopy on a sword-swallowing circus performer using a derivation of a laryngoscope; unfortunately, again his invention was thwarted by lack of an adequate light source. He also studied peptic ulcer disease and described a technique for dilating a stenosed peptic ulcer lesion with a balloon device. He later worked with Czerny and Billroth to develop the surgical procedure used routinely for nearly 100 years to relieve peptic ulcer disease prior to the introduction of drugs such as ranitidine.

RHEUMATOLOGY “WORMS”

Kussmaul and Maier initially published the Seufarth case in abstract form and called it “human worm aneurysm,” because they thought that the vascular pea-shaped or pea-sized structures represented worm and nematode infiltration. When they examined the specimens microscopically, however, they realized that they were viewing an inflammatory disease process.

Source: Eppinger H. Pathogenesis (Histogenesis und Aethiologie) der Aneurysmen einschliesslich des aneurysma equi verminosum. Arch Klin Chir 1887; 35:1–563.

Ironically, vessel disease of the PAN type was described in 1852 by Rokitansky. Rokitansky reported finding mesenteric aneurysms in the branch points of the arteries; however, because he eschewed technology, he did not examine the specimen microscopically and failed to recognize the inflammatory process. His student, Hans Eppinger, revisited the specimen some 30 years later and, under microscopic examination, clearly defined the aneurysmal dilatations and inflammatory infiltrates (Figure 2).

A final rheumatology worm episode occurred late in Kussmaul’s career in Strasburg, where he had become head of the department of medicine in 1878. Kussmaul asked his assistant and biographer, Albert Kahn, to administer naphthalene to a patient to eradicate intestinal worms. Strangely, the worms survived, but the fever resolved. Due to a pharmacy error, acetanilide, an anti-inflammatory marketed by Bayer, had been dispensed rather than naphthalene. Bayer subsequently marketed the product as Antifebrin.

REMEMBERED AND COMMEMORATED

Kussmaul was a much-loved teacher and a well-respected physician. After he retired in 1888, he returned to Heidelberg as emeritus professor of medicine. He died in 1902 at age 80. His desire to understand disease, his clinical observations, his teaching abilities, and his ability to apply medical technology to the bedside all played roles in his contributions to clinical medicine. One of several Kussmaul commemoration sites is a lunette in Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York, where his portrait plaque is displayed alongside those of Ismar Boas and Carl Anton Ewald, the founders of modern gastroenterology.

Adolf Kussmaul, who lived and practiced medicine in the 19th century, is known for his clinical skills, his scientific acumen, his gift for teaching, and his mastery of diverse areas of knowledge. He was a contemporary of such luminaries as pathologist Rudolf Virchow. In the rheumatology community, he is best known for describing the first case of polyarteritis nodosa (PAN).

FIRST CASE

In the first volume of the first edition of German Archive for Clinical Medicine, Kussmaul, along with his pathology associate Rudolf Maier, reported the case of Carl Seufarth, a 27-year-old tailor’s journeyman. Seufarth arrived at the University of Freiburg internal medicine clinic on May 4, 1865, at 10 am. Kussmaul was at that time head of medicine at Freiburg. Seufarth’s journeyman’s log recorded that he had been healthy when he left his hometown of Gernsbach in southwest Germany on January 30, 1865. His entry indicated that he was 5 feet 2 inches tall, was of strong build, and had healthy facial color.

Kussmaul’s 1866 description of Seufarth upon his arrival at the clinic is among the most memorable passages in medical literature:

Despite his frail appearance, Seufarth was able to walk into the hospital and climb the two flights of stairs to the internal medicine clinic without assistance. He had had a cold followed by a productive cough in the autumn of 1864, but felt well afterward. In the 8 days prior to admission to the University of Freiburg, he developed diarrhea and frequent chills with fevers and sweats. He had felt unwell for the preceding 2 to 3 weeks, during which he was hospitalized briefly for scabies, wandered from one place to another, and eventually arrived in Freiburg. Freiburg police imprisoned him on May 2 for begging and brought him to the internal medicine department on May 4 because of weakness.

Over the next several days, Seufarth experienced rapidly developing weakness, numbness in the left hand and eventually other extremities, and paralysis of the arm and hand muscles. He was closely monitored at the clinic with his temperature recorded every morning and evening. On the 28th day of hospitalization, pea-sized nodules were discovered in the subcutaneous skin of the abdomen and chest. By June 2, the patient was in a state of extreme weakness. He died on June 3, 1865, at 2 am.

Source: Kussmaul A, Maier R. Über eine bisher nicht beschriebene, eigentümliche Arterienerkrankung (Periarteritis nodosa), die mit Morbus Brightii und rapid fortschreitender allgemeiner Muskellähmung einhergeht. Deutsches Arch klin Med 1866; 1:484–518.

This description is what we understand today as typical of vascular involvement in PAN. Maier also examined the tissue microscopically. In his report, he described the aneurysmal dilatations, narrowings, and inflammation occurring at the branches of the arteries. His sketch of involved organs depicted neutrophilic infiltration into the walls of the vessels.

When consulted by Kussmaul for a second opinion, pathologist Rudolf Virchow said he had not observed patients with disease similar to that of Seufarth. In his archives, however, he later found a specimen of an aneurysm in a branch of the superior mesenteric artery.

Kussmaul and Maier published the case under the title “On a previously undescribed peculiar arterial disease (periarteritis nodosa) accompanied by Bright’s disease and rapidly progressive general muscle weakness.” “Periarteritis nodosa” was later termed “polyarteritis nodosa” to better describe the inflammation of multiple medium-and small-vessel arteries rather than inflammation around the arteries as Maier had initially envisioned it.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

The son of a German army surgeon, Kussmaul was born in 1822 in Graben near Karlsruhe, a small town in the Black Forest of southwestern Germany. Kussmaul began his medical studies at the University of Heidelberg in 1840. That same year, he constructed the first ophthalmoscope. The device did not function as intended because he had not discovered the light orientation needed to prevent the iris from contracting. But, as he later said, “It was the best ophthalmoscope of the time. Its only drawback was that it did not work.”

After graduating from the University of Heidelberg, Kussmaul went into private practice in Wiesloch. He returned to the University a year later, after having developed pericarditis, where he served as an assistant in 1846 and 1847 and engaged not only in medicine and medical discovery, but also poetry, publishing, and social movements. He founded a magazine that published short stories, poetry, and spoofs on the government; and he coined the term “Biedermeier,” which refers to a furniture style as well as a German social movement.

With plans to further his medical education, Kussmaul and his friend, Edward Bronner, traveled to Vienna and Prague in 1847 and 1848. In Vienna, they met the anatomic pathologist Karl Rokitansky. Although the young men hoped to study with the renowned scientist, they were soon dissuaded by Rokitansky’s clear dislike of working with students. He also had little use for patients, holding that the best patient was a dead patient because of all that one could learn by doing an autopsy.

Kussmaul and Bronner returned to Germany, Kussmaul having been called to serve as a physician in the Baden battalion during the German-Danish war. There, he contributed significantly to the health of the army by insisting that wounded soldiers not be bled—a common treatment at that time that actually accelerated the deaths of many soldiers in the field.

ACADEMICIAN, SCIENTIST, AND CLINICIAN

Shortly after his 1850 marriage to Luise Amanda Wolf, the daughter of a famous surgeon, Kussmaul developed an ascending polyradiculopathy, which at one time was called Landry-Kussmaul paralysis and later Guillain-Barré syndrome. This condition, along with his previous history of pericarditis, stimulated Kussmaul’s pursuit of medical knowledge for better understanding of his own afflictions as well as medicine in general.

He completed his doctoral dissertation at the University of Würzburg in 1853. There, he worked with pathology professor Virchow, who is known as the father of the theory of coagulation and the cellular theory of disease. It is perhaps less well known that in a treatise on histopathology in 1847, Virchow proposed that vasculitis actually might occur in blood vessels and originate in the adventitia. This profound insight was lost at the time because of inadequate understanding of vasculitic disorders.

Returning to the University of Heidelberg in 1854, Kussmaul earned the rank of assistant professor of medicine and, by 1857, professor of medicine. Two years later, he relocated to the University of Erlangen as a professor of medicine. His inaugural lecture at the University of Erlangen was the presentation of two cases of Landry-Kussmaul paralysis. Kussmaul’s research at Erlangen focused on differentiating the symptoms of mercurialism from syphilis (mercury was used for the treatment of syphilis).

Kussmaul was then called to the University of Freiburg in 1863 as head of the department of medicine. Among Kussmaul’s achievements at the University of Freiburg in the 1860s were the description of paradoxical pulse in obstructive pericarditis that we know as the Kussmaul pulse, and the description of the breathing characteristic of diabetic acidotic coma that we know as Kussmaul respiration. There he also performed the first gastroscopy on a sword-swallowing circus performer using a derivation of a laryngoscope; unfortunately, again his invention was thwarted by lack of an adequate light source. He also studied peptic ulcer disease and described a technique for dilating a stenosed peptic ulcer lesion with a balloon device. He later worked with Czerny and Billroth to develop the surgical procedure used routinely for nearly 100 years to relieve peptic ulcer disease prior to the introduction of drugs such as ranitidine.

RHEUMATOLOGY “WORMS”

Kussmaul and Maier initially published the Seufarth case in abstract form and called it “human worm aneurysm,” because they thought that the vascular pea-shaped or pea-sized structures represented worm and nematode infiltration. When they examined the specimens microscopically, however, they realized that they were viewing an inflammatory disease process.

Source: Eppinger H. Pathogenesis (Histogenesis und Aethiologie) der Aneurysmen einschliesslich des aneurysma equi verminosum. Arch Klin Chir 1887; 35:1–563.

Ironically, vessel disease of the PAN type was described in 1852 by Rokitansky. Rokitansky reported finding mesenteric aneurysms in the branch points of the arteries; however, because he eschewed technology, he did not examine the specimen microscopically and failed to recognize the inflammatory process. His student, Hans Eppinger, revisited the specimen some 30 years later and, under microscopic examination, clearly defined the aneurysmal dilatations and inflammatory infiltrates (Figure 2).

A final rheumatology worm episode occurred late in Kussmaul’s career in Strasburg, where he had become head of the department of medicine in 1878. Kussmaul asked his assistant and biographer, Albert Kahn, to administer naphthalene to a patient to eradicate intestinal worms. Strangely, the worms survived, but the fever resolved. Due to a pharmacy error, acetanilide, an anti-inflammatory marketed by Bayer, had been dispensed rather than naphthalene. Bayer subsequently marketed the product as Antifebrin.

REMEMBERED AND COMMEMORATED

Kussmaul was a much-loved teacher and a well-respected physician. After he retired in 1888, he returned to Heidelberg as emeritus professor of medicine. He died in 1902 at age 80. His desire to understand disease, his clinical observations, his teaching abilities, and his ability to apply medical technology to the bedside all played roles in his contributions to clinical medicine. One of several Kussmaul commemoration sites is a lunette in Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York, where his portrait plaque is displayed alongside those of Ismar Boas and Carl Anton Ewald, the founders of modern gastroenterology.

Adolf Kussmaul, who lived and practiced medicine in the 19th century, is known for his clinical skills, his scientific acumen, his gift for teaching, and his mastery of diverse areas of knowledge. He was a contemporary of such luminaries as pathologist Rudolf Virchow. In the rheumatology community, he is best known for describing the first case of polyarteritis nodosa (PAN).

FIRST CASE

In the first volume of the first edition of German Archive for Clinical Medicine, Kussmaul, along with his pathology associate Rudolf Maier, reported the case of Carl Seufarth, a 27-year-old tailor’s journeyman. Seufarth arrived at the University of Freiburg internal medicine clinic on May 4, 1865, at 10 am. Kussmaul was at that time head of medicine at Freiburg. Seufarth’s journeyman’s log recorded that he had been healthy when he left his hometown of Gernsbach in southwest Germany on January 30, 1865. His entry indicated that he was 5 feet 2 inches tall, was of strong build, and had healthy facial color.

Kussmaul’s 1866 description of Seufarth upon his arrival at the clinic is among the most memorable passages in medical literature:

Despite his frail appearance, Seufarth was able to walk into the hospital and climb the two flights of stairs to the internal medicine clinic without assistance. He had had a cold followed by a productive cough in the autumn of 1864, but felt well afterward. In the 8 days prior to admission to the University of Freiburg, he developed diarrhea and frequent chills with fevers and sweats. He had felt unwell for the preceding 2 to 3 weeks, during which he was hospitalized briefly for scabies, wandered from one place to another, and eventually arrived in Freiburg. Freiburg police imprisoned him on May 2 for begging and brought him to the internal medicine department on May 4 because of weakness.

Over the next several days, Seufarth experienced rapidly developing weakness, numbness in the left hand and eventually other extremities, and paralysis of the arm and hand muscles. He was closely monitored at the clinic with his temperature recorded every morning and evening. On the 28th day of hospitalization, pea-sized nodules were discovered in the subcutaneous skin of the abdomen and chest. By June 2, the patient was in a state of extreme weakness. He died on June 3, 1865, at 2 am.

Source: Kussmaul A, Maier R. Über eine bisher nicht beschriebene, eigentümliche Arterienerkrankung (Periarteritis nodosa), die mit Morbus Brightii und rapid fortschreitender allgemeiner Muskellähmung einhergeht. Deutsches Arch klin Med 1866; 1:484–518.

This description is what we understand today as typical of vascular involvement in PAN. Maier also examined the tissue microscopically. In his report, he described the aneurysmal dilatations, narrowings, and inflammation occurring at the branches of the arteries. His sketch of involved organs depicted neutrophilic infiltration into the walls of the vessels.

When consulted by Kussmaul for a second opinion, pathologist Rudolf Virchow said he had not observed patients with disease similar to that of Seufarth. In his archives, however, he later found a specimen of an aneurysm in a branch of the superior mesenteric artery.

Kussmaul and Maier published the case under the title “On a previously undescribed peculiar arterial disease (periarteritis nodosa) accompanied by Bright’s disease and rapidly progressive general muscle weakness.” “Periarteritis nodosa” was later termed “polyarteritis nodosa” to better describe the inflammation of multiple medium-and small-vessel arteries rather than inflammation around the arteries as Maier had initially envisioned it.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

The son of a German army surgeon, Kussmaul was born in 1822 in Graben near Karlsruhe, a small town in the Black Forest of southwestern Germany. Kussmaul began his medical studies at the University of Heidelberg in 1840. That same year, he constructed the first ophthalmoscope. The device did not function as intended because he had not discovered the light orientation needed to prevent the iris from contracting. But, as he later said, “It was the best ophthalmoscope of the time. Its only drawback was that it did not work.”

After graduating from the University of Heidelberg, Kussmaul went into private practice in Wiesloch. He returned to the University a year later, after having developed pericarditis, where he served as an assistant in 1846 and 1847 and engaged not only in medicine and medical discovery, but also poetry, publishing, and social movements. He founded a magazine that published short stories, poetry, and spoofs on the government; and he coined the term “Biedermeier,” which refers to a furniture style as well as a German social movement.

With plans to further his medical education, Kussmaul and his friend, Edward Bronner, traveled to Vienna and Prague in 1847 and 1848. In Vienna, they met the anatomic pathologist Karl Rokitansky. Although the young men hoped to study with the renowned scientist, they were soon dissuaded by Rokitansky’s clear dislike of working with students. He also had little use for patients, holding that the best patient was a dead patient because of all that one could learn by doing an autopsy.

Kussmaul and Bronner returned to Germany, Kussmaul having been called to serve as a physician in the Baden battalion during the German-Danish war. There, he contributed significantly to the health of the army by insisting that wounded soldiers not be bled—a common treatment at that time that actually accelerated the deaths of many soldiers in the field.

ACADEMICIAN, SCIENTIST, AND CLINICIAN

Shortly after his 1850 marriage to Luise Amanda Wolf, the daughter of a famous surgeon, Kussmaul developed an ascending polyradiculopathy, which at one time was called Landry-Kussmaul paralysis and later Guillain-Barré syndrome. This condition, along with his previous history of pericarditis, stimulated Kussmaul’s pursuit of medical knowledge for better understanding of his own afflictions as well as medicine in general.

He completed his doctoral dissertation at the University of Würzburg in 1853. There, he worked with pathology professor Virchow, who is known as the father of the theory of coagulation and the cellular theory of disease. It is perhaps less well known that in a treatise on histopathology in 1847, Virchow proposed that vasculitis actually might occur in blood vessels and originate in the adventitia. This profound insight was lost at the time because of inadequate understanding of vasculitic disorders.

Returning to the University of Heidelberg in 1854, Kussmaul earned the rank of assistant professor of medicine and, by 1857, professor of medicine. Two years later, he relocated to the University of Erlangen as a professor of medicine. His inaugural lecture at the University of Erlangen was the presentation of two cases of Landry-Kussmaul paralysis. Kussmaul’s research at Erlangen focused on differentiating the symptoms of mercurialism from syphilis (mercury was used for the treatment of syphilis).

Kussmaul was then called to the University of Freiburg in 1863 as head of the department of medicine. Among Kussmaul’s achievements at the University of Freiburg in the 1860s were the description of paradoxical pulse in obstructive pericarditis that we know as the Kussmaul pulse, and the description of the breathing characteristic of diabetic acidotic coma that we know as Kussmaul respiration. There he also performed the first gastroscopy on a sword-swallowing circus performer using a derivation of a laryngoscope; unfortunately, again his invention was thwarted by lack of an adequate light source. He also studied peptic ulcer disease and described a technique for dilating a stenosed peptic ulcer lesion with a balloon device. He later worked with Czerny and Billroth to develop the surgical procedure used routinely for nearly 100 years to relieve peptic ulcer disease prior to the introduction of drugs such as ranitidine.

RHEUMATOLOGY “WORMS”

Kussmaul and Maier initially published the Seufarth case in abstract form and called it “human worm aneurysm,” because they thought that the vascular pea-shaped or pea-sized structures represented worm and nematode infiltration. When they examined the specimens microscopically, however, they realized that they were viewing an inflammatory disease process.

Source: Eppinger H. Pathogenesis (Histogenesis und Aethiologie) der Aneurysmen einschliesslich des aneurysma equi verminosum. Arch Klin Chir 1887; 35:1–563.

Ironically, vessel disease of the PAN type was described in 1852 by Rokitansky. Rokitansky reported finding mesenteric aneurysms in the branch points of the arteries; however, because he eschewed technology, he did not examine the specimen microscopically and failed to recognize the inflammatory process. His student, Hans Eppinger, revisited the specimen some 30 years later and, under microscopic examination, clearly defined the aneurysmal dilatations and inflammatory infiltrates (Figure 2).

A final rheumatology worm episode occurred late in Kussmaul’s career in Strasburg, where he had become head of the department of medicine in 1878. Kussmaul asked his assistant and biographer, Albert Kahn, to administer naphthalene to a patient to eradicate intestinal worms. Strangely, the worms survived, but the fever resolved. Due to a pharmacy error, acetanilide, an anti-inflammatory marketed by Bayer, had been dispensed rather than naphthalene. Bayer subsequently marketed the product as Antifebrin.

REMEMBERED AND COMMEMORATED

Kussmaul was a much-loved teacher and a well-respected physician. After he retired in 1888, he returned to Heidelberg as emeritus professor of medicine. He died in 1902 at age 80. His desire to understand disease, his clinical observations, his teaching abilities, and his ability to apply medical technology to the bedside all played roles in his contributions to clinical medicine. One of several Kussmaul commemoration sites is a lunette in Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York, where his portrait plaque is displayed alongside those of Ismar Boas and Carl Anton Ewald, the founders of modern gastroenterology.

Clostridium difficile contributes mightily to the overall burden of gastrointestinal disease in the United States and was associated with a 237% increase in hospitalizations in the last decade.

Researchers who examined the latest data on the nationwide toll of GI and liver disease also found a 314% rise in hospitalizations related to morbid obesity and a continuing national health burden exacted by reflux symptoms, Barrett’s esophagus, and colorectal cancer.

Courtesy CDC/Dr. Gilda Jones

Video from the American Gastroenterological Association (http://www.youtube.com/amergastroassn)

"We compiled the most recently available statistics on GI symptoms, quality of life, outpatient diagnoses, hospitalizations, costs, mortality, and endoscopic utilization from a variety of publicly and privately held databases," Dr. Anne F. Peery of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and her colleagues reported in the November issue of Gastroenterology (doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2012.08.002).

"Payers, policy makers, clinicians, and others interested in resource utilization may use these statistics to better understand evolving disease trends, and the best way to meet the challenge of these diseases."

The findings are based on data for 2009, the most recent year for which complete information was available, from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, sponsored by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the United States National Health and Wellness Survey, sponsored by the private company Kantar Health; the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database of the National Cancer Institute; the National Vital Statistics System, sponsored by the National Center for Health Statistics and the CDC; and the Thomson Reuters MarketScan’s databases of commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid records.

Among the findings:

• C. difficile hospitalizations have increased 237% since 2000 and were associated with 4% in-hospital mortality. Now the ninth leading GI cause of mortality, with an absolute increase of 230% in the number of C. difficile–related deaths since 2002, the infection also markedly impairs quality of life and the capacity for work and other activities.

• Hospitalizations related to obesity remained relatively stable since 2000, but those associated with morbid obesity rose by 314%, and many were likely caused by the marked increase in bariatric surgery.

• Gastroesophageal reflux remains the most common GI-associated diagnosis in primary care, accounting for 9 million outpatient visits in 2009, and the most common GI-associated discharge diagnosis, with 4.4 million such diagnoses in 2009. Obesity was associated with 1.7 million discharge diagnoses and constipation with 1 million.

• Barrett’s esophagus accounted for almost half a million outpatient visits in 2009, when an estimated 3.3 million Americans had this diagnosis. Given that endoscopic surveillance is recommended every 3-5 years, Barrett’s contributes substantially to resource utilization.

• Colorectal cancer, with an estimated 147,000 patients diagnosed in 2008, accounts for more than half of all GI cancer diagnoses and continues to be the primary cause of GI-associated mortality. Pancreatic and hepatobiliary cancers are the next most frequently diagnosed GI cancers.

• Of the approximately 2.5 million deaths in the United States in 2009, 10% were attributed to an underlying GI cause. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis are the 12th leading causes of death in the country.

• The total outpatient cost for GI endoscopy in 2009 was estimated to be $32.4 billion, which is higher than previously published estimates. An estimated 6.9 million upper endoscopies, 11.5 million lower endoscopies, and 228,000 biliary endoscopies were performed in the United States in 2009.

• Chronic liver disease and viral hepatitis were associated with 6% mortality and cost an estimated $1.8 billion per year in inpatient cost.

• Hospitalizations for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease increased 97% since 2000.

This study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health. No financial conflicts of interest were reported.

Clostridium difficile contributes mightily to the overall burden of gastrointestinal disease in the United States and was associated with a 237% increase in hospitalizations in the last decade.

Researchers who examined the latest data on the nationwide toll of GI and liver disease also found a 314% rise in hospitalizations related to morbid obesity and a continuing national health burden exacted by reflux symptoms, Barrett’s esophagus, and colorectal cancer.

Courtesy CDC/Dr. Gilda Jones

Video from the American Gastroenterological Association (http://www.youtube.com/amergastroassn)

"We compiled the most recently available statistics on GI symptoms, quality of life, outpatient diagnoses, hospitalizations, costs, mortality, and endoscopic utilization from a variety of publicly and privately held databases," Dr. Anne F. Peery of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and her colleagues reported in the November issue of Gastroenterology (doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2012.08.002).

"Payers, policy makers, clinicians, and others interested in resource utilization may use these statistics to better understand evolving disease trends, and the best way to meet the challenge of these diseases."

The findings are based on data for 2009, the most recent year for which complete information was available, from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, sponsored by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the United States National Health and Wellness Survey, sponsored by the private company Kantar Health; the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database of the National Cancer Institute; the National Vital Statistics System, sponsored by the National Center for Health Statistics and the CDC; and the Thomson Reuters MarketScan’s databases of commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid records.

Among the findings:

• C. difficile hospitalizations have increased 237% since 2000 and were associated with 4% in-hospital mortality. Now the ninth leading GI cause of mortality, with an absolute increase of 230% in the number of C. difficile–related deaths since 2002, the infection also markedly impairs quality of life and the capacity for work and other activities.

• Hospitalizations related to obesity remained relatively stable since 2000, but those associated with morbid obesity rose by 314%, and many were likely caused by the marked increase in bariatric surgery.

• Gastroesophageal reflux remains the most common GI-associated diagnosis in primary care, accounting for 9 million outpatient visits in 2009, and the most common GI-associated discharge diagnosis, with 4.4 million such diagnoses in 2009. Obesity was associated with 1.7 million discharge diagnoses and constipation with 1 million.

• Barrett’s esophagus accounted for almost half a million outpatient visits in 2009, when an estimated 3.3 million Americans had this diagnosis. Given that endoscopic surveillance is recommended every 3-5 years, Barrett’s contributes substantially to resource utilization.

• Colorectal cancer, with an estimated 147,000 patients diagnosed in 2008, accounts for more than half of all GI cancer diagnoses and continues to be the primary cause of GI-associated mortality. Pancreatic and hepatobiliary cancers are the next most frequently diagnosed GI cancers.

• Of the approximately 2.5 million deaths in the United States in 2009, 10% were attributed to an underlying GI cause. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis are the 12th leading causes of death in the country.

• The total outpatient cost for GI endoscopy in 2009 was estimated to be $32.4 billion, which is higher than previously published estimates. An estimated 6.9 million upper endoscopies, 11.5 million lower endoscopies, and 228,000 biliary endoscopies were performed in the United States in 2009.

• Chronic liver disease and viral hepatitis were associated with 6% mortality and cost an estimated $1.8 billion per year in inpatient cost.

• Hospitalizations for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease increased 97% since 2000.

This study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health. No financial conflicts of interest were reported.

Clostridium difficile contributes mightily to the overall burden of gastrointestinal disease in the United States and was associated with a 237% increase in hospitalizations in the last decade.

Researchers who examined the latest data on the nationwide toll of GI and liver disease also found a 314% rise in hospitalizations related to morbid obesity and a continuing national health burden exacted by reflux symptoms, Barrett’s esophagus, and colorectal cancer.

Courtesy CDC/Dr. Gilda Jones

Video from the American Gastroenterological Association (http://www.youtube.com/amergastroassn)

"We compiled the most recently available statistics on GI symptoms, quality of life, outpatient diagnoses, hospitalizations, costs, mortality, and endoscopic utilization from a variety of publicly and privately held databases," Dr. Anne F. Peery of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and her colleagues reported in the November issue of Gastroenterology (doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2012.08.002).

"Payers, policy makers, clinicians, and others interested in resource utilization may use these statistics to better understand evolving disease trends, and the best way to meet the challenge of these diseases."

The findings are based on data for 2009, the most recent year for which complete information was available, from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, sponsored by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the United States National Health and Wellness Survey, sponsored by the private company Kantar Health; the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database of the National Cancer Institute; the National Vital Statistics System, sponsored by the National Center for Health Statistics and the CDC; and the Thomson Reuters MarketScan’s databases of commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid records.

Among the findings:

• C. difficile hospitalizations have increased 237% since 2000 and were associated with 4% in-hospital mortality. Now the ninth leading GI cause of mortality, with an absolute increase of 230% in the number of C. difficile–related deaths since 2002, the infection also markedly impairs quality of life and the capacity for work and other activities.

• Hospitalizations related to obesity remained relatively stable since 2000, but those associated with morbid obesity rose by 314%, and many were likely caused by the marked increase in bariatric surgery.

• Gastroesophageal reflux remains the most common GI-associated diagnosis in primary care, accounting for 9 million outpatient visits in 2009, and the most common GI-associated discharge diagnosis, with 4.4 million such diagnoses in 2009. Obesity was associated with 1.7 million discharge diagnoses and constipation with 1 million.

• Barrett’s esophagus accounted for almost half a million outpatient visits in 2009, when an estimated 3.3 million Americans had this diagnosis. Given that endoscopic surveillance is recommended every 3-5 years, Barrett’s contributes substantially to resource utilization.

• Colorectal cancer, with an estimated 147,000 patients diagnosed in 2008, accounts for more than half of all GI cancer diagnoses and continues to be the primary cause of GI-associated mortality. Pancreatic and hepatobiliary cancers are the next most frequently diagnosed GI cancers.

• Of the approximately 2.5 million deaths in the United States in 2009, 10% were attributed to an underlying GI cause. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis are the 12th leading causes of death in the country.

• The total outpatient cost for GI endoscopy in 2009 was estimated to be $32.4 billion, which is higher than previously published estimates. An estimated 6.9 million upper endoscopies, 11.5 million lower endoscopies, and 228,000 biliary endoscopies were performed in the United States in 2009.

• Chronic liver disease and viral hepatitis were associated with 6% mortality and cost an estimated $1.8 billion per year in inpatient cost.

• Hospitalizations for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease increased 97% since 2000.

This study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health. No financial conflicts of interest were reported.

Eighty-four percent of candidates on the wait-list for liver transplant who either died or were removed from the list before they were able to undergo transplantation declined at least one offer of a donor liver, Dr. Jennifer Cindy Lai of the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues reported in the November issue of Gastroenterology.

Even more surprising, most of these candidates declined "not just one or two but a median of six liver offers during their time on the wait-list."

The "declined" donor organs were then successfully transplanted into lower-priority recipients.

These findings suggest that mortality among wait-listed patients "is not simply a result of not having the opportunity for transplantation, as many of us assume. Rather, wait-list mortality appears to result from opportunities for transplantation that were declined," Dr. Lai and her associates wrote.

The reasons that so many viable donor livers were initially declined are not yet clear. General, somewhat vague reasons were listed but not fully explained in the records the researchers analyzed for this study, which they obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement Transplantation Network database.

The investigators assessed organ offers to 33,389 liver transplant candidates aged 18 years and older who were wait-listed across the United States between 2005 and 2010.

The reasons that proffered organs were declined, as listed in the medical records, fit into six broad categories: unfavorable donor age or quality of organ; unfavorable donor organ size/weight; other unfavorable donor factors, such as ABO blood transfusion incompatibility, "social history," "positive serologic tests," or "organ anatomical damage or defect"; unreadiness of the recipient, usually because he or she was ill, unavailable, refused the organ, or required multiple organ transplants at the same time; problems with the transplant program itself, such as a "heavy workload" or unavailability of a surgeon or operating room at the recipient’s medical center, failure to respond to the offer in a timely way, or excessive distance to ship the organ.

A total of 20% of the study population (6,737 patients) died or were removed from the wait-list because they became too sick before they could undergo transplantation. A total of 5,680 (84%) of those patients had been offered one or more donor livers before they died or were taken off the list.

Offers of donor livers were declined most often (68%) because of "unfavorable donor age or quality of organ," whereas 9% were declined because of unfavorable organ size, 15% because of "other donor factors," 4% because the recipient wasn’t ready, and 4% because of transplant program or miscellaneous other factors.

However, the dominant use of the "donor quality or age" refusal code in the database almost certainly "does not accurately or fully capture the true refusal reason," Dr. Lai and her associates said.

Even livers judged to be of high quality according to standard criteria were declined because of supposed "unfavorable donor age or quality of organ." But the investigators found no difference in the risk of graft failure between such high-quality livers that were declined and other high-quality livers that were accepted on the first offer.

Other reasons must be playing an important role in this high rate refusal, but "the nuances of these refusals cannot be determined" without more individualized data, they said.

Dr. Lai and her colleagues suggested that to cut down on refusals of apparently viable organs, the transplant community should "reduce the stigma associated with non–ideal livers, and set realistic expectations for wait-listed candidates" so that they’re less likely to pass up a suitable donation while assuming that a better offer will come along.

Patients also should be educated about the unpredictability of death or of sudden worsening of liver disease while on the wait-list. They should be advised that there is a survival benefit associated with the transplantation of any graft, compared with continuing on the wait-list.

In addition, the current regulatory environment focuses on transplant centers’ outcomes, which may influence some centers to discourage the acceptance of less than optimal donor organs. "This may be especially relevant for low-volume transplant centers, for whom even a small number of poor outcomes ... may make a relatively large difference in the centers’ perceived performance," the researchers wrote.

Finally, wait-list candidates should be encouraged to complete their transplant work-ups as expeditiously as possible to avoid having to refuse a donor offer simply because they have not yet undergone the necessary cardiac testing or cancer screening.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the University of California, San Francisco. No financial conflicts of interest were reported.

Eighty-four percent of candidates on the wait-list for liver transplant who either died or were removed from the list before they were able to undergo transplantation declined at least one offer of a donor liver, Dr. Jennifer Cindy Lai of the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues reported in the November issue of Gastroenterology.

Even more surprising, most of these candidates declined "not just one or two but a median of six liver offers during their time on the wait-list."

The "declined" donor organs were then successfully transplanted into lower-priority recipients.

These findings suggest that mortality among wait-listed patients "is not simply a result of not having the opportunity for transplantation, as many of us assume. Rather, wait-list mortality appears to result from opportunities for transplantation that were declined," Dr. Lai and her associates wrote.

The reasons that so many viable donor livers were initially declined are not yet clear. General, somewhat vague reasons were listed but not fully explained in the records the researchers analyzed for this study, which they obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement Transplantation Network database.

The investigators assessed organ offers to 33,389 liver transplant candidates aged 18 years and older who were wait-listed across the United States between 2005 and 2010.

The reasons that proffered organs were declined, as listed in the medical records, fit into six broad categories: unfavorable donor age or quality of organ; unfavorable donor organ size/weight; other unfavorable donor factors, such as ABO blood transfusion incompatibility, "social history," "positive serologic tests," or "organ anatomical damage or defect"; unreadiness of the recipient, usually because he or she was ill, unavailable, refused the organ, or required multiple organ transplants at the same time; problems with the transplant program itself, such as a "heavy workload" or unavailability of a surgeon or operating room at the recipient’s medical center, failure to respond to the offer in a timely way, or excessive distance to ship the organ.

A total of 20% of the study population (6,737 patients) died or were removed from the wait-list because they became too sick before they could undergo transplantation. A total of 5,680 (84%) of those patients had been offered one or more donor livers before they died or were taken off the list.

Offers of donor livers were declined most often (68%) because of "unfavorable donor age or quality of organ," whereas 9% were declined because of unfavorable organ size, 15% because of "other donor factors," 4% because the recipient wasn’t ready, and 4% because of transplant program or miscellaneous other factors.

However, the dominant use of the "donor quality or age" refusal code in the database almost certainly "does not accurately or fully capture the true refusal reason," Dr. Lai and her associates said.

Even livers judged to be of high quality according to standard criteria were declined because of supposed "unfavorable donor age or quality of organ." But the investigators found no difference in the risk of graft failure between such high-quality livers that were declined and other high-quality livers that were accepted on the first offer.

Other reasons must be playing an important role in this high rate refusal, but "the nuances of these refusals cannot be determined" without more individualized data, they said.

Dr. Lai and her colleagues suggested that to cut down on refusals of apparently viable organs, the transplant community should "reduce the stigma associated with non–ideal livers, and set realistic expectations for wait-listed candidates" so that they’re less likely to pass up a suitable donation while assuming that a better offer will come along.

Patients also should be educated about the unpredictability of death or of sudden worsening of liver disease while on the wait-list. They should be advised that there is a survival benefit associated with the transplantation of any graft, compared with continuing on the wait-list.

In addition, the current regulatory environment focuses on transplant centers’ outcomes, which may influence some centers to discourage the acceptance of less than optimal donor organs. "This may be especially relevant for low-volume transplant centers, for whom even a small number of poor outcomes ... may make a relatively large difference in the centers’ perceived performance," the researchers wrote.

Finally, wait-list candidates should be encouraged to complete their transplant work-ups as expeditiously as possible to avoid having to refuse a donor offer simply because they have not yet undergone the necessary cardiac testing or cancer screening.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the University of California, San Francisco. No financial conflicts of interest were reported.

Eighty-four percent of candidates on the wait-list for liver transplant who either died or were removed from the list before they were able to undergo transplantation declined at least one offer of a donor liver, Dr. Jennifer Cindy Lai of the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues reported in the November issue of Gastroenterology.

Even more surprising, most of these candidates declined "not just one or two but a median of six liver offers during their time on the wait-list."

The "declined" donor organs were then successfully transplanted into lower-priority recipients.

These findings suggest that mortality among wait-listed patients "is not simply a result of not having the opportunity for transplantation, as many of us assume. Rather, wait-list mortality appears to result from opportunities for transplantation that were declined," Dr. Lai and her associates wrote.

The reasons that so many viable donor livers were initially declined are not yet clear. General, somewhat vague reasons were listed but not fully explained in the records the researchers analyzed for this study, which they obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement Transplantation Network database.

The investigators assessed organ offers to 33,389 liver transplant candidates aged 18 years and older who were wait-listed across the United States between 2005 and 2010.

The reasons that proffered organs were declined, as listed in the medical records, fit into six broad categories: unfavorable donor age or quality of organ; unfavorable donor organ size/weight; other unfavorable donor factors, such as ABO blood transfusion incompatibility, "social history," "positive serologic tests," or "organ anatomical damage or defect"; unreadiness of the recipient, usually because he or she was ill, unavailable, refused the organ, or required multiple organ transplants at the same time; problems with the transplant program itself, such as a "heavy workload" or unavailability of a surgeon or operating room at the recipient’s medical center, failure to respond to the offer in a timely way, or excessive distance to ship the organ.

A total of 20% of the study population (6,737 patients) died or were removed from the wait-list because they became too sick before they could undergo transplantation. A total of 5,680 (84%) of those patients had been offered one or more donor livers before they died or were taken off the list.

Offers of donor livers were declined most often (68%) because of "unfavorable donor age or quality of organ," whereas 9% were declined because of unfavorable organ size, 15% because of "other donor factors," 4% because the recipient wasn’t ready, and 4% because of transplant program or miscellaneous other factors.

However, the dominant use of the "donor quality or age" refusal code in the database almost certainly "does not accurately or fully capture the true refusal reason," Dr. Lai and her associates said.

Even livers judged to be of high quality according to standard criteria were declined because of supposed "unfavorable donor age or quality of organ." But the investigators found no difference in the risk of graft failure between such high-quality livers that were declined and other high-quality livers that were accepted on the first offer.

Other reasons must be playing an important role in this high rate refusal, but "the nuances of these refusals cannot be determined" without more individualized data, they said.

Dr. Lai and her colleagues suggested that to cut down on refusals of apparently viable organs, the transplant community should "reduce the stigma associated with non–ideal livers, and set realistic expectations for wait-listed candidates" so that they’re less likely to pass up a suitable donation while assuming that a better offer will come along.

Patients also should be educated about the unpredictability of death or of sudden worsening of liver disease while on the wait-list. They should be advised that there is a survival benefit associated with the transplantation of any graft, compared with continuing on the wait-list.

In addition, the current regulatory environment focuses on transplant centers’ outcomes, which may influence some centers to discourage the acceptance of less than optimal donor organs. "This may be especially relevant for low-volume transplant centers, for whom even a small number of poor outcomes ... may make a relatively large difference in the centers’ perceived performance," the researchers wrote.

Finally, wait-list candidates should be encouraged to complete their transplant work-ups as expeditiously as possible to avoid having to refuse a donor offer simply because they have not yet undergone the necessary cardiac testing or cancer screening.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the University of California, San Francisco. No financial conflicts of interest were reported.

Patients with hepatitis C infections are more likely to initiate appropriate antiviral therapy and achieve a sustained virologic response if they receive high quality health care, Dr. Fasiha Kanwal of the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, and her colleagues reported in the November issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

In their study of nearly 35,000 adults with HCV, the odds of initiating antiviral therapy were threefold higher in patients who received optimal care from the moment HCV infection was diagnosed than in those who did not. And among patients who initiated antiviral therapy, the quality of care they received before that therapy even began strongly predicted whether they would complete antiviral therapy and achieve a sustained virologic response, the investigators said.

Courtesy US. Dept of Veterans Affairs

The study showed, however, that only 11% of patients received all of the appropriate initial care.

Process-of-care measures are frequently used to assess the quality of care for HCV, but until now no study has assessed whether these measures actually correlate with better outcomes. To address this issue, Dr. Kanwal and her associates "evaluated the relationship between adherence to a broad set of process-based measures in HCV and 3 subsequent HCV-specific endpoints: receipt of antiviral treatment, completion of antiviral treatment, and the clinical outcome associated with improved survival: sustained virologic response."

The investigators used data from the VA registry on HCV clinical care, which covers patient demographics, lab tests, pharmacy information, and data on inpatient and outpatient care for approximately 300,000 patients across the country. For this study, they included data on 34,749 adults.

The mean subject age was 53 years, and 97% were men. Approximately half the study population was white and 26% was black; ethnicity was not reported for the others.

The researchers assessed seven process-of-care measures: confirmation of HCV viremia, evaluation by HCV specialists, HCV genotype testing, liver biopsy for those found to have genotype 1 HCV, and the ruling out of liver diseases related to hepatitis B, autoimmunity, or iron overload.

They also assessed seven process-of-care measures related to the prevention and management of comorbid conditions: HIV testing; hepatitis A and B serology testing, hepatitis A and B vaccination if serology results proved negative; treatment of depression; and treatment of substance abuse disorder.

Finally, they assessed six process-of-care measures related to monitoring of antiviral therapy’s effects: testing of viral load before antivirals were initiated and again at weeks 12, 24, and 48; reduction of ribavirin dose if anemia developed during treatment; and avoidance of prescribing growth-stimulating factors for leukopenia during antiviral therapy.

Overall, only 11% of the study subjects received all of the appropriate initial care, and 8% received all the appropriate care related to prevention and management of comorbid conditions. Moreover, of the study subjects who received antiviral therapy, just 37% received all the appropriate monitoring of treatment effects Dr. Kanwal and her associates said.

In patients who received optimal care before a definitive diagnosis was made, the odds of receiving antiviral therapy were 3.2 times higher than in patients who did not receive optimal care before diagnosis, they reported.

Similarly, patients who received optimal preventive and comorbid-condition care showed rates of antiviral therapy that were 36% higher than those of patients who received suboptimal preventive and comorbid-condition care.

The strong association between fulfillment of these process-of-care measures and appropriate antiviral therapy remained robust in a series of sensitivity analyses, which means it’s likely that meeting process-of-care goals directly leads to better HCV outcomes, Dr. Kanwal and her colleagues said.

The investigators could not, however, rule out the possibility that meeting these goals is simply a marker of more compliant patients, which in turn produces better outcomes.

The study findings imply that the effectiveness of the two new direct-acting antiviral agents that recently became available for HCV may hinge on the quality of care patients are receiving before they even start taking these drugs, rather than simply on the effectiveness of the drugs alone, Dr. Kanwal and her associates said.

This study was supported by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service. No financial conflicts of interest were reported.

Patients with hepatitis C infections are more likely to initiate appropriate antiviral therapy and achieve a sustained virologic response if they receive high quality health care, Dr. Fasiha Kanwal of the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, and her colleagues reported in the November issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

In their study of nearly 35,000 adults with HCV, the odds of initiating antiviral therapy were threefold higher in patients who received optimal care from the moment HCV infection was diagnosed than in those who did not. And among patients who initiated antiviral therapy, the quality of care they received before that therapy even began strongly predicted whether they would complete antiviral therapy and achieve a sustained virologic response, the investigators said.

Courtesy US. Dept of Veterans Affairs

The study showed, however, that only 11% of patients received all of the appropriate initial care.

Process-of-care measures are frequently used to assess the quality of care for HCV, but until now no study has assessed whether these measures actually correlate with better outcomes. To address this issue, Dr. Kanwal and her associates "evaluated the relationship between adherence to a broad set of process-based measures in HCV and 3 subsequent HCV-specific endpoints: receipt of antiviral treatment, completion of antiviral treatment, and the clinical outcome associated with improved survival: sustained virologic response."

The investigators used data from the VA registry on HCV clinical care, which covers patient demographics, lab tests, pharmacy information, and data on inpatient and outpatient care for approximately 300,000 patients across the country. For this study, they included data on 34,749 adults.

The mean subject age was 53 years, and 97% were men. Approximately half the study population was white and 26% was black; ethnicity was not reported for the others.

The researchers assessed seven process-of-care measures: confirmation of HCV viremia, evaluation by HCV specialists, HCV genotype testing, liver biopsy for those found to have genotype 1 HCV, and the ruling out of liver diseases related to hepatitis B, autoimmunity, or iron overload.

They also assessed seven process-of-care measures related to the prevention and management of comorbid conditions: HIV testing; hepatitis A and B serology testing, hepatitis A and B vaccination if serology results proved negative; treatment of depression; and treatment of substance abuse disorder.

Finally, they assessed six process-of-care measures related to monitoring of antiviral therapy’s effects: testing of viral load before antivirals were initiated and again at weeks 12, 24, and 48; reduction of ribavirin dose if anemia developed during treatment; and avoidance of prescribing growth-stimulating factors for leukopenia during antiviral therapy.

Overall, only 11% of the study subjects received all of the appropriate initial care, and 8% received all the appropriate care related to prevention and management of comorbid conditions. Moreover, of the study subjects who received antiviral therapy, just 37% received all the appropriate monitoring of treatment effects Dr. Kanwal and her associates said.

In patients who received optimal care before a definitive diagnosis was made, the odds of receiving antiviral therapy were 3.2 times higher than in patients who did not receive optimal care before diagnosis, they reported.

Similarly, patients who received optimal preventive and comorbid-condition care showed rates of antiviral therapy that were 36% higher than those of patients who received suboptimal preventive and comorbid-condition care.

The strong association between fulfillment of these process-of-care measures and appropriate antiviral therapy remained robust in a series of sensitivity analyses, which means it’s likely that meeting process-of-care goals directly leads to better HCV outcomes, Dr. Kanwal and her colleagues said.

The investigators could not, however, rule out the possibility that meeting these goals is simply a marker of more compliant patients, which in turn produces better outcomes.

The study findings imply that the effectiveness of the two new direct-acting antiviral agents that recently became available for HCV may hinge on the quality of care patients are receiving before they even start taking these drugs, rather than simply on the effectiveness of the drugs alone, Dr. Kanwal and her associates said.

This study was supported by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service. No financial conflicts of interest were reported.

Patients with hepatitis C infections are more likely to initiate appropriate antiviral therapy and achieve a sustained virologic response if they receive high quality health care, Dr. Fasiha Kanwal of the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, and her colleagues reported in the November issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

In their study of nearly 35,000 adults with HCV, the odds of initiating antiviral therapy were threefold higher in patients who received optimal care from the moment HCV infection was diagnosed than in those who did not. And among patients who initiated antiviral therapy, the quality of care they received before that therapy even began strongly predicted whether they would complete antiviral therapy and achieve a sustained virologic response, the investigators said.

Courtesy US. Dept of Veterans Affairs

The study showed, however, that only 11% of patients received all of the appropriate initial care.

Process-of-care measures are frequently used to assess the quality of care for HCV, but until now no study has assessed whether these measures actually correlate with better outcomes. To address this issue, Dr. Kanwal and her associates "evaluated the relationship between adherence to a broad set of process-based measures in HCV and 3 subsequent HCV-specific endpoints: receipt of antiviral treatment, completion of antiviral treatment, and the clinical outcome associated with improved survival: sustained virologic response."

The investigators used data from the VA registry on HCV clinical care, which covers patient demographics, lab tests, pharmacy information, and data on inpatient and outpatient care for approximately 300,000 patients across the country. For this study, they included data on 34,749 adults.

The mean subject age was 53 years, and 97% were men. Approximately half the study population was white and 26% was black; ethnicity was not reported for the others.

The researchers assessed seven process-of-care measures: confirmation of HCV viremia, evaluation by HCV specialists, HCV genotype testing, liver biopsy for those found to have genotype 1 HCV, and the ruling out of liver diseases related to hepatitis B, autoimmunity, or iron overload.

They also assessed seven process-of-care measures related to the prevention and management of comorbid conditions: HIV testing; hepatitis A and B serology testing, hepatitis A and B vaccination if serology results proved negative; treatment of depression; and treatment of substance abuse disorder.

Finally, they assessed six process-of-care measures related to monitoring of antiviral therapy’s effects: testing of viral load before antivirals were initiated and again at weeks 12, 24, and 48; reduction of ribavirin dose if anemia developed during treatment; and avoidance of prescribing growth-stimulating factors for leukopenia during antiviral therapy.

Overall, only 11% of the study subjects received all of the appropriate initial care, and 8% received all the appropriate care related to prevention and management of comorbid conditions. Moreover, of the study subjects who received antiviral therapy, just 37% received all the appropriate monitoring of treatment effects Dr. Kanwal and her associates said.

In patients who received optimal care before a definitive diagnosis was made, the odds of receiving antiviral therapy were 3.2 times higher than in patients who did not receive optimal care before diagnosis, they reported.

Similarly, patients who received optimal preventive and comorbid-condition care showed rates of antiviral therapy that were 36% higher than those of patients who received suboptimal preventive and comorbid-condition care.

The strong association between fulfillment of these process-of-care measures and appropriate antiviral therapy remained robust in a series of sensitivity analyses, which means it’s likely that meeting process-of-care goals directly leads to better HCV outcomes, Dr. Kanwal and her colleagues said.

The investigators could not, however, rule out the possibility that meeting these goals is simply a marker of more compliant patients, which in turn produces better outcomes.

The study findings imply that the effectiveness of the two new direct-acting antiviral agents that recently became available for HCV may hinge on the quality of care patients are receiving before they even start taking these drugs, rather than simply on the effectiveness of the drugs alone, Dr. Kanwal and her associates said.

This study was supported by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service. No financial conflicts of interest were reported.

Editor’s note: This is the second of two articles on hypogonadism in men and focuses on the appropriate use of testosterone therapy. The first article, published last month, focused in more detail on the differential diagnosis of hypogonadism.

As men age, testosterone production gradually decreases. In our increasingly aged population, clinicians will continue to see an increase in the number of men with seemingly nonspecific symptoms of aging that are possibly due to low serum testosterone (eg, low energy level, depressive symptoms, erectile dysfunction, decreased libido). These clinical symptoms, coupled with low serum testosterone, may adversely affect quality of life and life expectancy. Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) may improve symptoms and quality of life. Given the nonspecific nature of these symptoms, accurate diagnosis and treatment of clinically significant low testosterone with a goal of symptom and quality of life improvement can prove challenging.

These challenges in diagnosis and treatment result in a lack of standardized nomenclature. The terms male menopause and andropause, although popular, are the least helpful, as they have few correlates with the better-defined female menopause. Late-onset hypogonadism implies a well-defined, later age of decline, which is inaccurate since the decline in serum testosterone in men begins in middle age and is gradual. Testosterone deficiency syndrome implies a set of specific and well-defined symptoms. Androgen deficiency in the aging male (ADAM) and Androgen deficiency in the older male are common terms specifying an age cohort (> 40 years old) and an abnormal laboratory value without mention of symptoms. While all these terms have their limitations, we will primarily use ADAM in this discussion.

PREVALENCE OF LOW TESTOSTERONE

Serum testosterone levels begin to decline in men in their mid-40s, with an approximately 1% to 2% decline annually and a marked decline after age 60.¹

Araujo and colleagues² studied the prevalence of androgen-deficient men, with androgen deficiency defined as at least three signs or symptoms and either a total testosterone less than 200 ng/dL or a total testosterone 200 ng/dL to 400 ng/dL with a free testosterone less than 8.91 ng/dL. The overall prevalence of low testosterone on initial measurement was 6%, which doubled to 12% with repeat measurement.

Serial measures are important: one study that followed untreated men over 15 years found normal testosterone on serial measures in 50%.³ In a multicenter cross-sectional study, 11.8% of men had low testosterone and low or normal luteinizing hormone (LH) levels (secondary hypogonadism/hypothalamic-pituitary failure), with 2% of patients with low testosterone and elevated LH (primary hypogonadism/testicular failure).⁴

CLINICAL PRESENTATION AND DIAGNOSIS

A biochemical diagnosis of low testosterone is dependent on accurate measurement. Testosterone release is diurnal, with the highest levels in the early morning, and often has week-to-week variability. Thus, it is important to collect blood in the early morning and to confirm a diagnosis of low testosterone with at least one repeat measurement several days later, including LH assessment. LH levels will help differentiate primary hypogonadism from secondary hypogonadism, which may alter diagnosis and treatment in certain patients, with secondary hypogonadism associated with pituitary dysfunction, and primary hypogonadism associated with aging.⁴

Testosterone binds in the bloodstream to sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), and this bound form is generally considered biologically inactive, although there are in vitro and animal studies suggesting SHBG-bound androgen may indeed have biological activity. ^5,6 “Bioavailable” testosterone is active and includes both free testosterone and testosterone bound to albumin.

There is no general agreement on the acceptable normal range of testosterone, with variability within the literature and between laboratories. “Normal” total testosterone levels have ranged from more than 280 ng/dL to more than 350 ng/dL (12 nmol/L).^7,8 Similarly, there is no generally accepted lower limit of normal, although some studies report a threshold level of testosterone less than 230 ng/dL (8 nmol/L) as “abnormal.” Values between these two upper and lower limits are considered “borderline.”^7,8 These intermediate or borderline values coupled with clinical symptoms of testosterone deficiency syndrome or ADAM should be considered abnormal.

When total testosterone is borderline, measurement of free or bioavailable testosterone (free plus albumin-bound) should be considered. Total testosterone is typically measured using automated immunoassay platforms, with method-related differences leading to significant variability in measurement accuracy and precision. This variability is seen most dramatically in those with low total testosterone.⁹ However, the variability of total testosterone measurements is substantially smaller among mass spectrometry assays than among immunoassays. ¹⁰

The gold standards for free testosterone measurement are centrifugal ultrafiltration and equilibrium dialysis.⁹ However, these techniques are laborious and usually unavailable in local laboratories. Calculated free testosterone values using total testosterone and SHBG are most commonly used and are sufficiently accurate for clinical practice.¹¹

Free testosterone levels can be diagnostic when total testosterone levels do not correspond with clinical presentation. However, the clinical utility of free testosterone is difficult to assess due to the variability among laboratory assays and a lack of consensus on threshold parameters. A threshold free testosterone level of more than 225 pmol/L (65 pg/mL) is generally considered normal.^7,8 Before starting a patient on TRT, measurement of hemoglobin and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination of the prostate (if age is > 39) are essential.

Prolactin levels are recommended when low testosterone is confirmed, especially in patients at high clinical risk for hyperprolactinemia. Once hyperprolactinemia is identified, Endocrine Society guidelines recommend excluding medication use, renal failure, hypothyroidism, and parasellar tumors as possible causes of elevated prolactin levels.¹²

Low testosterone values should be treated only in patients with clinically significant symptoms that are likely to be caused by the low testosterone itself. Symptoms associated with age-related decline in testosterone that may improve with TRT include low libido,^13,14 low energy,¹⁴ depressed mood,^15–17 low muscle mass, osteoporosis, and hot flashes. Men with erectile dysfunction have also shown a significant improvement with TRT compared with placebo, but with a variable overall response independent of normalization of testosterone. ^18,19 This is likely due to the multifactorial nature of erectile dysfunction, including vascular, neurologic, psychogenic, and endocrinologic causes.

Screening questionnaires have been developed for symptoms of low testosterone, but their clinical utility is unclear. The ADAM questionnaire is used as a screening tool for low testosterone but not to monitor response to TRT, and it is highly nonspecific.²⁰ The Aging Male Symptom Scale questionnaire includes psychological, somatovegetative, and sexual components and is used both to screen for low testosterone and to measure outcomes.²¹ However, a recent observational study comparing the ability of these questionnaires to assess clinical symptoms revealed a low sensitivity and a low specificity to detect androgen deficiency in men with a total testosterone level less than 300 ng/dL.²² Overall, the current data do not conclusively support the use of hypogonadism questionnaires for screening.

The patient history when evaluating for ADAM should include evaluation of sexual and constitutional symptoms as described above and in Table 1. In addition, a history of traumatic, medical, or surgical events that could affect testosterone production should be obtained, including cryptorchidism, scrotal, inguinal, or abdominal surgery, pituitary surgery or radiation, prior issues with infertility, timing of puberty, history of renal or hepatic failure, chemotherapy (for cancer or autoimmune diseases), and prior use of anabolic steroids or opiates.

A complete physical examination should include assessment of virilization, gynecomastia, and the genitalia, including the size, position, and volume of the testes. The size and consistency of the prostate should be assessed on digital rectal examination.

LOW TESTOSTERONE AND ASSOCIATED COMORBIDITIES

Low testosterone is associated with many comorbidities, including metabolic syndrome, depression, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease, as discussed later in this section. Low testosterone has also shown associations with osteoporosis, cognitive impairment, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, decreased physical performance, end-stage renal disease, and treatment with steroids or opiates.^23–26 However, the studies that found these associations included men younger than 40 years and may not be fully applicable to the ADAM population.

The association of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus with low testosterone is well established in multiple studies. Grossman and colleagues²⁷ investigated the association of type 2 diabetes mellitus and low testosterone, with low total testosterone defined as below 10 nmol/L and low calculated free testosterone less than 0.23 nmol/L. The prevalence of low total testosterone was 43%, and the prevalence of low free testosterone was 57%. In addition, a recent meta-analysis comparing total testosterone of men with and without metabolic syndrome revealed an association between a baseline decrease in mean total and free testosterone levels in men with metabolic syndrome compared with controls. This study found a total testosterone mean difference of –2.64 nmol/L (95% confidence interval [CI] –2.95 to –2.32) and a free testosterone mean difference of –0.26 pmol/L (95% CI –0.39 to –0.13), respectively, when comparing men with metabolic syndrome against those without.²⁸

Testosterone has also been suggested to be protective against type 2 diabetes mellitus, with 42% lower risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in men with testosterone levels ranging from 450 ng/dL to 605 ng/dL.²⁹

Obesity has been specifically linked with secondary hypogonadism.^4,23,24 A prospective cohort of 58 men with an average age of 46 years and a body mass index ranging from 30 to 45 kg/m² were monitored on a low-calorie diet for 9 weeks. Afterward, biochemical analysis revealed an increase in free testosterone from 185 pmol/L ± 66 to 208 ± 70 pmol/L (P = .002) with a mean weight loss of 16.3 kg ± 4.5 kg.³⁰ This emphasizes the importance of lifestyle changes in the management of hypogonadal men.

LOW TESTOSTERONE AND THE OVERALL MORTALITY RATE

Low testosterone is associated unfavorably with the rate of all-cause mortality. A retrospective study in male veterans over age 40 with repeated testosterone levels over a 5-year period found that the risk of death from all causes in men with normal testosterone (> 250 ng/dL or free testosterone > 0.75 ng/dL) was 20% (95% CI 16.2%–241%) vs 35% (95% CI 28.5%–41.4%) in men with low testosterone (< 250 ng/dL or free testosterone < 0.75 ng/dL). In multivariate analysis, men with testosterone less than 250 ng/dL (< 8.7 nmol/L) or free testosterone less than 0.75 ng/dL (< 0.03 nmol/L) had up to an 88% higher death rate than men with normal testosterone levels.³¹

Low testosterone has also been associated with other end-organ, disease-specific mortality. In men with end-stage renal disease, low testosterone was an independent predictor of death from all causes and from cardiovascular disease.³² A prospective European health study revealed an association between low testosterone and increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease and cancer.³³ A recent meta-analysis of population-based studies confirmed this association, despite significant interstudy heterogeneity. ³⁴ Although multiple studies show an independent association of low testosterone and increased mortality rate, causality remains unconfirmed. This may be difficult to prove, given the available study designs and the nonspecific nature of symptoms related to low testosterone and potentially associated comorbidities.

TRT: INDICATIONS AND CONTRAINDICATIONS

The indications, benefits, and risks of TRT are controversial, with current data lacking long-term follow-up and consistent biochemical target values. Treatment of low testosterone is not indicated at the present time in the absence of clinical symptoms.

According to recently published guidelines, TRT is recommended for symptomatic men with low or borderline total testosterone or free testosterone (< 350 ng/dL or < 65 pg/mL).^7,8 Patients with borderline biochemical values (total testosterone 200–350 ng/dL, free testosterone 40–65 pg/mL) and possible related symptoms should be treated with TRT for at least 3 months and then reevaluated to verify improved testosterone levels and to assess for symptom amelioration or resolution.³⁵ Dose escalation is recommended in patients with subtherapeutic testosterone levels and limited clinical improvement after 3 months of treatment.

Target maintenance testosterone levels have not been defined, with mid to lower young adult male serum testosterone levels recommended at this time.⁸ Given that the current literature does not specify a target testosterone replacement range, we recommend monitoring the clinical response along with total testosterone to decide adjustments in TRT. Ultimately, treatment goals of TRT should be the resolution of signs and symptoms, including improvement of sexual function, libido, and preservation of bone mineral density.^7,8

Contraindications

TRT is not recommended in men with the following:

• Breast cancer
• Polycythemia (hematocrit > 50%)
• Untreated obstructive sleep apnea
• Lower urinary tract symptoms caused by an enlarged prostate; International Prostate Symptom Score > 19
• Poorly controlled heart failure
• Desire for fertility.

The role of TRT in prostate cancer remains controversial (see below) and remains contraindicated in recent Endocrine Society clinical practice guidelines.⁷ Guidelines recommend urologic consultation prior to initiation of TRT in patients at increased risk of prostate cancer,⁷ based on age, race, family history, PSA, PSA velocity, and history of prostate biopsy.

One prominent historic concern about androgen replacement therapy regards the potential for de novo development of prostate cancer. Numerous studies have failed to find elevated risk of new diagnosis, progression, or recurrence of prostate cancer in patients on TRT.^36,37 Nevertheless, patients who develop elevated PSA, increased PSA velocity, or an abnormal digital rectal examination while on TRT should undergo prostate biopsy.

TRT FORMULATIONS AND TREATMENT OPTIONS

A number of effective formulations of TRT are available (Table 2). Transdermal and parenteral formulations are most commonly used. Enteric testosterone formulations are not available in the United States and are associated with hepatotoxicity. While buccal testosterone therapy is available, it often leads to local gingival irritation and has not gained widespread popularity.

Parenteral TRT can be administered intramuscularly (IM) or subcutaneously (SQ). Testosterone cypionate (Depo-Testosterone) is the only IM form available in the United States and is given every 2 to 3 weeks. It is the least expensive form of TRT, but it requires frequent administration (by either the clinical practitioner or the patient himself). Testosterone cypionate injections lead to markedly wide swings of testosterone levels, ranging from supraphysiologic levels for a few days after administration to hypogonadal levels before the next injection. This may be mitigated by more-frequent injections. The longer-acting form testosterone undecanoate is available outside the United States and is given every 12 weeks when stable levels are reached.

The other parenteral option is SQ slow-release pellets (Testopel). These pellets have 75 mg of testosterone. Typically 8 to 14 pellets are placed subcutaneously in the buttock area, which will provide coverage for 3 to 6 months.³⁸ The insertion procedure is simple with a short learning curve, limited compliance issues, and elimination of risk of transdermal transmission of drug to others. Disadvantages include wound infection and pellet extrusion, seen in 0.3% to 12% of patients in various studies.³⁸

Another route of TRT is transdermal, including patches, liquids, and gels. Patches are applied daily and are rotated to different sites with minimal risk for skin transmission to others, although use may be limited by site dermatitis. Three hydro-alcoholic gel formulations are currently available in the United States: Androgel (1% or 1.62%), which is applied to the chest or the shoulders; Testim 1%, which is applied to the shoulders; and Fortesta (2%), which is applied to the thighs. A liquid preparation, Axiron, is applied to the axillae. Because secondary transfer to women and children is possible, it is important to thoroughly wash hands after application and to cover the treated skin with clothing. In 3 to 4 hours, all the medication is absorbed, and the area should then be washed before direct skin contact with others (Table 2).

MONITORING PATIENTS ON TRT

Patients starting TRT will require clinical and biochemical monitoring to evaluate response to therapy as well as possible side effects. The first set of laboratory values should be obtained 6 to 12 weeks after initiation of therapy and then typically quarterly for 1 year, every 6 months for the second year, and annually thereafter. Laboratory values monitored should include total testosterone, PSA, and hematocrit.

Men on daily therapy (patch, gel, liquid) should have testosterone drawn approximately 2 hours after application. Current TRT regimen data lack an appropriate target testosterone value, and guidelines suggest a mid to lower young adult male testosterone level.⁸ Since this is not clearly delineated in the current literature, the authors recommend monitoring clinical symptoms along with testosterone levels when adjusting TRT. It is important to document that serum testosterone was actually increased to the normal range in treated men without clinical improvement.

A rise in PSA of up to 24% would be an acceptable response in a benign prostate gland, but a higher increase or increase above 4.0 ng/dL should prompt consideration of prostate biopsy. ³⁹ Similarly, hemoglobin and hematocrit typically increase, but a hematocrit greater than 55% should prompt dose reduction or cessation.⁷ Transaminases do not need routine monitoring during parenteral or transdermal therapy. Bone mineral density should be monitored every 1 to 2 years.^7,8

CLINICAL BENEFITS OF TRT

There are promising data regarding the clinical benefits of TRT in patients with metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus. A recent meta-analysis investigating the effect of TRT on metabolic syndrome revealed an improvement in fasting plasma glucose, homeostatic model assessment index, triglycerides, treadmill duration, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and waist circumference.^40,41 TRT also decreased insulin resistance and improved glycemic control in type 2 diabetic hypogonadal men.⁴² Results from a randomized controlled trial comparing 12 weeks of intramuscular testosterone treatment vs placebo in men with metabolic syndrome revealed an improvement in mean waist circumference from 108 cm ± 8 cm to 105.5 cm ± 7.7 cm. Sixty percent of men initially diagnosed with metabolic syndrome and treated with testosterone no longer met diagnostic criteria for metabolic syndrome according to the National Cholesterol Education Program–Third Adult Treatment Panel (NCEP-ATP III) and the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) guidelines.⁴³

Depression has also been associated with low testosterone, with free testosterone levels below 170 pmol/L associated with frank depressive symptoms and levels below 220 pmol/L predictive of future onset of depressive symptoms.¹⁵ Testosterone replacement therapy has been shown to improve depressive symptoms in hypogonadal men.^16,17 Shores et al¹⁶ conducted a randomized placebo-controlled study of testosterone replacement in men older than 50 years with dysthymia or minor depression. Men treated with testosterone gel for 12 weeks showed an improvement of baseline total testosterone levels from 291 ng/dL to 449 ng/dL. Men treated with testosterone also had a 53% rate of depression remission compared with 19% in the placebo group.¹⁶

The evidence supporting improved sexual function with TRT is variable. Some studies indicate limited or transient improvement of sexual function after TRT in men with erectile dysfunction,^18,19 while others report an improvement in sexual function after 3 months of TRT.⁴⁴ Because of the multifactorial nature of erectile dysfunction, men with erectile dysfunction and ADAM may require TRT and a phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitor, as TRT alone may be insufficient. In a prospective observational study of men with erectile dysfunction and an initial testosterone lower than 300 ng/dL, testosterone gel was administered for at least 1 year, and improvement in sexual function was seen. Results revealed a correlation between improvement in sexual function and concurrent therapy with a PDE5 inhibitor.⁴⁵ In a recent multicenter placebo-controlled study of PDE5 inhibitor nonresponders, the addition of a testosterone gel to tadalafil (Cialis) improved sexual function, again suggesting a synergistic effect when treating erectile dysfunction with both TRT and a PDE5 inhibitor.⁴⁶

ADVERSE EVENTS RELATED TO TRT

Despite the aforementioned benefits, it must be emphasized that TRT should be used for specific target symptoms related to hypogonadism in older men and that the general health benefits and safety of TRT in an asymptomatic man with a low measured testosterone alone remains unproven.

Cardiovascular events. In a recent study of 209 elderly men with low testosterone and limited mobility associated with other chronic illnesses, 6 months of TRT resulted in the development of cardiovascular-related adverse events in 23 patients compared with 5 men in the placebo group.⁴⁷ This may have been related to how adverse events were reported, with cumulative adverse events reviewed every 6 months, ranging from peripheral edema, hypertension, arrhythmias, and electrocardiographic changes. Serious adverse events were reviewed as they occurred, including stroke and acute myocardial events.

Other studies^41,43 have revealed a favorable effect of TRT on cardiovascular disease and its surrogate markers but have lacked detailed reports and close monitoring of adverse events. Thus, variation of outcome measurement and reporting may obfuscate the detection of adverse cardiovascular events. Outcomes may also depend on the testosterone formulation and the target serum concentration.⁴³

Larger, long-term placebo-controlled trials are needed to elucidate cardiovascular risk as a primary outcome in older androgen-deficient men undergoing TRT.

Other adverse effects related to TRT include erythrocytosis, seen in 3% to 18% of patients with transdermal administration,^48,49 and up to 44% of patients undergoing IM therapy.⁴⁸ Gynecomastia can occur and is more likely to resolve after treatment cessation of transdermal testosterone treatment than IM injections.⁴⁸ Other potential clinical side effects that should prompt dose-reduction or discontinuation are irritability, bothersome acne, fluid retention, testicular atrophy, worsening of lower urinary tract symptoms from an enlarged prostate, and new or worsening heart failure. Infrequently, obstructive sleep apnea may be worsened by TRT, although currently the data linking sleep apnea and TRT are limited.⁵⁰

TRT AND PROSTATE CANCER

The relationship between prostate cancer growth and testosterone is well established, with androgen ablation remaining the cornerstone of treatment for metastatic disease. Since androgen deprivation leads to the regression of prostate cancer, there has been concern that TRT may lead to growth or de novo development of prostate cancer. TRT has thus been strongly prohibited in patients with prostate cancer.⁷ However, recent data challenge this paradigm.

In a retrospective study of 81 men (mean age 56.8 years) treated with TRT, only 4 men (4.9%) developed prostate cancer over a 5-year period.⁵¹ This is less than the estimated 16.7% probability of developing prostate cancer in the general US population.⁵²

Recent accumulating data support the concept of testosterone reaching a saturation level when binding androgen receptors within the prostate at extremely low levels. Increases above this level with TRT as with ADAM do not increase the risk of development or progression of prostate cancer.⁵³ In addition, large doses of dihydrotestosterone do not seem to alter PSA, prostate volume, or International Prostate Symptom Score.⁵⁴ These findings may have implications in future androgen therapies in hypogonadal older men.

Pathologic studies suggest low testosterone is associated with a higher Gleason grade of prostate cancer,⁵⁵ although this association remains unconfirmed.⁵⁶

In men with erectile dysfunction after prostate cancer treatment, TRT appears safe after brachytherapy⁵⁷ or radical prostatectomy.⁵⁸ A small study of 15 hypogonadal men with castrate-resistant prostate cancer and minimal or no metastatic disease showed only 1 patient had symptomatic progression.⁵⁹ Moreover, a recent small study of 13 men with known prostate cancer on active surveillance showed that TRT did not lead to local progression or metastatic disease in any of the patients.⁶⁰

While these data are provocative, it should still be emphasized that the standard of care for prostate cancer screening should be followed in age-appropriate men with ADAM. In addition, hypogonadal men with prostate cancer should only be treated with testosterone in conjunction with careful counseling and ongoing monitoring.

TRT SHOULD NOT REPLACE HEALTHY LIFESTYLE CHANGES

There has been a dramatic increase in TRT initiation for nonspecific symptoms of low testosterone in older androgen-deficient men. With this increase in initiation of TRT, there is a significant risk of overtreating. While there are many encouraging associations between treatment of androgen deficiency and improvement in rates of of morbidity and mortality, much remains unknown about the overall long-term risks and benefits of TRT. It is important to emphasize that TRT should not replace healthy lifestyle changes including regular exercise, weight loss, and diet modifications, which may provide the patient symptom resolution. Thoughtful dialogue with the patient is critical prior to TRT initiation, including thorough disclosure of the risks and benefits of treatment, and the limitations of the data as it evolves.

Editor’s note: This is the second of two articles on hypogonadism in men and focuses on the appropriate use of testosterone therapy. The first article, published last month, focused in more detail on the differential diagnosis of hypogonadism.

As men age, testosterone production gradually decreases. In our increasingly aged population, clinicians will continue to see an increase in the number of men with seemingly nonspecific symptoms of aging that are possibly due to low serum testosterone (eg, low energy level, depressive symptoms, erectile dysfunction, decreased libido). These clinical symptoms, coupled with low serum testosterone, may adversely affect quality of life and life expectancy. Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) may improve symptoms and quality of life. Given the nonspecific nature of these symptoms, accurate diagnosis and treatment of clinically significant low testosterone with a goal of symptom and quality of life improvement can prove challenging.

These challenges in diagnosis and treatment result in a lack of standardized nomenclature. The terms male menopause and andropause, although popular, are the least helpful, as they have few correlates with the better-defined female menopause. Late-onset hypogonadism implies a well-defined, later age of decline, which is inaccurate since the decline in serum testosterone in men begins in middle age and is gradual. Testosterone deficiency syndrome implies a set of specific and well-defined symptoms. Androgen deficiency in the aging male (ADAM) and Androgen deficiency in the older male are common terms specifying an age cohort (> 40 years old) and an abnormal laboratory value without mention of symptoms. While all these terms have their limitations, we will primarily use ADAM in this discussion.

PREVALENCE OF LOW TESTOSTERONE

Serum testosterone levels begin to decline in men in their mid-40s, with an approximately 1% to 2% decline annually and a marked decline after age 60.¹

Araujo and colleagues² studied the prevalence of androgen-deficient men, with androgen deficiency defined as at least three signs or symptoms and either a total testosterone less than 200 ng/dL or a total testosterone 200 ng/dL to 400 ng/dL with a free testosterone less than 8.91 ng/dL. The overall prevalence of low testosterone on initial measurement was 6%, which doubled to 12% with repeat measurement.

Serial measures are important: one study that followed untreated men over 15 years found normal testosterone on serial measures in 50%.³ In a multicenter cross-sectional study, 11.8% of men had low testosterone and low or normal luteinizing hormone (LH) levels (secondary hypogonadism/hypothalamic-pituitary failure), with 2% of patients with low testosterone and elevated LH (primary hypogonadism/testicular failure).⁴

CLINICAL PRESENTATION AND DIAGNOSIS

A biochemical diagnosis of low testosterone is dependent on accurate measurement. Testosterone release is diurnal, with the highest levels in the early morning, and often has week-to-week variability. Thus, it is important to collect blood in the early morning and to confirm a diagnosis of low testosterone with at least one repeat measurement several days later, including LH assessment. LH levels will help differentiate primary hypogonadism from secondary hypogonadism, which may alter diagnosis and treatment in certain patients, with secondary hypogonadism associated with pituitary dysfunction, and primary hypogonadism associated with aging.⁴

Testosterone binds in the bloodstream to sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), and this bound form is generally considered biologically inactive, although there are in vitro and animal studies suggesting SHBG-bound androgen may indeed have biological activity. ^5,6 “Bioavailable” testosterone is active and includes both free testosterone and testosterone bound to albumin.

There is no general agreement on the acceptable normal range of testosterone, with variability within the literature and between laboratories. “Normal” total testosterone levels have ranged from more than 280 ng/dL to more than 350 ng/dL (12 nmol/L).^7,8 Similarly, there is no generally accepted lower limit of normal, although some studies report a threshold level of testosterone less than 230 ng/dL (8 nmol/L) as “abnormal.” Values between these two upper and lower limits are considered “borderline.”^7,8 These intermediate or borderline values coupled with clinical symptoms of testosterone deficiency syndrome or ADAM should be considered abnormal.

When total testosterone is borderline, measurement of free or bioavailable testosterone (free plus albumin-bound) should be considered. Total testosterone is typically measured using automated immunoassay platforms, with method-related differences leading to significant variability in measurement accuracy and precision. This variability is seen most dramatically in those with low total testosterone.⁹ However, the variability of total testosterone measurements is substantially smaller among mass spectrometry assays than among immunoassays. ¹⁰

The gold standards for free testosterone measurement are centrifugal ultrafiltration and equilibrium dialysis.⁹ However, these techniques are laborious and usually unavailable in local laboratories. Calculated free testosterone values using total testosterone and SHBG are most commonly used and are sufficiently accurate for clinical practice.¹¹

Free testosterone levels can be diagnostic when total testosterone levels do not correspond with clinical presentation. However, the clinical utility of free testosterone is difficult to assess due to the variability among laboratory assays and a lack of consensus on threshold parameters. A threshold free testosterone level of more than 225 pmol/L (65 pg/mL) is generally considered normal.^7,8 Before starting a patient on TRT, measurement of hemoglobin and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination of the prostate (if age is > 39) are essential.

Prolactin levels are recommended when low testosterone is confirmed, especially in patients at high clinical risk for hyperprolactinemia. Once hyperprolactinemia is identified, Endocrine Society guidelines recommend excluding medication use, renal failure, hypothyroidism, and parasellar tumors as possible causes of elevated prolactin levels.¹²

Low testosterone values should be treated only in patients with clinically significant symptoms that are likely to be caused by the low testosterone itself. Symptoms associated with age-related decline in testosterone that may improve with TRT include low libido,^13,14 low energy,¹⁴ depressed mood,^15–17 low muscle mass, osteoporosis, and hot flashes. Men with erectile dysfunction have also shown a significant improvement with TRT compared with placebo, but with a variable overall response independent of normalization of testosterone. ^18,19 This is likely due to the multifactorial nature of erectile dysfunction, including vascular, neurologic, psychogenic, and endocrinologic causes.

Screening questionnaires have been developed for symptoms of low testosterone, but their clinical utility is unclear. The ADAM questionnaire is used as a screening tool for low testosterone but not to monitor response to TRT, and it is highly nonspecific.²⁰ The Aging Male Symptom Scale questionnaire includes psychological, somatovegetative, and sexual components and is used both to screen for low testosterone and to measure outcomes.²¹ However, a recent observational study comparing the ability of these questionnaires to assess clinical symptoms revealed a low sensitivity and a low specificity to detect androgen deficiency in men with a total testosterone level less than 300 ng/dL.²² Overall, the current data do not conclusively support the use of hypogonadism questionnaires for screening.

The patient history when evaluating for ADAM should include evaluation of sexual and constitutional symptoms as described above and in Table 1. In addition, a history of traumatic, medical, or surgical events that could affect testosterone production should be obtained, including cryptorchidism, scrotal, inguinal, or abdominal surgery, pituitary surgery or radiation, prior issues with infertility, timing of puberty, history of renal or hepatic failure, chemotherapy (for cancer or autoimmune diseases), and prior use of anabolic steroids or opiates.

A complete physical examination should include assessment of virilization, gynecomastia, and the genitalia, including the size, position, and volume of the testes. The size and consistency of the prostate should be assessed on digital rectal examination.

LOW TESTOSTERONE AND ASSOCIATED COMORBIDITIES

Low testosterone is associated with many comorbidities, including metabolic syndrome, depression, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease, as discussed later in this section. Low testosterone has also shown associations with osteoporosis, cognitive impairment, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, decreased physical performance, end-stage renal disease, and treatment with steroids or opiates.^23–26 However, the studies that found these associations included men younger than 40 years and may not be fully applicable to the ADAM population.

The association of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus with low testosterone is well established in multiple studies. Grossman and colleagues²⁷ investigated the association of type 2 diabetes mellitus and low testosterone, with low total testosterone defined as below 10 nmol/L and low calculated free testosterone less than 0.23 nmol/L. The prevalence of low total testosterone was 43%, and the prevalence of low free testosterone was 57%. In addition, a recent meta-analysis comparing total testosterone of men with and without metabolic syndrome revealed an association between a baseline decrease in mean total and free testosterone levels in men with metabolic syndrome compared with controls. This study found a total testosterone mean difference of –2.64 nmol/L (95% confidence interval [CI] –2.95 to –2.32) and a free testosterone mean difference of –0.26 pmol/L (95% CI –0.39 to –0.13), respectively, when comparing men with metabolic syndrome against those without.²⁸

Testosterone has also been suggested to be protective against type 2 diabetes mellitus, with 42% lower risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in men with testosterone levels ranging from 450 ng/dL to 605 ng/dL.²⁹

Obesity has been specifically linked with secondary hypogonadism.^4,23,24 A prospective cohort of 58 men with an average age of 46 years and a body mass index ranging from 30 to 45 kg/m² were monitored on a low-calorie diet for 9 weeks. Afterward, biochemical analysis revealed an increase in free testosterone from 185 pmol/L ± 66 to 208 ± 70 pmol/L (P = .002) with a mean weight loss of 16.3 kg ± 4.5 kg.³⁰ This emphasizes the importance of lifestyle changes in the management of hypogonadal men.

LOW TESTOSTERONE AND THE OVERALL MORTALITY RATE

Low testosterone is associated unfavorably with the rate of all-cause mortality. A retrospective study in male veterans over age 40 with repeated testosterone levels over a 5-year period found that the risk of death from all causes in men with normal testosterone (> 250 ng/dL or free testosterone > 0.75 ng/dL) was 20% (95% CI 16.2%–241%) vs 35% (95% CI 28.5%–41.4%) in men with low testosterone (< 250 ng/dL or free testosterone < 0.75 ng/dL). In multivariate analysis, men with testosterone less than 250 ng/dL (< 8.7 nmol/L) or free testosterone less than 0.75 ng/dL (< 0.03 nmol/L) had up to an 88% higher death rate than men with normal testosterone levels.³¹

Low testosterone has also been associated with other end-organ, disease-specific mortality. In men with end-stage renal disease, low testosterone was an independent predictor of death from all causes and from cardiovascular disease.³² A prospective European health study revealed an association between low testosterone and increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease and cancer.³³ A recent meta-analysis of population-based studies confirmed this association, despite significant interstudy heterogeneity. ³⁴ Although multiple studies show an independent association of low testosterone and increased mortality rate, causality remains unconfirmed. This may be difficult to prove, given the available study designs and the nonspecific nature of symptoms related to low testosterone and potentially associated comorbidities.

TRT: INDICATIONS AND CONTRAINDICATIONS

The indications, benefits, and risks of TRT are controversial, with current data lacking long-term follow-up and consistent biochemical target values. Treatment of low testosterone is not indicated at the present time in the absence of clinical symptoms.

According to recently published guidelines, TRT is recommended for symptomatic men with low or borderline total testosterone or free testosterone (< 350 ng/dL or < 65 pg/mL).^7,8 Patients with borderline biochemical values (total testosterone 200–350 ng/dL, free testosterone 40–65 pg/mL) and possible related symptoms should be treated with TRT for at least 3 months and then reevaluated to verify improved testosterone levels and to assess for symptom amelioration or resolution.³⁵ Dose escalation is recommended in patients with subtherapeutic testosterone levels and limited clinical improvement after 3 months of treatment.

Target maintenance testosterone levels have not been defined, with mid to lower young adult male serum testosterone levels recommended at this time.⁸ Given that the current literature does not specify a target testosterone replacement range, we recommend monitoring the clinical response along with total testosterone to decide adjustments in TRT. Ultimately, treatment goals of TRT should be the resolution of signs and symptoms, including improvement of sexual function, libido, and preservation of bone mineral density.^7,8

Contraindications

TRT is not recommended in men with the following:

• Breast cancer
• Polycythemia (hematocrit > 50%)
• Untreated obstructive sleep apnea
• Lower urinary tract symptoms caused by an enlarged prostate; International Prostate Symptom Score > 19
• Poorly controlled heart failure
• Desire for fertility.

The role of TRT in prostate cancer remains controversial (see below) and remains contraindicated in recent Endocrine Society clinical practice guidelines.⁷ Guidelines recommend urologic consultation prior to initiation of TRT in patients at increased risk of prostate cancer,⁷ based on age, race, family history, PSA, PSA velocity, and history of prostate biopsy.

One prominent historic concern about androgen replacement therapy regards the potential for de novo development of prostate cancer. Numerous studies have failed to find elevated risk of new diagnosis, progression, or recurrence of prostate cancer in patients on TRT.^36,37 Nevertheless, patients who develop elevated PSA, increased PSA velocity, or an abnormal digital rectal examination while on TRT should undergo prostate biopsy.

TRT FORMULATIONS AND TREATMENT OPTIONS

A number of effective formulations of TRT are available (Table 2). Transdermal and parenteral formulations are most commonly used. Enteric testosterone formulations are not available in the United States and are associated with hepatotoxicity. While buccal testosterone therapy is available, it often leads to local gingival irritation and has not gained widespread popularity.

Parenteral TRT can be administered intramuscularly (IM) or subcutaneously (SQ). Testosterone cypionate (Depo-Testosterone) is the only IM form available in the United States and is given every 2 to 3 weeks. It is the least expensive form of TRT, but it requires frequent administration (by either the clinical practitioner or the patient himself). Testosterone cypionate injections lead to markedly wide swings of testosterone levels, ranging from supraphysiologic levels for a few days after administration to hypogonadal levels before the next injection. This may be mitigated by more-frequent injections. The longer-acting form testosterone undecanoate is available outside the United States and is given every 12 weeks when stable levels are reached.

The other parenteral option is SQ slow-release pellets (Testopel). These pellets have 75 mg of testosterone. Typically 8 to 14 pellets are placed subcutaneously in the buttock area, which will provide coverage for 3 to 6 months.³⁸ The insertion procedure is simple with a short learning curve, limited compliance issues, and elimination of risk of transdermal transmission of drug to others. Disadvantages include wound infection and pellet extrusion, seen in 0.3% to 12% of patients in various studies.³⁸

Another route of TRT is transdermal, including patches, liquids, and gels. Patches are applied daily and are rotated to different sites with minimal risk for skin transmission to others, although use may be limited by site dermatitis. Three hydro-alcoholic gel formulations are currently available in the United States: Androgel (1% or 1.62%), which is applied to the chest or the shoulders; Testim 1%, which is applied to the shoulders; and Fortesta (2%), which is applied to the thighs. A liquid preparation, Axiron, is applied to the axillae. Because secondary transfer to women and children is possible, it is important to thoroughly wash hands after application and to cover the treated skin with clothing. In 3 to 4 hours, all the medication is absorbed, and the area should then be washed before direct skin contact with others (Table 2).

MONITORING PATIENTS ON TRT

Patients starting TRT will require clinical and biochemical monitoring to evaluate response to therapy as well as possible side effects. The first set of laboratory values should be obtained 6 to 12 weeks after initiation of therapy and then typically quarterly for 1 year, every 6 months for the second year, and annually thereafter. Laboratory values monitored should include total testosterone, PSA, and hematocrit.

Men on daily therapy (patch, gel, liquid) should have testosterone drawn approximately 2 hours after application. Current TRT regimen data lack an appropriate target testosterone value, and guidelines suggest a mid to lower young adult male testosterone level.⁸ Since this is not clearly delineated in the current literature, the authors recommend monitoring clinical symptoms along with testosterone levels when adjusting TRT. It is important to document that serum testosterone was actually increased to the normal range in treated men without clinical improvement.

A rise in PSA of up to 24% would be an acceptable response in a benign prostate gland, but a higher increase or increase above 4.0 ng/dL should prompt consideration of prostate biopsy. ³⁹ Similarly, hemoglobin and hematocrit typically increase, but a hematocrit greater than 55% should prompt dose reduction or cessation.⁷ Transaminases do not need routine monitoring during parenteral or transdermal therapy. Bone mineral density should be monitored every 1 to 2 years.^7,8

CLINICAL BENEFITS OF TRT

There are promising data regarding the clinical benefits of TRT in patients with metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus. A recent meta-analysis investigating the effect of TRT on metabolic syndrome revealed an improvement in fasting plasma glucose, homeostatic model assessment index, triglycerides, treadmill duration, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and waist circumference.^40,41 TRT also decreased insulin resistance and improved glycemic control in type 2 diabetic hypogonadal men.⁴² Results from a randomized controlled trial comparing 12 weeks of intramuscular testosterone treatment vs placebo in men with metabolic syndrome revealed an improvement in mean waist circumference from 108 cm ± 8 cm to 105.5 cm ± 7.7 cm. Sixty percent of men initially diagnosed with metabolic syndrome and treated with testosterone no longer met diagnostic criteria for metabolic syndrome according to the National Cholesterol Education Program–Third Adult Treatment Panel (NCEP-ATP III) and the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) guidelines.⁴³

Depression has also been associated with low testosterone, with free testosterone levels below 170 pmol/L associated with frank depressive symptoms and levels below 220 pmol/L predictive of future onset of depressive symptoms.¹⁵ Testosterone replacement therapy has been shown to improve depressive symptoms in hypogonadal men.^16,17 Shores et al¹⁶ conducted a randomized placebo-controlled study of testosterone replacement in men older than 50 years with dysthymia or minor depression. Men treated with testosterone gel for 12 weeks showed an improvement of baseline total testosterone levels from 291 ng/dL to 449 ng/dL. Men treated with testosterone also had a 53% rate of depression remission compared with 19% in the placebo group.¹⁶

The evidence supporting improved sexual function with TRT is variable. Some studies indicate limited or transient improvement of sexual function after TRT in men with erectile dysfunction,^18,19 while others report an improvement in sexual function after 3 months of TRT.⁴⁴ Because of the multifactorial nature of erectile dysfunction, men with erectile dysfunction and ADAM may require TRT and a phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitor, as TRT alone may be insufficient. In a prospective observational study of men with erectile dysfunction and an initial testosterone lower than 300 ng/dL, testosterone gel was administered for at least 1 year, and improvement in sexual function was seen. Results revealed a correlation between improvement in sexual function and concurrent therapy with a PDE5 inhibitor.⁴⁵ In a recent multicenter placebo-controlled study of PDE5 inhibitor nonresponders, the addition of a testosterone gel to tadalafil (Cialis) improved sexual function, again suggesting a synergistic effect when treating erectile dysfunction with both TRT and a PDE5 inhibitor.⁴⁶

ADVERSE EVENTS RELATED TO TRT

Despite the aforementioned benefits, it must be emphasized that TRT should be used for specific target symptoms related to hypogonadism in older men and that the general health benefits and safety of TRT in an asymptomatic man with a low measured testosterone alone remains unproven.

Cardiovascular events. In a recent study of 209 elderly men with low testosterone and limited mobility associated with other chronic illnesses, 6 months of TRT resulted in the development of cardiovascular-related adverse events in 23 patients compared with 5 men in the placebo group.⁴⁷ This may have been related to how adverse events were reported, with cumulative adverse events reviewed every 6 months, ranging from peripheral edema, hypertension, arrhythmias, and electrocardiographic changes. Serious adverse events were reviewed as they occurred, including stroke and acute myocardial events.

Other studies^41,43 have revealed a favorable effect of TRT on cardiovascular disease and its surrogate markers but have lacked detailed reports and close monitoring of adverse events. Thus, variation of outcome measurement and reporting may obfuscate the detection of adverse cardiovascular events. Outcomes may also depend on the testosterone formulation and the target serum concentration.⁴³

Larger, long-term placebo-controlled trials are needed to elucidate cardiovascular risk as a primary outcome in older androgen-deficient men undergoing TRT.

Other adverse effects related to TRT include erythrocytosis, seen in 3% to 18% of patients with transdermal administration,^48,49 and up to 44% of patients undergoing IM therapy.⁴⁸ Gynecomastia can occur and is more likely to resolve after treatment cessation of transdermal testosterone treatment than IM injections.⁴⁸ Other potential clinical side effects that should prompt dose-reduction or discontinuation are irritability, bothersome acne, fluid retention, testicular atrophy, worsening of lower urinary tract symptoms from an enlarged prostate, and new or worsening heart failure. Infrequently, obstructive sleep apnea may be worsened by TRT, although currently the data linking sleep apnea and TRT are limited.⁵⁰

TRT AND PROSTATE CANCER

The relationship between prostate cancer growth and testosterone is well established, with androgen ablation remaining the cornerstone of treatment for metastatic disease. Since androgen deprivation leads to the regression of prostate cancer, there has been concern that TRT may lead to growth or de novo development of prostate cancer. TRT has thus been strongly prohibited in patients with prostate cancer.⁷ However, recent data challenge this paradigm.

In a retrospective study of 81 men (mean age 56.8 years) treated with TRT, only 4 men (4.9%) developed prostate cancer over a 5-year period.⁵¹ This is less than the estimated 16.7% probability of developing prostate cancer in the general US population.⁵²

Recent accumulating data support the concept of testosterone reaching a saturation level when binding androgen receptors within the prostate at extremely low levels. Increases above this level with TRT as with ADAM do not increase the risk of development or progression of prostate cancer.⁵³ In addition, large doses of dihydrotestosterone do not seem to alter PSA, prostate volume, or International Prostate Symptom Score.⁵⁴ These findings may have implications in future androgen therapies in hypogonadal older men.

Pathologic studies suggest low testosterone is associated with a higher Gleason grade of prostate cancer,⁵⁵ although this association remains unconfirmed.⁵⁶

In men with erectile dysfunction after prostate cancer treatment, TRT appears safe after brachytherapy⁵⁷ or radical prostatectomy.⁵⁸ A small study of 15 hypogonadal men with castrate-resistant prostate cancer and minimal or no metastatic disease showed only 1 patient had symptomatic progression.⁵⁹ Moreover, a recent small study of 13 men with known prostate cancer on active surveillance showed that TRT did not lead to local progression or metastatic disease in any of the patients.⁶⁰

While these data are provocative, it should still be emphasized that the standard of care for prostate cancer screening should be followed in age-appropriate men with ADAM. In addition, hypogonadal men with prostate cancer should only be treated with testosterone in conjunction with careful counseling and ongoing monitoring.

TRT SHOULD NOT REPLACE HEALTHY LIFESTYLE CHANGES

There has been a dramatic increase in TRT initiation for nonspecific symptoms of low testosterone in older androgen-deficient men. With this increase in initiation of TRT, there is a significant risk of overtreating. While there are many encouraging associations between treatment of androgen deficiency and improvement in rates of of morbidity and mortality, much remains unknown about the overall long-term risks and benefits of TRT. It is important to emphasize that TRT should not replace healthy lifestyle changes including regular exercise, weight loss, and diet modifications, which may provide the patient symptom resolution. Thoughtful dialogue with the patient is critical prior to TRT initiation, including thorough disclosure of the risks and benefits of treatment, and the limitations of the data as it evolves.

Editor’s note: This is the second of two articles on hypogonadism in men and focuses on the appropriate use of testosterone therapy. The first article, published last month, focused in more detail on the differential diagnosis of hypogonadism.

As men age, testosterone production gradually decreases. In our increasingly aged population, clinicians will continue to see an increase in the number of men with seemingly nonspecific symptoms of aging that are possibly due to low serum testosterone (eg, low energy level, depressive symptoms, erectile dysfunction, decreased libido). These clinical symptoms, coupled with low serum testosterone, may adversely affect quality of life and life expectancy. Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) may improve symptoms and quality of life. Given the nonspecific nature of these symptoms, accurate diagnosis and treatment of clinically significant low testosterone with a goal of symptom and quality of life improvement can prove challenging.

These challenges in diagnosis and treatment result in a lack of standardized nomenclature. The terms male menopause and andropause, although popular, are the least helpful, as they have few correlates with the better-defined female menopause. Late-onset hypogonadism implies a well-defined, later age of decline, which is inaccurate since the decline in serum testosterone in men begins in middle age and is gradual. Testosterone deficiency syndrome implies a set of specific and well-defined symptoms. Androgen deficiency in the aging male (ADAM) and Androgen deficiency in the older male are common terms specifying an age cohort (> 40 years old) and an abnormal laboratory value without mention of symptoms. While all these terms have their limitations, we will primarily use ADAM in this discussion.

PREVALENCE OF LOW TESTOSTERONE

Serum testosterone levels begin to decline in men in their mid-40s, with an approximately 1% to 2% decline annually and a marked decline after age 60.¹

Araujo and colleagues² studied the prevalence of androgen-deficient men, with androgen deficiency defined as at least three signs or symptoms and either a total testosterone less than 200 ng/dL or a total testosterone 200 ng/dL to 400 ng/dL with a free testosterone less than 8.91 ng/dL. The overall prevalence of low testosterone on initial measurement was 6%, which doubled to 12% with repeat measurement.

Serial measures are important: one study that followed untreated men over 15 years found normal testosterone on serial measures in 50%.³ In a multicenter cross-sectional study, 11.8% of men had low testosterone and low or normal luteinizing hormone (LH) levels (secondary hypogonadism/hypothalamic-pituitary failure), with 2% of patients with low testosterone and elevated LH (primary hypogonadism/testicular failure).⁴

CLINICAL PRESENTATION AND DIAGNOSIS

A biochemical diagnosis of low testosterone is dependent on accurate measurement. Testosterone release is diurnal, with the highest levels in the early morning, and often has week-to-week variability. Thus, it is important to collect blood in the early morning and to confirm a diagnosis of low testosterone with at least one repeat measurement several days later, including LH assessment. LH levels will help differentiate primary hypogonadism from secondary hypogonadism, which may alter diagnosis and treatment in certain patients, with secondary hypogonadism associated with pituitary dysfunction, and primary hypogonadism associated with aging.⁴

Testosterone binds in the bloodstream to sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), and this bound form is generally considered biologically inactive, although there are in vitro and animal studies suggesting SHBG-bound androgen may indeed have biological activity. ^5,6 “Bioavailable” testosterone is active and includes both free testosterone and testosterone bound to albumin.

There is no general agreement on the acceptable normal range of testosterone, with variability within the literature and between laboratories. “Normal” total testosterone levels have ranged from more than 280 ng/dL to more than 350 ng/dL (12 nmol/L).^7,8 Similarly, there is no generally accepted lower limit of normal, although some studies report a threshold level of testosterone less than 230 ng/dL (8 nmol/L) as “abnormal.” Values between these two upper and lower limits are considered “borderline.”^7,8 These intermediate or borderline values coupled with clinical symptoms of testosterone deficiency syndrome or ADAM should be considered abnormal.

When total testosterone is borderline, measurement of free or bioavailable testosterone (free plus albumin-bound) should be considered. Total testosterone is typically measured using automated immunoassay platforms, with method-related differences leading to significant variability in measurement accuracy and precision. This variability is seen most dramatically in those with low total testosterone.⁹ However, the variability of total testosterone measurements is substantially smaller among mass spectrometry assays than among immunoassays. ¹⁰

The gold standards for free testosterone measurement are centrifugal ultrafiltration and equilibrium dialysis.⁹ However, these techniques are laborious and usually unavailable in local laboratories. Calculated free testosterone values using total testosterone and SHBG are most commonly used and are sufficiently accurate for clinical practice.¹¹

Free testosterone levels can be diagnostic when total testosterone levels do not correspond with clinical presentation. However, the clinical utility of free testosterone is difficult to assess due to the variability among laboratory assays and a lack of consensus on threshold parameters. A threshold free testosterone level of more than 225 pmol/L (65 pg/mL) is generally considered normal.^7,8 Before starting a patient on TRT, measurement of hemoglobin and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination of the prostate (if age is > 39) are essential.

Prolactin levels are recommended when low testosterone is confirmed, especially in patients at high clinical risk for hyperprolactinemia. Once hyperprolactinemia is identified, Endocrine Society guidelines recommend excluding medication use, renal failure, hypothyroidism, and parasellar tumors as possible causes of elevated prolactin levels.¹²

Low testosterone values should be treated only in patients with clinically significant symptoms that are likely to be caused by the low testosterone itself. Symptoms associated with age-related decline in testosterone that may improve with TRT include low libido,^13,14 low energy,¹⁴ depressed mood,^15–17 low muscle mass, osteoporosis, and hot flashes. Men with erectile dysfunction have also shown a significant improvement with TRT compared with placebo, but with a variable overall response independent of normalization of testosterone. ^18,19 This is likely due to the multifactorial nature of erectile dysfunction, including vascular, neurologic, psychogenic, and endocrinologic causes.

Screening questionnaires have been developed for symptoms of low testosterone, but their clinical utility is unclear. The ADAM questionnaire is used as a screening tool for low testosterone but not to monitor response to TRT, and it is highly nonspecific.²⁰ The Aging Male Symptom Scale questionnaire includes psychological, somatovegetative, and sexual components and is used both to screen for low testosterone and to measure outcomes.²¹ However, a recent observational study comparing the ability of these questionnaires to assess clinical symptoms revealed a low sensitivity and a low specificity to detect androgen deficiency in men with a total testosterone level less than 300 ng/dL.²² Overall, the current data do not conclusively support the use of hypogonadism questionnaires for screening.

The patient history when evaluating for ADAM should include evaluation of sexual and constitutional symptoms as described above and in Table 1. In addition, a history of traumatic, medical, or surgical events that could affect testosterone production should be obtained, including cryptorchidism, scrotal, inguinal, or abdominal surgery, pituitary surgery or radiation, prior issues with infertility, timing of puberty, history of renal or hepatic failure, chemotherapy (for cancer or autoimmune diseases), and prior use of anabolic steroids or opiates.

A complete physical examination should include assessment of virilization, gynecomastia, and the genitalia, including the size, position, and volume of the testes. The size and consistency of the prostate should be assessed on digital rectal examination.

LOW TESTOSTERONE AND ASSOCIATED COMORBIDITIES

Low testosterone is associated with many comorbidities, including metabolic syndrome, depression, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease, as discussed later in this section. Low testosterone has also shown associations with osteoporosis, cognitive impairment, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, decreased physical performance, end-stage renal disease, and treatment with steroids or opiates.^23–26 However, the studies that found these associations included men younger than 40 years and may not be fully applicable to the ADAM population.

The association of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus with low testosterone is well established in multiple studies. Grossman and colleagues²⁷ investigated the association of type 2 diabetes mellitus and low testosterone, with low total testosterone defined as below 10 nmol/L and low calculated free testosterone less than 0.23 nmol/L. The prevalence of low total testosterone was 43%, and the prevalence of low free testosterone was 57%. In addition, a recent meta-analysis comparing total testosterone of men with and without metabolic syndrome revealed an association between a baseline decrease in mean total and free testosterone levels in men with metabolic syndrome compared with controls. This study found a total testosterone mean difference of –2.64 nmol/L (95% confidence interval [CI] –2.95 to –2.32) and a free testosterone mean difference of –0.26 pmol/L (95% CI –0.39 to –0.13), respectively, when comparing men with metabolic syndrome against those without.²⁸

Testosterone has also been suggested to be protective against type 2 diabetes mellitus, with 42% lower risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in men with testosterone levels ranging from 450 ng/dL to 605 ng/dL.²⁹

Obesity has been specifically linked with secondary hypogonadism.^4,23,24 A prospective cohort of 58 men with an average age of 46 years and a body mass index ranging from 30 to 45 kg/m² were monitored on a low-calorie diet for 9 weeks. Afterward, biochemical analysis revealed an increase in free testosterone from 185 pmol/L ± 66 to 208 ± 70 pmol/L (P = .002) with a mean weight loss of 16.3 kg ± 4.5 kg.³⁰ This emphasizes the importance of lifestyle changes in the management of hypogonadal men.

LOW TESTOSTERONE AND THE OVERALL MORTALITY RATE

Low testosterone is associated unfavorably with the rate of all-cause mortality. A retrospective study in male veterans over age 40 with repeated testosterone levels over a 5-year period found that the risk of death from all causes in men with normal testosterone (> 250 ng/dL or free testosterone > 0.75 ng/dL) was 20% (95% CI 16.2%–241%) vs 35% (95% CI 28.5%–41.4%) in men with low testosterone (< 250 ng/dL or free testosterone < 0.75 ng/dL). In multivariate analysis, men with testosterone less than 250 ng/dL (< 8.7 nmol/L) or free testosterone less than 0.75 ng/dL (< 0.03 nmol/L) had up to an 88% higher death rate than men with normal testosterone levels.³¹

Low testosterone has also been associated with other end-organ, disease-specific mortality. In men with end-stage renal disease, low testosterone was an independent predictor of death from all causes and from cardiovascular disease.³² A prospective European health study revealed an association between low testosterone and increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease and cancer.³³ A recent meta-analysis of population-based studies confirmed this association, despite significant interstudy heterogeneity. ³⁴ Although multiple studies show an independent association of low testosterone and increased mortality rate, causality remains unconfirmed. This may be difficult to prove, given the available study designs and the nonspecific nature of symptoms related to low testosterone and potentially associated comorbidities.

TRT: INDICATIONS AND CONTRAINDICATIONS

The indications, benefits, and risks of TRT are controversial, with current data lacking long-term follow-up and consistent biochemical target values. Treatment of low testosterone is not indicated at the present time in the absence of clinical symptoms.

According to recently published guidelines, TRT is recommended for symptomatic men with low or borderline total testosterone or free testosterone (< 350 ng/dL or < 65 pg/mL).^7,8 Patients with borderline biochemical values (total testosterone 200–350 ng/dL, free testosterone 40–65 pg/mL) and possible related symptoms should be treated with TRT for at least 3 months and then reevaluated to verify improved testosterone levels and to assess for symptom amelioration or resolution.³⁵ Dose escalation is recommended in patients with subtherapeutic testosterone levels and limited clinical improvement after 3 months of treatment.

Target maintenance testosterone levels have not been defined, with mid to lower young adult male serum testosterone levels recommended at this time.⁸ Given that the current literature does not specify a target testosterone replacement range, we recommend monitoring the clinical response along with total testosterone to decide adjustments in TRT. Ultimately, treatment goals of TRT should be the resolution of signs and symptoms, including improvement of sexual function, libido, and preservation of bone mineral density.^7,8

Contraindications

TRT is not recommended in men with the following:

• Breast cancer
• Polycythemia (hematocrit > 50%)
• Untreated obstructive sleep apnea
• Lower urinary tract symptoms caused by an enlarged prostate; International Prostate Symptom Score > 19
• Poorly controlled heart failure
• Desire for fertility.

The role of TRT in prostate cancer remains controversial (see below) and remains contraindicated in recent Endocrine Society clinical practice guidelines.⁷ Guidelines recommend urologic consultation prior to initiation of TRT in patients at increased risk of prostate cancer,⁷ based on age, race, family history, PSA, PSA velocity, and history of prostate biopsy.

One prominent historic concern about androgen replacement therapy regards the potential for de novo development of prostate cancer. Numerous studies have failed to find elevated risk of new diagnosis, progression, or recurrence of prostate cancer in patients on TRT.^36,37 Nevertheless, patients who develop elevated PSA, increased PSA velocity, or an abnormal digital rectal examination while on TRT should undergo prostate biopsy.

TRT FORMULATIONS AND TREATMENT OPTIONS

A number of effective formulations of TRT are available (Table 2). Transdermal and parenteral formulations are most commonly used. Enteric testosterone formulations are not available in the United States and are associated with hepatotoxicity. While buccal testosterone therapy is available, it often leads to local gingival irritation and has not gained widespread popularity.

Parenteral TRT can be administered intramuscularly (IM) or subcutaneously (SQ). Testosterone cypionate (Depo-Testosterone) is the only IM form available in the United States and is given every 2 to 3 weeks. It is the least expensive form of TRT, but it requires frequent administration (by either the clinical practitioner or the patient himself). Testosterone cypionate injections lead to markedly wide swings of testosterone levels, ranging from supraphysiologic levels for a few days after administration to hypogonadal levels before the next injection. This may be mitigated by more-frequent injections. The longer-acting form testosterone undecanoate is available outside the United States and is given every 12 weeks when stable levels are reached.

The other parenteral option is SQ slow-release pellets (Testopel). These pellets have 75 mg of testosterone. Typically 8 to 14 pellets are placed subcutaneously in the buttock area, which will provide coverage for 3 to 6 months.³⁸ The insertion procedure is simple with a short learning curve, limited compliance issues, and elimination of risk of transdermal transmission of drug to others. Disadvantages include wound infection and pellet extrusion, seen in 0.3% to 12% of patients in various studies.³⁸

Another route of TRT is transdermal, including patches, liquids, and gels. Patches are applied daily and are rotated to different sites with minimal risk for skin transmission to others, although use may be limited by site dermatitis. Three hydro-alcoholic gel formulations are currently available in the United States: Androgel (1% or 1.62%), which is applied to the chest or the shoulders; Testim 1%, which is applied to the shoulders; and Fortesta (2%), which is applied to the thighs. A liquid preparation, Axiron, is applied to the axillae. Because secondary transfer to women and children is possible, it is important to thoroughly wash hands after application and to cover the treated skin with clothing. In 3 to 4 hours, all the medication is absorbed, and the area should then be washed before direct skin contact with others (Table 2).

MONITORING PATIENTS ON TRT

Patients starting TRT will require clinical and biochemical monitoring to evaluate response to therapy as well as possible side effects. The first set of laboratory values should be obtained 6 to 12 weeks after initiation of therapy and then typically quarterly for 1 year, every 6 months for the second year, and annually thereafter. Laboratory values monitored should include total testosterone, PSA, and hematocrit.

Men on daily therapy (patch, gel, liquid) should have testosterone drawn approximately 2 hours after application. Current TRT regimen data lack an appropriate target testosterone value, and guidelines suggest a mid to lower young adult male testosterone level.⁸ Since this is not clearly delineated in the current literature, the authors recommend monitoring clinical symptoms along with testosterone levels when adjusting TRT. It is important to document that serum testosterone was actually increased to the normal range in treated men without clinical improvement.

A rise in PSA of up to 24% would be an acceptable response in a benign prostate gland, but a higher increase or increase above 4.0 ng/dL should prompt consideration of prostate biopsy. ³⁹ Similarly, hemoglobin and hematocrit typically increase, but a hematocrit greater than 55% should prompt dose reduction or cessation.⁷ Transaminases do not need routine monitoring during parenteral or transdermal therapy. Bone mineral density should be monitored every 1 to 2 years.^7,8

CLINICAL BENEFITS OF TRT

There are promising data regarding the clinical benefits of TRT in patients with metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus. A recent meta-analysis investigating the effect of TRT on metabolic syndrome revealed an improvement in fasting plasma glucose, homeostatic model assessment index, triglycerides, treadmill duration, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and waist circumference.^40,41 TRT also decreased insulin resistance and improved glycemic control in type 2 diabetic hypogonadal men.⁴² Results from a randomized controlled trial comparing 12 weeks of intramuscular testosterone treatment vs placebo in men with metabolic syndrome revealed an improvement in mean waist circumference from 108 cm ± 8 cm to 105.5 cm ± 7.7 cm. Sixty percent of men initially diagnosed with metabolic syndrome and treated with testosterone no longer met diagnostic criteria for metabolic syndrome according to the National Cholesterol Education Program–Third Adult Treatment Panel (NCEP-ATP III) and the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) guidelines.⁴³

Depression has also been associated with low testosterone, with free testosterone levels below 170 pmol/L associated with frank depressive symptoms and levels below 220 pmol/L predictive of future onset of depressive symptoms.¹⁵ Testosterone replacement therapy has been shown to improve depressive symptoms in hypogonadal men.^16,17 Shores et al¹⁶ conducted a randomized placebo-controlled study of testosterone replacement in men older than 50 years with dysthymia or minor depression. Men treated with testosterone gel for 12 weeks showed an improvement of baseline total testosterone levels from 291 ng/dL to 449 ng/dL. Men treated with testosterone also had a 53% rate of depression remission compared with 19% in the placebo group.¹⁶

The evidence supporting improved sexual function with TRT is variable. Some studies indicate limited or transient improvement of sexual function after TRT in men with erectile dysfunction,^18,19 while others report an improvement in sexual function after 3 months of TRT.⁴⁴ Because of the multifactorial nature of erectile dysfunction, men with erectile dysfunction and ADAM may require TRT and a phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitor, as TRT alone may be insufficient. In a prospective observational study of men with erectile dysfunction and an initial testosterone lower than 300 ng/dL, testosterone gel was administered for at least 1 year, and improvement in sexual function was seen. Results revealed a correlation between improvement in sexual function and concurrent therapy with a PDE5 inhibitor.⁴⁵ In a recent multicenter placebo-controlled study of PDE5 inhibitor nonresponders, the addition of a testosterone gel to tadalafil (Cialis) improved sexual function, again suggesting a synergistic effect when treating erectile dysfunction with both TRT and a PDE5 inhibitor.⁴⁶

ADVERSE EVENTS RELATED TO TRT

Despite the aforementioned benefits, it must be emphasized that TRT should be used for specific target symptoms related to hypogonadism in older men and that the general health benefits and safety of TRT in an asymptomatic man with a low measured testosterone alone remains unproven.

Cardiovascular events. In a recent study of 209 elderly men with low testosterone and limited mobility associated with other chronic illnesses, 6 months of TRT resulted in the development of cardiovascular-related adverse events in 23 patients compared with 5 men in the placebo group.⁴⁷ This may have been related to how adverse events were reported, with cumulative adverse events reviewed every 6 months, ranging from peripheral edema, hypertension, arrhythmias, and electrocardiographic changes. Serious adverse events were reviewed as they occurred, including stroke and acute myocardial events.

Other studies^41,43 have revealed a favorable effect of TRT on cardiovascular disease and its surrogate markers but have lacked detailed reports and close monitoring of adverse events. Thus, variation of outcome measurement and reporting may obfuscate the detection of adverse cardiovascular events. Outcomes may also depend on the testosterone formulation and the target serum concentration.⁴³

Larger, long-term placebo-controlled trials are needed to elucidate cardiovascular risk as a primary outcome in older androgen-deficient men undergoing TRT.

Other adverse effects related to TRT include erythrocytosis, seen in 3% to 18% of patients with transdermal administration,^48,49 and up to 44% of patients undergoing IM therapy.⁴⁸ Gynecomastia can occur and is more likely to resolve after treatment cessation of transdermal testosterone treatment than IM injections.⁴⁸ Other potential clinical side effects that should prompt dose-reduction or discontinuation are irritability, bothersome acne, fluid retention, testicular atrophy, worsening of lower urinary tract symptoms from an enlarged prostate, and new or worsening heart failure. Infrequently, obstructive sleep apnea may be worsened by TRT, although currently the data linking sleep apnea and TRT are limited.⁵⁰

TRT AND PROSTATE CANCER

The relationship between prostate cancer growth and testosterone is well established, with androgen ablation remaining the cornerstone of treatment for metastatic disease. Since androgen deprivation leads to the regression of prostate cancer, there has been concern that TRT may lead to growth or de novo development of prostate cancer. TRT has thus been strongly prohibited in patients with prostate cancer.⁷ However, recent data challenge this paradigm.

In a retrospective study of 81 men (mean age 56.8 years) treated with TRT, only 4 men (4.9%) developed prostate cancer over a 5-year period.⁵¹ This is less than the estimated 16.7% probability of developing prostate cancer in the general US population.⁵²

Recent accumulating data support the concept of testosterone reaching a saturation level when binding androgen receptors within the prostate at extremely low levels. Increases above this level with TRT as with ADAM do not increase the risk of development or progression of prostate cancer.⁵³ In addition, large doses of dihydrotestosterone do not seem to alter PSA, prostate volume, or International Prostate Symptom Score.⁵⁴ These findings may have implications in future androgen therapies in hypogonadal older men.

Pathologic studies suggest low testosterone is associated with a higher Gleason grade of prostate cancer,⁵⁵ although this association remains unconfirmed.⁵⁶

In men with erectile dysfunction after prostate cancer treatment, TRT appears safe after brachytherapy⁵⁷ or radical prostatectomy.⁵⁸ A small study of 15 hypogonadal men with castrate-resistant prostate cancer and minimal or no metastatic disease showed only 1 patient had symptomatic progression.⁵⁹ Moreover, a recent small study of 13 men with known prostate cancer on active surveillance showed that TRT did not lead to local progression or metastatic disease in any of the patients.⁶⁰

While these data are provocative, it should still be emphasized that the standard of care for prostate cancer screening should be followed in age-appropriate men with ADAM. In addition, hypogonadal men with prostate cancer should only be treated with testosterone in conjunction with careful counseling and ongoing monitoring.

TRT SHOULD NOT REPLACE HEALTHY LIFESTYLE CHANGES

There has been a dramatic increase in TRT initiation for nonspecific symptoms of low testosterone in older androgen-deficient men. With this increase in initiation of TRT, there is a significant risk of overtreating. While there are many encouraging associations between treatment of androgen deficiency and improvement in rates of of morbidity and mortality, much remains unknown about the overall long-term risks and benefits of TRT. It is important to emphasize that TRT should not replace healthy lifestyle changes including regular exercise, weight loss, and diet modifications, which may provide the patient symptom resolution. Thoughtful dialogue with the patient is critical prior to TRT initiation, including thorough disclosure of the risks and benefits of treatment, and the limitations of the data as it evolves.

Hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes account for 5% to 10% of cases of colorectal cancer.

Identifying these patients in clinical practice begins by assessing a patient’s personal and family health history. An accurate and comprehensive family history should cover three generations and include ethnic background, ages and causes of death of relatives, and any diagnosis of cancer, including age at onset and history of polyps.

Red flags for a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome in the personal or family history are:

• Early age of onset of cancer (eg, colorectal cancer before age 50)
• More than 10 colorectal adenomas
• Synchronous (ie, occurring at the same time) or metachronous (occurring at different times) primary cancers
• Multiple relatives in successive generations with the same or related cancers (eg, colon or endometrial cancer)
• A family member with a known hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome (Table 1).

Any of these red flags should prompt a referral for genetic counseling.

SYNDROMES ARE CLASSIFIED AS WITH OR WITHOUT POLYPOSIS

Many hereditary syndromes are associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer. Generally, they can be divided into two categories (Table 2): polyposis syndromes (in which patients have numerous colorectal polyps) and nonpolyposis syndromes (with few or no polyps).

These two main types are subclassified on the basis of the histology of most of the polyps detected: adenomatous, hamartomatous, serrated, or mixed types.

In this review, we will address the three most common of these syndromes: Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer), familial adenomatous polyposis, and MYH-associated polyposis. However, as noted in Table 2, other hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes exist, and suspicion of these conditions should prompt a referral for further evaluation.

LYNCH SYNDROME (HEREDITARY NONPOLYPOSIS COLORECTAL CANCER)

Lynch syndrome, also known as hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, predisposes people to a variety of cancers.

Colorectal cancer is the most common type of cancer associated with Lynch syndrome. Recent research suggests that the cumulative risk of developing colorectal cancer by age 80 is 42% for all patients with Lynch syndrome.¹ The median age at onset is 45 years.¹ For patients who undergo segmental resection of their initial cancer, the cumulative risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (ie, a new tumor arising later) is 16% at 10 years, 41% at 20 years, and up to 62% after 30 years.²

Endometrial cancer occurs in 17% to 57% of women with Lynch syndrome by age 70, with a median age at onset of 49 years.¹

Other extracolonic cancers in Lynch syndrome include cancers of the:

• Stomach (1%–10% risk by age 70 years)
• Ovaries (1%–20% risk)
• Hepatobiliary tract (1%–2% risk)
• Urinary tract (1%–12% risk)
• Small bowel (1%–2% risk)
• Brain (1%–8% risk)
• Skin (sebaceous adenomas, adenocarcinomas, and keratoacanthomas).^1,3,4

Earlier studies reported higher rates of associated cancer than those shown here. However, their data were largely derived from registries and may be overestimates. The numbers shown above are from population-based studies.

Genetics of Lynch syndrome

Lynch syndrome is caused by a germline mutation in the MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, or EPCAM genes.⁵ These genes code for proteins that are responsible DNA mismatch repair—one of the cell’s proofreading mechanisms during DNA replication.

These mutations are inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. Though de novo mutations in these genes have been reported, they are rare and the exact frequency with which they occur is unknown.⁶

In whom should Lynch syndrome be suspected?

Lynch syndrome can be suspected on the basis of family history and clinical criteria.

In 1991, the same group of experts who coined the term “hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer” developed family history criteria for it¹:

• At least three relatives with histologically confirmed colorectal cancer, one of whom is a first-degree relative of the other two
• At least two successive generations involved
• At least one of the cancers diagnosed before age 50
• Familial adenomatous polyposis is excluded.

Known as the Amsterdam criteria, these were to be used in collaborative studies of families with hereditary colorectal cancer.⁷ In 1999, these criteria were broadened to include extracolonic cancers and became known as the Amsterdam II criteria (Table 3).⁸

Patients whose families meet the Amsterdam II criteria or who have molecular pathologic evidence of Lynch syndrome (see below) are appropriate candidates for genetic counseling and testing.

The diagnosis of Lynch syndrome is based on molecular pathologic analysis (performed on tumor samples) and confirmed by genetic testing.

Molecular pathologic evidence of Lynch syndrome includes microsatellite instability and loss of expression of one or more of the DNA mismatch repair proteins (detected using immunohistochemistry) (more on these below). The revised Bethesda guidelines (TABLE 3) were intended to identify individuals whose tumors should be tested for one or both of these phenomena.⁹

In 2009, the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention working group recommended that all patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer undergo microsatellite instability analysis, immunohistochemistry testing, or both, regardless of whether they meet the Amsterdam II or the Bethesda guideline criteria.¹⁰

Microsatellite instability analysis. Microsatellites are short sequences of repeated DNA. The tumor cells of patients who carry defective mismatch repair genes have microsatellites that are longer or shorter than in normal cells, a condition called microsatellite instability (ie, “MSI-high”).

Microsatellite instability testing, using a standardized panel of five DNA markers, is performed on normal and tumor tissue. If more than two of the five microsatellite markers in the tumor show instability, the lesion is considered to have a high level of microsatellite instability. About 15% of colorectal cancers have this high level, although most are not associated with Lynch syndrome and lose MLH1 expression by promoter methylation.^11,12

While only 2% of patients with colorectal cancer have Lynch syndrome, from 90% to 95% of colorectal cancers from patients with Lynch syndrome have high levels of microsatellite instability.¹⁰ The presence of MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, the BRAF mutation V600E, or both within the tumor suggests that the cancer is not associated with Lynch syndrome.

Some families that meet the Amsterdam I criteria have microsatellite-stable tumors: their condition has been called familial colorectal cancer type X.¹³ This condition is associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer but not the other malignancies observed in Lynch syndrome.

Immunohistochemistry is performed to assess for expression of the mismatch repair proteins MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, and PMS2. Absence of expression of the specific protein within tumor cells compared with normal cells within the specimen suggests dysfunction of the specific gene and guides germline mutation testing (Figure 1). For example, a patient who lacks expression of the MSH2 protein in his or her colon cancer most likely has a mutation in the MSH2 gene. Therefore, germ-line genetic testing should initially target the MSH2 gene. Approximately 88% of Lynch syndrome-associated colorectal cancers have abnormal immunohistochemical staining.¹⁰

Testing for microsatellite instability and mismatch repair gene expression ideally precedes germline genetic testing and helps to guide which gene or genes should be tested.^9,14

Genetic testing for Lynch syndrome is routinely performed on a blood or saliva sample, using DNA from white blood cells and sequencing the gene or genes involved to look for mutations. Positive results from a germline genetic test confirm the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome and allow for predictive testing for relatives at risk. The term Lynch syndrome is used exclusively to describe individuals with evidence of a mutation in one of the mismatch repair genes.¹⁵

If a patient’s results are positive, genetic counseling and genetic testing should be offered to at-risk relatives age 18 and over.

Management of Lynch syndrome

Aggressive cancer surveillance is essential for people with Lynch syndrome and for those who are considered at risk but have not pursued genetic testing, such as a sibling of a person with Lynch syndrome.

Colorectal cancer. Colonoscopy is recommended every 1 to 2 years beginning at the age of 20 to 25 years, or 2 to 5 years earlier than the age of the youngest relative affected with colorectal cancer if the initial diagnosis was before age 25. When patients turn 40 years old, colonoscopy is done annually.^16–18 A significant reduction in cancer incidence and in the mortality rate has been shown with colonoscopic surveillance.^19–21

Chemoprevention may also have a role. Patients with Lynch syndrome who took aspirin 600 mg per day for an average of 25 months had a significantly lower incidence of colorectal cancer during a 55-month follow-up period compared with patients randomized to placebo.²²

For patients with Lynch syndrome who are diagnosed with colorectal cancer, the high risk of metachronous cancers after standard segmental colectomy calls for a more extended resection. Retrospective analysis of 382 Lynch syndrome patients found that none of the 50 who underwent total or subtotal colectomy were diagnosed with metachronous colorectal cancer, whereas a metachronous cancer developed in 74 (22%) of the 332 patients who had had segmented resection.² Annual surveillance of the remaining colon, rectum, or both is indicated postoperatively.

Gynecologic cancers. Women with Lynch syndrome should also consider gynecologic surveillance and risk-reducing surgery. This includes annual gynecologic examination, transvaginal ultrasonography, and endometrial aspiration, beginning at age 30 to 35 years. Although this surveillance does detect premalignant lesions and early symptomatic cancers, its effect on the mortality rate is unknown. Hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy has been shown to significantly reduce endometrial and ovarian cancers in women with Lynch syndrome.^23,24

Urothelial cancers. Carriers of MSH2 mutations have a significantly higher risk of urothelial cancers.⁴ Therefore, MSH2 carriers should consider ultrasonography of the urinary tract, urinary cytology, and urinalysis every 1 to 2 years beginning at age 40.⁴

Other extracolonic cancers. Poor evidence exists for systematic screening for the other extracolonic tumors associated with Lynch syndrome. However, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network advises considering esophagogastroduodenoscopy with extended duodenoscopy as well as capsule endoscopy every 2 to 3 years beginning at age 30 to 35.¹⁴

ADENOMATOUS POLYPOSIS SYNDROMES

Familial adenomatous polyposis and MYH-associated polyposis are the next most common hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes. Each of these accounts for about 1% of cases of colorectal cancer. Clinically, these two syndromes can be challenging to distinguish because they overlap phenotypically to a significant degree.

FAMILIAL ADENOMATOUS POLYPOSIS

Familial adenomatous polyposis is caused by mutations in the APC gene. Its prevalence is 2.29 to 3.2 per 100,000 individuals.^25,26

Genetics of familial adenomatous polyposis

APC is the only gene known to cause familial adenomatous polyposis. Mutations in APC are inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. Approximately 25% of cases of familial adenomatous polyposis are due to a de novo mutation in APC.²⁷

Clinical presentation of familial adenomatous polyposis

Familial adenomatous polyposis is classified by the burden of colorectal adenomas.

Patients who have fewer than 100 adenomas have an attenuated form of the disease. In this group, polyps usually begin to form in the late teenage years or early 20s and tend to develop in the proximal colon. The attenuated form is associated with an approximately 70% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer.²⁸

Patients who have more than 100 polyps are considered to have the classic form of the disease, and those with more than 1,000 polyps have profuse familial adenomatous polyposis (Figure 2). In these groups, polyps typically begin to develop in the preteenage to mid-teenage years. Without surgery, there is nearly a 100% risk of colorectal cancer. The average age at diagnosis of colorectal cancer is 39 years for patients with classic disease.

Upper gastrointestinal polyps are common in familial adenomatous polyposis. Nearly 90% of patients develop duodenal adenomas by a mean age of 44, with a cumulative lifetime risk of nearly 100%.²⁹ Fundic gland polyposis occurs in nearly 90% of patients,³⁰ while gastric adenomas are reported in fewer than 15% of patients.

Duodenal and periampullary cancer is the second most common malignancy in familial adenomatous polyposis. The lifetime risk ranges from 2% to 36%, depending on the Spigelman stage. People with Spigelman stage I, II, or III have a 2.5% risk of duodenal cancer, while those with stage IV disease have up to a 36% lifetime risk.

Gastric cancer, arising from fundic gland polyps, has been reported but is rare in Western populations.

In familial adenomatous polyposis, the incidence of jejunal adenomas and cancer is less than 10%, and the risk of ileal adenomas and cancer is less than 1%.³¹

Familial adenomatous polyposis is also associated with a higher risk of other malignancies, including:

• Pancreatic cancer (2% lifetime risk)
• Thyroid cancer (2% to 3% lifetime risk, typically papillary carcinoma)³²
• Hepatoblastoma (1% to 2% lifetime risk)
• Brain tumors (< 1% lifetime risk)
• Biliary cancer (higher risk than in the general population).³³

Benign extracolonic manifestations that have been observed include osteomas, dental abnormalities (supernumerary teeth, unerupted or absent teeth, odontomas), congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium, benign cutaneous lesions (epidermoid cysts and fibromas), and desmoid tumors.³³ The term “Gardner syndrome” has been used to describe patients who have familial adenomatous polyposis but also have osteomas and soft-tissue tumors.³⁴ These patients carry the same risk of colorectal cancer as other patients with familial adenomatous polyposis.

Diagnosing familial adenomatous polyposis

The diagnosis of familial adenomatous polyposis is suspected when a patient has more than 10 adenomatous polyps.

Seventy-five percent of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis have a family history of the condition. Therefore, most cases are identified at a young age on screening sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy or by predictive gene testing. Patients rarely have cancer at the time of diagnosis.

The other 25% of patients typically are diagnosed when symptoms develop from the polyps or cancer. Over 50% of these symptomatic patients have cancer at the time of diagnosis.

It is recommended that people who have more than 10 adenomas detected on a single colonoscopy or who are first-degree relatives of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis undergo a genetic evaluation and testing for mutations in the APC gene.¹⁴ Once an APC mutation is identified in the family, at-risk relatives should be offered testing around age 10 years for families with classic familial adenomatous polyposis or in the mid to late teenage years for those with the attenuated form. It also appropriate to refer patients with desmoid tumors, duodenal adenomas, and bilateral or multifocal congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium for a genetic evaluation.

Management of familial adenomatous polyposis

Flexible sigmoidoscopy every 1 to 2 years beginning at age 10 to 12 years is recommended for individuals and families who have been phenotypically or genetically diagnosed with familial adenomatous polyposis.^35–37 If colorectal adenomas are found, surgical options should be discussed and annual colonoscopic surveillance should commence.

For people with the attenuated form, because of the later age of disease onset and the tendency for right-sided disease, colonoscopy every 1 to 2 years should commence at about age 18.^35–37 If polyps are found, colonoscopy should be performed every year.

The decision of when to offer colectomy is based on polyp burden (taking into account the number, pathologic appearance, and size of the polyps) and psychosocial factors such as patient maturity. Surgical options include total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis or total proctocolectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis.³⁸ Colonic and extracolonic phenotype as well as genotype should factor into the type of operation recommended. After colectomy, annual endoscopic surveillance of the rectum or ileal pouch is indicated to screen for recurrent polyposis and cancer.

Chemoprevention with sulindac (Clinoril) 150 mg or celecoxib (Celebrex) 400 mg twice a day causes regression of colorectal adenomas in familial adenomatous polyposis and may be useful as an adjunct to endoscopy in managing the colorectal polyp burden.^39,40

Forward and side-viewing upper endoscopy should commence at age 20. This should include visualization and biopsy of the papilla and periampulllary region.²⁹ The frequency of endoscopic surveillance depends on the Spigelman stage, which reflects the duodenal polyp burden. It is recommended that patients with Spigelman stage IV duodenal polyposis be seen in consultation with an experienced gastrointestinal surgeon for consideration of a prophylactic, pylorus-preserving, pancreas-sparing duodenectomy. This procedure has been shown to be more effective in polyp control and cancer prevention than endoscopic polyp ablation and local surgical resection.⁴¹

Some evidence for the utility of celecoxib 400 mg twice daily for the regression of duodenal polyposis was noted in a 6-month placebo-controlled trial.⁴² Some experts recommend removal of large duodenal adenomas, with adjunctive celecoxib therapy to control polyposis burden.³⁰

People with familial adenomatous polyposis have been shown to have a 2.6% risk of thyroid cancer, and ultrasonography of the neck with attention to the thyroid is recommended for them.³²

MYH-ASSOCIATED POLYPOSIS

Biallelic mutations in the MYH gene result in an adenomatous polyposis syndrome that may be indistinguishable from the attenuated or classic forms of familial adenomatous polyposis. A characteristic autosomal recessive pattern of inheritance in the family can be useful for identifying these patients in the clinic.

Genetics of MYH-associated polyposis

MYH-associated polyposis is the only known autosomal recessive hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome. In white populations, the most commonly reported mutations in MYH are Y179C (previously called Y165C) and G396D (previously called G382D), which account for up to 80% of cases.⁴³ These two mutations are estimated to occur in 1% to 2% of the general population.⁴⁴

Clinical presentation of MYH-associated polyposis

MYH-associated polyposis typically presents as multiple adenomatous polyps and is diagnosed at a mean age of 47 years. Eleven percent to 42% of affected individuals are reported to have fewer than 100 adenomas, while a minority (7.5% to 29%) of patients present with classic polyposis.^45–47 In one study, an estimated 19% of patients presented with colorectal cancer and reported no history of colorectal polyps.⁴⁸ Synchronous colorectal cancer is seen in more than 60% of patients with biallelic MYH mutations.⁴⁹ Patients with monoallelic (heterozygous) MYH mutations appear to have the same risk of developing colorectal adenomas and cancer as the general population.⁴⁹

Upper-gastrointestinal polyps have been reported in MYH-associated polyposis; as many as 17% to 25% of patients have duodenal adenomas.^50,51

Diagnosis of MYH-associated polyposis

Genetic testing for biallelic MYH mutations should be performed in patients who test negative for an APC mutation but who have clinical features of familial adenomatous polyposis, a personal history of more than 10 colorectal adenomas, or a recessive family history of polyposis. ¹⁴ It has been shown that up to 29% of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis who are APC-negative will have biallelic mutations in the MYH gene.⁵² The siblings of a patient with biallelic MYH mutations should be offered genetic counseling and testing in their late teens or early 20s. All children of an individual with MYH-associated polyposis will carry one MYH mutation and are only at risk of having the syndrome if the other parent is also a MYH carrier and passed on his or her mutation.

Management of MYH-associated polyposis

The management of patients with MYH-associated polyposis is similar to that recommended for attenuated and classic familial adenomatous polyposis.¹⁴ Genetic counseling and testing and colonic and extracolonic surveillance are warranted. There are no data on the use of chemoprevention in MYH-associated polyposis. Surgery should be considered early because of the high risk of colorectal cancer, even in individuals with very few adenomas. Patients with monoallelic MYH mutations should follow the general population screening guidelines for colorectal cancer.⁴⁹

GENETIC COUNSELING AND GENETIC TESTING

The American College of Gastroenterology advises that patients suspected of having hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes be advised to pursue genetic counseling and, if appropriate, genetic testing.¹⁶ They further recommend genetic counseling and informed consent before genetic testing.¹⁶

Genetic counseling is a process of working with patients and families whereby:

• A detailed medical and family history is obtained
• A formal risk assessment is performed
• Education about the disease in question and about genetic testing is provided
• Psychosocial concerns are assessed
• Informed consent is obtained when genetic testing is recommended.⁵³

This process is important for helping patients better understand their cancer risks, the benefits and limitations of genetic testing, and the protections that are in place for people who undergo genetic testing, including the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act.

In 1996 the American Society of Clinical Oncology issued a policy statement highlighting the essential elements of informed consent for genetic testing for cancer susceptibility, and this was updated in 2003.⁵⁴ In particular, it notes that patients should be informed of the implications of positive and negative results and of the possibility that the test may be uninformative.

When a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome is suspected, a positive genetic test result confirms the diagnosis and allows for predictive testing of the patient’s relatives. However, no genetic test for a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome is 100% sensitive. Therefore, a negative result does not rule out the syndrome in question.

Further, all cancer susceptibility genes have variants of uncertain significance, which are genetic alterations for which there are insufficient data to determine if the mutation is disease-causing or polymorphic (benign). Both negative and uninformative results can be confusing for patients and providers and can lead to false reassurance or undue worry when patients are not properly educated about these potential outcomes of testing.

Genetic testing is an evolving field, and with additional research and improved testing technologies, appropriate diagnoses can be made over time. That is why it is important for the genetic counseling relationship to continue over time.

Hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes account for 5% to 10% of cases of colorectal cancer.

Identifying these patients in clinical practice begins by assessing a patient’s personal and family health history. An accurate and comprehensive family history should cover three generations and include ethnic background, ages and causes of death of relatives, and any diagnosis of cancer, including age at onset and history of polyps.

Red flags for a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome in the personal or family history are:

• Early age of onset of cancer (eg, colorectal cancer before age 50)
• More than 10 colorectal adenomas
• Synchronous (ie, occurring at the same time) or metachronous (occurring at different times) primary cancers
• Multiple relatives in successive generations with the same or related cancers (eg, colon or endometrial cancer)
• A family member with a known hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome (Table 1).

Any of these red flags should prompt a referral for genetic counseling.

SYNDROMES ARE CLASSIFIED AS WITH OR WITHOUT POLYPOSIS

Many hereditary syndromes are associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer. Generally, they can be divided into two categories (Table 2): polyposis syndromes (in which patients have numerous colorectal polyps) and nonpolyposis syndromes (with few or no polyps).

These two main types are subclassified on the basis of the histology of most of the polyps detected: adenomatous, hamartomatous, serrated, or mixed types.

In this review, we will address the three most common of these syndromes: Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer), familial adenomatous polyposis, and MYH-associated polyposis. However, as noted in Table 2, other hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes exist, and suspicion of these conditions should prompt a referral for further evaluation.

LYNCH SYNDROME (HEREDITARY NONPOLYPOSIS COLORECTAL CANCER)

Lynch syndrome, also known as hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, predisposes people to a variety of cancers.

Colorectal cancer is the most common type of cancer associated with Lynch syndrome. Recent research suggests that the cumulative risk of developing colorectal cancer by age 80 is 42% for all patients with Lynch syndrome.¹ The median age at onset is 45 years.¹ For patients who undergo segmental resection of their initial cancer, the cumulative risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (ie, a new tumor arising later) is 16% at 10 years, 41% at 20 years, and up to 62% after 30 years.²

Endometrial cancer occurs in 17% to 57% of women with Lynch syndrome by age 70, with a median age at onset of 49 years.¹

Other extracolonic cancers in Lynch syndrome include cancers of the:

• Stomach (1%–10% risk by age 70 years)
• Ovaries (1%–20% risk)
• Hepatobiliary tract (1%–2% risk)
• Urinary tract (1%–12% risk)
• Small bowel (1%–2% risk)
• Brain (1%–8% risk)
• Skin (sebaceous adenomas, adenocarcinomas, and keratoacanthomas).^1,3,4

Earlier studies reported higher rates of associated cancer than those shown here. However, their data were largely derived from registries and may be overestimates. The numbers shown above are from population-based studies.

Genetics of Lynch syndrome

Lynch syndrome is caused by a germline mutation in the MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, or EPCAM genes.⁵ These genes code for proteins that are responsible DNA mismatch repair—one of the cell’s proofreading mechanisms during DNA replication.

These mutations are inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. Though de novo mutations in these genes have been reported, they are rare and the exact frequency with which they occur is unknown.⁶

In whom should Lynch syndrome be suspected?

Lynch syndrome can be suspected on the basis of family history and clinical criteria.

In 1991, the same group of experts who coined the term “hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer” developed family history criteria for it¹:

• At least three relatives with histologically confirmed colorectal cancer, one of whom is a first-degree relative of the other two
• At least two successive generations involved
• At least one of the cancers diagnosed before age 50
• Familial adenomatous polyposis is excluded.

Known as the Amsterdam criteria, these were to be used in collaborative studies of families with hereditary colorectal cancer.⁷ In 1999, these criteria were broadened to include extracolonic cancers and became known as the Amsterdam II criteria (Table 3).⁸

Patients whose families meet the Amsterdam II criteria or who have molecular pathologic evidence of Lynch syndrome (see below) are appropriate candidates for genetic counseling and testing.

The diagnosis of Lynch syndrome is based on molecular pathologic analysis (performed on tumor samples) and confirmed by genetic testing.

Molecular pathologic evidence of Lynch syndrome includes microsatellite instability and loss of expression of one or more of the DNA mismatch repair proteins (detected using immunohistochemistry) (more on these below). The revised Bethesda guidelines (TABLE 3) were intended to identify individuals whose tumors should be tested for one or both of these phenomena.⁹

In 2009, the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention working group recommended that all patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer undergo microsatellite instability analysis, immunohistochemistry testing, or both, regardless of whether they meet the Amsterdam II or the Bethesda guideline criteria.¹⁰

Microsatellite instability analysis. Microsatellites are short sequences of repeated DNA. The tumor cells of patients who carry defective mismatch repair genes have microsatellites that are longer or shorter than in normal cells, a condition called microsatellite instability (ie, “MSI-high”).

Microsatellite instability testing, using a standardized panel of five DNA markers, is performed on normal and tumor tissue. If more than two of the five microsatellite markers in the tumor show instability, the lesion is considered to have a high level of microsatellite instability. About 15% of colorectal cancers have this high level, although most are not associated with Lynch syndrome and lose MLH1 expression by promoter methylation.^11,12

While only 2% of patients with colorectal cancer have Lynch syndrome, from 90% to 95% of colorectal cancers from patients with Lynch syndrome have high levels of microsatellite instability.¹⁰ The presence of MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, the BRAF mutation V600E, or both within the tumor suggests that the cancer is not associated with Lynch syndrome.

Some families that meet the Amsterdam I criteria have microsatellite-stable tumors: their condition has been called familial colorectal cancer type X.¹³ This condition is associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer but not the other malignancies observed in Lynch syndrome.

Immunohistochemistry is performed to assess for expression of the mismatch repair proteins MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, and PMS2. Absence of expression of the specific protein within tumor cells compared with normal cells within the specimen suggests dysfunction of the specific gene and guides germline mutation testing (Figure 1). For example, a patient who lacks expression of the MSH2 protein in his or her colon cancer most likely has a mutation in the MSH2 gene. Therefore, germ-line genetic testing should initially target the MSH2 gene. Approximately 88% of Lynch syndrome-associated colorectal cancers have abnormal immunohistochemical staining.¹⁰

Testing for microsatellite instability and mismatch repair gene expression ideally precedes germline genetic testing and helps to guide which gene or genes should be tested.^9,14

Genetic testing for Lynch syndrome is routinely performed on a blood or saliva sample, using DNA from white blood cells and sequencing the gene or genes involved to look for mutations. Positive results from a germline genetic test confirm the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome and allow for predictive testing for relatives at risk. The term Lynch syndrome is used exclusively to describe individuals with evidence of a mutation in one of the mismatch repair genes.¹⁵

If a patient’s results are positive, genetic counseling and genetic testing should be offered to at-risk relatives age 18 and over.

Management of Lynch syndrome

Aggressive cancer surveillance is essential for people with Lynch syndrome and for those who are considered at risk but have not pursued genetic testing, such as a sibling of a person with Lynch syndrome.

Colorectal cancer. Colonoscopy is recommended every 1 to 2 years beginning at the age of 20 to 25 years, or 2 to 5 years earlier than the age of the youngest relative affected with colorectal cancer if the initial diagnosis was before age 25. When patients turn 40 years old, colonoscopy is done annually.^16–18 A significant reduction in cancer incidence and in the mortality rate has been shown with colonoscopic surveillance.^19–21

Chemoprevention may also have a role. Patients with Lynch syndrome who took aspirin 600 mg per day for an average of 25 months had a significantly lower incidence of colorectal cancer during a 55-month follow-up period compared with patients randomized to placebo.²²

For patients with Lynch syndrome who are diagnosed with colorectal cancer, the high risk of metachronous cancers after standard segmental colectomy calls for a more extended resection. Retrospective analysis of 382 Lynch syndrome patients found that none of the 50 who underwent total or subtotal colectomy were diagnosed with metachronous colorectal cancer, whereas a metachronous cancer developed in 74 (22%) of the 332 patients who had had segmented resection.² Annual surveillance of the remaining colon, rectum, or both is indicated postoperatively.

Gynecologic cancers. Women with Lynch syndrome should also consider gynecologic surveillance and risk-reducing surgery. This includes annual gynecologic examination, transvaginal ultrasonography, and endometrial aspiration, beginning at age 30 to 35 years. Although this surveillance does detect premalignant lesions and early symptomatic cancers, its effect on the mortality rate is unknown. Hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy has been shown to significantly reduce endometrial and ovarian cancers in women with Lynch syndrome.^23,24

Urothelial cancers. Carriers of MSH2 mutations have a significantly higher risk of urothelial cancers.⁴ Therefore, MSH2 carriers should consider ultrasonography of the urinary tract, urinary cytology, and urinalysis every 1 to 2 years beginning at age 40.⁴

Other extracolonic cancers. Poor evidence exists for systematic screening for the other extracolonic tumors associated with Lynch syndrome. However, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network advises considering esophagogastroduodenoscopy with extended duodenoscopy as well as capsule endoscopy every 2 to 3 years beginning at age 30 to 35.¹⁴

ADENOMATOUS POLYPOSIS SYNDROMES

Familial adenomatous polyposis and MYH-associated polyposis are the next most common hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes. Each of these accounts for about 1% of cases of colorectal cancer. Clinically, these two syndromes can be challenging to distinguish because they overlap phenotypically to a significant degree.

FAMILIAL ADENOMATOUS POLYPOSIS

Familial adenomatous polyposis is caused by mutations in the APC gene. Its prevalence is 2.29 to 3.2 per 100,000 individuals.^25,26

Genetics of familial adenomatous polyposis

APC is the only gene known to cause familial adenomatous polyposis. Mutations in APC are inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. Approximately 25% of cases of familial adenomatous polyposis are due to a de novo mutation in APC.²⁷

Clinical presentation of familial adenomatous polyposis

Familial adenomatous polyposis is classified by the burden of colorectal adenomas.

Patients who have fewer than 100 adenomas have an attenuated form of the disease. In this group, polyps usually begin to form in the late teenage years or early 20s and tend to develop in the proximal colon. The attenuated form is associated with an approximately 70% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer.²⁸

Patients who have more than 100 polyps are considered to have the classic form of the disease, and those with more than 1,000 polyps have profuse familial adenomatous polyposis (Figure 2). In these groups, polyps typically begin to develop in the preteenage to mid-teenage years. Without surgery, there is nearly a 100% risk of colorectal cancer. The average age at diagnosis of colorectal cancer is 39 years for patients with classic disease.

Upper gastrointestinal polyps are common in familial adenomatous polyposis. Nearly 90% of patients develop duodenal adenomas by a mean age of 44, with a cumulative lifetime risk of nearly 100%.²⁹ Fundic gland polyposis occurs in nearly 90% of patients,³⁰ while gastric adenomas are reported in fewer than 15% of patients.

Duodenal and periampullary cancer is the second most common malignancy in familial adenomatous polyposis. The lifetime risk ranges from 2% to 36%, depending on the Spigelman stage. People with Spigelman stage I, II, or III have a 2.5% risk of duodenal cancer, while those with stage IV disease have up to a 36% lifetime risk.

Gastric cancer, arising from fundic gland polyps, has been reported but is rare in Western populations.

In familial adenomatous polyposis, the incidence of jejunal adenomas and cancer is less than 10%, and the risk of ileal adenomas and cancer is less than 1%.³¹

Familial adenomatous polyposis is also associated with a higher risk of other malignancies, including:

• Pancreatic cancer (2% lifetime risk)
• Thyroid cancer (2% to 3% lifetime risk, typically papillary carcinoma)³²
• Hepatoblastoma (1% to 2% lifetime risk)
• Brain tumors (< 1% lifetime risk)
• Biliary cancer (higher risk than in the general population).³³

Benign extracolonic manifestations that have been observed include osteomas, dental abnormalities (supernumerary teeth, unerupted or absent teeth, odontomas), congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium, benign cutaneous lesions (epidermoid cysts and fibromas), and desmoid tumors.³³ The term “Gardner syndrome” has been used to describe patients who have familial adenomatous polyposis but also have osteomas and soft-tissue tumors.³⁴ These patients carry the same risk of colorectal cancer as other patients with familial adenomatous polyposis.

Diagnosing familial adenomatous polyposis

The diagnosis of familial adenomatous polyposis is suspected when a patient has more than 10 adenomatous polyps.

Seventy-five percent of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis have a family history of the condition. Therefore, most cases are identified at a young age on screening sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy or by predictive gene testing. Patients rarely have cancer at the time of diagnosis.

The other 25% of patients typically are diagnosed when symptoms develop from the polyps or cancer. Over 50% of these symptomatic patients have cancer at the time of diagnosis.

It is recommended that people who have more than 10 adenomas detected on a single colonoscopy or who are first-degree relatives of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis undergo a genetic evaluation and testing for mutations in the APC gene.¹⁴ Once an APC mutation is identified in the family, at-risk relatives should be offered testing around age 10 years for families with classic familial adenomatous polyposis or in the mid to late teenage years for those with the attenuated form. It also appropriate to refer patients with desmoid tumors, duodenal adenomas, and bilateral or multifocal congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium for a genetic evaluation.

Management of familial adenomatous polyposis

Flexible sigmoidoscopy every 1 to 2 years beginning at age 10 to 12 years is recommended for individuals and families who have been phenotypically or genetically diagnosed with familial adenomatous polyposis.^35–37 If colorectal adenomas are found, surgical options should be discussed and annual colonoscopic surveillance should commence.

For people with the attenuated form, because of the later age of disease onset and the tendency for right-sided disease, colonoscopy every 1 to 2 years should commence at about age 18.^35–37 If polyps are found, colonoscopy should be performed every year.

The decision of when to offer colectomy is based on polyp burden (taking into account the number, pathologic appearance, and size of the polyps) and psychosocial factors such as patient maturity. Surgical options include total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis or total proctocolectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis.³⁸ Colonic and extracolonic phenotype as well as genotype should factor into the type of operation recommended. After colectomy, annual endoscopic surveillance of the rectum or ileal pouch is indicated to screen for recurrent polyposis and cancer.

Chemoprevention with sulindac (Clinoril) 150 mg or celecoxib (Celebrex) 400 mg twice a day causes regression of colorectal adenomas in familial adenomatous polyposis and may be useful as an adjunct to endoscopy in managing the colorectal polyp burden.^39,40

Forward and side-viewing upper endoscopy should commence at age 20. This should include visualization and biopsy of the papilla and periampulllary region.²⁹ The frequency of endoscopic surveillance depends on the Spigelman stage, which reflects the duodenal polyp burden. It is recommended that patients with Spigelman stage IV duodenal polyposis be seen in consultation with an experienced gastrointestinal surgeon for consideration of a prophylactic, pylorus-preserving, pancreas-sparing duodenectomy. This procedure has been shown to be more effective in polyp control and cancer prevention than endoscopic polyp ablation and local surgical resection.⁴¹

Some evidence for the utility of celecoxib 400 mg twice daily for the regression of duodenal polyposis was noted in a 6-month placebo-controlled trial.⁴² Some experts recommend removal of large duodenal adenomas, with adjunctive celecoxib therapy to control polyposis burden.³⁰

People with familial adenomatous polyposis have been shown to have a 2.6% risk of thyroid cancer, and ultrasonography of the neck with attention to the thyroid is recommended for them.³²

MYH-ASSOCIATED POLYPOSIS

Biallelic mutations in the MYH gene result in an adenomatous polyposis syndrome that may be indistinguishable from the attenuated or classic forms of familial adenomatous polyposis. A characteristic autosomal recessive pattern of inheritance in the family can be useful for identifying these patients in the clinic.

Genetics of MYH-associated polyposis

MYH-associated polyposis is the only known autosomal recessive hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome. In white populations, the most commonly reported mutations in MYH are Y179C (previously called Y165C) and G396D (previously called G382D), which account for up to 80% of cases.⁴³ These two mutations are estimated to occur in 1% to 2% of the general population.⁴⁴

Clinical presentation of MYH-associated polyposis

MYH-associated polyposis typically presents as multiple adenomatous polyps and is diagnosed at a mean age of 47 years. Eleven percent to 42% of affected individuals are reported to have fewer than 100 adenomas, while a minority (7.5% to 29%) of patients present with classic polyposis.^45–47 In one study, an estimated 19% of patients presented with colorectal cancer and reported no history of colorectal polyps.⁴⁸ Synchronous colorectal cancer is seen in more than 60% of patients with biallelic MYH mutations.⁴⁹ Patients with monoallelic (heterozygous) MYH mutations appear to have the same risk of developing colorectal adenomas and cancer as the general population.⁴⁹

Upper-gastrointestinal polyps have been reported in MYH-associated polyposis; as many as 17% to 25% of patients have duodenal adenomas.^50,51

Diagnosis of MYH-associated polyposis

Genetic testing for biallelic MYH mutations should be performed in patients who test negative for an APC mutation but who have clinical features of familial adenomatous polyposis, a personal history of more than 10 colorectal adenomas, or a recessive family history of polyposis. ¹⁴ It has been shown that up to 29% of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis who are APC-negative will have biallelic mutations in the MYH gene.⁵² The siblings of a patient with biallelic MYH mutations should be offered genetic counseling and testing in their late teens or early 20s. All children of an individual with MYH-associated polyposis will carry one MYH mutation and are only at risk of having the syndrome if the other parent is also a MYH carrier and passed on his or her mutation.

Management of MYH-associated polyposis

The management of patients with MYH-associated polyposis is similar to that recommended for attenuated and classic familial adenomatous polyposis.¹⁴ Genetic counseling and testing and colonic and extracolonic surveillance are warranted. There are no data on the use of chemoprevention in MYH-associated polyposis. Surgery should be considered early because of the high risk of colorectal cancer, even in individuals with very few adenomas. Patients with monoallelic MYH mutations should follow the general population screening guidelines for colorectal cancer.⁴⁹

GENETIC COUNSELING AND GENETIC TESTING

The American College of Gastroenterology advises that patients suspected of having hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes be advised to pursue genetic counseling and, if appropriate, genetic testing.¹⁶ They further recommend genetic counseling and informed consent before genetic testing.¹⁶

Genetic counseling is a process of working with patients and families whereby:

• A detailed medical and family history is obtained
• A formal risk assessment is performed
• Education about the disease in question and about genetic testing is provided
• Psychosocial concerns are assessed
• Informed consent is obtained when genetic testing is recommended.⁵³

This process is important for helping patients better understand their cancer risks, the benefits and limitations of genetic testing, and the protections that are in place for people who undergo genetic testing, including the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act.

In 1996 the American Society of Clinical Oncology issued a policy statement highlighting the essential elements of informed consent for genetic testing for cancer susceptibility, and this was updated in 2003.⁵⁴ In particular, it notes that patients should be informed of the implications of positive and negative results and of the possibility that the test may be uninformative.

When a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome is suspected, a positive genetic test result confirms the diagnosis and allows for predictive testing of the patient’s relatives. However, no genetic test for a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome is 100% sensitive. Therefore, a negative result does not rule out the syndrome in question.

Further, all cancer susceptibility genes have variants of uncertain significance, which are genetic alterations for which there are insufficient data to determine if the mutation is disease-causing or polymorphic (benign). Both negative and uninformative results can be confusing for patients and providers and can lead to false reassurance or undue worry when patients are not properly educated about these potential outcomes of testing.

Genetic testing is an evolving field, and with additional research and improved testing technologies, appropriate diagnoses can be made over time. That is why it is important for the genetic counseling relationship to continue over time.

Hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes account for 5% to 10% of cases of colorectal cancer.

Identifying these patients in clinical practice begins by assessing a patient’s personal and family health history. An accurate and comprehensive family history should cover three generations and include ethnic background, ages and causes of death of relatives, and any diagnosis of cancer, including age at onset and history of polyps.

Red flags for a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome in the personal or family history are:

• Early age of onset of cancer (eg, colorectal cancer before age 50)
• More than 10 colorectal adenomas
• Synchronous (ie, occurring at the same time) or metachronous (occurring at different times) primary cancers
• Multiple relatives in successive generations with the same or related cancers (eg, colon or endometrial cancer)
• A family member with a known hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome (Table 1).

Any of these red flags should prompt a referral for genetic counseling.

SYNDROMES ARE CLASSIFIED AS WITH OR WITHOUT POLYPOSIS

Many hereditary syndromes are associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer. Generally, they can be divided into two categories (Table 2): polyposis syndromes (in which patients have numerous colorectal polyps) and nonpolyposis syndromes (with few or no polyps).

These two main types are subclassified on the basis of the histology of most of the polyps detected: adenomatous, hamartomatous, serrated, or mixed types.

In this review, we will address the three most common of these syndromes: Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer), familial adenomatous polyposis, and MYH-associated polyposis. However, as noted in Table 2, other hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes exist, and suspicion of these conditions should prompt a referral for further evaluation.

LYNCH SYNDROME (HEREDITARY NONPOLYPOSIS COLORECTAL CANCER)

Lynch syndrome, also known as hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, predisposes people to a variety of cancers.

Colorectal cancer is the most common type of cancer associated with Lynch syndrome. Recent research suggests that the cumulative risk of developing colorectal cancer by age 80 is 42% for all patients with Lynch syndrome.¹ The median age at onset is 45 years.¹ For patients who undergo segmental resection of their initial cancer, the cumulative risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (ie, a new tumor arising later) is 16% at 10 years, 41% at 20 years, and up to 62% after 30 years.²

Endometrial cancer occurs in 17% to 57% of women with Lynch syndrome by age 70, with a median age at onset of 49 years.¹

Other extracolonic cancers in Lynch syndrome include cancers of the:

• Stomach (1%–10% risk by age 70 years)
• Ovaries (1%–20% risk)
• Hepatobiliary tract (1%–2% risk)
• Urinary tract (1%–12% risk)
• Small bowel (1%–2% risk)
• Brain (1%–8% risk)
• Skin (sebaceous adenomas, adenocarcinomas, and keratoacanthomas).^1,3,4

Earlier studies reported higher rates of associated cancer than those shown here. However, their data were largely derived from registries and may be overestimates. The numbers shown above are from population-based studies.

Genetics of Lynch syndrome

Lynch syndrome is caused by a germline mutation in the MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, or EPCAM genes.⁵ These genes code for proteins that are responsible DNA mismatch repair—one of the cell’s proofreading mechanisms during DNA replication.

These mutations are inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. Though de novo mutations in these genes have been reported, they are rare and the exact frequency with which they occur is unknown.⁶

In whom should Lynch syndrome be suspected?

Lynch syndrome can be suspected on the basis of family history and clinical criteria.

In 1991, the same group of experts who coined the term “hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer” developed family history criteria for it¹:

• At least three relatives with histologically confirmed colorectal cancer, one of whom is a first-degree relative of the other two
• At least two successive generations involved
• At least one of the cancers diagnosed before age 50
• Familial adenomatous polyposis is excluded.

Known as the Amsterdam criteria, these were to be used in collaborative studies of families with hereditary colorectal cancer.⁷ In 1999, these criteria were broadened to include extracolonic cancers and became known as the Amsterdam II criteria (Table 3).⁸

Patients whose families meet the Amsterdam II criteria or who have molecular pathologic evidence of Lynch syndrome (see below) are appropriate candidates for genetic counseling and testing.

The diagnosis of Lynch syndrome is based on molecular pathologic analysis (performed on tumor samples) and confirmed by genetic testing.

Molecular pathologic evidence of Lynch syndrome includes microsatellite instability and loss of expression of one or more of the DNA mismatch repair proteins (detected using immunohistochemistry) (more on these below). The revised Bethesda guidelines (TABLE 3) were intended to identify individuals whose tumors should be tested for one or both of these phenomena.⁹

In 2009, the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention working group recommended that all patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer undergo microsatellite instability analysis, immunohistochemistry testing, or both, regardless of whether they meet the Amsterdam II or the Bethesda guideline criteria.¹⁰

Microsatellite instability analysis. Microsatellites are short sequences of repeated DNA. The tumor cells of patients who carry defective mismatch repair genes have microsatellites that are longer or shorter than in normal cells, a condition called microsatellite instability (ie, “MSI-high”).

Microsatellite instability testing, using a standardized panel of five DNA markers, is performed on normal and tumor tissue. If more than two of the five microsatellite markers in the tumor show instability, the lesion is considered to have a high level of microsatellite instability. About 15% of colorectal cancers have this high level, although most are not associated with Lynch syndrome and lose MLH1 expression by promoter methylation.^11,12

While only 2% of patients with colorectal cancer have Lynch syndrome, from 90% to 95% of colorectal cancers from patients with Lynch syndrome have high levels of microsatellite instability.¹⁰ The presence of MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, the BRAF mutation V600E, or both within the tumor suggests that the cancer is not associated with Lynch syndrome.

Some families that meet the Amsterdam I criteria have microsatellite-stable tumors: their condition has been called familial colorectal cancer type X.¹³ This condition is associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer but not the other malignancies observed in Lynch syndrome.

Immunohistochemistry is performed to assess for expression of the mismatch repair proteins MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, and PMS2. Absence of expression of the specific protein within tumor cells compared with normal cells within the specimen suggests dysfunction of the specific gene and guides germline mutation testing (Figure 1). For example, a patient who lacks expression of the MSH2 protein in his or her colon cancer most likely has a mutation in the MSH2 gene. Therefore, germ-line genetic testing should initially target the MSH2 gene. Approximately 88% of Lynch syndrome-associated colorectal cancers have abnormal immunohistochemical staining.¹⁰

Testing for microsatellite instability and mismatch repair gene expression ideally precedes germline genetic testing and helps to guide which gene or genes should be tested.^9,14

Genetic testing for Lynch syndrome is routinely performed on a blood or saliva sample, using DNA from white blood cells and sequencing the gene or genes involved to look for mutations. Positive results from a germline genetic test confirm the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome and allow for predictive testing for relatives at risk. The term Lynch syndrome is used exclusively to describe individuals with evidence of a mutation in one of the mismatch repair genes.¹⁵

If a patient’s results are positive, genetic counseling and genetic testing should be offered to at-risk relatives age 18 and over.

Management of Lynch syndrome

Aggressive cancer surveillance is essential for people with Lynch syndrome and for those who are considered at risk but have not pursued genetic testing, such as a sibling of a person with Lynch syndrome.

Colorectal cancer. Colonoscopy is recommended every 1 to 2 years beginning at the age of 20 to 25 years, or 2 to 5 years earlier than the age of the youngest relative affected with colorectal cancer if the initial diagnosis was before age 25. When patients turn 40 years old, colonoscopy is done annually.^16–18 A significant reduction in cancer incidence and in the mortality rate has been shown with colonoscopic surveillance.^19–21

Chemoprevention may also have a role. Patients with Lynch syndrome who took aspirin 600 mg per day for an average of 25 months had a significantly lower incidence of colorectal cancer during a 55-month follow-up period compared with patients randomized to placebo.²²

For patients with Lynch syndrome who are diagnosed with colorectal cancer, the high risk of metachronous cancers after standard segmental colectomy calls for a more extended resection. Retrospective analysis of 382 Lynch syndrome patients found that none of the 50 who underwent total or subtotal colectomy were diagnosed with metachronous colorectal cancer, whereas a metachronous cancer developed in 74 (22%) of the 332 patients who had had segmented resection.² Annual surveillance of the remaining colon, rectum, or both is indicated postoperatively.

Gynecologic cancers. Women with Lynch syndrome should also consider gynecologic surveillance and risk-reducing surgery. This includes annual gynecologic examination, transvaginal ultrasonography, and endometrial aspiration, beginning at age 30 to 35 years. Although this surveillance does detect premalignant lesions and early symptomatic cancers, its effect on the mortality rate is unknown. Hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy has been shown to significantly reduce endometrial and ovarian cancers in women with Lynch syndrome.^23,24

Urothelial cancers. Carriers of MSH2 mutations have a significantly higher risk of urothelial cancers.⁴ Therefore, MSH2 carriers should consider ultrasonography of the urinary tract, urinary cytology, and urinalysis every 1 to 2 years beginning at age 40.⁴

Other extracolonic cancers. Poor evidence exists for systematic screening for the other extracolonic tumors associated with Lynch syndrome. However, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network advises considering esophagogastroduodenoscopy with extended duodenoscopy as well as capsule endoscopy every 2 to 3 years beginning at age 30 to 35.¹⁴

ADENOMATOUS POLYPOSIS SYNDROMES

Familial adenomatous polyposis and MYH-associated polyposis are the next most common hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes. Each of these accounts for about 1% of cases of colorectal cancer. Clinically, these two syndromes can be challenging to distinguish because they overlap phenotypically to a significant degree.

FAMILIAL ADENOMATOUS POLYPOSIS

Familial adenomatous polyposis is caused by mutations in the APC gene. Its prevalence is 2.29 to 3.2 per 100,000 individuals.^25,26

Genetics of familial adenomatous polyposis

APC is the only gene known to cause familial adenomatous polyposis. Mutations in APC are inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. Approximately 25% of cases of familial adenomatous polyposis are due to a de novo mutation in APC.²⁷

Clinical presentation of familial adenomatous polyposis

Familial adenomatous polyposis is classified by the burden of colorectal adenomas.

Patients who have fewer than 100 adenomas have an attenuated form of the disease. In this group, polyps usually begin to form in the late teenage years or early 20s and tend to develop in the proximal colon. The attenuated form is associated with an approximately 70% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer.²⁸

Patients who have more than 100 polyps are considered to have the classic form of the disease, and those with more than 1,000 polyps have profuse familial adenomatous polyposis (Figure 2). In these groups, polyps typically begin to develop in the preteenage to mid-teenage years. Without surgery, there is nearly a 100% risk of colorectal cancer. The average age at diagnosis of colorectal cancer is 39 years for patients with classic disease.

Upper gastrointestinal polyps are common in familial adenomatous polyposis. Nearly 90% of patients develop duodenal adenomas by a mean age of 44, with a cumulative lifetime risk of nearly 100%.²⁹ Fundic gland polyposis occurs in nearly 90% of patients,³⁰ while gastric adenomas are reported in fewer than 15% of patients.

Duodenal and periampullary cancer is the second most common malignancy in familial adenomatous polyposis. The lifetime risk ranges from 2% to 36%, depending on the Spigelman stage. People with Spigelman stage I, II, or III have a 2.5% risk of duodenal cancer, while those with stage IV disease have up to a 36% lifetime risk.

Gastric cancer, arising from fundic gland polyps, has been reported but is rare in Western populations.

In familial adenomatous polyposis, the incidence of jejunal adenomas and cancer is less than 10%, and the risk of ileal adenomas and cancer is less than 1%.³¹

Familial adenomatous polyposis is also associated with a higher risk of other malignancies, including:

• Pancreatic cancer (2% lifetime risk)
• Thyroid cancer (2% to 3% lifetime risk, typically papillary carcinoma)³²
• Hepatoblastoma (1% to 2% lifetime risk)
• Brain tumors (< 1% lifetime risk)
• Biliary cancer (higher risk than in the general population).³³

Benign extracolonic manifestations that have been observed include osteomas, dental abnormalities (supernumerary teeth, unerupted or absent teeth, odontomas), congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium, benign cutaneous lesions (epidermoid cysts and fibromas), and desmoid tumors.³³ The term “Gardner syndrome” has been used to describe patients who have familial adenomatous polyposis but also have osteomas and soft-tissue tumors.³⁴ These patients carry the same risk of colorectal cancer as other patients with familial adenomatous polyposis.

Diagnosing familial adenomatous polyposis

The diagnosis of familial adenomatous polyposis is suspected when a patient has more than 10 adenomatous polyps.

Seventy-five percent of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis have a family history of the condition. Therefore, most cases are identified at a young age on screening sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy or by predictive gene testing. Patients rarely have cancer at the time of diagnosis.

The other 25% of patients typically are diagnosed when symptoms develop from the polyps or cancer. Over 50% of these symptomatic patients have cancer at the time of diagnosis.

It is recommended that people who have more than 10 adenomas detected on a single colonoscopy or who are first-degree relatives of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis undergo a genetic evaluation and testing for mutations in the APC gene.¹⁴ Once an APC mutation is identified in the family, at-risk relatives should be offered testing around age 10 years for families with classic familial adenomatous polyposis or in the mid to late teenage years for those with the attenuated form. It also appropriate to refer patients with desmoid tumors, duodenal adenomas, and bilateral or multifocal congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium for a genetic evaluation.

Management of familial adenomatous polyposis

Flexible sigmoidoscopy every 1 to 2 years beginning at age 10 to 12 years is recommended for individuals and families who have been phenotypically or genetically diagnosed with familial adenomatous polyposis.^35–37 If colorectal adenomas are found, surgical options should be discussed and annual colonoscopic surveillance should commence.

For people with the attenuated form, because of the later age of disease onset and the tendency for right-sided disease, colonoscopy every 1 to 2 years should commence at about age 18.^35–37 If polyps are found, colonoscopy should be performed every year.

The decision of when to offer colectomy is based on polyp burden (taking into account the number, pathologic appearance, and size of the polyps) and psychosocial factors such as patient maturity. Surgical options include total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis or total proctocolectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis.³⁸ Colonic and extracolonic phenotype as well as genotype should factor into the type of operation recommended. After colectomy, annual endoscopic surveillance of the rectum or ileal pouch is indicated to screen for recurrent polyposis and cancer.

Chemoprevention with sulindac (Clinoril) 150 mg or celecoxib (Celebrex) 400 mg twice a day causes regression of colorectal adenomas in familial adenomatous polyposis and may be useful as an adjunct to endoscopy in managing the colorectal polyp burden.^39,40

Forward and side-viewing upper endoscopy should commence at age 20. This should include visualization and biopsy of the papilla and periampulllary region.²⁹ The frequency of endoscopic surveillance depends on the Spigelman stage, which reflects the duodenal polyp burden. It is recommended that patients with Spigelman stage IV duodenal polyposis be seen in consultation with an experienced gastrointestinal surgeon for consideration of a prophylactic, pylorus-preserving, pancreas-sparing duodenectomy. This procedure has been shown to be more effective in polyp control and cancer prevention than endoscopic polyp ablation and local surgical resection.⁴¹

Some evidence for the utility of celecoxib 400 mg twice daily for the regression of duodenal polyposis was noted in a 6-month placebo-controlled trial.⁴² Some experts recommend removal of large duodenal adenomas, with adjunctive celecoxib therapy to control polyposis burden.³⁰

People with familial adenomatous polyposis have been shown to have a 2.6% risk of thyroid cancer, and ultrasonography of the neck with attention to the thyroid is recommended for them.³²

MYH-ASSOCIATED POLYPOSIS

Biallelic mutations in the MYH gene result in an adenomatous polyposis syndrome that may be indistinguishable from the attenuated or classic forms of familial adenomatous polyposis. A characteristic autosomal recessive pattern of inheritance in the family can be useful for identifying these patients in the clinic.

Genetics of MYH-associated polyposis

MYH-associated polyposis is the only known autosomal recessive hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome. In white populations, the most commonly reported mutations in MYH are Y179C (previously called Y165C) and G396D (previously called G382D), which account for up to 80% of cases.⁴³ These two mutations are estimated to occur in 1% to 2% of the general population.⁴⁴

Clinical presentation of MYH-associated polyposis

MYH-associated polyposis typically presents as multiple adenomatous polyps and is diagnosed at a mean age of 47 years. Eleven percent to 42% of affected individuals are reported to have fewer than 100 adenomas, while a minority (7.5% to 29%) of patients present with classic polyposis.^45–47 In one study, an estimated 19% of patients presented with colorectal cancer and reported no history of colorectal polyps.⁴⁸ Synchronous colorectal cancer is seen in more than 60% of patients with biallelic MYH mutations.⁴⁹ Patients with monoallelic (heterozygous) MYH mutations appear to have the same risk of developing colorectal adenomas and cancer as the general population.⁴⁹

Upper-gastrointestinal polyps have been reported in MYH-associated polyposis; as many as 17% to 25% of patients have duodenal adenomas.^50,51

Diagnosis of MYH-associated polyposis

Genetic testing for biallelic MYH mutations should be performed in patients who test negative for an APC mutation but who have clinical features of familial adenomatous polyposis, a personal history of more than 10 colorectal adenomas, or a recessive family history of polyposis. ¹⁴ It has been shown that up to 29% of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis who are APC-negative will have biallelic mutations in the MYH gene.⁵² The siblings of a patient with biallelic MYH mutations should be offered genetic counseling and testing in their late teens or early 20s. All children of an individual with MYH-associated polyposis will carry one MYH mutation and are only at risk of having the syndrome if the other parent is also a MYH carrier and passed on his or her mutation.

Management of MYH-associated polyposis

The management of patients with MYH-associated polyposis is similar to that recommended for attenuated and classic familial adenomatous polyposis.¹⁴ Genetic counseling and testing and colonic and extracolonic surveillance are warranted. There are no data on the use of chemoprevention in MYH-associated polyposis. Surgery should be considered early because of the high risk of colorectal cancer, even in individuals with very few adenomas. Patients with monoallelic MYH mutations should follow the general population screening guidelines for colorectal cancer.⁴⁹

GENETIC COUNSELING AND GENETIC TESTING

The American College of Gastroenterology advises that patients suspected of having hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes be advised to pursue genetic counseling and, if appropriate, genetic testing.¹⁶ They further recommend genetic counseling and informed consent before genetic testing.¹⁶

Genetic counseling is a process of working with patients and families whereby:

• A detailed medical and family history is obtained
• A formal risk assessment is performed
• Education about the disease in question and about genetic testing is provided
• Psychosocial concerns are assessed
• Informed consent is obtained when genetic testing is recommended.⁵³

This process is important for helping patients better understand their cancer risks, the benefits and limitations of genetic testing, and the protections that are in place for people who undergo genetic testing, including the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act.

In 1996 the American Society of Clinical Oncology issued a policy statement highlighting the essential elements of informed consent for genetic testing for cancer susceptibility, and this was updated in 2003.⁵⁴ In particular, it notes that patients should be informed of the implications of positive and negative results and of the possibility that the test may be uninformative.

When a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome is suspected, a positive genetic test result confirms the diagnosis and allows for predictive testing of the patient’s relatives. However, no genetic test for a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome is 100% sensitive. Therefore, a negative result does not rule out the syndrome in question.

Further, all cancer susceptibility genes have variants of uncertain significance, which are genetic alterations for which there are insufficient data to determine if the mutation is disease-causing or polymorphic (benign). Both negative and uninformative results can be confusing for patients and providers and can lead to false reassurance or undue worry when patients are not properly educated about these potential outcomes of testing.

Genetic testing is an evolving field, and with additional research and improved testing technologies, appropriate diagnoses can be made over time. That is why it is important for the genetic counseling relationship to continue over time.

A 49-year-old man presented with pigmentation on the nails of both hands during the past 6 months. He had no history of significant medical conditions, but he complained of generalized asthenia, with no fever, during the previous 6 weeks. He said that he was a volcanologist and had recently returned from an expedition in the mountains of Peru that involved intense physical activity at high altitudes. He was a non-smoker and did not drink alcohol; he was not taking any medications or nutritional supplements. A biochemical profile including a white blood cell count 3 months ago was normal.

On physical examination, he had splenomegaly (about 2 cm below the costal margin) and low systolic blood pressure (90 mm Hg, with the diastolic pressure at 60 mm Hg). Heart and lung examinations, including chest radiography, were normal.

Q: What is the diagnosis?

• Addison disease
• Onychotillomania
• Longitudinal melanonychia in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection
• Systemic lupus erythematosus

A: The patient was diagnosed with longitudinal melanonychia with underlying HIV infection.

In addition to the clinical findings noted above, laboratory testing now revealed a low white blood cell count (2.9 × 10⁹/L, reference range 4.5–11.0) and a low CD4⁺ T-cell count (182 cells/mL). An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and a Western blot assay were positive for HIV, and his viral load was 120,000 copies/mL as determined by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing. On more detailed questioning, the patient admitted to sexual practices that put him at high risk for HIV infection.

Longitudinal melanonychia is characterized by a tan, brown, or black longitudinal streak, originating in the matrix and resulting from increased synthesis of melanin (by either normal or abnormal melanocytes) and its deposition within the nail plate.¹

If the cause is not apparent (eg, trauma, application of chemical agents, concomitant onychomycosis or treatments), this pigmentation usually reflects the presence of a benign lesion within the matrix caused by a melanocytic nevus, simple lentigo, or increased activation of benign melanocytes. This finding has been reported in a US study² to be more common in people with dark skin, occurring in 77% of blacks over age 20 and in almost 100% of those over age 50.

Melanoma and other nonmelanocytic tumors may present as longitudinal melanonychia, but these rarely involve more than one digit simultaneously, and they are usually detected with specific clinical clues, such as the Hutchinson sign, ie, periungual spread of pigmentation into the proximal and lateral nail folds.

A SIGN OF BENIGN AND MALIGNANT CONDITIONS

Longitudinal melanonychia can have benign causes, and these need to be investigated. It can occur with repeated trauma, friction, or pressure on the nails. The physician should question the patient about habits such as picking or chewing of the finger tips or pushing back the cuticles, as well as about athletic activities or manual work that could affect the nails. In addition, blood thinners can cause nail discoloration via subungual hemorrhage.

A number of pathologic conditions can cause longitudinal discoloration of the nails. Infection with certain dermatophytes can cause discoloration, but this pigmentation is usually wider and more distal at the hyponychium rather than proximal, with a black streak with several pointed extensions proximally.

Adrenocortical insufficiency (Addison disease), nutritional disorders (deficiency of folic acid or vitamin B₁₂), and, more rarely, systemic lupus erythematosus and scleroderma should be ruled out, as they are typically associated with cutaneous and mucosal hyperpigmentation.

Chemotherapeutic agents such as doxorubicin (Adriamycin), hydroxyurea (Droxea), and cyclophosphamide and drugs such as antimalarials and tetracyclines can also cause longitudinal melanonychia.^1,3

Nail lesions with a similar pattern are often seen in patients (especially black patients) taking zidovudine (Retrovir), and these lesions seem not to be related to drug dosage, HIV risk group, or severity of the infection. Nail discoloration in HIV patients not taking antiretroviral therapy has not been well documented.

The significance of melanonychia in the course of HIV remains unclear. A key role of overexpression of alpha-melanocyte-stimulating-hormone has been proposed.⁴ Although rare in fair-skinned people, longitudinal melanonychia represents an important clinical sign of disease progression. In reported cases, however, no significant improvement has been noted with treatment despite favorable virologic and immunologic responses.^4,5

A 49-year-old man presented with pigmentation on the nails of both hands during the past 6 months. He had no history of significant medical conditions, but he complained of generalized asthenia, with no fever, during the previous 6 weeks. He said that he was a volcanologist and had recently returned from an expedition in the mountains of Peru that involved intense physical activity at high altitudes. He was a non-smoker and did not drink alcohol; he was not taking any medications or nutritional supplements. A biochemical profile including a white blood cell count 3 months ago was normal.

On physical examination, he had splenomegaly (about 2 cm below the costal margin) and low systolic blood pressure (90 mm Hg, with the diastolic pressure at 60 mm Hg). Heart and lung examinations, including chest radiography, were normal.

Q: What is the diagnosis?

• Addison disease
• Onychotillomania
• Longitudinal melanonychia in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection
• Systemic lupus erythematosus

A: The patient was diagnosed with longitudinal melanonychia with underlying HIV infection.

In addition to the clinical findings noted above, laboratory testing now revealed a low white blood cell count (2.9 × 10⁹/L, reference range 4.5–11.0) and a low CD4⁺ T-cell count (182 cells/mL). An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and a Western blot assay were positive for HIV, and his viral load was 120,000 copies/mL as determined by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing. On more detailed questioning, the patient admitted to sexual practices that put him at high risk for HIV infection.

Longitudinal melanonychia is characterized by a tan, brown, or black longitudinal streak, originating in the matrix and resulting from increased synthesis of melanin (by either normal or abnormal melanocytes) and its deposition within the nail plate.¹

If the cause is not apparent (eg, trauma, application of chemical agents, concomitant onychomycosis or treatments), this pigmentation usually reflects the presence of a benign lesion within the matrix caused by a melanocytic nevus, simple lentigo, or increased activation of benign melanocytes. This finding has been reported in a US study² to be more common in people with dark skin, occurring in 77% of blacks over age 20 and in almost 100% of those over age 50.

Melanoma and other nonmelanocytic tumors may present as longitudinal melanonychia, but these rarely involve more than one digit simultaneously, and they are usually detected with specific clinical clues, such as the Hutchinson sign, ie, periungual spread of pigmentation into the proximal and lateral nail folds.

A SIGN OF BENIGN AND MALIGNANT CONDITIONS

Longitudinal melanonychia can have benign causes, and these need to be investigated. It can occur with repeated trauma, friction, or pressure on the nails. The physician should question the patient about habits such as picking or chewing of the finger tips or pushing back the cuticles, as well as about athletic activities or manual work that could affect the nails. In addition, blood thinners can cause nail discoloration via subungual hemorrhage.

A number of pathologic conditions can cause longitudinal discoloration of the nails. Infection with certain dermatophytes can cause discoloration, but this pigmentation is usually wider and more distal at the hyponychium rather than proximal, with a black streak with several pointed extensions proximally.

Adrenocortical insufficiency (Addison disease), nutritional disorders (deficiency of folic acid or vitamin B₁₂), and, more rarely, systemic lupus erythematosus and scleroderma should be ruled out, as they are typically associated with cutaneous and mucosal hyperpigmentation.

Chemotherapeutic agents such as doxorubicin (Adriamycin), hydroxyurea (Droxea), and cyclophosphamide and drugs such as antimalarials and tetracyclines can also cause longitudinal melanonychia.^1,3

Nail lesions with a similar pattern are often seen in patients (especially black patients) taking zidovudine (Retrovir), and these lesions seem not to be related to drug dosage, HIV risk group, or severity of the infection. Nail discoloration in HIV patients not taking antiretroviral therapy has not been well documented.

The significance of melanonychia in the course of HIV remains unclear. A key role of overexpression of alpha-melanocyte-stimulating-hormone has been proposed.⁴ Although rare in fair-skinned people, longitudinal melanonychia represents an important clinical sign of disease progression. In reported cases, however, no significant improvement has been noted with treatment despite favorable virologic and immunologic responses.^4,5

A 49-year-old man presented with pigmentation on the nails of both hands during the past 6 months. He had no history of significant medical conditions, but he complained of generalized asthenia, with no fever, during the previous 6 weeks. He said that he was a volcanologist and had recently returned from an expedition in the mountains of Peru that involved intense physical activity at high altitudes. He was a non-smoker and did not drink alcohol; he was not taking any medications or nutritional supplements. A biochemical profile including a white blood cell count 3 months ago was normal.

On physical examination, he had splenomegaly (about 2 cm below the costal margin) and low systolic blood pressure (90 mm Hg, with the diastolic pressure at 60 mm Hg). Heart and lung examinations, including chest radiography, were normal.

Q: What is the diagnosis?

• Addison disease
• Onychotillomania
• Longitudinal melanonychia in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection
• Systemic lupus erythematosus

A: The patient was diagnosed with longitudinal melanonychia with underlying HIV infection.

In addition to the clinical findings noted above, laboratory testing now revealed a low white blood cell count (2.9 × 10⁹/L, reference range 4.5–11.0) and a low CD4⁺ T-cell count (182 cells/mL). An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and a Western blot assay were positive for HIV, and his viral load was 120,000 copies/mL as determined by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing. On more detailed questioning, the patient admitted to sexual practices that put him at high risk for HIV infection.

Longitudinal melanonychia is characterized by a tan, brown, or black longitudinal streak, originating in the matrix and resulting from increased synthesis of melanin (by either normal or abnormal melanocytes) and its deposition within the nail plate.¹

If the cause is not apparent (eg, trauma, application of chemical agents, concomitant onychomycosis or treatments), this pigmentation usually reflects the presence of a benign lesion within the matrix caused by a melanocytic nevus, simple lentigo, or increased activation of benign melanocytes. This finding has been reported in a US study² to be more common in people with dark skin, occurring in 77% of blacks over age 20 and in almost 100% of those over age 50.

Melanoma and other nonmelanocytic tumors may present as longitudinal melanonychia, but these rarely involve more than one digit simultaneously, and they are usually detected with specific clinical clues, such as the Hutchinson sign, ie, periungual spread of pigmentation into the proximal and lateral nail folds.

A SIGN OF BENIGN AND MALIGNANT CONDITIONS

Longitudinal melanonychia can have benign causes, and these need to be investigated. It can occur with repeated trauma, friction, or pressure on the nails. The physician should question the patient about habits such as picking or chewing of the finger tips or pushing back the cuticles, as well as about athletic activities or manual work that could affect the nails. In addition, blood thinners can cause nail discoloration via subungual hemorrhage.

A number of pathologic conditions can cause longitudinal discoloration of the nails. Infection with certain dermatophytes can cause discoloration, but this pigmentation is usually wider and more distal at the hyponychium rather than proximal, with a black streak with several pointed extensions proximally.

Adrenocortical insufficiency (Addison disease), nutritional disorders (deficiency of folic acid or vitamin B₁₂), and, more rarely, systemic lupus erythematosus and scleroderma should be ruled out, as they are typically associated with cutaneous and mucosal hyperpigmentation.

Chemotherapeutic agents such as doxorubicin (Adriamycin), hydroxyurea (Droxea), and cyclophosphamide and drugs such as antimalarials and tetracyclines can also cause longitudinal melanonychia.^1,3

Nail lesions with a similar pattern are often seen in patients (especially black patients) taking zidovudine (Retrovir), and these lesions seem not to be related to drug dosage, HIV risk group, or severity of the infection. Nail discoloration in HIV patients not taking antiretroviral therapy has not been well documented.

The significance of melanonychia in the course of HIV remains unclear. A key role of overexpression of alpha-melanocyte-stimulating-hormone has been proposed.⁴ Although rare in fair-skinned people, longitudinal melanonychia represents an important clinical sign of disease progression. In reported cases, however, no significant improvement has been noted with treatment despite favorable virologic and immunologic responses.^4,5

In the United States, nearly 50 million legal abortions were performed between 1973 and 2008.¹ About half of pregnancies in American women are unintended, and 4 out of 10 unintended pregnancies are terminated by abortion.² Of the women who had abortions, 54% had used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.³

It is hoped that the expanded use of emergency contraception will translate into fewer abortions. However, in a 2006–2008 survey conducted by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 9.7% of women ages 15 to 44 reported ever having used emergency contraception.⁴ (To put this figure in perspective, a similar number—about 10%—of women in this age group become pregnant in any given year, half of them unintentionally.⁴) Clearly, patients need to be better educated in the methods of contraception and emergency contraception.

Hospitals are not meeting the need. Pretending to be in need of emergency contraception, Harrison⁵ called the emergency departments of all 597 Catholic hospitals in the United States and 615 (17%) of the non-Catholic hospitals. About half of the staff she spoke to said they do not dispense emergency contraception, even in cases of sexual assault. This was the case for both Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals. Of the people she talked to who said they did not provide emergency contraception under any circumstance, only about half gave her a phone number for another facility to try, and most of these phone numbers were wrong, were for facilities that were not open on weekends, or were for facilities that did not offer emergency contraception either. This is in spite of legal precedent, which indicates that failure to provide complete post-rape counseling, including emergency contraception, constitutes inadequate care and gives a woman the standing to sue the hospital.⁶

Clearly, better provider education is also needed in the area of emergency contraception. The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals has a helpful Web site for providers and for patients. In addition to up-to-date information about contraceptive and emergency contraceptive choices, it provides advice on how to discuss emergency contraception with patients (www.arhp.org). We can test our own knowledge of this topic by reviewing the following questions.

WHICH PRODUCT IS MOST EFFECTIVE?

Q: True or false? Levonorgestrel monotherapy (Plan B One-Step, Next Choice) is the most effective oral emergency contraceptive.

A: False, although this statement was true before the US approval of ulipristal acetate (ella) in August 2010.

For many years levonorgestrel monotherapy has been the mainstay of emergency contraception, having replaced the combination estrogen-progestin (Yuzpe) regimen because of better tolerability and improved efficacy.⁷ Its main mechanism of action involves delaying ovulation. Levonorgestrel is given in two doses of 0.75 mg 12 hours apart, or as a single 1.5-mg dose (Table 1). Both formulations of levonorgestrel are available over the counter to women age 17 and older, or by prescription if they are under age 17.

However, a randomized controlled trial showed that women treated with ulipristal had about half the number of pregnancies than in those treated with levonorgestrel, with pregnancy rates of 0.9% vs 1.7%.⁸

HOW WIDE IS THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY?

Q: True or false? Both ulipristal and levonorgestrel can be taken up to 120 hours (5 days) after unprotected intercourse. However, ulipristal maintains its effectiveness throughout this time, whereas levonorgestrel becomes less effective the longer a patient waits to take it.

A: True. Ulipristal is a second-generation selective progesterone receptor modulator. These drugs can function as agonists, antagonists, or mixed agonist-antagonists at the progesterone receptor, depending on the tissue affected. Ulipristal is given as a one-time, 30-mg dose within 120 hours of intercourse.

In a study of 1,696 women, 844 of whom received ulipristal acetate and 852 of whom received levonorgestrel, ulipristal was at least as effective as levonorgestrel when used within 72 hours of intercourse for emergency contraception, with 15 pregnancies in the ulipristal group and 22 pregnancies in the levonorgestrel group (odds ratio [OR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35–1.31]). However, ulipristal prevented significantly more pregnancies than levonorgestrel at 72 to 120 hours, with no pregnancies in the ulipristal group and three pregnancies in the levonorgestrel group.⁹

Because ulipristal has a long half-life (32 hours), it can delay ovulation beyond the life span of sperm, thereby extending the window of opportunity for emergency contraception. However, patients should be advised to avoid further unprotected intercourse after the use of emergency contraception. Because emergency contraception works mainly by delaying ovulation, it may increase the likelihood of pregnancy if the patient has unprotected intercourse again several days later.

IS MIFEPRISTONE AN EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE?

Q: True or false? In the United States, mifepristone (Mifeprex), also known as RU-486, is available for use as an emergency contraceptive in addition to its use in abortion.

A: False, even though mifepristone, another selective progesterone receptor modulator, is highly effective when used up to 120 hours after intercourse. In fact, it might be effective up to 17 days after unprotected intercourse.¹⁰

Although mifepristone is one of the most effective forms of emergency contraception, social and political controversy has prevented its approval in the United States. However, it is approved for use as an abortifacient, at a higher dose than would be used for emergency contraception.

Unlike levonorgestrel, mifepristone exerts its effect via two potential mechanisms: delaying ovulation and preventing implantation.¹¹

IUDs AS EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION

Q: True or false? Insertion of a 5-year intrauterine device (IUD), ie, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena), is 99.8% effective at preventing pregnancy when used within 5 days of unprotected intercourse.

A: False. The Mirena IUD has not been studied as a form of emergency contraception. However, this statement would be true for the 10-year copper IUD ParaGard. Copper-releasing IUDs are considered a very effective method of emergency contraception, with associated pregnancy rates of 0.0% to 0.2% when inserted up until implantation (within 5 days after ovulation).^12,13 If desired, the IUD can then be kept in place for up to 10 years as a method of birth control.

However, this method requires the ready availability of a health professional trained to do the insertion. It is also important to make sure that the patient will not be at increased risk of sexually transmitted infections from further unprotected intercourse. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends that an IUD be placed within 5 days of unprotected intercourse for use as emergency contraception.

A recent review looked at 42 published studies of copper IUDs used for emergency contraception around the world. It found copper IUDs to be a safe and highly effective method of emergency contraception, with the additional advantage of simultaneously offering one of the most reliable and cost-effective contraceptive options.¹⁴

EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION AT MID-CYCLE

Q: True or false? When choosing a method of emergency contraception, it is important to consider whether a woman is near ovulation during the time of intercourse.

A: True. Emergency contraception can prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse, but it does not always work. The most widely used method, levonorgestrel 1.5 mg orally within 72 hours of intercourse, prevents at least 50% of pregnancies that would have occurred in the absence of its use.¹⁵ Glasier et al¹⁶ showed that emergency contraception was more likely to fail if a woman had unprotected intercourse around the time of ovulation.¹⁶

Though it can be difficult for women to tell if they are in the fertile times of their cycle, it might be helpful to try to identify women who have intercourse at mid-cycle, when the risk of pregnancy is greatest. Because insertion of an IUD and use of ulipristal acetate probably prevent more pregnancies, these methods might be preferred over levonorgestrel-based regimens during these higher-risk situations.

OBESE PATIENTS

Q: True or false? Hormonal emergency contraception is more likely to fail in obese patients.

A: True. Most recent evidence shows that whichever oral emergency contraceptive drug is taken, the risk of pregnancy is more than 3 times greater for obese women (OR 3.60, 95% CI 1.96–6.53) and 1.5 times greater for overweight women (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.75–2.95).¹⁶ Of all covariates tested, those that were shown to increase the odds of failure of the emergency contraception were higher body mass index, further unprotected intercourse, and conception probability (based on time of fertility cycle). In fact, among obese women treated with levonorgestrel, the observed pregnancy rate was 5.8%, which is slightly above the overall pregnancy rate expected in the absence of emergency contraception, suggesting that for obese women levonorgestrel-based emergency contraception may even be ineffective.

This is in line with recent reports suggesting that oral contraceptives are less effective in obese women. More effective regimens such as an IUD or ulipristal might be preferred in these women. However, obesity should not be used as a reason not to offer emergency contraception, as this is the last chance these women have to prevent pregnancy.

IS IT ABORTION?

Q: True or false? Emergency contraception does not cause abortion.

A: True, but patients may ask for more details about this. Hormonal emergency contraception works primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation and inhibiting fertilization.

Levonorgestrel or combined estrogen-progestin-based methods would be unlikely to have any adverse effects on the endometrium after fertilization, since they would only serve to enhance the progesterone effect. Therefore, they are unlikely to affect the ability of the embryo to attach to the endometrium.

Ulipristal, on the other hand, can have just the opposite effect on the postovulatory endometrium because of its inhibitory action on progesterone. Ulipristal is structurally similar to mifepristone, and its mechanism of action varies depending on the time of administration during the menstrual cycle. When unprotected intercourse occurs during a time when fertility is not possible, ulipristal behaves like a placebo. When intercourse occurs just before ovulation, ulipristal acts by delaying ovulation and thereby preventing fertilization (similar to levonorgestrel). Ulipristal may have an additional action of affecting the ability of the embryo to either attach to the endometrium or maintain its attachment, by a variety of mechanisms of action.^17,18 Because of this, some in the popular press and on the Internet have spoken out against the use of ulipristal.

The ACOG considers pregnancy to begin not with fertilization of the egg but with implantation, as demonstrated by a positive pregnancy test.

Of note, the copper IUD also prevents implantation after fertilization, which likely explains its high efficacy.

Women who have detailed questions about this can be counseled that levonorgestrel works mostly by preventing ovulation, and that ulipristal and the copper IUD might also work via postfertilization mechanisms. However, they are not considered to be abortive, based on standard definitions of pregnancy.

If a woman is pregnant and she takes levonorgestrel-based emergency contraception, this has not been shown to have any adverse effects on the fetus (similar to oral contraceptives).

Ulipristal is classified as pregnancy category X, and therefore its use during pregnancy is contraindicated. Based on information provided by the manufacturer, there are no adequate, well-controlled studies of ulipristal use in pregnant women. Although fetal loss was observed in animal studies after ulipristal administration (during the period of organogenesis), no malformations or adverse events were present in the surviving fetuses. Ulipristal is not indicated for termination of an existing pregnancy.

DO THE USUAL CONTRAINDICATIONS TO HORMONAL CONTRACEPTIVES APPLY?

Q: True or false? Because emergency contraception has such a short duration of exposure, the usual medical contraindications to hormonal therapies do not apply to it.

A: True. The usual contraindications to the use of hormonal contraceptives (eg, migraine with aura, hypertension, history of venous thromboembolism) do not apply to emergency contraception because of the short time of exposure.¹⁹ Furthermore, the risks associated with pregnancy in these women would likely outweigh any risks associated with emergency contraception.

However, one must be cognizant of potential drug interactions. According to the manufacturer, the use of ulipristal did not inhibit or induce cytochrome P 450 enzymes in vitro; therefore, in vivo studies were not performed. But because ulipristal is metabolized primarily via CYP3A4, an interaction between agents that induce or inhibit CYP3A4 could occur.²⁰ Thus, concomitant use of drugs such as barbiturates, rifampin (Rifadin), St. John’s wort, or antiseizure drugs such as topiramate (Topamax) may lower ulipristal concentrations. These medications may also affect levonorgestrel levels, similar to their effects on combined hormonal contraception. However, it is not known whether this translates to decreased efficacy.

When a woman is taking medications that can potentially decrease the effectiveness of hormonal emergency contraception, a more effective method such as a copper IUD might be more strongly considered. If a woman is not interested in an IUD, oral emergency contraception should still be offered, given that this is one of the last chances to prevent pregnancy, especially if she is on a potential teratogen.

Oral contraceptive pills have not been studied in combination with ulipristal. However, because ulipristal binds with high affinity to progesterone receptors (thus competing with the contraceptive), use of additional barrier contraceptives is recommended for the remainder of the menstrual cycle.

EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION AND BREASTFEEDING

Q: True of false? Emergency contraceptives can be used if a woman is breastfeeding.

A: That depends on which method is used. Both the ACOG and the World Health Organization state that it is safe for breastfeeding women to use emergency contraception, but these are older guidelines addressing progestin-only regimens (ie, levonorgestrel).^19,21 It is unknown whether ulipristal is secreted into human breast milk, although excretion was seen in animal studies. Therefore, ulipristal is not recommended for use by women who are breastfeeding.^20,22 To minimize the infant’s exposure to levonorgestrel, mothers should consider not nursing for at least 8 hours after ingestion, but no more than 24 hours is needed.²³