Ob.Gyn. News

“She’s, like, 90 years old. I’m not going to ask her about sex!” says the cringing resident. “She’s older than my grandmother!”

Well, my young friend, our 80- and 90-year-old patients were in their 20s and 30s in the 1960s. You can bet some of them were pretty groovy! A Swedish study of septuagenarians revealed a shift in sexual attitudes: from 5% of 70-year-old women in the 1970s citing sex as a positive aspect of life, to 78% in 2000. Those of us in practice who came of age during the AIDS era and alongside the purity movement of the 1990s can be more sexually reserved than our grandparents. We might need to catch up. In fact, in another study, 82% of 97-year-old female participants felt that being asked about their sexuality in healthcare settings was positive.

While changes do occur in sexual physiology and behavior with age, satisfying sexual engagement may be an important factor in the general well-being and overall health of older women. Given the high prevalence of dementia among this population, it may be useful to know that positive sexual expression may delay cognitive decline. We also have evidence that sexual satisfaction is important for relational health, which in turn helps predict physical health.

Shed the Dysfunction Mindset

Our medical bias has been that a fulfilling sexual life requires a hard penis and a lubricated vagina. This view of the range of healthy and satisfying sexual expression is lamentably limited. Older adults may have more problems with physiologic arousal in the form of more erectile dysfunction and decreased vaginal lubrication, but these issues may lead to partnerships in which there is less insertive/receiving sexual play and more oral sex, cuddling, kissing, and other forms of partnered sexual play. Older adults may focus less on performance and more on intimacy. In fact, as heterosexual couples encounter these physiologic changes, their sexual behavior may begin to focus more attention to female pleasure. Good news for older women!

As described by Dutch sexuality and aging expert Woet Gianotten, MD, older adults have a lot going for them in their sex lives. Many are retired with more time available, less work stress, greater comfort and familiarity with their partners, and less insecurity about their bodies.

Common Concerns

Many older adults are having satisfying sexual play and are less bothered by changes in their sexual physiology. Still, for those who aren’t happy with their sex lives, clinicians must be ready to address these concerns.

Nancy, an 87-year-old patient whose husband died 5 years ago after 59 years of marriage, has just met someone new. When they are intimate physically, she’s not feeling aroused in the way she recalls, and wonders, Where have my orgasms gone?

A host of physical changes among older women can affect the sexual experience, including the vulvovaginal changes of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), incontinence, uterine prolapse, diminished sensation, and reduced overall mobility. Although aging is responsible for some of these changes, chronic diseases and medical treatments can play an even larger role.

GSM is a major contributor to sexual pain, genital irritation, and reduced arousal and orgasm. It’s crazy that we don’t ask about and treat GSM. Beyond the sexual impact, the vaginal dryness of GSM can contribute to urinary tract infections, which can lead to sepsis and even death! Vaginal estrogens and other GSM treatments are safe and effective in the vast majority of women. Vaginal moisturizers, vaginal dilators, and increasing genital blood flow also help improve GSM.

Vaginal dilators are used in the management of vaginal stenosis, when the vaginal skin has contracted as a result of GSM or pelvic radiation to treat cancer. Dilators are also used to treat some forms of high-tone pelvic floor dysfunction. For expert guidance and coaching on the use of dilators, seek out sexual medicine specialists and pelvic floor physical therapists. Pelvic floor physical therapy is important in the management of a wide range of sexual concerns, from reduced arousal and orgasm to almost any kind of sexual pain.

For postmenopausal women who are distressed by hypoactive sexual desire disorder, transdermal low-dose testosterone may be considered when other causes of low libido have been ruled out.

Due to changes in nerve fiber sensitivity over time, older age is an ideal phase of life to incorporate higher-intensity vibration and other sexual devices into solo and partner sex. Mobility limitations and joint pain can be addressed with devices designed specifically for this purpose or with the use of pillows and other supports.

As Betty Dodson, a staunch advocate for women’s pleasure until her death in 2020 at 91, wisely said, “Masturbation will get you through childhood, puberty, romance, marriage, and divorce, and it will see you through old age.” We can encourage women to see sexual play and pleasure flexibly, as a lifelong process of self-knowledge and discovery.

Basic Tips for Patients

• More “fiction and friction,” as coined by sex therapist Barry McCarthy, is necessary. As bodies age, more stimulation, both mental and physical, is necessary and often requires more direct physical stimulation of genitals.
• More time: Everything seems to take more time as we age; sex is no different.
• Incontinence concerns can be addressed by open communication and collaboration with partners, and being prepared with waterproof pads for the bed and towels.
• Ask about medical intervention–related sexual side effects. A wide range of medications can decrease desire and arousal and delay orgasm. If a change in sexual function occurred with starting a medication, it may be worthwhile investigating alternatives or, if possible, discontinuing a medication. Surgical and procedural changes to the anatomy also can affect sexual function. While correction may be impossible once certain changes have occurred, clinicians can provide patients with both validation about the problem and hope that, for the most part, with creativity and flexibility, pleasurable sexual experience is possible in all bodies.

Pebble M. Kranz, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“She’s, like, 90 years old. I’m not going to ask her about sex!” says the cringing resident. “She’s older than my grandmother!”

Well, my young friend, our 80- and 90-year-old patients were in their 20s and 30s in the 1960s. You can bet some of them were pretty groovy! A Swedish study of septuagenarians revealed a shift in sexual attitudes: from 5% of 70-year-old women in the 1970s citing sex as a positive aspect of life, to 78% in 2000. Those of us in practice who came of age during the AIDS era and alongside the purity movement of the 1990s can be more sexually reserved than our grandparents. We might need to catch up. In fact, in another study, 82% of 97-year-old female participants felt that being asked about their sexuality in healthcare settings was positive.

While changes do occur in sexual physiology and behavior with age, satisfying sexual engagement may be an important factor in the general well-being and overall health of older women. Given the high prevalence of dementia among this population, it may be useful to know that positive sexual expression may delay cognitive decline. We also have evidence that sexual satisfaction is important for relational health, which in turn helps predict physical health.

Shed the Dysfunction Mindset

Our medical bias has been that a fulfilling sexual life requires a hard penis and a lubricated vagina. This view of the range of healthy and satisfying sexual expression is lamentably limited. Older adults may have more problems with physiologic arousal in the form of more erectile dysfunction and decreased vaginal lubrication, but these issues may lead to partnerships in which there is less insertive/receiving sexual play and more oral sex, cuddling, kissing, and other forms of partnered sexual play. Older adults may focus less on performance and more on intimacy. In fact, as heterosexual couples encounter these physiologic changes, their sexual behavior may begin to focus more attention to female pleasure. Good news for older women!

As described by Dutch sexuality and aging expert Woet Gianotten, MD, older adults have a lot going for them in their sex lives. Many are retired with more time available, less work stress, greater comfort and familiarity with their partners, and less insecurity about their bodies.

Common Concerns

Many older adults are having satisfying sexual play and are less bothered by changes in their sexual physiology. Still, for those who aren’t happy with their sex lives, clinicians must be ready to address these concerns.

Nancy, an 87-year-old patient whose husband died 5 years ago after 59 years of marriage, has just met someone new. When they are intimate physically, she’s not feeling aroused in the way she recalls, and wonders, Where have my orgasms gone?

A host of physical changes among older women can affect the sexual experience, including the vulvovaginal changes of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), incontinence, uterine prolapse, diminished sensation, and reduced overall mobility. Although aging is responsible for some of these changes, chronic diseases and medical treatments can play an even larger role.

GSM is a major contributor to sexual pain, genital irritation, and reduced arousal and orgasm. It’s crazy that we don’t ask about and treat GSM. Beyond the sexual impact, the vaginal dryness of GSM can contribute to urinary tract infections, which can lead to sepsis and even death! Vaginal estrogens and other GSM treatments are safe and effective in the vast majority of women. Vaginal moisturizers, vaginal dilators, and increasing genital blood flow also help improve GSM.

Vaginal dilators are used in the management of vaginal stenosis, when the vaginal skin has contracted as a result of GSM or pelvic radiation to treat cancer. Dilators are also used to treat some forms of high-tone pelvic floor dysfunction. For expert guidance and coaching on the use of dilators, seek out sexual medicine specialists and pelvic floor physical therapists. Pelvic floor physical therapy is important in the management of a wide range of sexual concerns, from reduced arousal and orgasm to almost any kind of sexual pain.

For postmenopausal women who are distressed by hypoactive sexual desire disorder, transdermal low-dose testosterone may be considered when other causes of low libido have been ruled out.

Due to changes in nerve fiber sensitivity over time, older age is an ideal phase of life to incorporate higher-intensity vibration and other sexual devices into solo and partner sex. Mobility limitations and joint pain can be addressed with devices designed specifically for this purpose or with the use of pillows and other supports.

As Betty Dodson, a staunch advocate for women’s pleasure until her death in 2020 at 91, wisely said, “Masturbation will get you through childhood, puberty, romance, marriage, and divorce, and it will see you through old age.” We can encourage women to see sexual play and pleasure flexibly, as a lifelong process of self-knowledge and discovery.

Basic Tips for Patients

• More “fiction and friction,” as coined by sex therapist Barry McCarthy, is necessary. As bodies age, more stimulation, both mental and physical, is necessary and often requires more direct physical stimulation of genitals.
• More time: Everything seems to take more time as we age; sex is no different.
• Incontinence concerns can be addressed by open communication and collaboration with partners, and being prepared with waterproof pads for the bed and towels.
• Ask about medical intervention–related sexual side effects. A wide range of medications can decrease desire and arousal and delay orgasm. If a change in sexual function occurred with starting a medication, it may be worthwhile investigating alternatives or, if possible, discontinuing a medication. Surgical and procedural changes to the anatomy also can affect sexual function. While correction may be impossible once certain changes have occurred, clinicians can provide patients with both validation about the problem and hope that, for the most part, with creativity and flexibility, pleasurable sexual experience is possible in all bodies.

Pebble M. Kranz, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“She’s, like, 90 years old. I’m not going to ask her about sex!” says the cringing resident. “She’s older than my grandmother!”

Well, my young friend, our 80- and 90-year-old patients were in their 20s and 30s in the 1960s. You can bet some of them were pretty groovy! A Swedish study of septuagenarians revealed a shift in sexual attitudes: from 5% of 70-year-old women in the 1970s citing sex as a positive aspect of life, to 78% in 2000. Those of us in practice who came of age during the AIDS era and alongside the purity movement of the 1990s can be more sexually reserved than our grandparents. We might need to catch up. In fact, in another study, 82% of 97-year-old female participants felt that being asked about their sexuality in healthcare settings was positive.

While changes do occur in sexual physiology and behavior with age, satisfying sexual engagement may be an important factor in the general well-being and overall health of older women. Given the high prevalence of dementia among this population, it may be useful to know that positive sexual expression may delay cognitive decline. We also have evidence that sexual satisfaction is important for relational health, which in turn helps predict physical health.

Shed the Dysfunction Mindset

Our medical bias has been that a fulfilling sexual life requires a hard penis and a lubricated vagina. This view of the range of healthy and satisfying sexual expression is lamentably limited. Older adults may have more problems with physiologic arousal in the form of more erectile dysfunction and decreased vaginal lubrication, but these issues may lead to partnerships in which there is less insertive/receiving sexual play and more oral sex, cuddling, kissing, and other forms of partnered sexual play. Older adults may focus less on performance and more on intimacy. In fact, as heterosexual couples encounter these physiologic changes, their sexual behavior may begin to focus more attention to female pleasure. Good news for older women!

As described by Dutch sexuality and aging expert Woet Gianotten, MD, older adults have a lot going for them in their sex lives. Many are retired with more time available, less work stress, greater comfort and familiarity with their partners, and less insecurity about their bodies.

Common Concerns

Many older adults are having satisfying sexual play and are less bothered by changes in their sexual physiology. Still, for those who aren’t happy with their sex lives, clinicians must be ready to address these concerns.

Nancy, an 87-year-old patient whose husband died 5 years ago after 59 years of marriage, has just met someone new. When they are intimate physically, she’s not feeling aroused in the way she recalls, and wonders, Where have my orgasms gone?

A host of physical changes among older women can affect the sexual experience, including the vulvovaginal changes of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), incontinence, uterine prolapse, diminished sensation, and reduced overall mobility. Although aging is responsible for some of these changes, chronic diseases and medical treatments can play an even larger role.

GSM is a major contributor to sexual pain, genital irritation, and reduced arousal and orgasm. It’s crazy that we don’t ask about and treat GSM. Beyond the sexual impact, the vaginal dryness of GSM can contribute to urinary tract infections, which can lead to sepsis and even death! Vaginal estrogens and other GSM treatments are safe and effective in the vast majority of women. Vaginal moisturizers, vaginal dilators, and increasing genital blood flow also help improve GSM.

Vaginal dilators are used in the management of vaginal stenosis, when the vaginal skin has contracted as a result of GSM or pelvic radiation to treat cancer. Dilators are also used to treat some forms of high-tone pelvic floor dysfunction. For expert guidance and coaching on the use of dilators, seek out sexual medicine specialists and pelvic floor physical therapists. Pelvic floor physical therapy is important in the management of a wide range of sexual concerns, from reduced arousal and orgasm to almost any kind of sexual pain.

For postmenopausal women who are distressed by hypoactive sexual desire disorder, transdermal low-dose testosterone may be considered when other causes of low libido have been ruled out.

Due to changes in nerve fiber sensitivity over time, older age is an ideal phase of life to incorporate higher-intensity vibration and other sexual devices into solo and partner sex. Mobility limitations and joint pain can be addressed with devices designed specifically for this purpose or with the use of pillows and other supports.

As Betty Dodson, a staunch advocate for women’s pleasure until her death in 2020 at 91, wisely said, “Masturbation will get you through childhood, puberty, romance, marriage, and divorce, and it will see you through old age.” We can encourage women to see sexual play and pleasure flexibly, as a lifelong process of self-knowledge and discovery.

Basic Tips for Patients

• More “fiction and friction,” as coined by sex therapist Barry McCarthy, is necessary. As bodies age, more stimulation, both mental and physical, is necessary and often requires more direct physical stimulation of genitals.
• More time: Everything seems to take more time as we age; sex is no different.
• Incontinence concerns can be addressed by open communication and collaboration with partners, and being prepared with waterproof pads for the bed and towels.
• Ask about medical intervention–related sexual side effects. A wide range of medications can decrease desire and arousal and delay orgasm. If a change in sexual function occurred with starting a medication, it may be worthwhile investigating alternatives or, if possible, discontinuing a medication. Surgical and procedural changes to the anatomy also can affect sexual function. While correction may be impossible once certain changes have occurred, clinicians can provide patients with both validation about the problem and hope that, for the most part, with creativity and flexibility, pleasurable sexual experience is possible in all bodies.

Pebble M. Kranz, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Campaigners for greater transparency in medical science have reiterated calls for more to be done to avoid “medical research waste” after an investigation found that results from more than a fifth of clinical trials across five Nordic countries have never been made public.

A study found that results from 475 clinical trials in Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden — involving almost 84,000 participants — were never made public in any form.

Nonpublication of clinical trial results wastes public money, harms patients, and undermines public health, the researchers said. 

There is already a well-defined ethical responsibility to publish trial results. Article 36 of the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects states that “researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects,” and World Health Organization best practice protocols call for results to be uploaded onto trial registries within 12 months of trial completion.
 

Research Waste Is a ‘Pervasive Problem’

So, how and why do so many trials end up gathering dust in a drawer? The latest study, published February 5 as a preprint, evaluated the reporting outcomes of 2113 clinical trials at medical universities and university hospitals in Nordic countries between 2016 and 2019. It found that across the five countries, 22% of all clinical trial results had not been shared. Furthermore, only 27% of all trial results were made public, either on registries or in journals, within 12 months. Even 2 years after trials ended, only around half of results (51.7%) had been put into the public domain.

The authors concluded that missing and delayed results from academically-led clinical trials was a “pervasive problem” in Nordic countries and that institutions, funding bodies, and policymakers needed to ensure that regulations around reporting results were adhered to so that important findings are not lost.

Study first author, Gustav Nilsonne, MD, PHD, from the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, told this news organization: “Most people I talk to — most colleagues who are clinical scientists — tend to think that the main reason is that negative results are not as interesting to publish and therefore they get lower priority, and they get published later and sometimes not at all.”

Experts stressed that the problem is not confined to Nordic countries and that wasted medical research persists elsewhere in Europe and remains a global problem. For instance, a report published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology found that 30% of German trials completed between 2014 and 2017 remained unpublished 5 years after completion.
 

The Case for Laws, Monitoring, and Fines

Till Bruckner, PHD, from TranspariMED, which campaigns to end evidence distortion in medicine, told this news organization: “What is needed to comprehensively fix the problem is a national legal requirement to make all trial results public, coupled with effective monitoring, and followed by sanctions in the rare cases where institutions refuse to comply.” 

Dr. Nilsonne added: “We have argued that the sponsors need to take greater responsibility, but also that there needs to be somebody whose job it is to monitor clinical trials reporting. It shouldn’t have to be that we do this as researchers on a shoestring with no dedicated resources. It should be somebody’s job.”

Since January 31, 2023, all initial clinical trial applications in the European Union must be submitted through the EU Clinical Trials Information System. Dr. Bruckner said that “the picture is not yet clear” in Europe, as the first trial results under the system are not expected until later this year. Even then, enforcement lies with regulators in individual countries. And while Denmark has already indicated it will enforce the regulations, he warned that other countries “might turn a blind eye.”

He pointed out that existing laws don’t apply to all types of trials. “That means that for many trials, nobody is legally responsible for ensuring that results are made public, and no government agency has any oversight or mandate,” he said.

Outside the EU, the United Kingdom has helped lead the way through the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA), which registers trials run in the country. One year after a trial has been completed, the HRA checks to see if the results have been uploaded to the registry and issues reminders if they haven’t.

In an update of its work in January, the authority said that compliance had hovered at just below 90% between 2018 and 2021 but that it was working to increase this to 100% by working with stakeholders across the research sector.

Dr. Nilsonne considers the UK system of central registration and follow-up an attractive option. “I would love to see something along those lines in other countries too,” he said.
 

‘Rampant Noncompliance’ in the United States

In the United States, a requirement to make trial results public is backed by law. Despite this, there’s evidence of “rampant noncompliance” and minimal government action, according to Megan Curtin from Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), which has been tracking the issue in the United States and working to push universities and others to make their findings available.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shares responsibility with the National Institutes of Health for enforcement of clinical trial results reporting, but the UAEM says nearly 4000 trials are currently out of compliance with reporting requirements. In January last year, the UAEM copublished a report with the National Center for Health Research and TranspariMED, which found that 3627 American children participated in clinical trials whose results remain unreported.

The FDA can levy a fine of up to $10,000 USD for a violation of the law, but UAEM said that, as of January 2023, the FDA had sent only 92 preliminary notices of noncompliance and four notices of noncompliance. “A clear difference between the EU field of clinical trial operation and US clinical trials is that there are clear laws for reporting within 12 months, which can be enforced, but they’re not being enforced by the FDA,” Ms. Curtin told this news organization.

The UAEM is pushing the FDA to issue a minimum of 250 preliminary notices of noncompliance each year to noncompliant trial sponsors.

Dr. Nilsonne said: “I do believe we have a great responsibility to the patients that do contribute. We need to make sure that the harms and risks that a clinical trial entails are really balanced by knowledge gain, and if the results are never reported, then we can’t have a knowledge gain.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Campaigners for greater transparency in medical science have reiterated calls for more to be done to avoid “medical research waste” after an investigation found that results from more than a fifth of clinical trials across five Nordic countries have never been made public.

A study found that results from 475 clinical trials in Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden — involving almost 84,000 participants — were never made public in any form.

Nonpublication of clinical trial results wastes public money, harms patients, and undermines public health, the researchers said. 

There is already a well-defined ethical responsibility to publish trial results. Article 36 of the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects states that “researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects,” and World Health Organization best practice protocols call for results to be uploaded onto trial registries within 12 months of trial completion.
 

Research Waste Is a ‘Pervasive Problem’

So, how and why do so many trials end up gathering dust in a drawer? The latest study, published February 5 as a preprint, evaluated the reporting outcomes of 2113 clinical trials at medical universities and university hospitals in Nordic countries between 2016 and 2019. It found that across the five countries, 22% of all clinical trial results had not been shared. Furthermore, only 27% of all trial results were made public, either on registries or in journals, within 12 months. Even 2 years after trials ended, only around half of results (51.7%) had been put into the public domain.

The authors concluded that missing and delayed results from academically-led clinical trials was a “pervasive problem” in Nordic countries and that institutions, funding bodies, and policymakers needed to ensure that regulations around reporting results were adhered to so that important findings are not lost.

Study first author, Gustav Nilsonne, MD, PHD, from the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, told this news organization: “Most people I talk to — most colleagues who are clinical scientists — tend to think that the main reason is that negative results are not as interesting to publish and therefore they get lower priority, and they get published later and sometimes not at all.”

Experts stressed that the problem is not confined to Nordic countries and that wasted medical research persists elsewhere in Europe and remains a global problem. For instance, a report published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology found that 30% of German trials completed between 2014 and 2017 remained unpublished 5 years after completion.
 

The Case for Laws, Monitoring, and Fines

Till Bruckner, PHD, from TranspariMED, which campaigns to end evidence distortion in medicine, told this news organization: “What is needed to comprehensively fix the problem is a national legal requirement to make all trial results public, coupled with effective monitoring, and followed by sanctions in the rare cases where institutions refuse to comply.” 

Dr. Nilsonne added: “We have argued that the sponsors need to take greater responsibility, but also that there needs to be somebody whose job it is to monitor clinical trials reporting. It shouldn’t have to be that we do this as researchers on a shoestring with no dedicated resources. It should be somebody’s job.”

Since January 31, 2023, all initial clinical trial applications in the European Union must be submitted through the EU Clinical Trials Information System. Dr. Bruckner said that “the picture is not yet clear” in Europe, as the first trial results under the system are not expected until later this year. Even then, enforcement lies with regulators in individual countries. And while Denmark has already indicated it will enforce the regulations, he warned that other countries “might turn a blind eye.”

He pointed out that existing laws don’t apply to all types of trials. “That means that for many trials, nobody is legally responsible for ensuring that results are made public, and no government agency has any oversight or mandate,” he said.

Outside the EU, the United Kingdom has helped lead the way through the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA), which registers trials run in the country. One year after a trial has been completed, the HRA checks to see if the results have been uploaded to the registry and issues reminders if they haven’t.

In an update of its work in January, the authority said that compliance had hovered at just below 90% between 2018 and 2021 but that it was working to increase this to 100% by working with stakeholders across the research sector.

Dr. Nilsonne considers the UK system of central registration and follow-up an attractive option. “I would love to see something along those lines in other countries too,” he said.
 

‘Rampant Noncompliance’ in the United States

In the United States, a requirement to make trial results public is backed by law. Despite this, there’s evidence of “rampant noncompliance” and minimal government action, according to Megan Curtin from Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), which has been tracking the issue in the United States and working to push universities and others to make their findings available.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shares responsibility with the National Institutes of Health for enforcement of clinical trial results reporting, but the UAEM says nearly 4000 trials are currently out of compliance with reporting requirements. In January last year, the UAEM copublished a report with the National Center for Health Research and TranspariMED, which found that 3627 American children participated in clinical trials whose results remain unreported.

The FDA can levy a fine of up to $10,000 USD for a violation of the law, but UAEM said that, as of January 2023, the FDA had sent only 92 preliminary notices of noncompliance and four notices of noncompliance. “A clear difference between the EU field of clinical trial operation and US clinical trials is that there are clear laws for reporting within 12 months, which can be enforced, but they’re not being enforced by the FDA,” Ms. Curtin told this news organization.

The UAEM is pushing the FDA to issue a minimum of 250 preliminary notices of noncompliance each year to noncompliant trial sponsors.

Dr. Nilsonne said: “I do believe we have a great responsibility to the patients that do contribute. We need to make sure that the harms and risks that a clinical trial entails are really balanced by knowledge gain, and if the results are never reported, then we can’t have a knowledge gain.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Campaigners for greater transparency in medical science have reiterated calls for more to be done to avoid “medical research waste” after an investigation found that results from more than a fifth of clinical trials across five Nordic countries have never been made public.

A study found that results from 475 clinical trials in Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden — involving almost 84,000 participants — were never made public in any form.

Nonpublication of clinical trial results wastes public money, harms patients, and undermines public health, the researchers said. 

There is already a well-defined ethical responsibility to publish trial results. Article 36 of the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects states that “researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects,” and World Health Organization best practice protocols call for results to be uploaded onto trial registries within 12 months of trial completion.
 

Research Waste Is a ‘Pervasive Problem’

So, how and why do so many trials end up gathering dust in a drawer? The latest study, published February 5 as a preprint, evaluated the reporting outcomes of 2113 clinical trials at medical universities and university hospitals in Nordic countries between 2016 and 2019. It found that across the five countries, 22% of all clinical trial results had not been shared. Furthermore, only 27% of all trial results were made public, either on registries or in journals, within 12 months. Even 2 years after trials ended, only around half of results (51.7%) had been put into the public domain.

The authors concluded that missing and delayed results from academically-led clinical trials was a “pervasive problem” in Nordic countries and that institutions, funding bodies, and policymakers needed to ensure that regulations around reporting results were adhered to so that important findings are not lost.

Study first author, Gustav Nilsonne, MD, PHD, from the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, told this news organization: “Most people I talk to — most colleagues who are clinical scientists — tend to think that the main reason is that negative results are not as interesting to publish and therefore they get lower priority, and they get published later and sometimes not at all.”

Experts stressed that the problem is not confined to Nordic countries and that wasted medical research persists elsewhere in Europe and remains a global problem. For instance, a report published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology found that 30% of German trials completed between 2014 and 2017 remained unpublished 5 years after completion.
 

The Case for Laws, Monitoring, and Fines

Till Bruckner, PHD, from TranspariMED, which campaigns to end evidence distortion in medicine, told this news organization: “What is needed to comprehensively fix the problem is a national legal requirement to make all trial results public, coupled with effective monitoring, and followed by sanctions in the rare cases where institutions refuse to comply.” 

Dr. Nilsonne added: “We have argued that the sponsors need to take greater responsibility, but also that there needs to be somebody whose job it is to monitor clinical trials reporting. It shouldn’t have to be that we do this as researchers on a shoestring with no dedicated resources. It should be somebody’s job.”

Since January 31, 2023, all initial clinical trial applications in the European Union must be submitted through the EU Clinical Trials Information System. Dr. Bruckner said that “the picture is not yet clear” in Europe, as the first trial results under the system are not expected until later this year. Even then, enforcement lies with regulators in individual countries. And while Denmark has already indicated it will enforce the regulations, he warned that other countries “might turn a blind eye.”

He pointed out that existing laws don’t apply to all types of trials. “That means that for many trials, nobody is legally responsible for ensuring that results are made public, and no government agency has any oversight or mandate,” he said.

Outside the EU, the United Kingdom has helped lead the way through the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA), which registers trials run in the country. One year after a trial has been completed, the HRA checks to see if the results have been uploaded to the registry and issues reminders if they haven’t.

In an update of its work in January, the authority said that compliance had hovered at just below 90% between 2018 and 2021 but that it was working to increase this to 100% by working with stakeholders across the research sector.

Dr. Nilsonne considers the UK system of central registration and follow-up an attractive option. “I would love to see something along those lines in other countries too,” he said.
 

‘Rampant Noncompliance’ in the United States

In the United States, a requirement to make trial results public is backed by law. Despite this, there’s evidence of “rampant noncompliance” and minimal government action, according to Megan Curtin from Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), which has been tracking the issue in the United States and working to push universities and others to make their findings available.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shares responsibility with the National Institutes of Health for enforcement of clinical trial results reporting, but the UAEM says nearly 4000 trials are currently out of compliance with reporting requirements. In January last year, the UAEM copublished a report with the National Center for Health Research and TranspariMED, which found that 3627 American children participated in clinical trials whose results remain unreported.

The FDA can levy a fine of up to $10,000 USD for a violation of the law, but UAEM said that, as of January 2023, the FDA had sent only 92 preliminary notices of noncompliance and four notices of noncompliance. “A clear difference between the EU field of clinical trial operation and US clinical trials is that there are clear laws for reporting within 12 months, which can be enforced, but they’re not being enforced by the FDA,” Ms. Curtin told this news organization.

The UAEM is pushing the FDA to issue a minimum of 250 preliminary notices of noncompliance each year to noncompliant trial sponsors.

Dr. Nilsonne said: “I do believe we have a great responsibility to the patients that do contribute. We need to make sure that the harms and risks that a clinical trial entails are really balanced by knowledge gain, and if the results are never reported, then we can’t have a knowledge gain.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A group of 16 Democratic legislators on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has demanded in a letter that the drugmaker Pfizer present details on how the company is responding to shortages of the generic chemotherapy drugs carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate.

In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.

A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”

What is the basis for concern?

All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.

What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?

The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.

What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?

By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”

Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?

Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”

The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.

What is being demanded of Pfizer?

Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.

A group of 16 Democratic legislators on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has demanded in a letter that the drugmaker Pfizer present details on how the company is responding to shortages of the generic chemotherapy drugs carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate.

In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.

A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”

What is the basis for concern?

All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.

What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?

The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.

What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?

By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”

Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?

Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”

The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.

What is being demanded of Pfizer?

Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.

A group of 16 Democratic legislators on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has demanded in a letter that the drugmaker Pfizer present details on how the company is responding to shortages of the generic chemotherapy drugs carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate.

In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.

A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”

What is the basis for concern?

All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.

What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?

The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.

What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?

By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”

Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?

Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”

The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.

What is being demanded of Pfizer?

Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Rates of maternal morbidity in individuals with placenta accreta were similar with alternative strategies to cesarean hysterectomy regardless of the severity of the condition, based on data from 60 individuals.

Currently, the recommended management strategy for placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) is a cesarean hysterectomy, but data are lacking on alternative strategies, especially for individuals wishing to keep their uterus and potentially preserve fertility, Farah H. Amro, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston McGovern Medical School said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting (abstract 70).

Alternative options are being studied worldwide, including delayed hysterectomy (typically performed at 4-6 weeks postpartum), Dr. Amro said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

At UT Houston, delayed hysterectomy is performed for more aggressive PAS that involves parametrial invasion, and the placenta left in situ until resorption/passage for those wishing to keep their uterus, Dr. Amro said in an interview.

In a cohort study at UT Houston, a level IV academic center, Dr. Amro and colleagues evaluated outcomes in 60 individuals with suspected PAS who were given three management options after extensive counseling. Of these, 29 opted for a cesarean hysterectomy (CH); 16 opted for delayed interval hysterectomy (IH) performed 4-6 weeks after delivery; and 15 individuals with a preference for uterine preservation were assigned to conservative management.

The study occurred between January 2020 and July 2023. The primary outcome was composite maternal morbidity, which was further divided into composite acute morbidity (within 24 hours from cesarean delivery or hysterectomy) and composite delayed morbidity (24 hours or more postoperatively). Secondary outcomes included total estimated blood loss, need for blood transfusion, unplanned hospital readmission, and pathology diagnosis.

Overall maternal morbidity rates were 55%, 56%, and 53% in the CH, IH, and CM groups, respectively, although those who were planned for IH and CM had more severe PAS.

The planned procedure was performed in 90% of the CH patients. Approximately 20% of patients in the IH and CM groups underwent unplanned procedures. No cases of sepsis or maternal death occurred, and uterine infection rates were 0%, 6%, and 13% in the CH, IH, and CM groups, respectively.

Patients in the CM and IH groups were significantly less likely to require blood transfusions than those in the CH group. In addition, composite delayed morbidity (24 hours or more after surgery) was similar among the groups, with rates of 31%, 38%, and 33% for CH, IH, and CM, respectively (P = .94). These results are important, given the concerns regarding leaving a placenta in situ after cesarean delivery, said Dr. Amro.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single site, the lack of randomization, patient compliance, and cost effectiveness. However, the results were strengthened by the diverse population and comparison of novel approaches that aren’t frequently utilized In the United States, as well as the large volume of PAS cases treated in a relatively short time frame, Dr. Amro said.
 

More Options Empower Mothers

Overall, the results support the use of delayed hysterectomy and conservative management as safe alternatives to cesarean hysterectomy, especially in those with severe PAS (opting for IH Instead of CH) and those seeking to preserve the uterus (CM), Dr. Amro said. However, these alternative options can be offered only to patients who can engage in frequent postpartum follow-up and live close to the hospital; with the CM group, resorption/passage of the placenta may take as long as 6 months in some cases, she explained.

The greatest concerns with leaving the placenta in place in PAS patients are the risk of infection or subsequent hemorrhage, Dr. Amro said in an interview. However, the current study showed that the infection rate was not as high as anticipated, and the frequency of unplanned procedures occurred in only 20%, which should alleviate some of these concerns, she said.

“We have completed 28 cases of conservative management since 2015, four have gone on to successful pregnancy with no cases of PAS in the subsequent pregnancies,” Dr. Amro said. Conservative management gives mothers another option, she added. “Moms feel empowered by being given a choice, especially for those that want to keep their uterus for fertility or religious/cultural considerations, and many opt for CM.”

The next step is to take the conservative management strategy to larger groups at other centers to replicate the results in other locations, said Dr. Amro. “Also, we are looking at the utility of other interventions such as uterine artery embolization and performing delayed dilation and curettage to help with passage of the placenta in those opting for CM.”
 

Study Supports Safety of Conservative Management

“There are patients that may want to preserve their reproductive organs in the face of an accreta (such as for religious, cultural, and personal reasons), and this study helps address some of the safety considerations with conservative approaches,” Corrina M. Oxford-Horrey, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in an interview.

“I was surprised that there was not a lot of infectious morbidity (such as sepsis) in the cohorts; that was helpful to see,” said Dr. Oxford-Horrey, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

Based on the study findings, “nontraditional approaches to placenta accreta spectrum management may be reasonable, given similar overall postoperative composite morbidity between the groups,” she said.

As for additional research, replicating the study in a multicenter fashion would add to the generalizability of the findings, Dr. Oxford-Horrey said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Oxford-Horrey had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Rates of maternal morbidity in individuals with placenta accreta were similar with alternative strategies to cesarean hysterectomy regardless of the severity of the condition, based on data from 60 individuals.

Currently, the recommended management strategy for placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) is a cesarean hysterectomy, but data are lacking on alternative strategies, especially for individuals wishing to keep their uterus and potentially preserve fertility, Farah H. Amro, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston McGovern Medical School said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting (abstract 70).

Alternative options are being studied worldwide, including delayed hysterectomy (typically performed at 4-6 weeks postpartum), Dr. Amro said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

At UT Houston, delayed hysterectomy is performed for more aggressive PAS that involves parametrial invasion, and the placenta left in situ until resorption/passage for those wishing to keep their uterus, Dr. Amro said in an interview.

In a cohort study at UT Houston, a level IV academic center, Dr. Amro and colleagues evaluated outcomes in 60 individuals with suspected PAS who were given three management options after extensive counseling. Of these, 29 opted for a cesarean hysterectomy (CH); 16 opted for delayed interval hysterectomy (IH) performed 4-6 weeks after delivery; and 15 individuals with a preference for uterine preservation were assigned to conservative management.

The study occurred between January 2020 and July 2023. The primary outcome was composite maternal morbidity, which was further divided into composite acute morbidity (within 24 hours from cesarean delivery or hysterectomy) and composite delayed morbidity (24 hours or more postoperatively). Secondary outcomes included total estimated blood loss, need for blood transfusion, unplanned hospital readmission, and pathology diagnosis.

Overall maternal morbidity rates were 55%, 56%, and 53% in the CH, IH, and CM groups, respectively, although those who were planned for IH and CM had more severe PAS.

The planned procedure was performed in 90% of the CH patients. Approximately 20% of patients in the IH and CM groups underwent unplanned procedures. No cases of sepsis or maternal death occurred, and uterine infection rates were 0%, 6%, and 13% in the CH, IH, and CM groups, respectively.

Patients in the CM and IH groups were significantly less likely to require blood transfusions than those in the CH group. In addition, composite delayed morbidity (24 hours or more after surgery) was similar among the groups, with rates of 31%, 38%, and 33% for CH, IH, and CM, respectively (P = .94). These results are important, given the concerns regarding leaving a placenta in situ after cesarean delivery, said Dr. Amro.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single site, the lack of randomization, patient compliance, and cost effectiveness. However, the results were strengthened by the diverse population and comparison of novel approaches that aren’t frequently utilized In the United States, as well as the large volume of PAS cases treated in a relatively short time frame, Dr. Amro said.
 

More Options Empower Mothers

Overall, the results support the use of delayed hysterectomy and conservative management as safe alternatives to cesarean hysterectomy, especially in those with severe PAS (opting for IH Instead of CH) and those seeking to preserve the uterus (CM), Dr. Amro said. However, these alternative options can be offered only to patients who can engage in frequent postpartum follow-up and live close to the hospital; with the CM group, resorption/passage of the placenta may take as long as 6 months in some cases, she explained.

The greatest concerns with leaving the placenta in place in PAS patients are the risk of infection or subsequent hemorrhage, Dr. Amro said in an interview. However, the current study showed that the infection rate was not as high as anticipated, and the frequency of unplanned procedures occurred in only 20%, which should alleviate some of these concerns, she said.

“We have completed 28 cases of conservative management since 2015, four have gone on to successful pregnancy with no cases of PAS in the subsequent pregnancies,” Dr. Amro said. Conservative management gives mothers another option, she added. “Moms feel empowered by being given a choice, especially for those that want to keep their uterus for fertility or religious/cultural considerations, and many opt for CM.”

The next step is to take the conservative management strategy to larger groups at other centers to replicate the results in other locations, said Dr. Amro. “Also, we are looking at the utility of other interventions such as uterine artery embolization and performing delayed dilation and curettage to help with passage of the placenta in those opting for CM.”
 

Study Supports Safety of Conservative Management

“There are patients that may want to preserve their reproductive organs in the face of an accreta (such as for religious, cultural, and personal reasons), and this study helps address some of the safety considerations with conservative approaches,” Corrina M. Oxford-Horrey, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in an interview.

“I was surprised that there was not a lot of infectious morbidity (such as sepsis) in the cohorts; that was helpful to see,” said Dr. Oxford-Horrey, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

Based on the study findings, “nontraditional approaches to placenta accreta spectrum management may be reasonable, given similar overall postoperative composite morbidity between the groups,” she said.

As for additional research, replicating the study in a multicenter fashion would add to the generalizability of the findings, Dr. Oxford-Horrey said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Oxford-Horrey had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Rates of maternal morbidity in individuals with placenta accreta were similar with alternative strategies to cesarean hysterectomy regardless of the severity of the condition, based on data from 60 individuals.

Currently, the recommended management strategy for placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) is a cesarean hysterectomy, but data are lacking on alternative strategies, especially for individuals wishing to keep their uterus and potentially preserve fertility, Farah H. Amro, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston McGovern Medical School said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting (abstract 70).

Alternative options are being studied worldwide, including delayed hysterectomy (typically performed at 4-6 weeks postpartum), Dr. Amro said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

At UT Houston, delayed hysterectomy is performed for more aggressive PAS that involves parametrial invasion, and the placenta left in situ until resorption/passage for those wishing to keep their uterus, Dr. Amro said in an interview.

In a cohort study at UT Houston, a level IV academic center, Dr. Amro and colleagues evaluated outcomes in 60 individuals with suspected PAS who were given three management options after extensive counseling. Of these, 29 opted for a cesarean hysterectomy (CH); 16 opted for delayed interval hysterectomy (IH) performed 4-6 weeks after delivery; and 15 individuals with a preference for uterine preservation were assigned to conservative management.

The study occurred between January 2020 and July 2023. The primary outcome was composite maternal morbidity, which was further divided into composite acute morbidity (within 24 hours from cesarean delivery or hysterectomy) and composite delayed morbidity (24 hours or more postoperatively). Secondary outcomes included total estimated blood loss, need for blood transfusion, unplanned hospital readmission, and pathology diagnosis.

Overall maternal morbidity rates were 55%, 56%, and 53% in the CH, IH, and CM groups, respectively, although those who were planned for IH and CM had more severe PAS.

The planned procedure was performed in 90% of the CH patients. Approximately 20% of patients in the IH and CM groups underwent unplanned procedures. No cases of sepsis or maternal death occurred, and uterine infection rates were 0%, 6%, and 13% in the CH, IH, and CM groups, respectively.

Patients in the CM and IH groups were significantly less likely to require blood transfusions than those in the CH group. In addition, composite delayed morbidity (24 hours or more after surgery) was similar among the groups, with rates of 31%, 38%, and 33% for CH, IH, and CM, respectively (P = .94). These results are important, given the concerns regarding leaving a placenta in situ after cesarean delivery, said Dr. Amro.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single site, the lack of randomization, patient compliance, and cost effectiveness. However, the results were strengthened by the diverse population and comparison of novel approaches that aren’t frequently utilized In the United States, as well as the large volume of PAS cases treated in a relatively short time frame, Dr. Amro said.
 

More Options Empower Mothers

Overall, the results support the use of delayed hysterectomy and conservative management as safe alternatives to cesarean hysterectomy, especially in those with severe PAS (opting for IH Instead of CH) and those seeking to preserve the uterus (CM), Dr. Amro said. However, these alternative options can be offered only to patients who can engage in frequent postpartum follow-up and live close to the hospital; with the CM group, resorption/passage of the placenta may take as long as 6 months in some cases, she explained.

The greatest concerns with leaving the placenta in place in PAS patients are the risk of infection or subsequent hemorrhage, Dr. Amro said in an interview. However, the current study showed that the infection rate was not as high as anticipated, and the frequency of unplanned procedures occurred in only 20%, which should alleviate some of these concerns, she said.

“We have completed 28 cases of conservative management since 2015, four have gone on to successful pregnancy with no cases of PAS in the subsequent pregnancies,” Dr. Amro said. Conservative management gives mothers another option, she added. “Moms feel empowered by being given a choice, especially for those that want to keep their uterus for fertility or religious/cultural considerations, and many opt for CM.”

The next step is to take the conservative management strategy to larger groups at other centers to replicate the results in other locations, said Dr. Amro. “Also, we are looking at the utility of other interventions such as uterine artery embolization and performing delayed dilation and curettage to help with passage of the placenta in those opting for CM.”
 

Study Supports Safety of Conservative Management

“There are patients that may want to preserve their reproductive organs in the face of an accreta (such as for religious, cultural, and personal reasons), and this study helps address some of the safety considerations with conservative approaches,” Corrina M. Oxford-Horrey, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in an interview.

“I was surprised that there was not a lot of infectious morbidity (such as sepsis) in the cohorts; that was helpful to see,” said Dr. Oxford-Horrey, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

Based on the study findings, “nontraditional approaches to placenta accreta spectrum management may be reasonable, given similar overall postoperative composite morbidity between the groups,” she said.

As for additional research, replicating the study in a multicenter fashion would add to the generalizability of the findings, Dr. Oxford-Horrey said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Oxford-Horrey had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.

Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.

Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.

Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.

“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
 

How RadNet’s AI Program Works

Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.

Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:

• A. Almost entirely fatty
• B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
• C. Heterogeneously dense
• D. Extremely dense

Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.

For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.

“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.

Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.

The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.

The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.

“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”

About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
 

Is Mammography Ready for AI?

RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.

“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”

At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.

“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”

Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.

However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.

“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”

Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.

An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.

The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.

Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.

Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.

“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
 

What Do the Experts Recommend?

Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.

The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.

“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.

Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.

“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.

No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.

One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.

If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.

“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
 

Who Will Pay for AI?

When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.

“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”

In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.

While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.

“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.

Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.

Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.

Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.

Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.

Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.

“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
 

How RadNet’s AI Program Works

Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.

Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:

• A. Almost entirely fatty
• B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
• C. Heterogeneously dense
• D. Extremely dense

Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.

For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.

“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.

Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.

The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.

The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.

“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”

About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
 

Is Mammography Ready for AI?

RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.

“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”

At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.

“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”

Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.

However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.

“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”

Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.

An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.

The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.

Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.

Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.

“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
 

What Do the Experts Recommend?

Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.

The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.

“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.

Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.

“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.

No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.

One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.

If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.

“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
 

Who Will Pay for AI?

When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.

“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”

In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.

While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.

“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.

Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.

Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.

Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.

Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.

Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.

“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
 

How RadNet’s AI Program Works

Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.

Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:

• A. Almost entirely fatty
• B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
• C. Heterogeneously dense
• D. Extremely dense

Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.

For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.

“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.

Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.

The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.

The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.

“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”

About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
 

Is Mammography Ready for AI?

RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.

“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”

At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.

“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”

Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.

However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.

“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”

Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.

An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.

The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.

Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.

Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.

“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
 

What Do the Experts Recommend?

Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.

The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.

“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.

Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.

“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.

No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.

One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.

If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.

“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
 

Who Will Pay for AI?

When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.

“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”

In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.

While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.

“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.

Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.

Poor communication between physician and patient can cause a lot of harm, according to Joseph N. Cappella, PhD, Gerald R. Miller Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Richard N. Street Jr, PhD, professor of communication and media science at Texas A&M University in Houston, Texas. When a physician and patient talk past each other, it may impair the patient’s compliance with preventive measures, screening, and treatment; undermine the physician-patient relationship; exacerbate fears and concerns; and possibly lead patients to rely on misleading, incomplete, or simply incorrect information, turning away from evidence-based medicine.

Drs. Cappella and Street made these points in an essay recently published in JAMA. The essay marks the beginning of the JAMA series Communicating Medicine.

“Helping clinicians deliver accurate information more effectively can lead to better-informed patients,” wrote Anne R. Cappola, MD, professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. Drs. Cappola and Bibbins-Domingo also are editors of JAMA.

To establish a common understanding between physician and patient, Drs. Cappella and Street identified the following four responsibilities of the physician:

• Discover what the patient understands and why
• Provide accurate information in an understandable manner
• Promote the credibility of the information
• Verify whether the patient has understood.

“Research has shown that although medical facts need to be the basis for the clinician’s core message, those facts are more effectively communicated in a patient-clinician relationship characterized by trust and cooperation and when the information is presented in a manner that fosters patient understanding,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. This approach includes using interpreters for patients who do not fluently speak the physician’s language and supplementing explanations with simple written information, images, and videos.

Patients generally believe their physician’s information, and most patients view their physicians as a trustworthy source. Trust is based on the belief that the physician has the patient’s best interests at heart.

However, patients may be distrustful of their physician’s information if it contradicts their own belief system or personal experiences or because they inherently distrust the medical profession.

In addition, patients are less willing to accept explanations and recommendations if they feel misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, or rushed by the physician. The basis for effective communication is a relationship with patients that is built on trust and respect. Empirically supported strategies for expressing respect and building trust include the following:

• Affirming the patient’s values
• Anticipating and addressing false or misleading information
• Using simple, jargon-free language
• Embedding facts into a story, rather than presenting the scientific evidence dryly.

“Conveying factual material using these techniques makes facts more engaging and memorable,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. It is crucial to inquire about and consider the patient’s perspective, health beliefs, assumptions, concerns, needs, and stories in the conversation.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Poor communication between physician and patient can cause a lot of harm, according to Joseph N. Cappella, PhD, Gerald R. Miller Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Richard N. Street Jr, PhD, professor of communication and media science at Texas A&M University in Houston, Texas. When a physician and patient talk past each other, it may impair the patient’s compliance with preventive measures, screening, and treatment; undermine the physician-patient relationship; exacerbate fears and concerns; and possibly lead patients to rely on misleading, incomplete, or simply incorrect information, turning away from evidence-based medicine.

Drs. Cappella and Street made these points in an essay recently published in JAMA. The essay marks the beginning of the JAMA series Communicating Medicine.

“Helping clinicians deliver accurate information more effectively can lead to better-informed patients,” wrote Anne R. Cappola, MD, professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. Drs. Cappola and Bibbins-Domingo also are editors of JAMA.

To establish a common understanding between physician and patient, Drs. Cappella and Street identified the following four responsibilities of the physician:

• Discover what the patient understands and why
• Provide accurate information in an understandable manner
• Promote the credibility of the information
• Verify whether the patient has understood.

“Research has shown that although medical facts need to be the basis for the clinician’s core message, those facts are more effectively communicated in a patient-clinician relationship characterized by trust and cooperation and when the information is presented in a manner that fosters patient understanding,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. This approach includes using interpreters for patients who do not fluently speak the physician’s language and supplementing explanations with simple written information, images, and videos.

Patients generally believe their physician’s information, and most patients view their physicians as a trustworthy source. Trust is based on the belief that the physician has the patient’s best interests at heart.

However, patients may be distrustful of their physician’s information if it contradicts their own belief system or personal experiences or because they inherently distrust the medical profession.

In addition, patients are less willing to accept explanations and recommendations if they feel misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, or rushed by the physician. The basis for effective communication is a relationship with patients that is built on trust and respect. Empirically supported strategies for expressing respect and building trust include the following:

• Affirming the patient’s values
• Anticipating and addressing false or misleading information
• Using simple, jargon-free language
• Embedding facts into a story, rather than presenting the scientific evidence dryly.

“Conveying factual material using these techniques makes facts more engaging and memorable,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. It is crucial to inquire about and consider the patient’s perspective, health beliefs, assumptions, concerns, needs, and stories in the conversation.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Poor communication between physician and patient can cause a lot of harm, according to Joseph N. Cappella, PhD, Gerald R. Miller Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Richard N. Street Jr, PhD, professor of communication and media science at Texas A&M University in Houston, Texas. When a physician and patient talk past each other, it may impair the patient’s compliance with preventive measures, screening, and treatment; undermine the physician-patient relationship; exacerbate fears and concerns; and possibly lead patients to rely on misleading, incomplete, or simply incorrect information, turning away from evidence-based medicine.

Drs. Cappella and Street made these points in an essay recently published in JAMA. The essay marks the beginning of the JAMA series Communicating Medicine.

“Helping clinicians deliver accurate information more effectively can lead to better-informed patients,” wrote Anne R. Cappola, MD, professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. Drs. Cappola and Bibbins-Domingo also are editors of JAMA.

To establish a common understanding between physician and patient, Drs. Cappella and Street identified the following four responsibilities of the physician:

• Discover what the patient understands and why
• Provide accurate information in an understandable manner
• Promote the credibility of the information
• Verify whether the patient has understood.

“Research has shown that although medical facts need to be the basis for the clinician’s core message, those facts are more effectively communicated in a patient-clinician relationship characterized by trust and cooperation and when the information is presented in a manner that fosters patient understanding,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. This approach includes using interpreters for patients who do not fluently speak the physician’s language and supplementing explanations with simple written information, images, and videos.

Patients generally believe their physician’s information, and most patients view their physicians as a trustworthy source. Trust is based on the belief that the physician has the patient’s best interests at heart.

However, patients may be distrustful of their physician’s information if it contradicts their own belief system or personal experiences or because they inherently distrust the medical profession.

In addition, patients are less willing to accept explanations and recommendations if they feel misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, or rushed by the physician. The basis for effective communication is a relationship with patients that is built on trust and respect. Empirically supported strategies for expressing respect and building trust include the following:

• Affirming the patient’s values
• Anticipating and addressing false or misleading information
• Using simple, jargon-free language
• Embedding facts into a story, rather than presenting the scientific evidence dryly.

“Conveying factual material using these techniques makes facts more engaging and memorable,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. It is crucial to inquire about and consider the patient’s perspective, health beliefs, assumptions, concerns, needs, and stories in the conversation.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”

It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.

Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.

Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.

And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.

As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.

Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.

An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium

All of this is telling us how we need to ramp up our game if we are going to be able to use our immune system to quash a cancer. Fortunately, we have abundant and ever-growing capabilities for doing just that.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.

But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.

Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines

There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.

Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.

An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.

Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)

There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.

A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.

This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.

Oncolytic Viruses

Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.

After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.

Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])

As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.

As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.

Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.

Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.

Summary

Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.

Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.

Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.

Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.

Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”

It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.

Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.

Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.

And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.

As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.

Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.

An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium

All of this is telling us how we need to ramp up our game if we are going to be able to use our immune system to quash a cancer. Fortunately, we have abundant and ever-growing capabilities for doing just that.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.

But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.

Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines

There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.

Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.

An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.

Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)

There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.

A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.

This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.

Oncolytic Viruses

Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.

After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.

Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])

As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.

As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.

Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.

Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.

Summary

Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.

Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.

Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.

Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.

Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”

It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.

Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.

Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.

And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.

As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.

Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.

An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium

All of this is telling us how we need to ramp up our game if we are going to be able to use our immune system to quash a cancer. Fortunately, we have abundant and ever-growing capabilities for doing just that.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.

But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.

Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines

There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.

Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.

An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.

Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)

There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.

A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.

This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.

Oncolytic Viruses

Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.

After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.

Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])

As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.

As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.

Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.

Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.

Summary

Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.

Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.

Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.

Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.

Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Cefepime-taniborbactam was 22% more effective than meropenem, which is a current treatment for complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) and acute pyelonephritis, according to a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cefepime-taniborbactam is an antibiotic currently being explored as a treatment for antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
• The phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial included participants from 15 countries, including a safety group of 657 patients who were studied for adverse events and 436 in the micro intention-to-treat group who were studied for drug effectiveness.
• Each drug’s efficacy was measured as a combination of reduced bacteria levels and a resolution of symptoms and signs of infection.
• Patients in the study were over age 18; had a diagnosis of either complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis; and had pyuria, at least one systemic sign, and at least one local sign or symptom. People were excluded if they had already received antibacterial drug therapy for more than 24 hours before randomization or had an infection with a meropenem-resistant pathogen.

TAKEAWAY:

• At days 19-23, 70.6% of patients in the cefepime-taniborbactam group showed a successful reduction in bacteria and symptoms compared with 58.0% in the meropenem group.
• Cefepime-taniborbactam was more effective than meropenem during follow-up, with 89.1% efficacy less than 24 hours after the last dose, compared to meropenem’s 86%. Cefepime-taniborbactam continued to have 63.8% efficacy up to 35 days after starting treatment, while meropenem was 51.7% during that timeframe.
• In the cefepime-taniborbactam group, 35.5% of patients experienced adverse effects that were mild to moderate, including headache, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, and nausea, compared to 29% in the meropenem group.
• Overall, 3% of participants discontinued cefepime-taniborbactam and 1.8% discontinued meropenem, but reasons were heterogeneous.

IN PRACTICE:

“Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem for the treatment of complicated UTI that included acute pyelonephritis, with a safety profile similar to that of meropenem,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Paul McGovern, MD, infectious disease specialist and senior vice president of Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, was the corresponding author of the study.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported no limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, which received funding from the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership, and Everest Medicines.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Cefepime-taniborbactam was 22% more effective than meropenem, which is a current treatment for complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) and acute pyelonephritis, according to a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cefepime-taniborbactam is an antibiotic currently being explored as a treatment for antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
• The phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial included participants from 15 countries, including a safety group of 657 patients who were studied for adverse events and 436 in the micro intention-to-treat group who were studied for drug effectiveness.
• Each drug’s efficacy was measured as a combination of reduced bacteria levels and a resolution of symptoms and signs of infection.
• Patients in the study were over age 18; had a diagnosis of either complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis; and had pyuria, at least one systemic sign, and at least one local sign or symptom. People were excluded if they had already received antibacterial drug therapy for more than 24 hours before randomization or had an infection with a meropenem-resistant pathogen.

TAKEAWAY:

• At days 19-23, 70.6% of patients in the cefepime-taniborbactam group showed a successful reduction in bacteria and symptoms compared with 58.0% in the meropenem group.
• Cefepime-taniborbactam was more effective than meropenem during follow-up, with 89.1% efficacy less than 24 hours after the last dose, compared to meropenem’s 86%. Cefepime-taniborbactam continued to have 63.8% efficacy up to 35 days after starting treatment, while meropenem was 51.7% during that timeframe.
• In the cefepime-taniborbactam group, 35.5% of patients experienced adverse effects that were mild to moderate, including headache, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, and nausea, compared to 29% in the meropenem group.
• Overall, 3% of participants discontinued cefepime-taniborbactam and 1.8% discontinued meropenem, but reasons were heterogeneous.

IN PRACTICE:

“Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem for the treatment of complicated UTI that included acute pyelonephritis, with a safety profile similar to that of meropenem,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Paul McGovern, MD, infectious disease specialist and senior vice president of Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, was the corresponding author of the study.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported no limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, which received funding from the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership, and Everest Medicines.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Cefepime-taniborbactam was 22% more effective than meropenem, which is a current treatment for complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) and acute pyelonephritis, according to a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cefepime-taniborbactam is an antibiotic currently being explored as a treatment for antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
• The phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial included participants from 15 countries, including a safety group of 657 patients who were studied for adverse events and 436 in the micro intention-to-treat group who were studied for drug effectiveness.
• Each drug’s efficacy was measured as a combination of reduced bacteria levels and a resolution of symptoms and signs of infection.
• Patients in the study were over age 18; had a diagnosis of either complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis; and had pyuria, at least one systemic sign, and at least one local sign or symptom. People were excluded if they had already received antibacterial drug therapy for more than 24 hours before randomization or had an infection with a meropenem-resistant pathogen.

TAKEAWAY:

• At days 19-23, 70.6% of patients in the cefepime-taniborbactam group showed a successful reduction in bacteria and symptoms compared with 58.0% in the meropenem group.
• Cefepime-taniborbactam was more effective than meropenem during follow-up, with 89.1% efficacy less than 24 hours after the last dose, compared to meropenem’s 86%. Cefepime-taniborbactam continued to have 63.8% efficacy up to 35 days after starting treatment, while meropenem was 51.7% during that timeframe.
• In the cefepime-taniborbactam group, 35.5% of patients experienced adverse effects that were mild to moderate, including headache, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, and nausea, compared to 29% in the meropenem group.
• Overall, 3% of participants discontinued cefepime-taniborbactam and 1.8% discontinued meropenem, but reasons were heterogeneous.

IN PRACTICE:

“Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem for the treatment of complicated UTI that included acute pyelonephritis, with a safety profile similar to that of meropenem,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Paul McGovern, MD, infectious disease specialist and senior vice president of Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, was the corresponding author of the study.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported no limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, which received funding from the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership, and Everest Medicines.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Complications during pregnancy may be a wake-up call pointing to a higher risk for cardiovascular (CVD) and other diseases later in life. Therefore, the postpartum and interpregnancy periods are opportune windows for reducing CVD susceptibility and providing preventive care, especially for mothers with a history of adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs). To that end, the American Heart Association recently released a scientific statement in Circulation outlining pregnancy-related CVD risks and reviewing evidence for preventive lifestyle strategies based on the AHA’s Life’s Essential 8 recommendations.

The Life’s Essential 8 encompass healthy eating, sleeping, and activity patterns; controlling weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar; and avoiding tobacco use.

“The motivation behind this statement was that complications in pregnancy are becoming more common and we now have more understanding that these serve as important risk factors for heart disease later in life,” said Jennifer Lewey, MD, MPH, director of the Penn Women’s Cardiovascular Health Program and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia.

Perelman School of Medicine

“These risk factors are underrecognized and underappreciated. Clinicians don’t feel comfortable counseling their patients about how to reduce their cardiovascular disease risk,” Dr. Lewey, chair of the AHA writing group, said in an interview.

“So we thought this was the perfect time to highlight what we know and don’t know about how to care for this population,” she said.

APOs predispose mothers to heart disease and other long-term complications, including heart failure, stroke, chronic kidney disease, and vascular dementia. “Pregnancy is a significant stress on the body, and APOs such as preeclampsia can lead to vascular changes in the blood vessels and structural changes to the heart that can persist long term,” Dr. Lewey explained. Reduced maternal physical activity and unshed weight can compound the problem.

Varying by race and ethnicity, the proportion of mothers experiencing pregnancy complications, such as high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, and/or preterm birth is estimated at 10%-20%, the statement authors noted. These complications may serve as a wake-up call to young mothers.

The AHA panel believes that identifying at-risk women at younger ages will enable prevention through lifestyle changes and timely treatment. Little is known, however about what specific care may best reduce long-term CVD risk in women who had pregnancy complications, Dr. Lewey said. While randomized clinical trials have yet to evaluate the effects of postpartum interventions on CVD outcomes, the need for strategies supported by rigorous evidence is clear. “In particular, the fourth trimester, defined as the 12 weeks after delivery, is an optimal time to engage postpartum individuals in care to reduce maternal morbidity and improve care transitions,” the AHA group wrote.

An earlier AHA statement in 2021 recommended frequent cardiac risk factor screening in the first year postpartum at 6 and 12 weeks and again at 6 and 12 months, with appropriate transition from postpartum to longitudinal primary care around the 8- to 12-week mark.

Among the current statement’s findings: High blood pressure is the most prevalent cardiovascular condition during pregnancy, and the last two decades have seen a 25% increase in preeclampsia.

Hypertension during pregnancy carries a two- to fourfold higher risk of chronic hypertension within 2-7 years.

Women with one or more APOs experience heart attack and stroke at younger ages. Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, internist Natalie A. Cameron, MD, a primary and preventive care physician at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, said, “This statement will be very helpful for physicians from a primary care perspective, especially since in internal medicine we don’t standardly receive education in cardiovascular health in the context of pregnancy and the first year postpartum.”

Northwestern Medicine