Ob.Gyn. News

Drink a day could age your brain

There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.

According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.

Courtesy Debora Cartagena, USCDCP

Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!

The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.

Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?

Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
 

A big dose of meta-cine

The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.

Piqsels

That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.

Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.

Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
 

Please don’t eat the winner

Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.

Frank_P_AJJ74/Pixabay

Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?

Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?

Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.

Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?

In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”

Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!

Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
 

Turning back the egg timer

The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.

If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.

The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.

“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”

We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!

Drink a day could age your brain

There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.

According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.

Courtesy Debora Cartagena, USCDCP

Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!

The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.

Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?

Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
 

A big dose of meta-cine

The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.

Piqsels

That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.

Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.

Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
 

Please don’t eat the winner

Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.

Frank_P_AJJ74/Pixabay

Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?

Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?

Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.

Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?

In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”

Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!

Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
 

Turning back the egg timer

The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.

If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.

The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.

“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”

We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!

Drink a day could age your brain

There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.

According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.

Courtesy Debora Cartagena, USCDCP

Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!

The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.

Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?

Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
 

A big dose of meta-cine

The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.

Piqsels

That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.

Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.

Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
 

Please don’t eat the winner

Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.

Frank_P_AJJ74/Pixabay

Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?

Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?

Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.

Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?

In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”

Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!

Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
 

Turning back the egg timer

The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.

If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.

The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.

“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”

We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!

The standard management for early-stage endometrial cancer involves surgery with hysterectomy, salpingectomy with or without oophorectomy, and staging lymph node sampling. Surgery serves as both a therapeutic and diagnostic intervention because surgical pathology results are in turn used to predict the likelihood of relapse and guide adjuvant therapy decisions. However, in some cases, surgical intervention is not feasible or desired, particularly if fertility preservation is a goal. Fortunately, there are nonsurgical options that are associated with favorable outcomes to offer these patients.

Endometrial cancer is associated with obesity attributable to causative mechanisms that promote endometrial hyperplasia, cellular proliferation, and heightened hormonal and growth factor signaling. Not only does obesity drive the development of endometrial cancer, but it also complicates the treatment of the disease. For example, endometrial cancer staging surgery is less successfully completed through a minimally invasive route as body mass index increases, primarily because of limitations in surgical exposure.¹ In fact, obesity can prevent surgery from being offered through any route. In addition to body habitus, determination of inoperability is also significantly influenced by the presence of coronary artery disease, hypertension, and diabetes.² Given that these comorbidities are more commonly experienced by women who are overweight, obesity creates a perfect storm of causative and complicating factors for optimal treatment.

While surgeons may determine the candidacy of patients for hysterectomy, patients themselves also drive this decision-making, particularly in the case of young patients who desire fertility preservation. Approximately 10% of patients with endometrial cancer are premenopausal, a number that is increasing over time. These women may have experienced infertility prior to their diagnosis, yet still strongly desire the attempt to conceive, particularly if they have suffered from anovulatory menstrual cycles or polycystic ovarian disease. Women with Lynch syndrome are at a higher risk for developing their cancer in premenopausal years. Therefore, it is critical that gynecologic oncologists consider nonsurgical remedies for these women and understand their potential for success.

Certain criteria should be met for women undergoing nonsurgical management of endometrial cancer, particularly if chosen electively for fertility preservation. Diagnosis should be obtained with a curettage specimen (rather than a pipelle) to optimize the accuracy of establishing tumor grade and to “debulk” the endometrial tissue. Pretreatment imaging is necessary to rule out distant metastatic disease. MRI is particularly helpful in approximating the depth of myometrial invasion of the malignancy and is recommended for patients desiring fertility preservation. Patients who have an endometrial cancer that is deeply invasive into the myometrium are poor candidates for fertility preservation and have a higher risk for metastatic disease, particularly to lymph nodes, and treatment decisions (such as surgery, or, if inoperable, radiation which treats nodal basins) should be considered for these women.

Hormonal therapy has long been identified as a highly effective systemic therapy for endometrial cancers, particularly those that are low grade and express estrogen and progesterone receptors. Progesterone can be administered orally in preparations such as megestrol or medroxyprogesterone or “locally” with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices. Oral preparations are straightforward, typically low-cost agents. Likelihood of success is 50%-75%. However, the systemic side effects of these agents, which include increased venous thromboembolism risk and appetite stimulation, are particularly problematic in this population. Therefore, many providers prefer to place progestin-releasing intrauterine devices to “bypass” these side effects, avoid issues with adherence to dosing, and provide some preventative endometrial coverage after resolution of the cancer. Recent trials have observed elimination of endometrial cancer on repeat sampling in 67%-76% of cases.^3-5 This strategy may be more successful when it is paired with the addition of GnRH agonists.⁴

When hormonal therapy is chosen for primary endometrial cancer treatment, it is typically monitored for efficacy with repeat endometrial samplings, most commonly with pipelle biopsies to avoid displacement of an intrauterine device, though repeat D&C may be more effective in achieving a complete pathologic response to treatment. Most providers recommend resampling the endometrium at 3-month intervals until resolution of the malignancy has been documented, and thereafter if any new bleeding events develop. For women who have demonstrated resolution of carcinoma on repeat sampling, data are lacking to guide decision-making regarding resumption of conception efforts, ongoing surveillance, and completion hysterectomy after they finish childbearing. If malignancy continues to be identified after 6 months of hormonal therapy, consideration should be made of a more definitive treatment (such as surgery, if feasible, or radiation if not). Continued hormonal therapy can also be considered, as delayed responses remain common even 1 year after starting therapy.⁶ If hormonal therapy is prolonged for persistent disease, repeat MRI is recommended at 6 months to document lack of progression.

Radiation, preferably with both intracavitary and external beam treatment, is the most definitive intervention for inoperable early-stage endometrial cancer. Unfortunately, fertility is not preserved with this approach. However, for patients with high-grade tumors that are less likely to express hormone receptors or respond to hormonal therapies, this may be the only treatment option available. Typical treatment courses include 5 weeks of external beam radiation treatments, focused on treating the pelvis as a whole, including occult metastases not identified on imaging. Optimal therapy also includes placement of intracavitary radiation implants, such as Heymans capsules, to concentrate the dose at the uterine fundus, while minimizing toxicity to the adjacent bladder and bowel structures. While definitive radiation is considered inferior to a primary surgical effort, disease-specific survival can be observed in more than 80% of patients treated this way.⁷

While surgery remains the standard intervention for women with early-stage endometrial cancer, hormonal therapy or radiation remain viable options with high rates of success for women who are not surgical candidates or who desire fertility preservation.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Walker JL et al. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(32):5331-6.

2. Ertel M et al. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(13):8987-95.

3. Janda M et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;161(1):143-51.

4. Novikova OV et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;161(1):152-9.

5. Westin SN et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224(2):191.e1-15.

6. Cho A et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;160(2):413-17.

7. Dutta SW et al. Brachytherapy. 2017;16(3):526-33.

The standard management for early-stage endometrial cancer involves surgery with hysterectomy, salpingectomy with or without oophorectomy, and staging lymph node sampling. Surgery serves as both a therapeutic and diagnostic intervention because surgical pathology results are in turn used to predict the likelihood of relapse and guide adjuvant therapy decisions. However, in some cases, surgical intervention is not feasible or desired, particularly if fertility preservation is a goal. Fortunately, there are nonsurgical options that are associated with favorable outcomes to offer these patients.

Endometrial cancer is associated with obesity attributable to causative mechanisms that promote endometrial hyperplasia, cellular proliferation, and heightened hormonal and growth factor signaling. Not only does obesity drive the development of endometrial cancer, but it also complicates the treatment of the disease. For example, endometrial cancer staging surgery is less successfully completed through a minimally invasive route as body mass index increases, primarily because of limitations in surgical exposure.¹ In fact, obesity can prevent surgery from being offered through any route. In addition to body habitus, determination of inoperability is also significantly influenced by the presence of coronary artery disease, hypertension, and diabetes.² Given that these comorbidities are more commonly experienced by women who are overweight, obesity creates a perfect storm of causative and complicating factors for optimal treatment.

While surgeons may determine the candidacy of patients for hysterectomy, patients themselves also drive this decision-making, particularly in the case of young patients who desire fertility preservation. Approximately 10% of patients with endometrial cancer are premenopausal, a number that is increasing over time. These women may have experienced infertility prior to their diagnosis, yet still strongly desire the attempt to conceive, particularly if they have suffered from anovulatory menstrual cycles or polycystic ovarian disease. Women with Lynch syndrome are at a higher risk for developing their cancer in premenopausal years. Therefore, it is critical that gynecologic oncologists consider nonsurgical remedies for these women and understand their potential for success.

Certain criteria should be met for women undergoing nonsurgical management of endometrial cancer, particularly if chosen electively for fertility preservation. Diagnosis should be obtained with a curettage specimen (rather than a pipelle) to optimize the accuracy of establishing tumor grade and to “debulk” the endometrial tissue. Pretreatment imaging is necessary to rule out distant metastatic disease. MRI is particularly helpful in approximating the depth of myometrial invasion of the malignancy and is recommended for patients desiring fertility preservation. Patients who have an endometrial cancer that is deeply invasive into the myometrium are poor candidates for fertility preservation and have a higher risk for metastatic disease, particularly to lymph nodes, and treatment decisions (such as surgery, or, if inoperable, radiation which treats nodal basins) should be considered for these women.

Hormonal therapy has long been identified as a highly effective systemic therapy for endometrial cancers, particularly those that are low grade and express estrogen and progesterone receptors. Progesterone can be administered orally in preparations such as megestrol or medroxyprogesterone or “locally” with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices. Oral preparations are straightforward, typically low-cost agents. Likelihood of success is 50%-75%. However, the systemic side effects of these agents, which include increased venous thromboembolism risk and appetite stimulation, are particularly problematic in this population. Therefore, many providers prefer to place progestin-releasing intrauterine devices to “bypass” these side effects, avoid issues with adherence to dosing, and provide some preventative endometrial coverage after resolution of the cancer. Recent trials have observed elimination of endometrial cancer on repeat sampling in 67%-76% of cases.^3-5 This strategy may be more successful when it is paired with the addition of GnRH agonists.⁴

When hormonal therapy is chosen for primary endometrial cancer treatment, it is typically monitored for efficacy with repeat endometrial samplings, most commonly with pipelle biopsies to avoid displacement of an intrauterine device, though repeat D&C may be more effective in achieving a complete pathologic response to treatment. Most providers recommend resampling the endometrium at 3-month intervals until resolution of the malignancy has been documented, and thereafter if any new bleeding events develop. For women who have demonstrated resolution of carcinoma on repeat sampling, data are lacking to guide decision-making regarding resumption of conception efforts, ongoing surveillance, and completion hysterectomy after they finish childbearing. If malignancy continues to be identified after 6 months of hormonal therapy, consideration should be made of a more definitive treatment (such as surgery, if feasible, or radiation if not). Continued hormonal therapy can also be considered, as delayed responses remain common even 1 year after starting therapy.⁶ If hormonal therapy is prolonged for persistent disease, repeat MRI is recommended at 6 months to document lack of progression.

Radiation, preferably with both intracavitary and external beam treatment, is the most definitive intervention for inoperable early-stage endometrial cancer. Unfortunately, fertility is not preserved with this approach. However, for patients with high-grade tumors that are less likely to express hormone receptors or respond to hormonal therapies, this may be the only treatment option available. Typical treatment courses include 5 weeks of external beam radiation treatments, focused on treating the pelvis as a whole, including occult metastases not identified on imaging. Optimal therapy also includes placement of intracavitary radiation implants, such as Heymans capsules, to concentrate the dose at the uterine fundus, while minimizing toxicity to the adjacent bladder and bowel structures. While definitive radiation is considered inferior to a primary surgical effort, disease-specific survival can be observed in more than 80% of patients treated this way.⁷

While surgery remains the standard intervention for women with early-stage endometrial cancer, hormonal therapy or radiation remain viable options with high rates of success for women who are not surgical candidates or who desire fertility preservation.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Walker JL et al. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(32):5331-6.

2. Ertel M et al. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(13):8987-95.

3. Janda M et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;161(1):143-51.

4. Novikova OV et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;161(1):152-9.

5. Westin SN et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224(2):191.e1-15.

6. Cho A et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;160(2):413-17.

7. Dutta SW et al. Brachytherapy. 2017;16(3):526-33.

The standard management for early-stage endometrial cancer involves surgery with hysterectomy, salpingectomy with or without oophorectomy, and staging lymph node sampling. Surgery serves as both a therapeutic and diagnostic intervention because surgical pathology results are in turn used to predict the likelihood of relapse and guide adjuvant therapy decisions. However, in some cases, surgical intervention is not feasible or desired, particularly if fertility preservation is a goal. Fortunately, there are nonsurgical options that are associated with favorable outcomes to offer these patients.

Endometrial cancer is associated with obesity attributable to causative mechanisms that promote endometrial hyperplasia, cellular proliferation, and heightened hormonal and growth factor signaling. Not only does obesity drive the development of endometrial cancer, but it also complicates the treatment of the disease. For example, endometrial cancer staging surgery is less successfully completed through a minimally invasive route as body mass index increases, primarily because of limitations in surgical exposure.¹ In fact, obesity can prevent surgery from being offered through any route. In addition to body habitus, determination of inoperability is also significantly influenced by the presence of coronary artery disease, hypertension, and diabetes.² Given that these comorbidities are more commonly experienced by women who are overweight, obesity creates a perfect storm of causative and complicating factors for optimal treatment.

While surgeons may determine the candidacy of patients for hysterectomy, patients themselves also drive this decision-making, particularly in the case of young patients who desire fertility preservation. Approximately 10% of patients with endometrial cancer are premenopausal, a number that is increasing over time. These women may have experienced infertility prior to their diagnosis, yet still strongly desire the attempt to conceive, particularly if they have suffered from anovulatory menstrual cycles or polycystic ovarian disease. Women with Lynch syndrome are at a higher risk for developing their cancer in premenopausal years. Therefore, it is critical that gynecologic oncologists consider nonsurgical remedies for these women and understand their potential for success.

Certain criteria should be met for women undergoing nonsurgical management of endometrial cancer, particularly if chosen electively for fertility preservation. Diagnosis should be obtained with a curettage specimen (rather than a pipelle) to optimize the accuracy of establishing tumor grade and to “debulk” the endometrial tissue. Pretreatment imaging is necessary to rule out distant metastatic disease. MRI is particularly helpful in approximating the depth of myometrial invasion of the malignancy and is recommended for patients desiring fertility preservation. Patients who have an endometrial cancer that is deeply invasive into the myometrium are poor candidates for fertility preservation and have a higher risk for metastatic disease, particularly to lymph nodes, and treatment decisions (such as surgery, or, if inoperable, radiation which treats nodal basins) should be considered for these women.

Hormonal therapy has long been identified as a highly effective systemic therapy for endometrial cancers, particularly those that are low grade and express estrogen and progesterone receptors. Progesterone can be administered orally in preparations such as megestrol or medroxyprogesterone or “locally” with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices. Oral preparations are straightforward, typically low-cost agents. Likelihood of success is 50%-75%. However, the systemic side effects of these agents, which include increased venous thromboembolism risk and appetite stimulation, are particularly problematic in this population. Therefore, many providers prefer to place progestin-releasing intrauterine devices to “bypass” these side effects, avoid issues with adherence to dosing, and provide some preventative endometrial coverage after resolution of the cancer. Recent trials have observed elimination of endometrial cancer on repeat sampling in 67%-76% of cases.^3-5 This strategy may be more successful when it is paired with the addition of GnRH agonists.⁴

When hormonal therapy is chosen for primary endometrial cancer treatment, it is typically monitored for efficacy with repeat endometrial samplings, most commonly with pipelle biopsies to avoid displacement of an intrauterine device, though repeat D&C may be more effective in achieving a complete pathologic response to treatment. Most providers recommend resampling the endometrium at 3-month intervals until resolution of the malignancy has been documented, and thereafter if any new bleeding events develop. For women who have demonstrated resolution of carcinoma on repeat sampling, data are lacking to guide decision-making regarding resumption of conception efforts, ongoing surveillance, and completion hysterectomy after they finish childbearing. If malignancy continues to be identified after 6 months of hormonal therapy, consideration should be made of a more definitive treatment (such as surgery, if feasible, or radiation if not). Continued hormonal therapy can also be considered, as delayed responses remain common even 1 year after starting therapy.⁶ If hormonal therapy is prolonged for persistent disease, repeat MRI is recommended at 6 months to document lack of progression.

Radiation, preferably with both intracavitary and external beam treatment, is the most definitive intervention for inoperable early-stage endometrial cancer. Unfortunately, fertility is not preserved with this approach. However, for patients with high-grade tumors that are less likely to express hormone receptors or respond to hormonal therapies, this may be the only treatment option available. Typical treatment courses include 5 weeks of external beam radiation treatments, focused on treating the pelvis as a whole, including occult metastases not identified on imaging. Optimal therapy also includes placement of intracavitary radiation implants, such as Heymans capsules, to concentrate the dose at the uterine fundus, while minimizing toxicity to the adjacent bladder and bowel structures. While definitive radiation is considered inferior to a primary surgical effort, disease-specific survival can be observed in more than 80% of patients treated this way.⁷

While surgery remains the standard intervention for women with early-stage endometrial cancer, hormonal therapy or radiation remain viable options with high rates of success for women who are not surgical candidates or who desire fertility preservation.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Walker JL et al. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(32):5331-6.

2. Ertel M et al. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(13):8987-95.

3. Janda M et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;161(1):143-51.

4. Novikova OV et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;161(1):152-9.

5. Westin SN et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224(2):191.e1-15.

6. Cho A et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;160(2):413-17.

7. Dutta SW et al. Brachytherapy. 2017;16(3):526-33.

A first-ever study of the effect of evidence-based maternity care practices on prenatal breastfeeding intentions in women from low-income U.S. households shows that the use of “baby-friendly steps” during birth hospitalization made it possible for almost half to breastfeed exclusively for 1 month.

Analyses of national data from a longitudinal study of 1,080 women enrolled in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) revealed that 47% were able to meet their prenatal intention to breastfeed without formula or other milk for at least 30 days.

The odds of meeting prenatal breastfeeding intentions more than quadrupled when babies received only breast milk (risk ratio, 4.4; 95% confidence interval, 3.4-5.7), the study showed. Breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth was also associated with greater likelihood of breastfeeding success (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.6).

The study, led by Heather C. Hamner, PhD, MS, MPH, of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, , Atlanta, was reported online in Pediatrics.

“This study confirms the relationship between experiencing maternity care practices supportive of breastfeeding and meeting one’s breastfeeding intentions, and adds evidence specifically among low-income women, who are known to be at higher risk of not breastfeeding,” the study authors wrote.

Women from low-income households often face additional barriers to meeting their breastfeeding goals, including lack of access to professional lactation services, Dr. Hamner said in an interview. “We want physicians to know how important maternity care practices supportive of breastfeeding are to helping all women achieve their breastfeeding goals. Physicians can be champions for implementation of evidence-based maternity care practices in the hospitals and practices in which they work.”

Dr. Hamner emphasized that physicians need to discuss the importance of breastfeeding with patients and their families, brief them on what to expect in the maternity care setting, and ensure women are connected to lactation resources. The American Academy of Pediatrics is working to increase physician capacity to support breastfeeding through the Physician Engagement and Training Focused on Breastfeeding project.

For the study, Dr. Hamner and colleagues analyzed data from the longitudinal WIC Infant and Toddler Feeding Practices Study-2 (ITFPS-2), which assessed the impact of 6 steps from a 10-step maternity care protocol known as The Ten Steps To Successful Breastfeeding. These steps are part of the worldwide Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI), which has been shown to improve rates of breastfeeding initiation, duration, and exclusivity.

After adjusting for sociodemographic and other factors, the study authors estimated risk ratios for associations between each of six maternity care practices assessed in ITFPS-2 and the success of women who reported an intention to breastfeed exclusively for 1 month. The six steps included initiation of breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth (step 4), showing moms how to breastfeed and maintain lactation (step 5), giving no food or drink other than breast milk unless medically indicated (step 6), rooming-in (step 7), breastfeeding on demand (step 8), and giving no pacifiers (step 9).

The analyses showed that only steps 4 and 6 – initiating breastfeeding at birth and giving only breast milk – remained significantly associated with meeting breastfeeding intentions. The results also revealed a dose-response relationship between the number of baby steps experienced during birth hospitalization and the likelihood of meeting breastfeeding goals, a finding in keeping with previous studies. In women who experienced all six steps, for example, 76% were breastfeeding exclusively at 1 month, compared with 16% of those who experienced zero to two steps.

Although the dose-response relationship did not appear to differ significantly by race or ethnicity, it was driven primarily by a hospital policy of providing infant formula or other supplementation, the study authors found. Notably, 44% of women reported that their infant had been fed something other than breast milk while in the hospital, and about 60% said they stopped breastfeeding earlier than intended.

“This finding reiterates the importance of limiting in-hospital formula or other supplementation of breastfed infants to only those with medical necessity,” Dr. Hamner and colleagues said.

Despite improvements in maternity care practices that promote breastfeeding, including an increase in the number of births occurring in U.S. hospitals with a baby-friendly designation, many women continue to experience significant barriers to breastfeeding, the investigators pointed out. Currently, there are 592 baby-friendly hospitals in the United States, representing 28.29% of annual births.

“I think more hospitals becoming baby friendly would really help,” Mary Franklin, DNP, CNM, assistant professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview. More needs to be done to support women during birth hospitalization and after they return home, so they can continue to breastfeed for “longer than the initial 6 weeks,” added Dr. Franklin, who is also director of the nurse midwifery and women’s health NP program.

The AAP recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months followed by complementary food introduction and continued breastfeeding through 12 months or beyond.

Like Dr. Hamner, Dr. Franklin emphasized that physicians have an important role to play in the initiation, duration, and exclusivity of breastfeeding. This includes promoting enrichment of the pregnancy experience with prenatal education and increased support from health care providers and peers. At delivery, obstetricians can delay cord clamping to facilitate early breastfeeding. They can also support the elimination of the central nursery in hospitals so that mother and baby stay together from birth. In addition, prescriptions can be written for breast pumps, which are covered by Medicaid.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Hamner and coauthors disclosed having no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Franklin also disclosed having no financial conflicts of interest.

A first-ever study of the effect of evidence-based maternity care practices on prenatal breastfeeding intentions in women from low-income U.S. households shows that the use of “baby-friendly steps” during birth hospitalization made it possible for almost half to breastfeed exclusively for 1 month.

Analyses of national data from a longitudinal study of 1,080 women enrolled in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) revealed that 47% were able to meet their prenatal intention to breastfeed without formula or other milk for at least 30 days.

The odds of meeting prenatal breastfeeding intentions more than quadrupled when babies received only breast milk (risk ratio, 4.4; 95% confidence interval, 3.4-5.7), the study showed. Breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth was also associated with greater likelihood of breastfeeding success (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.6).

The study, led by Heather C. Hamner, PhD, MS, MPH, of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, , Atlanta, was reported online in Pediatrics.

“This study confirms the relationship between experiencing maternity care practices supportive of breastfeeding and meeting one’s breastfeeding intentions, and adds evidence specifically among low-income women, who are known to be at higher risk of not breastfeeding,” the study authors wrote.

Women from low-income households often face additional barriers to meeting their breastfeeding goals, including lack of access to professional lactation services, Dr. Hamner said in an interview. “We want physicians to know how important maternity care practices supportive of breastfeeding are to helping all women achieve their breastfeeding goals. Physicians can be champions for implementation of evidence-based maternity care practices in the hospitals and practices in which they work.”

Dr. Hamner emphasized that physicians need to discuss the importance of breastfeeding with patients and their families, brief them on what to expect in the maternity care setting, and ensure women are connected to lactation resources. The American Academy of Pediatrics is working to increase physician capacity to support breastfeeding through the Physician Engagement and Training Focused on Breastfeeding project.

For the study, Dr. Hamner and colleagues analyzed data from the longitudinal WIC Infant and Toddler Feeding Practices Study-2 (ITFPS-2), which assessed the impact of 6 steps from a 10-step maternity care protocol known as The Ten Steps To Successful Breastfeeding. These steps are part of the worldwide Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI), which has been shown to improve rates of breastfeeding initiation, duration, and exclusivity.

After adjusting for sociodemographic and other factors, the study authors estimated risk ratios for associations between each of six maternity care practices assessed in ITFPS-2 and the success of women who reported an intention to breastfeed exclusively for 1 month. The six steps included initiation of breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth (step 4), showing moms how to breastfeed and maintain lactation (step 5), giving no food or drink other than breast milk unless medically indicated (step 6), rooming-in (step 7), breastfeeding on demand (step 8), and giving no pacifiers (step 9).

The analyses showed that only steps 4 and 6 – initiating breastfeeding at birth and giving only breast milk – remained significantly associated with meeting breastfeeding intentions. The results also revealed a dose-response relationship between the number of baby steps experienced during birth hospitalization and the likelihood of meeting breastfeeding goals, a finding in keeping with previous studies. In women who experienced all six steps, for example, 76% were breastfeeding exclusively at 1 month, compared with 16% of those who experienced zero to two steps.

Although the dose-response relationship did not appear to differ significantly by race or ethnicity, it was driven primarily by a hospital policy of providing infant formula or other supplementation, the study authors found. Notably, 44% of women reported that their infant had been fed something other than breast milk while in the hospital, and about 60% said they stopped breastfeeding earlier than intended.

“This finding reiterates the importance of limiting in-hospital formula or other supplementation of breastfed infants to only those with medical necessity,” Dr. Hamner and colleagues said.

Despite improvements in maternity care practices that promote breastfeeding, including an increase in the number of births occurring in U.S. hospitals with a baby-friendly designation, many women continue to experience significant barriers to breastfeeding, the investigators pointed out. Currently, there are 592 baby-friendly hospitals in the United States, representing 28.29% of annual births.

“I think more hospitals becoming baby friendly would really help,” Mary Franklin, DNP, CNM, assistant professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview. More needs to be done to support women during birth hospitalization and after they return home, so they can continue to breastfeed for “longer than the initial 6 weeks,” added Dr. Franklin, who is also director of the nurse midwifery and women’s health NP program.

The AAP recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months followed by complementary food introduction and continued breastfeeding through 12 months or beyond.

Like Dr. Hamner, Dr. Franklin emphasized that physicians have an important role to play in the initiation, duration, and exclusivity of breastfeeding. This includes promoting enrichment of the pregnancy experience with prenatal education and increased support from health care providers and peers. At delivery, obstetricians can delay cord clamping to facilitate early breastfeeding. They can also support the elimination of the central nursery in hospitals so that mother and baby stay together from birth. In addition, prescriptions can be written for breast pumps, which are covered by Medicaid.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Hamner and coauthors disclosed having no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Franklin also disclosed having no financial conflicts of interest.

A first-ever study of the effect of evidence-based maternity care practices on prenatal breastfeeding intentions in women from low-income U.S. households shows that the use of “baby-friendly steps” during birth hospitalization made it possible for almost half to breastfeed exclusively for 1 month.

Analyses of national data from a longitudinal study of 1,080 women enrolled in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) revealed that 47% were able to meet their prenatal intention to breastfeed without formula or other milk for at least 30 days.

The odds of meeting prenatal breastfeeding intentions more than quadrupled when babies received only breast milk (risk ratio, 4.4; 95% confidence interval, 3.4-5.7), the study showed. Breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth was also associated with greater likelihood of breastfeeding success (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.6).

The study, led by Heather C. Hamner, PhD, MS, MPH, of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, , Atlanta, was reported online in Pediatrics.

“This study confirms the relationship between experiencing maternity care practices supportive of breastfeeding and meeting one’s breastfeeding intentions, and adds evidence specifically among low-income women, who are known to be at higher risk of not breastfeeding,” the study authors wrote.

Women from low-income households often face additional barriers to meeting their breastfeeding goals, including lack of access to professional lactation services, Dr. Hamner said in an interview. “We want physicians to know how important maternity care practices supportive of breastfeeding are to helping all women achieve their breastfeeding goals. Physicians can be champions for implementation of evidence-based maternity care practices in the hospitals and practices in which they work.”

Dr. Hamner emphasized that physicians need to discuss the importance of breastfeeding with patients and their families, brief them on what to expect in the maternity care setting, and ensure women are connected to lactation resources. The American Academy of Pediatrics is working to increase physician capacity to support breastfeeding through the Physician Engagement and Training Focused on Breastfeeding project.

For the study, Dr. Hamner and colleagues analyzed data from the longitudinal WIC Infant and Toddler Feeding Practices Study-2 (ITFPS-2), which assessed the impact of 6 steps from a 10-step maternity care protocol known as The Ten Steps To Successful Breastfeeding. These steps are part of the worldwide Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI), which has been shown to improve rates of breastfeeding initiation, duration, and exclusivity.

After adjusting for sociodemographic and other factors, the study authors estimated risk ratios for associations between each of six maternity care practices assessed in ITFPS-2 and the success of women who reported an intention to breastfeed exclusively for 1 month. The six steps included initiation of breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth (step 4), showing moms how to breastfeed and maintain lactation (step 5), giving no food or drink other than breast milk unless medically indicated (step 6), rooming-in (step 7), breastfeeding on demand (step 8), and giving no pacifiers (step 9).

The analyses showed that only steps 4 and 6 – initiating breastfeeding at birth and giving only breast milk – remained significantly associated with meeting breastfeeding intentions. The results also revealed a dose-response relationship between the number of baby steps experienced during birth hospitalization and the likelihood of meeting breastfeeding goals, a finding in keeping with previous studies. In women who experienced all six steps, for example, 76% were breastfeeding exclusively at 1 month, compared with 16% of those who experienced zero to two steps.

Although the dose-response relationship did not appear to differ significantly by race or ethnicity, it was driven primarily by a hospital policy of providing infant formula or other supplementation, the study authors found. Notably, 44% of women reported that their infant had been fed something other than breast milk while in the hospital, and about 60% said they stopped breastfeeding earlier than intended.

“This finding reiterates the importance of limiting in-hospital formula or other supplementation of breastfed infants to only those with medical necessity,” Dr. Hamner and colleagues said.

Despite improvements in maternity care practices that promote breastfeeding, including an increase in the number of births occurring in U.S. hospitals with a baby-friendly designation, many women continue to experience significant barriers to breastfeeding, the investigators pointed out. Currently, there are 592 baby-friendly hospitals in the United States, representing 28.29% of annual births.

“I think more hospitals becoming baby friendly would really help,” Mary Franklin, DNP, CNM, assistant professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview. More needs to be done to support women during birth hospitalization and after they return home, so they can continue to breastfeed for “longer than the initial 6 weeks,” added Dr. Franklin, who is also director of the nurse midwifery and women’s health NP program.

The AAP recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months followed by complementary food introduction and continued breastfeeding through 12 months or beyond.

Like Dr. Hamner, Dr. Franklin emphasized that physicians have an important role to play in the initiation, duration, and exclusivity of breastfeeding. This includes promoting enrichment of the pregnancy experience with prenatal education and increased support from health care providers and peers. At delivery, obstetricians can delay cord clamping to facilitate early breastfeeding. They can also support the elimination of the central nursery in hospitals so that mother and baby stay together from birth. In addition, prescriptions can be written for breast pumps, which are covered by Medicaid.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Hamner and coauthors disclosed having no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Franklin also disclosed having no financial conflicts of interest.

From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) —the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.

The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.) In addition to H. pylori infection, this edition adds the flame-retardant chemical antimony trioxide, and 6 haloacetic acids found as water disinfection byproducts.

In 1971, then-President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the United States) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.

Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.

Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.

Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.

“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) —the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.

The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.) In addition to H. pylori infection, this edition adds the flame-retardant chemical antimony trioxide, and 6 haloacetic acids found as water disinfection byproducts.

In 1971, then-President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the United States) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.

Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.

Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.

Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.

“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) —the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.

The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.) In addition to H. pylori infection, this edition adds the flame-retardant chemical antimony trioxide, and 6 haloacetic acids found as water disinfection byproducts.

In 1971, then-President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the United States) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.

Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.

Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.

Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.

“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new meta-analysis provides more evidence that taller people may be more likely than their shorter peers to develop colorectal cancer (CRC) or colon polyps.

“There are well-known modifiable dietary associations for colorectal cancer, such as processed red meats and smoking, but guidelines currently are fixated on family history, and height is clinically neglected when it comes to risk screening,” study investigator Gerard Mullin, MD, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release. This large study “builds on evidence that taller height is an overlooked risk factor and should be considered when evaluating and recommending patients for colorectal cancer screenings.”

The study was published online March 1 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
 

The evidence: Height and cancer risk

Height has been actively studied as a potential nonmodifiable risk factor for a range of cancers, including CRC.

In one large prospective study of postmenopausal women, researchers found a modest but statistically significant positive association between height and risk for any cancer and for melanoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the thyroid, ovary, colorectum, and endometrium. 

A separate study found that tall men, especially those who are long-legged, may be at increased risk for prostate cancer, including high-grade tumors, relative to men of more modest stature.

However, the study authors point out, past studies have also produced mixed results, used inconsistent measures of height, and failed to include the risk of adenomas.  

In the current meta-analysis, the investigators included 47 international, observational studies involving 280,644 adults with CRC and 14,139 cases of colorectal adenoma.

Because the definition of tallness differs around the world, the researchers compared the highest versus the lowest height percentile of various study groups. The findings were adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral, and other known risk factors for CRC.

Overall, the investigators found that the tallest individuals within the highest percentile of height had a 24% higher risk of developing CRC compared to the shortest individuals within the lowest percentile (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; P < .001).

In addition, they found that every 10-cm increase (about 4 inches) in height was associated with a 14% increased risk of developing CRC (HR, 1.14; P < .001) and a 6% increased likelihood of adenomas (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; P = .03).

In the United States, the average height for men is 5 feet, 9 inches, and for women it is 5 feet, 4 inches, which means men who are 6 feet, 1 inch and women who are 5 feet, 8 inches or taller have a 14% increased risk of CRC and a 6% increased risk of adenomas, the researchers explained.

According to co–first author Elinor Zhou, MD, also with Johns Hopkins University, a potential explanation for this link “is that adult height correlates with body organ size. More active proliferation in organs of taller people could increase the possibility of mutations leading to malignant transformation.”

The study authors said more research is needed to identify particular subgroups of tall people at risk for CRC.

“For instance, tall athletes and individuals with inherited tallness, such as those with Marfan syndrome, could be screened earlier and the impact of height further explored,” Dr. Zhou said.

Plus, Dr. Zhou added, more studies are needed to “definitively say at what height you would need earlier colorectal cancer screening.”

The current study was supported by grants from Bloomberg Philanthropies, intramural funds, and the Johns Hopkins Cancer Center Support Grant. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new meta-analysis provides more evidence that taller people may be more likely than their shorter peers to develop colorectal cancer (CRC) or colon polyps.

“There are well-known modifiable dietary associations for colorectal cancer, such as processed red meats and smoking, but guidelines currently are fixated on family history, and height is clinically neglected when it comes to risk screening,” study investigator Gerard Mullin, MD, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release. This large study “builds on evidence that taller height is an overlooked risk factor and should be considered when evaluating and recommending patients for colorectal cancer screenings.”

The study was published online March 1 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
 

The evidence: Height and cancer risk

Height has been actively studied as a potential nonmodifiable risk factor for a range of cancers, including CRC.

In one large prospective study of postmenopausal women, researchers found a modest but statistically significant positive association between height and risk for any cancer and for melanoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the thyroid, ovary, colorectum, and endometrium. 

A separate study found that tall men, especially those who are long-legged, may be at increased risk for prostate cancer, including high-grade tumors, relative to men of more modest stature.

However, the study authors point out, past studies have also produced mixed results, used inconsistent measures of height, and failed to include the risk of adenomas.  

In the current meta-analysis, the investigators included 47 international, observational studies involving 280,644 adults with CRC and 14,139 cases of colorectal adenoma.

Because the definition of tallness differs around the world, the researchers compared the highest versus the lowest height percentile of various study groups. The findings were adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral, and other known risk factors for CRC.

Overall, the investigators found that the tallest individuals within the highest percentile of height had a 24% higher risk of developing CRC compared to the shortest individuals within the lowest percentile (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; P < .001).

In addition, they found that every 10-cm increase (about 4 inches) in height was associated with a 14% increased risk of developing CRC (HR, 1.14; P < .001) and a 6% increased likelihood of adenomas (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; P = .03).

In the United States, the average height for men is 5 feet, 9 inches, and for women it is 5 feet, 4 inches, which means men who are 6 feet, 1 inch and women who are 5 feet, 8 inches or taller have a 14% increased risk of CRC and a 6% increased risk of adenomas, the researchers explained.

According to co–first author Elinor Zhou, MD, also with Johns Hopkins University, a potential explanation for this link “is that adult height correlates with body organ size. More active proliferation in organs of taller people could increase the possibility of mutations leading to malignant transformation.”

The study authors said more research is needed to identify particular subgroups of tall people at risk for CRC.

“For instance, tall athletes and individuals with inherited tallness, such as those with Marfan syndrome, could be screened earlier and the impact of height further explored,” Dr. Zhou said.

Plus, Dr. Zhou added, more studies are needed to “definitively say at what height you would need earlier colorectal cancer screening.”

The current study was supported by grants from Bloomberg Philanthropies, intramural funds, and the Johns Hopkins Cancer Center Support Grant. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new meta-analysis provides more evidence that taller people may be more likely than their shorter peers to develop colorectal cancer (CRC) or colon polyps.

“There are well-known modifiable dietary associations for colorectal cancer, such as processed red meats and smoking, but guidelines currently are fixated on family history, and height is clinically neglected when it comes to risk screening,” study investigator Gerard Mullin, MD, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release. This large study “builds on evidence that taller height is an overlooked risk factor and should be considered when evaluating and recommending patients for colorectal cancer screenings.”

The study was published online March 1 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
 

The evidence: Height and cancer risk

Height has been actively studied as a potential nonmodifiable risk factor for a range of cancers, including CRC.

In one large prospective study of postmenopausal women, researchers found a modest but statistically significant positive association between height and risk for any cancer and for melanoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the thyroid, ovary, colorectum, and endometrium. 

A separate study found that tall men, especially those who are long-legged, may be at increased risk for prostate cancer, including high-grade tumors, relative to men of more modest stature.

However, the study authors point out, past studies have also produced mixed results, used inconsistent measures of height, and failed to include the risk of adenomas.  

In the current meta-analysis, the investigators included 47 international, observational studies involving 280,644 adults with CRC and 14,139 cases of colorectal adenoma.

Because the definition of tallness differs around the world, the researchers compared the highest versus the lowest height percentile of various study groups. The findings were adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral, and other known risk factors for CRC.

Overall, the investigators found that the tallest individuals within the highest percentile of height had a 24% higher risk of developing CRC compared to the shortest individuals within the lowest percentile (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; P < .001).

In addition, they found that every 10-cm increase (about 4 inches) in height was associated with a 14% increased risk of developing CRC (HR, 1.14; P < .001) and a 6% increased likelihood of adenomas (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; P = .03).

In the United States, the average height for men is 5 feet, 9 inches, and for women it is 5 feet, 4 inches, which means men who are 6 feet, 1 inch and women who are 5 feet, 8 inches or taller have a 14% increased risk of CRC and a 6% increased risk of adenomas, the researchers explained.

According to co–first author Elinor Zhou, MD, also with Johns Hopkins University, a potential explanation for this link “is that adult height correlates with body organ size. More active proliferation in organs of taller people could increase the possibility of mutations leading to malignant transformation.”

The study authors said more research is needed to identify particular subgroups of tall people at risk for CRC.

“For instance, tall athletes and individuals with inherited tallness, such as those with Marfan syndrome, could be screened earlier and the impact of height further explored,” Dr. Zhou said.

Plus, Dr. Zhou added, more studies are needed to “definitively say at what height you would need earlier colorectal cancer screening.”

The current study was supported by grants from Bloomberg Philanthropies, intramural funds, and the Johns Hopkins Cancer Center Support Grant. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among women with ATM, CHEK2, or PALB2 pathogenic variants, annual MRI screening beginning at age 30 or 35, followed by concomitant MRI and mammography at age 40, could significantly reduce breast cancer mortality, according to a new model.

Adjunct screening with MRI is already recommended among women with the BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 are the most common of a more recently discovered group of pathogenic variants that confer a moderate to high risk of breast cancer.

In a study published online Feb. 17, 2022, in JAMA Oncology, researchers used two simulation models and risk estimates from the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility Consortium to predict that MRI screening at age 35 would produce a 54.4%-57.6% reduction in breast cancer mortality, with an estimated 4,661-5,001 false positive screenings and 1,280-1,368 benign biopsies per 1,000 women. At age 30, the model predicted 55.4-59.5% reduction in risk, 5,075-5,415 false positives, and 1,439-1,528 benign biopsies. Annual mammography at age 40 alone could reduce risk by 36%-39%.

The false positives and benign biopsies represent cumulative lifetime results.

“We’ve known for a long time that mammography is less sensitive in younger women than in older women and, of course, when women have a genetic predisposition, we’re very concerned about early-onset cancer. We’ve also known that when you do MRI at the same time as mammography, you find a lot more cancers. [There are] more false positives, but there is clearly a greater yield of cancer in that setting, and the cancers are found earlier,” senior author Mark Robson, MD, said in an interview.

The model showed that mammography screening in women under 40 added no survival benefit, and led to additional false positives and benign biopsies.

“We know that MRI’s detection rate for cancers in a head-to-head comparison with mammography is extremely high, and so I’m not surprised that there was such a difference from a mammography strategy. What I was excited by is just how impactful the MRI screen was in terms of projected reduction in the risk of death. I thought that great,” said Dr. Robson, who is chief of the breast medicine service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

The balance of mortality reduction versus false positives and benign biopsies will need to be weighed by others. “We didn’t feel like we could make those judgments, but what we were presenting was for people who do make these kinds of policies. The reason that we said 30-35 years (for MRI initiation) is because at that point, the false positive versus life-years gained curve starts to plateau. For instance, when we look at strategies of starting MRI at 25, you we don’t get significantly more life years gained, but we do get more false positives,” Dr. Robson said.

The researchers did not conduct a former cost-benefit analysis for initiating MRI screening at age 30-35.

The study “reinforces the value of MRI for women with these variants that are really just entering the clinical consciousness, and affirms that we need to be doing that in young women to help prevent death from breast cancer. I also think that we need to look at really what mammogram is adding in young women and consider whether or not we really need it at the policy level,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Robson has conducted clinical trials with AstraZeneca, Merck, and Pfizer.

Among women with ATM, CHEK2, or PALB2 pathogenic variants, annual MRI screening beginning at age 30 or 35, followed by concomitant MRI and mammography at age 40, could significantly reduce breast cancer mortality, according to a new model.

Adjunct screening with MRI is already recommended among women with the BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 are the most common of a more recently discovered group of pathogenic variants that confer a moderate to high risk of breast cancer.

In a study published online Feb. 17, 2022, in JAMA Oncology, researchers used two simulation models and risk estimates from the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility Consortium to predict that MRI screening at age 35 would produce a 54.4%-57.6% reduction in breast cancer mortality, with an estimated 4,661-5,001 false positive screenings and 1,280-1,368 benign biopsies per 1,000 women. At age 30, the model predicted 55.4-59.5% reduction in risk, 5,075-5,415 false positives, and 1,439-1,528 benign biopsies. Annual mammography at age 40 alone could reduce risk by 36%-39%.

The false positives and benign biopsies represent cumulative lifetime results.

“We’ve known for a long time that mammography is less sensitive in younger women than in older women and, of course, when women have a genetic predisposition, we’re very concerned about early-onset cancer. We’ve also known that when you do MRI at the same time as mammography, you find a lot more cancers. [There are] more false positives, but there is clearly a greater yield of cancer in that setting, and the cancers are found earlier,” senior author Mark Robson, MD, said in an interview.

The model showed that mammography screening in women under 40 added no survival benefit, and led to additional false positives and benign biopsies.

“We know that MRI’s detection rate for cancers in a head-to-head comparison with mammography is extremely high, and so I’m not surprised that there was such a difference from a mammography strategy. What I was excited by is just how impactful the MRI screen was in terms of projected reduction in the risk of death. I thought that great,” said Dr. Robson, who is chief of the breast medicine service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

The balance of mortality reduction versus false positives and benign biopsies will need to be weighed by others. “We didn’t feel like we could make those judgments, but what we were presenting was for people who do make these kinds of policies. The reason that we said 30-35 years (for MRI initiation) is because at that point, the false positive versus life-years gained curve starts to plateau. For instance, when we look at strategies of starting MRI at 25, you we don’t get significantly more life years gained, but we do get more false positives,” Dr. Robson said.

The researchers did not conduct a former cost-benefit analysis for initiating MRI screening at age 30-35.

The study “reinforces the value of MRI for women with these variants that are really just entering the clinical consciousness, and affirms that we need to be doing that in young women to help prevent death from breast cancer. I also think that we need to look at really what mammogram is adding in young women and consider whether or not we really need it at the policy level,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Robson has conducted clinical trials with AstraZeneca, Merck, and Pfizer.

Among women with ATM, CHEK2, or PALB2 pathogenic variants, annual MRI screening beginning at age 30 or 35, followed by concomitant MRI and mammography at age 40, could significantly reduce breast cancer mortality, according to a new model.

Adjunct screening with MRI is already recommended among women with the BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 are the most common of a more recently discovered group of pathogenic variants that confer a moderate to high risk of breast cancer.

In a study published online Feb. 17, 2022, in JAMA Oncology, researchers used two simulation models and risk estimates from the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility Consortium to predict that MRI screening at age 35 would produce a 54.4%-57.6% reduction in breast cancer mortality, with an estimated 4,661-5,001 false positive screenings and 1,280-1,368 benign biopsies per 1,000 women. At age 30, the model predicted 55.4-59.5% reduction in risk, 5,075-5,415 false positives, and 1,439-1,528 benign biopsies. Annual mammography at age 40 alone could reduce risk by 36%-39%.

The false positives and benign biopsies represent cumulative lifetime results.

“We’ve known for a long time that mammography is less sensitive in younger women than in older women and, of course, when women have a genetic predisposition, we’re very concerned about early-onset cancer. We’ve also known that when you do MRI at the same time as mammography, you find a lot more cancers. [There are] more false positives, but there is clearly a greater yield of cancer in that setting, and the cancers are found earlier,” senior author Mark Robson, MD, said in an interview.

The model showed that mammography screening in women under 40 added no survival benefit, and led to additional false positives and benign biopsies.

“We know that MRI’s detection rate for cancers in a head-to-head comparison with mammography is extremely high, and so I’m not surprised that there was such a difference from a mammography strategy. What I was excited by is just how impactful the MRI screen was in terms of projected reduction in the risk of death. I thought that great,” said Dr. Robson, who is chief of the breast medicine service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

The balance of mortality reduction versus false positives and benign biopsies will need to be weighed by others. “We didn’t feel like we could make those judgments, but what we were presenting was for people who do make these kinds of policies. The reason that we said 30-35 years (for MRI initiation) is because at that point, the false positive versus life-years gained curve starts to plateau. For instance, when we look at strategies of starting MRI at 25, you we don’t get significantly more life years gained, but we do get more false positives,” Dr. Robson said.

The researchers did not conduct a former cost-benefit analysis for initiating MRI screening at age 30-35.

The study “reinforces the value of MRI for women with these variants that are really just entering the clinical consciousness, and affirms that we need to be doing that in young women to help prevent death from breast cancer. I also think that we need to look at really what mammogram is adding in young women and consider whether or not we really need it at the policy level,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Robson has conducted clinical trials with AstraZeneca, Merck, and Pfizer.

The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such, physicians would do well to be standing at the ready when the information-blocking regulations, designed to ensure that patients can access their electronic health information (EHI), shift into full gear.

Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.

The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.

Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.

The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
 

Do the stats tell the story?

The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.

Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.

“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
 

A long time coming

The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.

The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.

Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.

“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
 

With education, more is better

These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.

“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”

Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.

“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.

For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.

The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.

“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such, physicians would do well to be standing at the ready when the information-blocking regulations, designed to ensure that patients can access their electronic health information (EHI), shift into full gear.

Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.

The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.

Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.

The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
 

Do the stats tell the story?

The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.

Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.

“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
 

A long time coming

The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.

The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.

Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.

“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
 

With education, more is better

These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.

“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”

Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.

“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.

For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.

The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.

“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such, physicians would do well to be standing at the ready when the information-blocking regulations, designed to ensure that patients can access their electronic health information (EHI), shift into full gear.

Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.

The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.

Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.

The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
 

Do the stats tell the story?

The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.

Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.

“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
 

A long time coming

The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.

The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.

Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.

“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
 

With education, more is better

These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.

“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”

Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.

“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.

For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.

The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.

“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.

Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.

Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.

From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.

Among other findings:

• Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
• One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
• Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
• When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
• Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
• Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
• Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.

The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.

“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
 

‘Robust and reassuring data’

“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.

Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.

Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.

From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.

Among other findings:

• Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
• One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
• Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
• When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
• Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
• Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
• Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.

The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.

“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
 

‘Robust and reassuring data’

“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.

Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.

Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.

From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.

Among other findings:

• Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
• One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
• Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
• When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
• Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
• Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
• Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.

The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.

“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
 

‘Robust and reassuring data’

“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Female-pattern hair loss (FPHL) was identified in 52% of postmenopausal women, and 4% of these cases involved extensive baldness, based on data from 178 individuals.

FPHL can develop at any time from teenage years through and beyond menopause, wrote Sukanya Chaikittisilpa, MD, of Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, and colleagues.

The cause of FPHL remains uncertain, but the presence of estrogen receptors in hair follicles suggests that the hormone changes of menopause may affect hair growth, the researchers said.

In a study published in Menopause, the researchers evaluated 178 postmenopausal women aged 50-65 years for FPHL. FPLH was determined based on photographs and on measures of hormone levels, hair density, and hair diameter.

The overall prevalence of FPHL was 52.2%. The hair loss was divided into three categories indicating mild, moderate, and severe (Ludwig grades I, II, and III) with prevalence of 73.2%, 22.6%, and 4.3%, respectively. The prevalence of FPHL also increased with age and time since menopause. In a simple logistic regression analysis, age 56 years and older and more than 6 years since menopause were significantly associated with FPHL (odds ratios, 3.41 and 1.98, respectively).

However, after adjustment for multiple variables, only a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or higher also was associated with increased prevalence of FPHL (adjusted OR, 2.65).

A total of 60% of the study participants met criteria for low self-esteem, including all the women in the severe hair loss category.

“The postmenopausal women with FPHL in our cohort had lower total hair density, terminal hair density, hair thickness, hair unit density, and average hair per unit than those with normal hair patterns,” although vellus hair density was higher in women with FPHL, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. This distinction may be caused in part by the shortened hair cycle and reduced anagen phase of velluslike follicles, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the cross-sectional design and the inclusion of only women from a single menopause clinic, which may not reflect FPHL in the general population, as well as the reliance on patients’ recall, the researchers noted. Another limitation was the inability to assess postmenopausal hormone levels, they added.

However, “This study may be the first FPHL study conducted in a menopause clinic that targeted only healthy postmenopausal women,” they wrote. More research is needed to determine the potential role of estrogen and testosterone on FPHL in postmenopausal women, and whether a history of polycystic ovarian syndrome has an effect, they said. Meanwhile, current study results may help clinicians and patients determine the most appropriate menopausal hormone therapies for postmenopausal women with FPHL, they concluded.
 

Consider lifestyle and self-esteem issues

The current study is important at this time because a larger proportion of women are either reaching menopause or are menopausal, said Constance Bohon, MD, a gynecologist in private practice in Washington, in an interview.

“Whatever we in the medical community can do to help women transition into the menopausal years with the least anxiety is important,” including helping women feel comfortable about their appearance, she said.

“For women in the peri- and postmenopausal years, hair loss is a relatively common concern,” Dr. Bohon said. However, in the current study, “I was surprised that it was associated with low self-esteem and obesity,” she noted. “For these women, it would be interesting to know whether they also had concerns about the appearance of their bodies, or just their hair loss,” she said. The question is whether the hair loss in and of itself caused low self-esteem in the study population, or whether it exacerbated their already poor self-assessment, Dr. Bohon said. “Another consideration is that perhaps these women were already feeling the effects of aging and were trying to change their appearance by using hair dyes, and now they find themselves losing hair as well,” she noted.

The takeaway message for clinicians is that discussions with perimenopausal and postmenopausal women should include the topic of hair loss along with hot flashes and night sweats, said Dr. Bohon.

Women who are experiencing hair loss or concerned about the possibility of hair loss should ask their doctors about possible interventions that may mitigate or prevent further hair loss, she said.

As for additional research, “the most important issue is to determine the factors that are associated with hair loss in the perimenopausal and postmenopausal years,” Dr. Bohon said. Research questions should include impact of dyeing or straightening hair on the likelihood of hair loss, and whether women with more severe hot flashes/night sweats and/or sleeplessness have more hair loss than women who do not experience any of the symptoms as they go through menopause, she emphasized.

Other considerations are whether certain diets or foods are more common among women who have more hair loss, and whether weight loss into a normal range or weight gain into a body mass index greater than 25 kg/m² affects hair loss, said Dr. Bohon. Also, don’t discount the impact of stress, and whether women who have lost hair identify certain stressful times that preceded their hair loss, as well as what medications could be associated with hair loss, and whether hormone therapy might prevent hair loss, she said.

The study was supported by the Ratchadapiseksompotch Fund, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bohon had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Ob.Gyn. News.

Female-pattern hair loss (FPHL) was identified in 52% of postmenopausal women, and 4% of these cases involved extensive baldness, based on data from 178 individuals.

FPHL can develop at any time from teenage years through and beyond menopause, wrote Sukanya Chaikittisilpa, MD, of Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, and colleagues.

The cause of FPHL remains uncertain, but the presence of estrogen receptors in hair follicles suggests that the hormone changes of menopause may affect hair growth, the researchers said.

In a study published in Menopause, the researchers evaluated 178 postmenopausal women aged 50-65 years for FPHL. FPLH was determined based on photographs and on measures of hormone levels, hair density, and hair diameter.

The overall prevalence of FPHL was 52.2%. The hair loss was divided into three categories indicating mild, moderate, and severe (Ludwig grades I, II, and III) with prevalence of 73.2%, 22.6%, and 4.3%, respectively. The prevalence of FPHL also increased with age and time since menopause. In a simple logistic regression analysis, age 56 years and older and more than 6 years since menopause were significantly associated with FPHL (odds ratios, 3.41 and 1.98, respectively).

However, after adjustment for multiple variables, only a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or higher also was associated with increased prevalence of FPHL (adjusted OR, 2.65).

A total of 60% of the study participants met criteria for low self-esteem, including all the women in the severe hair loss category.

“The postmenopausal women with FPHL in our cohort had lower total hair density, terminal hair density, hair thickness, hair unit density, and average hair per unit than those with normal hair patterns,” although vellus hair density was higher in women with FPHL, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. This distinction may be caused in part by the shortened hair cycle and reduced anagen phase of velluslike follicles, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the cross-sectional design and the inclusion of only women from a single menopause clinic, which may not reflect FPHL in the general population, as well as the reliance on patients’ recall, the researchers noted. Another limitation was the inability to assess postmenopausal hormone levels, they added.

However, “This study may be the first FPHL study conducted in a menopause clinic that targeted only healthy postmenopausal women,” they wrote. More research is needed to determine the potential role of estrogen and testosterone on FPHL in postmenopausal women, and whether a history of polycystic ovarian syndrome has an effect, they said. Meanwhile, current study results may help clinicians and patients determine the most appropriate menopausal hormone therapies for postmenopausal women with FPHL, they concluded.
 

Consider lifestyle and self-esteem issues

The current study is important at this time because a larger proportion of women are either reaching menopause or are menopausal, said Constance Bohon, MD, a gynecologist in private practice in Washington, in an interview.

“Whatever we in the medical community can do to help women transition into the menopausal years with the least anxiety is important,” including helping women feel comfortable about their appearance, she said.

“For women in the peri- and postmenopausal years, hair loss is a relatively common concern,” Dr. Bohon said. However, in the current study, “I was surprised that it was associated with low self-esteem and obesity,” she noted. “For these women, it would be interesting to know whether they also had concerns about the appearance of their bodies, or just their hair loss,” she said. The question is whether the hair loss in and of itself caused low self-esteem in the study population, or whether it exacerbated their already poor self-assessment, Dr. Bohon said. “Another consideration is that perhaps these women were already feeling the effects of aging and were trying to change their appearance by using hair dyes, and now they find themselves losing hair as well,” she noted.

The takeaway message for clinicians is that discussions with perimenopausal and postmenopausal women should include the topic of hair loss along with hot flashes and night sweats, said Dr. Bohon.

Women who are experiencing hair loss or concerned about the possibility of hair loss should ask their doctors about possible interventions that may mitigate or prevent further hair loss, she said.

As for additional research, “the most important issue is to determine the factors that are associated with hair loss in the perimenopausal and postmenopausal years,” Dr. Bohon said. Research questions should include impact of dyeing or straightening hair on the likelihood of hair loss, and whether women with more severe hot flashes/night sweats and/or sleeplessness have more hair loss than women who do not experience any of the symptoms as they go through menopause, she emphasized.

Other considerations are whether certain diets or foods are more common among women who have more hair loss, and whether weight loss into a normal range or weight gain into a body mass index greater than 25 kg/m² affects hair loss, said Dr. Bohon. Also, don’t discount the impact of stress, and whether women who have lost hair identify certain stressful times that preceded their hair loss, as well as what medications could be associated with hair loss, and whether hormone therapy might prevent hair loss, she said.

The study was supported by the Ratchadapiseksompotch Fund, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bohon had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Ob.Gyn. News.

Female-pattern hair loss (FPHL) was identified in 52% of postmenopausal women, and 4% of these cases involved extensive baldness, based on data from 178 individuals.

FPHL can develop at any time from teenage years through and beyond menopause, wrote Sukanya Chaikittisilpa, MD, of Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, and colleagues.

The cause of FPHL remains uncertain, but the presence of estrogen receptors in hair follicles suggests that the hormone changes of menopause may affect hair growth, the researchers said.

In a study published in Menopause, the researchers evaluated 178 postmenopausal women aged 50-65 years for FPHL. FPLH was determined based on photographs and on measures of hormone levels, hair density, and hair diameter.

The overall prevalence of FPHL was 52.2%. The hair loss was divided into three categories indicating mild, moderate, and severe (Ludwig grades I, II, and III) with prevalence of 73.2%, 22.6%, and 4.3%, respectively. The prevalence of FPHL also increased with age and time since menopause. In a simple logistic regression analysis, age 56 years and older and more than 6 years since menopause were significantly associated with FPHL (odds ratios, 3.41 and 1.98, respectively).

However, after adjustment for multiple variables, only a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or higher also was associated with increased prevalence of FPHL (adjusted OR, 2.65).

A total of 60% of the study participants met criteria for low self-esteem, including all the women in the severe hair loss category.

“The postmenopausal women with FPHL in our cohort had lower total hair density, terminal hair density, hair thickness, hair unit density, and average hair per unit than those with normal hair patterns,” although vellus hair density was higher in women with FPHL, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. This distinction may be caused in part by the shortened hair cycle and reduced anagen phase of velluslike follicles, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the cross-sectional design and the inclusion of only women from a single menopause clinic, which may not reflect FPHL in the general population, as well as the reliance on patients’ recall, the researchers noted. Another limitation was the inability to assess postmenopausal hormone levels, they added.

However, “This study may be the first FPHL study conducted in a menopause clinic that targeted only healthy postmenopausal women,” they wrote. More research is needed to determine the potential role of estrogen and testosterone on FPHL in postmenopausal women, and whether a history of polycystic ovarian syndrome has an effect, they said. Meanwhile, current study results may help clinicians and patients determine the most appropriate menopausal hormone therapies for postmenopausal women with FPHL, they concluded.
 

Consider lifestyle and self-esteem issues

The current study is important at this time because a larger proportion of women are either reaching menopause or are menopausal, said Constance Bohon, MD, a gynecologist in private practice in Washington, in an interview.

“Whatever we in the medical community can do to help women transition into the menopausal years with the least anxiety is important,” including helping women feel comfortable about their appearance, she said.

“For women in the peri- and postmenopausal years, hair loss is a relatively common concern,” Dr. Bohon said. However, in the current study, “I was surprised that it was associated with low self-esteem and obesity,” she noted. “For these women, it would be interesting to know whether they also had concerns about the appearance of their bodies, or just their hair loss,” she said. The question is whether the hair loss in and of itself caused low self-esteem in the study population, or whether it exacerbated their already poor self-assessment, Dr. Bohon said. “Another consideration is that perhaps these women were already feeling the effects of aging and were trying to change their appearance by using hair dyes, and now they find themselves losing hair as well,” she noted.

The takeaway message for clinicians is that discussions with perimenopausal and postmenopausal women should include the topic of hair loss along with hot flashes and night sweats, said Dr. Bohon.

Women who are experiencing hair loss or concerned about the possibility of hair loss should ask their doctors about possible interventions that may mitigate or prevent further hair loss, she said.

As for additional research, “the most important issue is to determine the factors that are associated with hair loss in the perimenopausal and postmenopausal years,” Dr. Bohon said. Research questions should include impact of dyeing or straightening hair on the likelihood of hair loss, and whether women with more severe hot flashes/night sweats and/or sleeplessness have more hair loss than women who do not experience any of the symptoms as they go through menopause, she emphasized.

Other considerations are whether certain diets or foods are more common among women who have more hair loss, and whether weight loss into a normal range or weight gain into a body mass index greater than 25 kg/m² affects hair loss, said Dr. Bohon. Also, don’t discount the impact of stress, and whether women who have lost hair identify certain stressful times that preceded their hair loss, as well as what medications could be associated with hair loss, and whether hormone therapy might prevent hair loss, she said.

The study was supported by the Ratchadapiseksompotch Fund, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bohon had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Ob.Gyn. News.