Clinical Review

The transition to menopause begins with ovarian fluctuation and hormonal changes, often beginning before significant changes in menstruation. Reproductive aging with loss of follicular activity progresses over a wide age range (42 to 58 years) with an average onset at approximately age 47, ranging from 4 to 8 years. Although most women have heard about menopause, defined as 12 months after the last period, they often lack understanding about perimenopause or that the menopausal transition usually begins 5 years before menopause.¹

Perimenopause, defined as early and late menopause transition stages, may be viewed as a window of potential vulnerability for women who develop or have worsening menstrual-related mood disorders. Over time, hormonal fluctuations often lead to menstrual cycle irregularity (either shorter or longer). Changes occurring during perimenopause may be confusing as it may not be clear whether symptoms are related to menopause, aging, or stress. Often not recognized or treated adequately, perimenopausal symptoms may be challenging to navigate for both women and clinicians.

The perimenopausal process is often even more confusing for women with early menopause—whether due to bilateral oophorectomy, chemotherapy or radiation therapy, genetics, or an autoimmune process—because of lack of recognition that an early menopausal transition is occurring or what solutions are available for symptoms. While there is support in the workplace for women during pregnancy and breastfeeding, there remains little support or recognition for the oft challenging perimenopausal transition leading to menopause.

Perimenopause: Common symptoms and treatments

Symptoms may be related to either estrogen level deficiency or excess during perimenopause, and these level changes may even occur within the same cycle.

Cyclic breast tenderness may develop, worsened by caffeine or high salt intake (which can be potentially improved, although without clinical trial evidence, with decreased caffeine or a trial of evening primrose oil or vitamin E).

Changes in menstrual flow and frequency of menses are typical. Flow may be lighter or heavier, longer or shorter, and there may be cycle variability, missed menses, or midcycle spotting.² Bleeding may be heavy, with or without cramping. In addition to imaging with vaginal ultrasonography or hysteroscopy to identify structural issues, symptoms may be managed with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), hormonal therapy (HT) with short hormone-free interval contraceptives, oral progestogens, or progestin intrauterine systems. Newer medical treatments include antifibrinolytic drugs and selective progesterone-receptor modulators. Uterine ablation to decrease or stop bleeding is effective if there are no structural abnormalities, such as fibroids or polyps or the presence of adenomyosis, where glands will regrow into the endometrium after ablation. Endometrial biopsy is indicated for persistent abnormal uterine bleeding or those with risk factors such as chronic anovulation.

Worsening headaches or menstrual migraines may be triggered by hormonal changes, which may respond to NSAIDs; dihydroergotamine; triptans; the combination of aspirin, acetaminophen, and caffeine; or estrogen the week before menses. For women taking oral contraceptives (OCPs), adding estradiol the week before menses, or using the OCP continuously, may decrease headache frequency. These short-term prophylactic strategies during the perimenstrual time are often effective. If not, preventive therapy is available for women with frequent, severe headaches.

Mood complaints and poor sleep are independently associated with menstrual irregularity, and can lead to fatigue or anxiety, worsening premenstrual syndrome, or depressive moods. Sleep is disrupted premenstrually for up to one-third of women, and sleep disruption is particularly prevalent in those with premenstrual mood disorders and worsens during perimenopause.³

Reproductive hormones act on the neurotransmitter systems in the brain involved in mood regulation and emotion. The fluctuating hormones occurring during perimenopause may exacerbate pre-existing menstrual-related mood disorders. A subset of women experience depressive moods due to perimenopausal elevations in ovarian hormones.⁴ Others may exhibit increased mood sensitivity with the ovarian hormone withdrawal accompanying late menopause transition and early postmenopausal phase.⁵ There is significant comorbidity between premenstrual mood disorder (PMDD) and postpartum depression.⁶ During perimenopause and early menopause, clinicians should ask about prior hormonally-related depression (puberty, postpartum) and recognize that current or past premenstrual syndrome may worsen into a more severe premenstrual dysphoric disorder. Evidence-based treatments for PMDD include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs); either taken continuously or only during the luteal phase; drospirenone-containing oral contraceptives, often with shorter pill-free intervals; GnRH analogues with or without hormone add-back; and cognitive behavioral therapy.⁷ For women whose perimenopausal moods improve with HT or develop worsened mood sensitivity with ovarian hormone withdrawal, clinicians should recognize that mood may worsen when treatment is ceased.⁵

Continue to: Menopausal symptoms...

Vasomotor symptoms (VMS), hot flashes, or night sweats occur in up to 75% of women as they develop more menstrual irregularity and move closer to their final period and menopause.

Hot flashes are transient episodes of flushing with the sensation of warmth (up to intense heat) on the upper body and face or head, often associated with sweating, chills or flushing, an increase in heart rate, and lowered blood pressure. Hot flashes can sometimes be preceded by an intense feeling of dread, followed by rapid heat dissipation. The etiology of hot flashes is still not clear, but the neurokinin receptors are involved. They are related to small fluctuations in core body temperature superimposed on a narrow thermoneutral zone in symptomatic women. Hot flashes are triggered when core body temperature rises above the upper (sweating) threshold. Shivering occurs if the core body temperature falls below the lower threshold. Sleep may be disrupted, with less rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, and associated with throwing covers on and off or changing sheets or nightclothes. On average, hot flashes last 7.2 years,⁸ and they are more bothersome if night sweats interfere with sleep or disrupt performance during the day.

In the Stages of Reproductive Aging Workshop (STRAW + 10), women reported VMS within 1-3 years after the menopausal transition.⁸ Four trajectories of hot flashes were identified in the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) trial,⁹ including low levels throughout the menopause transition, early onset, late onset, and a group which had frequent hot flashes, starting early and lasting longer. Serum estrogen levels were not predictive of hot flash frequency or severity.

Hot flashes have been associated with low levels of exercise, cigarette smoking, high follicle-stimulating hormone levels and low estradiol levels, increasing body mass index, ethnicity (with hot flashes more common among Black and Hispanic women), low socioeconomic status, prior PMDD, anxiety, perceived stress, and depression.⁸ Women with a history of premenstrual syndrome, stress, sexual dysfunction, physical inactivity, or hot flashes are more vulnerable to depressive symptoms during perimenopause and early menopause.⁵

Depression may co-occur or overlap with menopause symptoms. Diagnosis involves menopausal stage, co-occurring psychiatric and menopause symptoms, psychosocial stressors, and a validated screening tool such as PQ9. Treatments for perimenopausal depression, such as antidepressants, psychotherapy, or cognitive behavioral therapy, are recommended first line for perimenopausal depression. Estrogen therapy has not been approved to treat perimenopausal depression but appears to have antidepressant effects in perimenopausal women, particularly those with bothersome vasomotor symptoms.⁵

Anxiety can worsen during menopause, and may respond to calming apps, meditation, cognitive behavioral therapy, hypnosis, yoga or tai chi, HT, or antianxiety medications.

Weight gain around the abdomen (ie, belly fat) is a common complaint during the menopausal transition, despite women reporting not changing their eating or exercise patterns. Increasing exercise or bursts of higher intensity, decreasing portion sizes or limiting carbohydrates and alcohol may help.

Memory and concentration problems, described as brain fog, tend to be more of an issue in perimenopause and level out after menopause. Counsel midlife women that these changes are not due to dementia but are related to normal aging, hormonal changes, mood, stress, or other life circumstances. Identifying and addressing sleep issues and mood disorders may help mitigate brain fog, as can advising women to avoid excess caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, and eating before bed. Improvements in memory, cognition, and health have been found with the Mediterranean diet, regular exercise, avoiding multitasking, and engaging in mentally stimulating activities.

Sleeping concerns in peri- and postmenopausal women include sleeping less and more frequent insomnia. Women are more likely to use prescription sleeping aids during these times of their lives. The data from SWAN⁸ show that the menopausal transition is related to self-reported difficulty sleeping, independent of age. Sleep latency interval is increased while REM sleep decreases. Night sweats can trigger awakenings in the first half of the night. The perceived decline in sleep quality also may be attributed to general aging effects, nocturnal urination, sleep-related disorders such as sleep apnea or restless legs, or chronic pain, stress, or depression.¹⁰ Suggestions for management include sleep apps, cognitive behavioral therapy, low-dose antidepressant therapy, addressing sleep routines, and HT. Hypnotics should be avoided.

Sexuality issues are common complaints during the menopausal transition. Cross-sectional data reported from a longitudinal, population-based Australian cohort of women aged 45 to 55 years, found a decrease in sexual responsivity, sexual frequency, libido, vaginal dyspareunia, and more partner problems.¹¹ Low libido may be related to relationship issues, dyspareunia with vaginal narrowing, loss of lubrication, levator spasm, stress, anxiety, exhaustion or mood disorder, lowered hormone levels, excess alcohol intake, underlying health concerns, or a side effect of medications for depression or pain. There is no direct correlation between testosterone levels and libido.

When HT at menopause may be helpful

For healthy symptomatic women without contraindications who are younger than age 60, or within 10 years of menopause onset, the benefits of initiating HT most likely outweigh the risks to relieve bothersome hot flashes and night sweats.^12-17 For older women, or for those further from menopause, the greater absolute risks of coronary heart disease, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and dementia, in general, outweigh the potential benefits.^12-17 Extended durations of HT have less safety and efficacy data and should be considered primarily for those with persistent menopausal symptoms, with periodic re-evaluation.^13,14 For bothersome genitourinary syndrome of menopause symptoms that do not respond to vaginal moisturizers or lubricants, low-dose vaginal HTs are encouraged.^13-17

Continue to: Early-onset menopause...

Early-onset menopause

According to observational studies,¹⁸ early menopause is associated with a higher risk of osteoporosis, coronary heart disease, cognitive changes, vaginal dryness, loss of libido, and mood changes. Studies have shown that women with early menopause who take HT, without contraindications, to the average age of menopause (age 52) decrease the health risks of early menopause (bone loss, heart disease, mood, and cognition changes).^13,14,18

Women with early menopause, whether spontaneous or following bilateral oophorectomy or cancer treatment, should be counseled to get adequate calcium (dietary recommended over supplementation) and vitamin D intake, eat a healthy diet, and exercise regularly. Evaluation should include risk for bone loss, heart disease, mood changes, and vaginal changes.

Extended use of HT

Up to 8% of women have hot flashes for 20 years or more after menopause.¹⁹ The decision to continue or to stop HT is not always clear for women:

• with persistent hot flashes after a trial period of HT discontinuation
• with bone loss that cannot be treated with bone-specific medications
• who request continuation for quality of life.

Extended use of HT should include an ongoing assessment of its risks and benefits, periodic trials off of HT, and documentation of rationale and informed discussions about continuing. Lower doses and transdermal therapies appear safer, as does micronized progesterone instead of more potent synthetic progestins.^13-17

Genitourinary syndrome of menopause

Once women are further into menopause, they may notice vaginal dryness, vulvar itching or burning, bothersome vaginal discharge, or urinary urgency or frequency. The development of painful intercourse frequently occurs, a combination of the loss of estrogen with thinning of the vaginal mucosa, a loss of the acidic vaginal milieu with less elasticity, and spasm of the levator muscles. Some women develop urinary tract infections after intercourse or have more frequent reoccurrences. First-line therapy is often vaginal moisturizers and lubricants. Vaginal therapies (estradiol, conjugated estrogen, or dehydroepiandrosterone) or oral selective estrogen-receptor modulators (SERMs; ospemifene) improve vaginal dryness and dyspareunia.^13,14 Pelvic therapy has also proved valuable for incontinence, pelvic floor dysfunction, and levator spasms.²⁰

Where are there gaps in clinician knowledge?

Studies on emotional health, mood, and sleep need to incorporate measures of menstrual timing into data collection and analyses. Does the sleep disruption occurring premenstrually during perimenopause disproportionately contribute to a woman’s vulnerability to depressive disorders? The risk of clinically significant depressive symptoms increases 1.5- to 2.9-fold in the menopause transition.⁵ Research into premenstrual dysphoria during the menopause transition may identify different trajectories in the timing of symptoms related to either cycle itself or the ovarian hormone fluctuations or both.²¹ Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-modulating drugs, such as sepranolone, which blocks allopregnanolone’s actions at the GABAA receptor, may allow treatment of menstrual-related mood disorders without the need for hormonal interventions.²¹

Despite extended observational trial data, more data are needed to inform us about the long-term risks and benefits of using menopausal HT, particularly when initiated at menopause and to help address the timing of HT discontinuation. Furthermore, there are many unanswered questions. For instance:

• How much safer are lower dose and transdermal therapies?
• Do untreated hot flashes increase the risk of cardiovascular disease or dementia?
• Will newer non-HT options, such as the neurokinin receptor antagonists that are in testing but are not yet available, lower cardiovascular or dementia risks?
• What will be the risks and benefits for the newer estrogen in testing (estetrol, or E4), considered a natural estrogen and which appears to have lower thrombotic risks?
• What will be the role of intravaginal energy-based therapies, such as vaginal laser or radiofrequency devices?
• How do we address diverse populations and the effects of menopause on race, gender, culture, prior trauma, and socioeconomic status?

Lack of recognition of menopausal symptoms, particularly in the workplace

Clinicians need to understand the varied physical and emotional symptoms that may occur with hormonal changes as women traverse perimenopause and early menopause. We need to recognize that the lack of discussion about women’s health during this time may make women feel ashamed and fearful of bringing up their symptoms due to fear of being dismissed or stigmatized.²² Women may not seek help until a crisis at home or work occurs, as they may fear that admitting symptoms or a need for help or time away from work will threaten how they are viewed at work or affect their chances of promotion. Although there are economic costs around menopause for appointments, tests, therapies, and missed time at work, not addressing menopausal health leads to poorer performance, workplace absences, and additional medical costs.²²

Conclusion

Menopause occurs naturally as a part of a woman’s life cycle. However, women need assistance navigating perimenopausal hormonal fluctuations and decisions about HT once in menopause. Increased awareness and education about perimenopause and menopause will allow compassionate, individualized, informed care, including lifestyle changes, behavioral or complementary strategies, or medical therapies, hormonal or nonhormonal.²⁷ As a medical society, we need to challenge the stigma associated with aging and menopause and educate ourselves and our patients to help women navigate this challenging time. ●

The transition to menopause begins with ovarian fluctuation and hormonal changes, often beginning before significant changes in menstruation. Reproductive aging with loss of follicular activity progresses over a wide age range (42 to 58 years) with an average onset at approximately age 47, ranging from 4 to 8 years. Although most women have heard about menopause, defined as 12 months after the last period, they often lack understanding about perimenopause or that the menopausal transition usually begins 5 years before menopause.¹

Perimenopause, defined as early and late menopause transition stages, may be viewed as a window of potential vulnerability for women who develop or have worsening menstrual-related mood disorders. Over time, hormonal fluctuations often lead to menstrual cycle irregularity (either shorter or longer). Changes occurring during perimenopause may be confusing as it may not be clear whether symptoms are related to menopause, aging, or stress. Often not recognized or treated adequately, perimenopausal symptoms may be challenging to navigate for both women and clinicians.

The perimenopausal process is often even more confusing for women with early menopause—whether due to bilateral oophorectomy, chemotherapy or radiation therapy, genetics, or an autoimmune process—because of lack of recognition that an early menopausal transition is occurring or what solutions are available for symptoms. While there is support in the workplace for women during pregnancy and breastfeeding, there remains little support or recognition for the oft challenging perimenopausal transition leading to menopause.

Perimenopause: Common symptoms and treatments

Symptoms may be related to either estrogen level deficiency or excess during perimenopause, and these level changes may even occur within the same cycle.

Cyclic breast tenderness may develop, worsened by caffeine or high salt intake (which can be potentially improved, although without clinical trial evidence, with decreased caffeine or a trial of evening primrose oil or vitamin E).

Changes in menstrual flow and frequency of menses are typical. Flow may be lighter or heavier, longer or shorter, and there may be cycle variability, missed menses, or midcycle spotting.² Bleeding may be heavy, with or without cramping. In addition to imaging with vaginal ultrasonography or hysteroscopy to identify structural issues, symptoms may be managed with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), hormonal therapy (HT) with short hormone-free interval contraceptives, oral progestogens, or progestin intrauterine systems. Newer medical treatments include antifibrinolytic drugs and selective progesterone-receptor modulators. Uterine ablation to decrease or stop bleeding is effective if there are no structural abnormalities, such as fibroids or polyps or the presence of adenomyosis, where glands will regrow into the endometrium after ablation. Endometrial biopsy is indicated for persistent abnormal uterine bleeding or those with risk factors such as chronic anovulation.

Worsening headaches or menstrual migraines may be triggered by hormonal changes, which may respond to NSAIDs; dihydroergotamine; triptans; the combination of aspirin, acetaminophen, and caffeine; or estrogen the week before menses. For women taking oral contraceptives (OCPs), adding estradiol the week before menses, or using the OCP continuously, may decrease headache frequency. These short-term prophylactic strategies during the perimenstrual time are often effective. If not, preventive therapy is available for women with frequent, severe headaches.

Mood complaints and poor sleep are independently associated with menstrual irregularity, and can lead to fatigue or anxiety, worsening premenstrual syndrome, or depressive moods. Sleep is disrupted premenstrually for up to one-third of women, and sleep disruption is particularly prevalent in those with premenstrual mood disorders and worsens during perimenopause.³

Reproductive hormones act on the neurotransmitter systems in the brain involved in mood regulation and emotion. The fluctuating hormones occurring during perimenopause may exacerbate pre-existing menstrual-related mood disorders. A subset of women experience depressive moods due to perimenopausal elevations in ovarian hormones.⁴ Others may exhibit increased mood sensitivity with the ovarian hormone withdrawal accompanying late menopause transition and early postmenopausal phase.⁵ There is significant comorbidity between premenstrual mood disorder (PMDD) and postpartum depression.⁶ During perimenopause and early menopause, clinicians should ask about prior hormonally-related depression (puberty, postpartum) and recognize that current or past premenstrual syndrome may worsen into a more severe premenstrual dysphoric disorder. Evidence-based treatments for PMDD include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs); either taken continuously or only during the luteal phase; drospirenone-containing oral contraceptives, often with shorter pill-free intervals; GnRH analogues with or without hormone add-back; and cognitive behavioral therapy.⁷ For women whose perimenopausal moods improve with HT or develop worsened mood sensitivity with ovarian hormone withdrawal, clinicians should recognize that mood may worsen when treatment is ceased.⁵

Continue to: Menopausal symptoms...

Vasomotor symptoms (VMS), hot flashes, or night sweats occur in up to 75% of women as they develop more menstrual irregularity and move closer to their final period and menopause.

Hot flashes are transient episodes of flushing with the sensation of warmth (up to intense heat) on the upper body and face or head, often associated with sweating, chills or flushing, an increase in heart rate, and lowered blood pressure. Hot flashes can sometimes be preceded by an intense feeling of dread, followed by rapid heat dissipation. The etiology of hot flashes is still not clear, but the neurokinin receptors are involved. They are related to small fluctuations in core body temperature superimposed on a narrow thermoneutral zone in symptomatic women. Hot flashes are triggered when core body temperature rises above the upper (sweating) threshold. Shivering occurs if the core body temperature falls below the lower threshold. Sleep may be disrupted, with less rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, and associated with throwing covers on and off or changing sheets or nightclothes. On average, hot flashes last 7.2 years,⁸ and they are more bothersome if night sweats interfere with sleep or disrupt performance during the day.

In the Stages of Reproductive Aging Workshop (STRAW + 10), women reported VMS within 1-3 years after the menopausal transition.⁸ Four trajectories of hot flashes were identified in the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) trial,⁹ including low levels throughout the menopause transition, early onset, late onset, and a group which had frequent hot flashes, starting early and lasting longer. Serum estrogen levels were not predictive of hot flash frequency or severity.

Hot flashes have been associated with low levels of exercise, cigarette smoking, high follicle-stimulating hormone levels and low estradiol levels, increasing body mass index, ethnicity (with hot flashes more common among Black and Hispanic women), low socioeconomic status, prior PMDD, anxiety, perceived stress, and depression.⁸ Women with a history of premenstrual syndrome, stress, sexual dysfunction, physical inactivity, or hot flashes are more vulnerable to depressive symptoms during perimenopause and early menopause.⁵

Depression may co-occur or overlap with menopause symptoms. Diagnosis involves menopausal stage, co-occurring psychiatric and menopause symptoms, psychosocial stressors, and a validated screening tool such as PQ9. Treatments for perimenopausal depression, such as antidepressants, psychotherapy, or cognitive behavioral therapy, are recommended first line for perimenopausal depression. Estrogen therapy has not been approved to treat perimenopausal depression but appears to have antidepressant effects in perimenopausal women, particularly those with bothersome vasomotor symptoms.⁵

Anxiety can worsen during menopause, and may respond to calming apps, meditation, cognitive behavioral therapy, hypnosis, yoga or tai chi, HT, or antianxiety medications.

Weight gain around the abdomen (ie, belly fat) is a common complaint during the menopausal transition, despite women reporting not changing their eating or exercise patterns. Increasing exercise or bursts of higher intensity, decreasing portion sizes or limiting carbohydrates and alcohol may help.

Memory and concentration problems, described as brain fog, tend to be more of an issue in perimenopause and level out after menopause. Counsel midlife women that these changes are not due to dementia but are related to normal aging, hormonal changes, mood, stress, or other life circumstances. Identifying and addressing sleep issues and mood disorders may help mitigate brain fog, as can advising women to avoid excess caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, and eating before bed. Improvements in memory, cognition, and health have been found with the Mediterranean diet, regular exercise, avoiding multitasking, and engaging in mentally stimulating activities.

Sleeping concerns in peri- and postmenopausal women include sleeping less and more frequent insomnia. Women are more likely to use prescription sleeping aids during these times of their lives. The data from SWAN⁸ show that the menopausal transition is related to self-reported difficulty sleeping, independent of age. Sleep latency interval is increased while REM sleep decreases. Night sweats can trigger awakenings in the first half of the night. The perceived decline in sleep quality also may be attributed to general aging effects, nocturnal urination, sleep-related disorders such as sleep apnea or restless legs, or chronic pain, stress, or depression.¹⁰ Suggestions for management include sleep apps, cognitive behavioral therapy, low-dose antidepressant therapy, addressing sleep routines, and HT. Hypnotics should be avoided.

Sexuality issues are common complaints during the menopausal transition. Cross-sectional data reported from a longitudinal, population-based Australian cohort of women aged 45 to 55 years, found a decrease in sexual responsivity, sexual frequency, libido, vaginal dyspareunia, and more partner problems.¹¹ Low libido may be related to relationship issues, dyspareunia with vaginal narrowing, loss of lubrication, levator spasm, stress, anxiety, exhaustion or mood disorder, lowered hormone levels, excess alcohol intake, underlying health concerns, or a side effect of medications for depression or pain. There is no direct correlation between testosterone levels and libido.

When HT at menopause may be helpful

For healthy symptomatic women without contraindications who are younger than age 60, or within 10 years of menopause onset, the benefits of initiating HT most likely outweigh the risks to relieve bothersome hot flashes and night sweats.^12-17 For older women, or for those further from menopause, the greater absolute risks of coronary heart disease, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and dementia, in general, outweigh the potential benefits.^12-17 Extended durations of HT have less safety and efficacy data and should be considered primarily for those with persistent menopausal symptoms, with periodic re-evaluation.^13,14 For bothersome genitourinary syndrome of menopause symptoms that do not respond to vaginal moisturizers or lubricants, low-dose vaginal HTs are encouraged.^13-17

Continue to: Early-onset menopause...

Early-onset menopause

According to observational studies,¹⁸ early menopause is associated with a higher risk of osteoporosis, coronary heart disease, cognitive changes, vaginal dryness, loss of libido, and mood changes. Studies have shown that women with early menopause who take HT, without contraindications, to the average age of menopause (age 52) decrease the health risks of early menopause (bone loss, heart disease, mood, and cognition changes).^13,14,18

Women with early menopause, whether spontaneous or following bilateral oophorectomy or cancer treatment, should be counseled to get adequate calcium (dietary recommended over supplementation) and vitamin D intake, eat a healthy diet, and exercise regularly. Evaluation should include risk for bone loss, heart disease, mood changes, and vaginal changes.

Extended use of HT

Up to 8% of women have hot flashes for 20 years or more after menopause.¹⁹ The decision to continue or to stop HT is not always clear for women:

• with persistent hot flashes after a trial period of HT discontinuation
• with bone loss that cannot be treated with bone-specific medications
• who request continuation for quality of life.

Extended use of HT should include an ongoing assessment of its risks and benefits, periodic trials off of HT, and documentation of rationale and informed discussions about continuing. Lower doses and transdermal therapies appear safer, as does micronized progesterone instead of more potent synthetic progestins.^13-17

Genitourinary syndrome of menopause

Once women are further into menopause, they may notice vaginal dryness, vulvar itching or burning, bothersome vaginal discharge, or urinary urgency or frequency. The development of painful intercourse frequently occurs, a combination of the loss of estrogen with thinning of the vaginal mucosa, a loss of the acidic vaginal milieu with less elasticity, and spasm of the levator muscles. Some women develop urinary tract infections after intercourse or have more frequent reoccurrences. First-line therapy is often vaginal moisturizers and lubricants. Vaginal therapies (estradiol, conjugated estrogen, or dehydroepiandrosterone) or oral selective estrogen-receptor modulators (SERMs; ospemifene) improve vaginal dryness and dyspareunia.^13,14 Pelvic therapy has also proved valuable for incontinence, pelvic floor dysfunction, and levator spasms.²⁰

Where are there gaps in clinician knowledge?

Studies on emotional health, mood, and sleep need to incorporate measures of menstrual timing into data collection and analyses. Does the sleep disruption occurring premenstrually during perimenopause disproportionately contribute to a woman’s vulnerability to depressive disorders? The risk of clinically significant depressive symptoms increases 1.5- to 2.9-fold in the menopause transition.⁵ Research into premenstrual dysphoria during the menopause transition may identify different trajectories in the timing of symptoms related to either cycle itself or the ovarian hormone fluctuations or both.²¹ Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-modulating drugs, such as sepranolone, which blocks allopregnanolone’s actions at the GABAA receptor, may allow treatment of menstrual-related mood disorders without the need for hormonal interventions.²¹

Despite extended observational trial data, more data are needed to inform us about the long-term risks and benefits of using menopausal HT, particularly when initiated at menopause and to help address the timing of HT discontinuation. Furthermore, there are many unanswered questions. For instance:

• How much safer are lower dose and transdermal therapies?
• Do untreated hot flashes increase the risk of cardiovascular disease or dementia?
• Will newer non-HT options, such as the neurokinin receptor antagonists that are in testing but are not yet available, lower cardiovascular or dementia risks?
• What will be the risks and benefits for the newer estrogen in testing (estetrol, or E4), considered a natural estrogen and which appears to have lower thrombotic risks?
• What will be the role of intravaginal energy-based therapies, such as vaginal laser or radiofrequency devices?
• How do we address diverse populations and the effects of menopause on race, gender, culture, prior trauma, and socioeconomic status?

Lack of recognition of menopausal symptoms, particularly in the workplace

Clinicians need to understand the varied physical and emotional symptoms that may occur with hormonal changes as women traverse perimenopause and early menopause. We need to recognize that the lack of discussion about women’s health during this time may make women feel ashamed and fearful of bringing up their symptoms due to fear of being dismissed or stigmatized.²² Women may not seek help until a crisis at home or work occurs, as they may fear that admitting symptoms or a need for help or time away from work will threaten how they are viewed at work or affect their chances of promotion. Although there are economic costs around menopause for appointments, tests, therapies, and missed time at work, not addressing menopausal health leads to poorer performance, workplace absences, and additional medical costs.²²

Conclusion

Menopause occurs naturally as a part of a woman’s life cycle. However, women need assistance navigating perimenopausal hormonal fluctuations and decisions about HT once in menopause. Increased awareness and education about perimenopause and menopause will allow compassionate, individualized, informed care, including lifestyle changes, behavioral or complementary strategies, or medical therapies, hormonal or nonhormonal.²⁷ As a medical society, we need to challenge the stigma associated with aging and menopause and educate ourselves and our patients to help women navigate this challenging time. ●

The transition to menopause begins with ovarian fluctuation and hormonal changes, often beginning before significant changes in menstruation. Reproductive aging with loss of follicular activity progresses over a wide age range (42 to 58 years) with an average onset at approximately age 47, ranging from 4 to 8 years. Although most women have heard about menopause, defined as 12 months after the last period, they often lack understanding about perimenopause or that the menopausal transition usually begins 5 years before menopause.¹

Perimenopause, defined as early and late menopause transition stages, may be viewed as a window of potential vulnerability for women who develop or have worsening menstrual-related mood disorders. Over time, hormonal fluctuations often lead to menstrual cycle irregularity (either shorter or longer). Changes occurring during perimenopause may be confusing as it may not be clear whether symptoms are related to menopause, aging, or stress. Often not recognized or treated adequately, perimenopausal symptoms may be challenging to navigate for both women and clinicians.

The perimenopausal process is often even more confusing for women with early menopause—whether due to bilateral oophorectomy, chemotherapy or radiation therapy, genetics, or an autoimmune process—because of lack of recognition that an early menopausal transition is occurring or what solutions are available for symptoms. While there is support in the workplace for women during pregnancy and breastfeeding, there remains little support or recognition for the oft challenging perimenopausal transition leading to menopause.

Perimenopause: Common symptoms and treatments

Symptoms may be related to either estrogen level deficiency or excess during perimenopause, and these level changes may even occur within the same cycle.

Cyclic breast tenderness may develop, worsened by caffeine or high salt intake (which can be potentially improved, although without clinical trial evidence, with decreased caffeine or a trial of evening primrose oil or vitamin E).

Changes in menstrual flow and frequency of menses are typical. Flow may be lighter or heavier, longer or shorter, and there may be cycle variability, missed menses, or midcycle spotting.² Bleeding may be heavy, with or without cramping. In addition to imaging with vaginal ultrasonography or hysteroscopy to identify structural issues, symptoms may be managed with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), hormonal therapy (HT) with short hormone-free interval contraceptives, oral progestogens, or progestin intrauterine systems. Newer medical treatments include antifibrinolytic drugs and selective progesterone-receptor modulators. Uterine ablation to decrease or stop bleeding is effective if there are no structural abnormalities, such as fibroids or polyps or the presence of adenomyosis, where glands will regrow into the endometrium after ablation. Endometrial biopsy is indicated for persistent abnormal uterine bleeding or those with risk factors such as chronic anovulation.

Worsening headaches or menstrual migraines may be triggered by hormonal changes, which may respond to NSAIDs; dihydroergotamine; triptans; the combination of aspirin, acetaminophen, and caffeine; or estrogen the week before menses. For women taking oral contraceptives (OCPs), adding estradiol the week before menses, or using the OCP continuously, may decrease headache frequency. These short-term prophylactic strategies during the perimenstrual time are often effective. If not, preventive therapy is available for women with frequent, severe headaches.

Mood complaints and poor sleep are independently associated with menstrual irregularity, and can lead to fatigue or anxiety, worsening premenstrual syndrome, or depressive moods. Sleep is disrupted premenstrually for up to one-third of women, and sleep disruption is particularly prevalent in those with premenstrual mood disorders and worsens during perimenopause.³

Reproductive hormones act on the neurotransmitter systems in the brain involved in mood regulation and emotion. The fluctuating hormones occurring during perimenopause may exacerbate pre-existing menstrual-related mood disorders. A subset of women experience depressive moods due to perimenopausal elevations in ovarian hormones.⁴ Others may exhibit increased mood sensitivity with the ovarian hormone withdrawal accompanying late menopause transition and early postmenopausal phase.⁵ There is significant comorbidity between premenstrual mood disorder (PMDD) and postpartum depression.⁶ During perimenopause and early menopause, clinicians should ask about prior hormonally-related depression (puberty, postpartum) and recognize that current or past premenstrual syndrome may worsen into a more severe premenstrual dysphoric disorder. Evidence-based treatments for PMDD include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs); either taken continuously or only during the luteal phase; drospirenone-containing oral contraceptives, often with shorter pill-free intervals; GnRH analogues with or without hormone add-back; and cognitive behavioral therapy.⁷ For women whose perimenopausal moods improve with HT or develop worsened mood sensitivity with ovarian hormone withdrawal, clinicians should recognize that mood may worsen when treatment is ceased.⁵

Continue to: Menopausal symptoms...

Vasomotor symptoms (VMS), hot flashes, or night sweats occur in up to 75% of women as they develop more menstrual irregularity and move closer to their final period and menopause.

Hot flashes are transient episodes of flushing with the sensation of warmth (up to intense heat) on the upper body and face or head, often associated with sweating, chills or flushing, an increase in heart rate, and lowered blood pressure. Hot flashes can sometimes be preceded by an intense feeling of dread, followed by rapid heat dissipation. The etiology of hot flashes is still not clear, but the neurokinin receptors are involved. They are related to small fluctuations in core body temperature superimposed on a narrow thermoneutral zone in symptomatic women. Hot flashes are triggered when core body temperature rises above the upper (sweating) threshold. Shivering occurs if the core body temperature falls below the lower threshold. Sleep may be disrupted, with less rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, and associated with throwing covers on and off or changing sheets or nightclothes. On average, hot flashes last 7.2 years,⁸ and they are more bothersome if night sweats interfere with sleep or disrupt performance during the day.

In the Stages of Reproductive Aging Workshop (STRAW + 10), women reported VMS within 1-3 years after the menopausal transition.⁸ Four trajectories of hot flashes were identified in the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) trial,⁹ including low levels throughout the menopause transition, early onset, late onset, and a group which had frequent hot flashes, starting early and lasting longer. Serum estrogen levels were not predictive of hot flash frequency or severity.

Hot flashes have been associated with low levels of exercise, cigarette smoking, high follicle-stimulating hormone levels and low estradiol levels, increasing body mass index, ethnicity (with hot flashes more common among Black and Hispanic women), low socioeconomic status, prior PMDD, anxiety, perceived stress, and depression.⁸ Women with a history of premenstrual syndrome, stress, sexual dysfunction, physical inactivity, or hot flashes are more vulnerable to depressive symptoms during perimenopause and early menopause.⁵

Depression may co-occur or overlap with menopause symptoms. Diagnosis involves menopausal stage, co-occurring psychiatric and menopause symptoms, psychosocial stressors, and a validated screening tool such as PQ9. Treatments for perimenopausal depression, such as antidepressants, psychotherapy, or cognitive behavioral therapy, are recommended first line for perimenopausal depression. Estrogen therapy has not been approved to treat perimenopausal depression but appears to have antidepressant effects in perimenopausal women, particularly those with bothersome vasomotor symptoms.⁵

Anxiety can worsen during menopause, and may respond to calming apps, meditation, cognitive behavioral therapy, hypnosis, yoga or tai chi, HT, or antianxiety medications.

Weight gain around the abdomen (ie, belly fat) is a common complaint during the menopausal transition, despite women reporting not changing their eating or exercise patterns. Increasing exercise or bursts of higher intensity, decreasing portion sizes or limiting carbohydrates and alcohol may help.

Memory and concentration problems, described as brain fog, tend to be more of an issue in perimenopause and level out after menopause. Counsel midlife women that these changes are not due to dementia but are related to normal aging, hormonal changes, mood, stress, or other life circumstances. Identifying and addressing sleep issues and mood disorders may help mitigate brain fog, as can advising women to avoid excess caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, and eating before bed. Improvements in memory, cognition, and health have been found with the Mediterranean diet, regular exercise, avoiding multitasking, and engaging in mentally stimulating activities.

Sleeping concerns in peri- and postmenopausal women include sleeping less and more frequent insomnia. Women are more likely to use prescription sleeping aids during these times of their lives. The data from SWAN⁸ show that the menopausal transition is related to self-reported difficulty sleeping, independent of age. Sleep latency interval is increased while REM sleep decreases. Night sweats can trigger awakenings in the first half of the night. The perceived decline in sleep quality also may be attributed to general aging effects, nocturnal urination, sleep-related disorders such as sleep apnea or restless legs, or chronic pain, stress, or depression.¹⁰ Suggestions for management include sleep apps, cognitive behavioral therapy, low-dose antidepressant therapy, addressing sleep routines, and HT. Hypnotics should be avoided.

Sexuality issues are common complaints during the menopausal transition. Cross-sectional data reported from a longitudinal, population-based Australian cohort of women aged 45 to 55 years, found a decrease in sexual responsivity, sexual frequency, libido, vaginal dyspareunia, and more partner problems.¹¹ Low libido may be related to relationship issues, dyspareunia with vaginal narrowing, loss of lubrication, levator spasm, stress, anxiety, exhaustion or mood disorder, lowered hormone levels, excess alcohol intake, underlying health concerns, or a side effect of medications for depression or pain. There is no direct correlation between testosterone levels and libido.

When HT at menopause may be helpful

For healthy symptomatic women without contraindications who are younger than age 60, or within 10 years of menopause onset, the benefits of initiating HT most likely outweigh the risks to relieve bothersome hot flashes and night sweats.^12-17 For older women, or for those further from menopause, the greater absolute risks of coronary heart disease, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and dementia, in general, outweigh the potential benefits.^12-17 Extended durations of HT have less safety and efficacy data and should be considered primarily for those with persistent menopausal symptoms, with periodic re-evaluation.^13,14 For bothersome genitourinary syndrome of menopause symptoms that do not respond to vaginal moisturizers or lubricants, low-dose vaginal HTs are encouraged.^13-17

Continue to: Early-onset menopause...

Early-onset menopause

According to observational studies,¹⁸ early menopause is associated with a higher risk of osteoporosis, coronary heart disease, cognitive changes, vaginal dryness, loss of libido, and mood changes. Studies have shown that women with early menopause who take HT, without contraindications, to the average age of menopause (age 52) decrease the health risks of early menopause (bone loss, heart disease, mood, and cognition changes).^13,14,18

Women with early menopause, whether spontaneous or following bilateral oophorectomy or cancer treatment, should be counseled to get adequate calcium (dietary recommended over supplementation) and vitamin D intake, eat a healthy diet, and exercise regularly. Evaluation should include risk for bone loss, heart disease, mood changes, and vaginal changes.

Extended use of HT

Up to 8% of women have hot flashes for 20 years or more after menopause.¹⁹ The decision to continue or to stop HT is not always clear for women:

• with persistent hot flashes after a trial period of HT discontinuation
• with bone loss that cannot be treated with bone-specific medications
• who request continuation for quality of life.

Extended use of HT should include an ongoing assessment of its risks and benefits, periodic trials off of HT, and documentation of rationale and informed discussions about continuing. Lower doses and transdermal therapies appear safer, as does micronized progesterone instead of more potent synthetic progestins.^13-17

Genitourinary syndrome of menopause

Once women are further into menopause, they may notice vaginal dryness, vulvar itching or burning, bothersome vaginal discharge, or urinary urgency or frequency. The development of painful intercourse frequently occurs, a combination of the loss of estrogen with thinning of the vaginal mucosa, a loss of the acidic vaginal milieu with less elasticity, and spasm of the levator muscles. Some women develop urinary tract infections after intercourse or have more frequent reoccurrences. First-line therapy is often vaginal moisturizers and lubricants. Vaginal therapies (estradiol, conjugated estrogen, or dehydroepiandrosterone) or oral selective estrogen-receptor modulators (SERMs; ospemifene) improve vaginal dryness and dyspareunia.^13,14 Pelvic therapy has also proved valuable for incontinence, pelvic floor dysfunction, and levator spasms.²⁰

Where are there gaps in clinician knowledge?

Studies on emotional health, mood, and sleep need to incorporate measures of menstrual timing into data collection and analyses. Does the sleep disruption occurring premenstrually during perimenopause disproportionately contribute to a woman’s vulnerability to depressive disorders? The risk of clinically significant depressive symptoms increases 1.5- to 2.9-fold in the menopause transition.⁵ Research into premenstrual dysphoria during the menopause transition may identify different trajectories in the timing of symptoms related to either cycle itself or the ovarian hormone fluctuations or both.²¹ Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-modulating drugs, such as sepranolone, which blocks allopregnanolone’s actions at the GABAA receptor, may allow treatment of menstrual-related mood disorders without the need for hormonal interventions.²¹

Despite extended observational trial data, more data are needed to inform us about the long-term risks and benefits of using menopausal HT, particularly when initiated at menopause and to help address the timing of HT discontinuation. Furthermore, there are many unanswered questions. For instance:

• How much safer are lower dose and transdermal therapies?
• Do untreated hot flashes increase the risk of cardiovascular disease or dementia?
• Will newer non-HT options, such as the neurokinin receptor antagonists that are in testing but are not yet available, lower cardiovascular or dementia risks?
• What will be the risks and benefits for the newer estrogen in testing (estetrol, or E4), considered a natural estrogen and which appears to have lower thrombotic risks?
• What will be the role of intravaginal energy-based therapies, such as vaginal laser or radiofrequency devices?
• How do we address diverse populations and the effects of menopause on race, gender, culture, prior trauma, and socioeconomic status?

Lack of recognition of menopausal symptoms, particularly in the workplace

Clinicians need to understand the varied physical and emotional symptoms that may occur with hormonal changes as women traverse perimenopause and early menopause. We need to recognize that the lack of discussion about women’s health during this time may make women feel ashamed and fearful of bringing up their symptoms due to fear of being dismissed or stigmatized.²² Women may not seek help until a crisis at home or work occurs, as they may fear that admitting symptoms or a need for help or time away from work will threaten how they are viewed at work or affect their chances of promotion. Although there are economic costs around menopause for appointments, tests, therapies, and missed time at work, not addressing menopausal health leads to poorer performance, workplace absences, and additional medical costs.²²

Conclusion

Menopause occurs naturally as a part of a woman’s life cycle. However, women need assistance navigating perimenopausal hormonal fluctuations and decisions about HT once in menopause. Increased awareness and education about perimenopause and menopause will allow compassionate, individualized, informed care, including lifestyle changes, behavioral or complementary strategies, or medical therapies, hormonal or nonhormonal.²⁷ As a medical society, we need to challenge the stigma associated with aging and menopause and educate ourselves and our patients to help women navigate this challenging time. ●

CASE Placenta accreta spectrum following uncomplicated vaginal delivery

Imagine you are an obstetric hospitalist taking call at a level II maternal level of care hospital. Your patient is a 35-year-old woman, gravida 2, para 1, with a past history of retained placenta requiring dilation and curettage and intravenous antibiotics for endomyometritis. This is an in vitro fertilization pregnancy that has progressed normally, and the patient labored spontaneously at 38 weeks’ gestation. Following an uncomplicated vaginal delivery, the placenta has not delivered, and you attempt a manual placental extraction after a 40-minute third stage. While there is epidural analgesia and you can reach the uterine fundus, you are unable to create a separation plane between the placenta and uterus.

What do you do next?

Placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) includes a broad range of clinical scenarios with abnormal placental attachment as their common denominator. The condition has classically been defined pathologically, with chorionic villi attaching directly to the myometrium (“accreta”) or extending more deeply into the myometrium (“increta”) or attaching to surrounding tissues and structures (“percreta”).¹ It is most commonly encountered in patients with low placental implantation on a prior cesarean section scar; indeed, placenta previa, particularly with a history of cesarean delivery, is the strongest risk factor for the development of PAS.² In addition to abnormal placental attachment, these placental attachments are often hypervascular and can lead to catastrophic hemorrhage if not managed appropriately. For this reason, patients with sonographic or radiologic signs of PAS should be referred to specialized centers for further workup, counseling, and delivery planning.³

Although delivery at a specialized PAS center has been associated with improved patient outcomes,⁴ not all patients with PAS will be identified in the antepartum period. Ultrasonography may miss up to 40% to 50% of PAS cases, particularly when the sonologist has not been advised to look for the condition,⁵ and not all patients with PAS will have a previa implanted in a prior cesarean scar. A recent study found that these patients with nonprevia PAS were identified by imaging less than 40% of the time and were significantly less likely to be managed by a specialized team of clinicians.⁶ Thus, it falls upon every obstetric care provider to be aware of this diagnosis, promptly recognize its unanticipated presentations, and have a plan to optimize patient safety.

Step 1: Recognition

While PAS is classically defined as a pathologic condition, no clinician has the luxury of histology in the delivery room. Researchers have variously defined PAS clinically, with the common trait of abnormal placental adherence.^7-9 The TABLE compares published definitions that have been used in the literature. While some definitions include hemorrhage, no clinician wants to induce significant hemorrhage to confirm their patient’s diagnosis. Thus, practically, the clinical PAS diagnosis comes down to abnormal placental attachment: If it is apparent that some or all of the placenta will not separate from the uterine wall with digital manipulation or careful curettage, then PAS should be suspected, and appropriate steps should be taken before further removal attempts.

At cesarean delivery, the PAS diagnosis may be aided by visual cues. With placenta previa, the lower uterine segment may bulge and take on a bluish hue, distinctly different from the upper healthy myometrium. PAS may also manifest with neovascularization, particularly behind the bladder. As with vaginal births, the placenta will fail to separate after the delivery, and controlled traction on the umbilical cord can produce a “dimple sign,” or visible myometrial retraction at the site of implantation (FIGURE 1). Finally, if the diagnosis is still in doubt, attempts to gently form a cleavage plane between the placenta and myometrium will be unsuccessful if PAS is present.⁸

Step 2: Initial management—pause, plan

Most importantly, do not attempt to forcibly remove the placenta. It can be left attached to the uterus until appropriate resources are secured. Efforts to forcibly remove an adherent placenta may well lead to major hemorrhage, and thus it falls on the patient’s care team to pause and plan for PAS care at this point. FIGURE 2 displays an algorithm for patient management. Further steps depend primarily on whether or not the patient is already hemorrhaging. In a stable situation, the patient should be counseled regarding the abnormal findings and the suspected PAS diagnosis. This includes the possibility of further procedures, blood transfusion, and hysterectomy. Local resources, including nursing, anesthesia, and the blood bank, should be notified about the situation and for the potential to call in specialized services. If on-site experienced specialists are not available, then patient transfer to a PAS specialty center should be strongly considered. While awaiting additional help or transport, the patient requires close monitoring for gross and physiologic signs of hemorrhage. If pursued, transport to a PAS specialty center should be expedited.

If the patient is already hemorrhaging or unstable, then appropriate local resources must be activated. At a minimum, this requires an obstetrician and anesthesiologist at the bedside and activation of hemorrhage protocols (eg, a massive transfusion protocol). If blood products are unavailable, consider whether they can be transported from other nearby blood banks, and start that process promptly. Next, contact backup services. Based on local resources and clinical severity, this may include maternal-fetal medicine specialists, pelvic surgeons, general and trauma surgeons, intensivists, interventional radiologists, and transfusion specialists. Even if the patient cannot be safely transferred to another hospital, the obstetrician can call an outside PAS specialist to discuss next steps in care and begin transfer plans, assuming the patient can be stabilized. Based on the Maternal Levels of Care definitions published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine,¹⁰ patients with PAS should be managed at level III or level IV centers. However, delivery units at every level of maternal care should have a protocol for securing local help and reaching an appropriate consultant if a PAS case is encountered. Know which center in your area specializes in PAS so that when an unanticipated case arises, you know who to call.

Continue to: Step 3: Ultimate management—mobilize and prepare for bleeding...

Step 3: Ultimate management—mobilize and prepare for bleeding

If diagnosis occurs intraoperatively at a PAS specialty center, or if safe transport is not possible, then the team should mobilize for the possibility of hysterectomy and prepare for massive bleeding, which can occur regardless of the treatment chosen. Many patients require or will opt for hysterectomy. For example, a patient who has finished childbearing may consent to a hysterectomy upon hearing she likely has PAS. In patients with suspected PAS who are actively hemorrhaging or are unstable, hysterectomy is required.

Uterine conservation may be considered in stable patients who strongly desire future childbearing or uterine retention. This often requires leaving densely adherent placental tissue in situ and thus requires thorough counseling regarding the risks of delayed hemorrhage, infection, and emergent hysterectomy.¹¹ This may not be desirable or safe for some patients, so informed consent is crucial. In such cases, we strongly recommend consultation with a PAS specialist, even if that requires immediate control of the placental blood supply (such as with arterial embolization), and transfer to a PAS specialty center.

Clinical scenarios

Vaginal delivery

The patient in the opening case was never expected to have PAS given her normal placental location and absence of a uterine scar. Even though she had some possible PAS risk factors (past retained placenta with instrumentation and in vitro fertilization), her absolute risk for the condition was low. Nevertheless, inability to create a separation plane should be considered PAS until proven otherwise. Although at this point many obstetricians would move to an operating room for uterine curettage, we recommend that the care team pause and put measures in place for possible PAS and hemorrhage. This involves notification of the blood bank, crossmatching of blood products, alerting the anesthesia team, and having a clear plan in place should a major hemorrhage ensue. This may involve use of balloon tamponade, activation of an interventional radiology team, or possible laparotomy with arterial ligations or hysterectomy. Avoidance of a prolonged third stage should be balanced against the need for preparation with these cases.

It is important for clinicians to bear in mind, and communicate to the patient, that hysterectomy is the standard of care for PAS. Significant delays in performing an indicated hysterectomy can lead to coagulopathy and patient instability. Timeliness is key; we find that delays in the decision to perform an indicated hysterectomy are often at the root of the cause for worsened morbidity in patients with unanticipated PAS. With an unscarred uterus and no placenta previa, a postpartum hysterectomy can be performed by many obstetrician-gynecologists experienced in this abdominal procedure.

Cesarean delivery

Undiagnosed PAS may present at cesarean delivery with or without placenta previa and a prior uterine scar. With this combination, PAS is often visually apparent upon opening the abdominal cavity (TABLE and FIGURE 1). Such surgical findings call for a clinical pause, as further actions at this point can lead to catastrophic hemorrhage. The obstetrician should consider a series of questions:

1. Are appropriate surgical and transfusion resources immediately available? If yes, they should be notified in case they are needed urgently. If not, then the obstetrician should ask whether the delivery must occur now.

2. Is this a scheduled delivery with a stable patient and fetus? If so, then closing the abdominal incision, monitoring the patient and fetus, and either transferring the patient to a PAS center or awaiting appropriate local specialists may be a lifesaving step.

3. Is immediate delivery required? If the fetus must be delivered, then it is imperative to create a hysterotomy out of the way of the placenta. Disrupting the adherent placenta with either an incision or manual manipulation may trigger a massive hemorrhage and should be avoided. This may require rectus muscle transection or creating a “T” incision on the skin to reach the uterine fundus and creating a hysterotomy over the top or even the back of the uterus. Once the fetus is delivered and lack of uterine hemorrhage confirmed (both abdominally and vaginally), the hysterotomy and abdomen can be closed with anticipation of urgent patient transfer to a PAS team or center.

4. Is the patient hemorrhaging? If the patient is hemorrhaging and closure is not an option, then recruitment of local emergent surgical teams is warranted, even if that requires packing the abdomen until an appropriate surgeon can arrive.

Diagnosis at cesarean delivery requires expedited and complex patient counseling. A patient who is unstable or hemorrhaging needs to be told that hysterectomy is lifesaving in this situation. For patients who are stable, it may be appropriate to close the abdomen and leave the placenta in situ, perform comprehensive counseling, and assess the possibility of transfer to a specialty center.

Summary

All obstetric care providers should be familiar with the clinical presentation of undiagnosed accreta spectrum. While hemorrhage is often part of the diagnosis, recognition of abnormal placental adherence and PAS-focused management should ideally be undertaken before this occurs. Once PAS is suspected, avoidance of further placental disruption may save significant morbidity, even if that means leaving the placenta attached until appropriate resources can be obtained. A local protocol for consultation, emergency transfer, and deployment of local resources should be part of every delivery unit’s emergency preparedness plan.

CASE Outcome

This patient is stabilized, with an adherent, retained placenta and no signs of hemorrhage. You administer uterotonics and notify your anesthesiologist and backup obstetrician that you have a likely case of accreta spectrum. A second intravenous line is placed, and blood products are crossmatched. The closest level III hospital is called, and they accept your patient for transfer. There, she is counseled about PAS, and she expresses no desire for future childbearing. After again confirming no placental separation in the operating room, the patient is moved immediately to perform laparotomy and total abdominal hysterectomy through a Pfannenstiel incision. She does not require a blood transfusion, and the pathology returns with grade I placenta accreta spectrum. ●

CASE Placenta accreta spectrum following uncomplicated vaginal delivery

Imagine you are an obstetric hospitalist taking call at a level II maternal level of care hospital. Your patient is a 35-year-old woman, gravida 2, para 1, with a past history of retained placenta requiring dilation and curettage and intravenous antibiotics for endomyometritis. This is an in vitro fertilization pregnancy that has progressed normally, and the patient labored spontaneously at 38 weeks’ gestation. Following an uncomplicated vaginal delivery, the placenta has not delivered, and you attempt a manual placental extraction after a 40-minute third stage. While there is epidural analgesia and you can reach the uterine fundus, you are unable to create a separation plane between the placenta and uterus.

What do you do next?

Placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) includes a broad range of clinical scenarios with abnormal placental attachment as their common denominator. The condition has classically been defined pathologically, with chorionic villi attaching directly to the myometrium (“accreta”) or extending more deeply into the myometrium (“increta”) or attaching to surrounding tissues and structures (“percreta”).¹ It is most commonly encountered in patients with low placental implantation on a prior cesarean section scar; indeed, placenta previa, particularly with a history of cesarean delivery, is the strongest risk factor for the development of PAS.² In addition to abnormal placental attachment, these placental attachments are often hypervascular and can lead to catastrophic hemorrhage if not managed appropriately. For this reason, patients with sonographic or radiologic signs of PAS should be referred to specialized centers for further workup, counseling, and delivery planning.³

Although delivery at a specialized PAS center has been associated with improved patient outcomes,⁴ not all patients with PAS will be identified in the antepartum period. Ultrasonography may miss up to 40% to 50% of PAS cases, particularly when the sonologist has not been advised to look for the condition,⁵ and not all patients with PAS will have a previa implanted in a prior cesarean scar. A recent study found that these patients with nonprevia PAS were identified by imaging less than 40% of the time and were significantly less likely to be managed by a specialized team of clinicians.⁶ Thus, it falls upon every obstetric care provider to be aware of this diagnosis, promptly recognize its unanticipated presentations, and have a plan to optimize patient safety.

Step 1: Recognition

While PAS is classically defined as a pathologic condition, no clinician has the luxury of histology in the delivery room. Researchers have variously defined PAS clinically, with the common trait of abnormal placental adherence.^7-9 The TABLE compares published definitions that have been used in the literature. While some definitions include hemorrhage, no clinician wants to induce significant hemorrhage to confirm their patient’s diagnosis. Thus, practically, the clinical PAS diagnosis comes down to abnormal placental attachment: If it is apparent that some or all of the placenta will not separate from the uterine wall with digital manipulation or careful curettage, then PAS should be suspected, and appropriate steps should be taken before further removal attempts.

At cesarean delivery, the PAS diagnosis may be aided by visual cues. With placenta previa, the lower uterine segment may bulge and take on a bluish hue, distinctly different from the upper healthy myometrium. PAS may also manifest with neovascularization, particularly behind the bladder. As with vaginal births, the placenta will fail to separate after the delivery, and controlled traction on the umbilical cord can produce a “dimple sign,” or visible myometrial retraction at the site of implantation (FIGURE 1). Finally, if the diagnosis is still in doubt, attempts to gently form a cleavage plane between the placenta and myometrium will be unsuccessful if PAS is present.⁸

Step 2: Initial management—pause, plan

Most importantly, do not attempt to forcibly remove the placenta. It can be left attached to the uterus until appropriate resources are secured. Efforts to forcibly remove an adherent placenta may well lead to major hemorrhage, and thus it falls on the patient’s care team to pause and plan for PAS care at this point. FIGURE 2 displays an algorithm for patient management. Further steps depend primarily on whether or not the patient is already hemorrhaging. In a stable situation, the patient should be counseled regarding the abnormal findings and the suspected PAS diagnosis. This includes the possibility of further procedures, blood transfusion, and hysterectomy. Local resources, including nursing, anesthesia, and the blood bank, should be notified about the situation and for the potential to call in specialized services. If on-site experienced specialists are not available, then patient transfer to a PAS specialty center should be strongly considered. While awaiting additional help or transport, the patient requires close monitoring for gross and physiologic signs of hemorrhage. If pursued, transport to a PAS specialty center should be expedited.

If the patient is already hemorrhaging or unstable, then appropriate local resources must be activated. At a minimum, this requires an obstetrician and anesthesiologist at the bedside and activation of hemorrhage protocols (eg, a massive transfusion protocol). If blood products are unavailable, consider whether they can be transported from other nearby blood banks, and start that process promptly. Next, contact backup services. Based on local resources and clinical severity, this may include maternal-fetal medicine specialists, pelvic surgeons, general and trauma surgeons, intensivists, interventional radiologists, and transfusion specialists. Even if the patient cannot be safely transferred to another hospital, the obstetrician can call an outside PAS specialist to discuss next steps in care and begin transfer plans, assuming the patient can be stabilized. Based on the Maternal Levels of Care definitions published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine,¹⁰ patients with PAS should be managed at level III or level IV centers. However, delivery units at every level of maternal care should have a protocol for securing local help and reaching an appropriate consultant if a PAS case is encountered. Know which center in your area specializes in PAS so that when an unanticipated case arises, you know who to call.

Continue to: Step 3: Ultimate management—mobilize and prepare for bleeding...

Step 3: Ultimate management—mobilize and prepare for bleeding

If diagnosis occurs intraoperatively at a PAS specialty center, or if safe transport is not possible, then the team should mobilize for the possibility of hysterectomy and prepare for massive bleeding, which can occur regardless of the treatment chosen. Many patients require or will opt for hysterectomy. For example, a patient who has finished childbearing may consent to a hysterectomy upon hearing she likely has PAS. In patients with suspected PAS who are actively hemorrhaging or are unstable, hysterectomy is required.

Uterine conservation may be considered in stable patients who strongly desire future childbearing or uterine retention. This often requires leaving densely adherent placental tissue in situ and thus requires thorough counseling regarding the risks of delayed hemorrhage, infection, and emergent hysterectomy.¹¹ This may not be desirable or safe for some patients, so informed consent is crucial. In such cases, we strongly recommend consultation with a PAS specialist, even if that requires immediate control of the placental blood supply (such as with arterial embolization), and transfer to a PAS specialty center.

Clinical scenarios

Vaginal delivery

The patient in the opening case was never expected to have PAS given her normal placental location and absence of a uterine scar. Even though she had some possible PAS risk factors (past retained placenta with instrumentation and in vitro fertilization), her absolute risk for the condition was low. Nevertheless, inability to create a separation plane should be considered PAS until proven otherwise. Although at this point many obstetricians would move to an operating room for uterine curettage, we recommend that the care team pause and put measures in place for possible PAS and hemorrhage. This involves notification of the blood bank, crossmatching of blood products, alerting the anesthesia team, and having a clear plan in place should a major hemorrhage ensue. This may involve use of balloon tamponade, activation of an interventional radiology team, or possible laparotomy with arterial ligations or hysterectomy. Avoidance of a prolonged third stage should be balanced against the need for preparation with these cases.

It is important for clinicians to bear in mind, and communicate to the patient, that hysterectomy is the standard of care for PAS. Significant delays in performing an indicated hysterectomy can lead to coagulopathy and patient instability. Timeliness is key; we find that delays in the decision to perform an indicated hysterectomy are often at the root of the cause for worsened morbidity in patients with unanticipated PAS. With an unscarred uterus and no placenta previa, a postpartum hysterectomy can be performed by many obstetrician-gynecologists experienced in this abdominal procedure.

Cesarean delivery

Undiagnosed PAS may present at cesarean delivery with or without placenta previa and a prior uterine scar. With this combination, PAS is often visually apparent upon opening the abdominal cavity (TABLE and FIGURE 1). Such surgical findings call for a clinical pause, as further actions at this point can lead to catastrophic hemorrhage. The obstetrician should consider a series of questions:

1. Are appropriate surgical and transfusion resources immediately available? If yes, they should be notified in case they are needed urgently. If not, then the obstetrician should ask whether the delivery must occur now.

2. Is this a scheduled delivery with a stable patient and fetus? If so, then closing the abdominal incision, monitoring the patient and fetus, and either transferring the patient to a PAS center or awaiting appropriate local specialists may be a lifesaving step.

3. Is immediate delivery required? If the fetus must be delivered, then it is imperative to create a hysterotomy out of the way of the placenta. Disrupting the adherent placenta with either an incision or manual manipulation may trigger a massive hemorrhage and should be avoided. This may require rectus muscle transection or creating a “T” incision on the skin to reach the uterine fundus and creating a hysterotomy over the top or even the back of the uterus. Once the fetus is delivered and lack of uterine hemorrhage confirmed (both abdominally and vaginally), the hysterotomy and abdomen can be closed with anticipation of urgent patient transfer to a PAS team or center.

4. Is the patient hemorrhaging? If the patient is hemorrhaging and closure is not an option, then recruitment of local emergent surgical teams is warranted, even if that requires packing the abdomen until an appropriate surgeon can arrive.

Diagnosis at cesarean delivery requires expedited and complex patient counseling. A patient who is unstable or hemorrhaging needs to be told that hysterectomy is lifesaving in this situation. For patients who are stable, it may be appropriate to close the abdomen and leave the placenta in situ, perform comprehensive counseling, and assess the possibility of transfer to a specialty center.

Summary

All obstetric care providers should be familiar with the clinical presentation of undiagnosed accreta spectrum. While hemorrhage is often part of the diagnosis, recognition of abnormal placental adherence and PAS-focused management should ideally be undertaken before this occurs. Once PAS is suspected, avoidance of further placental disruption may save significant morbidity, even if that means leaving the placenta attached until appropriate resources can be obtained. A local protocol for consultation, emergency transfer, and deployment of local resources should be part of every delivery unit’s emergency preparedness plan.

CASE Outcome

This patient is stabilized, with an adherent, retained placenta and no signs of hemorrhage. You administer uterotonics and notify your anesthesiologist and backup obstetrician that you have a likely case of accreta spectrum. A second intravenous line is placed, and blood products are crossmatched. The closest level III hospital is called, and they accept your patient for transfer. There, she is counseled about PAS, and she expresses no desire for future childbearing. After again confirming no placental separation in the operating room, the patient is moved immediately to perform laparotomy and total abdominal hysterectomy through a Pfannenstiel incision. She does not require a blood transfusion, and the pathology returns with grade I placenta accreta spectrum. ●

CASE Placenta accreta spectrum following uncomplicated vaginal delivery

Imagine you are an obstetric hospitalist taking call at a level II maternal level of care hospital. Your patient is a 35-year-old woman, gravida 2, para 1, with a past history of retained placenta requiring dilation and curettage and intravenous antibiotics for endomyometritis. This is an in vitro fertilization pregnancy that has progressed normally, and the patient labored spontaneously at 38 weeks’ gestation. Following an uncomplicated vaginal delivery, the placenta has not delivered, and you attempt a manual placental extraction after a 40-minute third stage. While there is epidural analgesia and you can reach the uterine fundus, you are unable to create a separation plane between the placenta and uterus.

What do you do next?

Placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) includes a broad range of clinical scenarios with abnormal placental attachment as their common denominator. The condition has classically been defined pathologically, with chorionic villi attaching directly to the myometrium (“accreta”) or extending more deeply into the myometrium (“increta”) or attaching to surrounding tissues and structures (“percreta”).¹ It is most commonly encountered in patients with low placental implantation on a prior cesarean section scar; indeed, placenta previa, particularly with a history of cesarean delivery, is the strongest risk factor for the development of PAS.² In addition to abnormal placental attachment, these placental attachments are often hypervascular and can lead to catastrophic hemorrhage if not managed appropriately. For this reason, patients with sonographic or radiologic signs of PAS should be referred to specialized centers for further workup, counseling, and delivery planning.³

Although delivery at a specialized PAS center has been associated with improved patient outcomes,⁴ not all patients with PAS will be identified in the antepartum period. Ultrasonography may miss up to 40% to 50% of PAS cases, particularly when the sonologist has not been advised to look for the condition,⁵ and not all patients with PAS will have a previa implanted in a prior cesarean scar. A recent study found that these patients with nonprevia PAS were identified by imaging less than 40% of the time and were significantly less likely to be managed by a specialized team of clinicians.⁶ Thus, it falls upon every obstetric care provider to be aware of this diagnosis, promptly recognize its unanticipated presentations, and have a plan to optimize patient safety.

Step 1: Recognition

While PAS is classically defined as a pathologic condition, no clinician has the luxury of histology in the delivery room. Researchers have variously defined PAS clinically, with the common trait of abnormal placental adherence.^7-9 The TABLE compares published definitions that have been used in the literature. While some definitions include hemorrhage, no clinician wants to induce significant hemorrhage to confirm their patient’s diagnosis. Thus, practically, the clinical PAS diagnosis comes down to abnormal placental attachment: If it is apparent that some or all of the placenta will not separate from the uterine wall with digital manipulation or careful curettage, then PAS should be suspected, and appropriate steps should be taken before further removal attempts.

At cesarean delivery, the PAS diagnosis may be aided by visual cues. With placenta previa, the lower uterine segment may bulge and take on a bluish hue, distinctly different from the upper healthy myometrium. PAS may also manifest with neovascularization, particularly behind the bladder. As with vaginal births, the placenta will fail to separate after the delivery, and controlled traction on the umbilical cord can produce a “dimple sign,” or visible myometrial retraction at the site of implantation (FIGURE 1). Finally, if the diagnosis is still in doubt, attempts to gently form a cleavage plane between the placenta and myometrium will be unsuccessful if PAS is present.⁸

Step 2: Initial management—pause, plan

Most importantly, do not attempt to forcibly remove the placenta. It can be left attached to the uterus until appropriate resources are secured. Efforts to forcibly remove an adherent placenta may well lead to major hemorrhage, and thus it falls on the patient’s care team to pause and plan for PAS care at this point. FIGURE 2 displays an algorithm for patient management. Further steps depend primarily on whether or not the patient is already hemorrhaging. In a stable situation, the patient should be counseled regarding the abnormal findings and the suspected PAS diagnosis. This includes the possibility of further procedures, blood transfusion, and hysterectomy. Local resources, including nursing, anesthesia, and the blood bank, should be notified about the situation and for the potential to call in specialized services. If on-site experienced specialists are not available, then patient transfer to a PAS specialty center should be strongly considered. While awaiting additional help or transport, the patient requires close monitoring for gross and physiologic signs of hemorrhage. If pursued, transport to a PAS specialty center should be expedited.

If the patient is already hemorrhaging or unstable, then appropriate local resources must be activated. At a minimum, this requires an obstetrician and anesthesiologist at the bedside and activation of hemorrhage protocols (eg, a massive transfusion protocol). If blood products are unavailable, consider whether they can be transported from other nearby blood banks, and start that process promptly. Next, contact backup services. Based on local resources and clinical severity, this may include maternal-fetal medicine specialists, pelvic surgeons, general and trauma surgeons, intensivists, interventional radiologists, and transfusion specialists. Even if the patient cannot be safely transferred to another hospital, the obstetrician can call an outside PAS specialist to discuss next steps in care and begin transfer plans, assuming the patient can be stabilized. Based on the Maternal Levels of Care definitions published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine,¹⁰ patients with PAS should be managed at level III or level IV centers. However, delivery units at every level of maternal care should have a protocol for securing local help and reaching an appropriate consultant if a PAS case is encountered. Know which center in your area specializes in PAS so that when an unanticipated case arises, you know who to call.

Continue to: Step 3: Ultimate management—mobilize and prepare for bleeding...

Step 3: Ultimate management—mobilize and prepare for bleeding

If diagnosis occurs intraoperatively at a PAS specialty center, or if safe transport is not possible, then the team should mobilize for the possibility of hysterectomy and prepare for massive bleeding, which can occur regardless of the treatment chosen. Many patients require or will opt for hysterectomy. For example, a patient who has finished childbearing may consent to a hysterectomy upon hearing she likely has PAS. In patients with suspected PAS who are actively hemorrhaging or are unstable, hysterectomy is required.

Uterine conservation may be considered in stable patients who strongly desire future childbearing or uterine retention. This often requires leaving densely adherent placental tissue in situ and thus requires thorough counseling regarding the risks of delayed hemorrhage, infection, and emergent hysterectomy.¹¹ This may not be desirable or safe for some patients, so informed consent is crucial. In such cases, we strongly recommend consultation with a PAS specialist, even if that requires immediate control of the placental blood supply (such as with arterial embolization), and transfer to a PAS specialty center.

Clinical scenarios

Vaginal delivery

The patient in the opening case was never expected to have PAS given her normal placental location and absence of a uterine scar. Even though she had some possible PAS risk factors (past retained placenta with instrumentation and in vitro fertilization), her absolute risk for the condition was low. Nevertheless, inability to create a separation plane should be considered PAS until proven otherwise. Although at this point many obstetricians would move to an operating room for uterine curettage, we recommend that the care team pause and put measures in place for possible PAS and hemorrhage. This involves notification of the blood bank, crossmatching of blood products, alerting the anesthesia team, and having a clear plan in place should a major hemorrhage ensue. This may involve use of balloon tamponade, activation of an interventional radiology team, or possible laparotomy with arterial ligations or hysterectomy. Avoidance of a prolonged third stage should be balanced against the need for preparation with these cases.

It is important for clinicians to bear in mind, and communicate to the patient, that hysterectomy is the standard of care for PAS. Significant delays in performing an indicated hysterectomy can lead to coagulopathy and patient instability. Timeliness is key; we find that delays in the decision to perform an indicated hysterectomy are often at the root of the cause for worsened morbidity in patients with unanticipated PAS. With an unscarred uterus and no placenta previa, a postpartum hysterectomy can be performed by many obstetrician-gynecologists experienced in this abdominal procedure.

Cesarean delivery

Undiagnosed PAS may present at cesarean delivery with or without placenta previa and a prior uterine scar. With this combination, PAS is often visually apparent upon opening the abdominal cavity (TABLE and FIGURE 1). Such surgical findings call for a clinical pause, as further actions at this point can lead to catastrophic hemorrhage. The obstetrician should consider a series of questions:

1. Are appropriate surgical and transfusion resources immediately available? If yes, they should be notified in case they are needed urgently. If not, then the obstetrician should ask whether the delivery must occur now.

2. Is this a scheduled delivery with a stable patient and fetus? If so, then closing the abdominal incision, monitoring the patient and fetus, and either transferring the patient to a PAS center or awaiting appropriate local specialists may be a lifesaving step.

3. Is immediate delivery required? If the fetus must be delivered, then it is imperative to create a hysterotomy out of the way of the placenta. Disrupting the adherent placenta with either an incision or manual manipulation may trigger a massive hemorrhage and should be avoided. This may require rectus muscle transection or creating a “T” incision on the skin to reach the uterine fundus and creating a hysterotomy over the top or even the back of the uterus. Once the fetus is delivered and lack of uterine hemorrhage confirmed (both abdominally and vaginally), the hysterotomy and abdomen can be closed with anticipation of urgent patient transfer to a PAS team or center.

4. Is the patient hemorrhaging? If the patient is hemorrhaging and closure is not an option, then recruitment of local emergent surgical teams is warranted, even if that requires packing the abdomen until an appropriate surgeon can arrive.

Diagnosis at cesarean delivery requires expedited and complex patient counseling. A patient who is unstable or hemorrhaging needs to be told that hysterectomy is lifesaving in this situation. For patients who are stable, it may be appropriate to close the abdomen and leave the placenta in situ, perform comprehensive counseling, and assess the possibility of transfer to a specialty center.

Summary

All obstetric care providers should be familiar with the clinical presentation of undiagnosed accreta spectrum. While hemorrhage is often part of the diagnosis, recognition of abnormal placental adherence and PAS-focused management should ideally be undertaken before this occurs. Once PAS is suspected, avoidance of further placental disruption may save significant morbidity, even if that means leaving the placenta attached until appropriate resources can be obtained. A local protocol for consultation, emergency transfer, and deployment of local resources should be part of every delivery unit’s emergency preparedness plan.

CASE Outcome

This patient is stabilized, with an adherent, retained placenta and no signs of hemorrhage. You administer uterotonics and notify your anesthesiologist and backup obstetrician that you have a likely case of accreta spectrum. A second intravenous line is placed, and blood products are crossmatched. The closest level III hospital is called, and they accept your patient for transfer. There, she is counseled about PAS, and she expresses no desire for future childbearing. After again confirming no placental separation in the operating room, the patient is moved immediately to perform laparotomy and total abdominal hysterectomy through a Pfannenstiel incision. She does not require a blood transfusion, and the pathology returns with grade I placenta accreta spectrum. ●

Lupus erythematosus tumidus (LET) is a rare photosensitive dermatosis¹ that previously was considered a subtype of chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus; however, the clinical course and favorable prognosis of LET led to its reclassification into another category, called intermittent cutaneous lupus erythematosus.² Although known about for more than 100 years, the association of LET with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), its autoantibody profile, and its prognosis are not well characterized. The purpose of this study was to describe the demographics, clinical characteristics, autoantibody profile, comorbidities, and treatment of LET based on a retrospective review of patients with LET.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted in patients with histologically diagnosed LET who presented to the Department of Dermatology at the Wake Forest School of Medicine (Winston-Salem, North Carolina) over 6 years (July 2012 to July 2018). Inclusion criteria included males or females aged 18 to 75 years with clinical and histopathology-proven LET, which was defined as a superficial and deep lymphocytic infiltrate with abundant mucin deposition in the reticular dermis and absent or focal dermoepidermal junction alterations. Exclusion criteria included males or females younger than 18 years or older than 75 years or patients without clinical and histopathologically proven LET. Medical records were evaluated for demographics, clinical characteristics, diagnoses, autoantibodies, treatment, and recurrence. Photosensitivity was confirmed by clinical history. This study was approved by the Wake Forest School of Medicine institutional review board.

Results

Twenty-five patients were included in the study (eTable). The mean age (SD) at diagnosis was 46 (10.9) years, with a male to female ratio of 1:4. Twenty-two (88%) patients were White non-Hispanic, whereas 3 (12%) were Black. Lupus erythematosus tumidus most commonly affected the trunk (18/25 [72%]) and upper extremities (18/25 [72%]), followed by the head and neck (15/25 [60%]) and lower extremities (8/25 [32%])(Figure 1). The most common morphologies were plaques (18/25 [72%]), papules (17/25 [68%]), and nodules (6/25 [24%])(Figures 2 and 3). Most patients experienced painful (14/25 [56%]) or pruritic (13/25 [52%]) lesions as well as photosensitivity (13/25 [52%]). Of all measured autoantibodies, 5 of 22 (23%) patients had positive antinuclear antibody (ANA) titers greater than 1:80, 1 of 14 (7%) patients had positive anti-Ro (anti-SSA), 1 of 14 (7%) had positive anti-La (anti-SSB), 2 of 10 (20%) had positive anti–double-stranded DNA, and 0 of 6 (0%) patients had positive anti-Smith antibodies. Four (16%) patients with SLE had skin and joint involvement, whereas 1 had lupus nephritis. One (4%) patient had discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE). Seventeen (68%) patients reported recurrences or flares. The mean duration of symptoms (SD) was 28 (44) months.

Topical corticosteroids (21/25 [84%]) and hydroxychloroquine (20/25 [80%]) were the most commonly prescribed treatments. Hydroxychloroquine monotherapy achieved clearance or almost clearance in 12 (60%) patients. Four patients were prescribed thalidomide after hydroxychloroquine monotherapy failed; 2 achieved complete clearance with thalidomide and hydroxychloroquine, 1 achieved complete clearance with thalidomide monotherapy, and 1 improved but did not clear. Four patients were concurrently started on quinacrine (mepacrine) after hydroxychloroquine monotherapy failed; 1 patient had no clearance, 1 discontinued because of allergy, 1 improved, and 1 cleared. Four patients had short courses of prednisone lasting 1 to 4 weeks. Three of 4 patients treated with methotrexate discontinued because of adverse effects, and 1 patient improved. Other prescribed treatments included topical calcineurin inhibitors (10/25 [40%]), dapsone (1/25 [4%]), and clofazimine (1/25 [4%]).

Comment

Prevalence of LET—Although other European LET case series reported a male predominance or equal male to female ratio, our case series reported female predominance (1:4).^1,3-5 Our male to female ratio resembles similar ratios in DLE and subacute lupus erythematosus, whereas relative to our study, SLE male to female ratios favored females over males.^6,7

Clinical Distribution of LET—In one study enrolling 24 patients with LET, 79% (19/24) of patients had facial involvement, 50% (12/24) had V-neck involvement, 50% (12/24) had back involvement, and 46% (11/24) had arm involvement,² whereas our study reported 72% involvement of the trunk, 72% involvement of the upper extremities, 60% involvement of the head and neck region, and 32% involvement of the lower extremities. Although our study reported more lower extremity involvement, the aforementioned study used precise topographic locations, whereas we used more generalized topographic locations. Therefore, it was difficult to compare disease distribution between both studies.²

Presence of Autoantibodies and Comorbidities—Of the 22 patients tested for ANA, 23% reported titers greater than 1:80, similar to the 20% positive ANA prevalence in an LET case series of 25 patients.⁵ Of 4 patients diagnosed with SLE, 3 had articular and skin involvement, and 1 had renal involvement. These findings resemble a similar LET case series.² Nonetheless, given the numerous skin criteria in the American College of Rheumatology SLE classification criteria, patients with predominant skin disease and positive autoantibodies are diagnosed as having SLE without notable extracutaneous involvement.² Therefore, SLE diagnosis in the setting of LET could be reassessed periodically in this population. One patient in our study was diagnosed with DLE several years later. It is uncommon for LET to be reported concomitantly with DLE.⁸

Treatment of LET—Evidence supporting efficacious treatment options for LET is limited to case series. Sun protection is recommended in all patients with LET. Earlier case series reported a high response rate with sun protection and topical corticosteroids, with 19% to 55% of patients requiring subsequent systemic antimalarials.^3,4 However, one case series presented a need for systemic antimalarials,⁵ similar to our study. Hydroxychloroquine 200 to 400 mg daily is considered the first-line systemic treatment for LET. Its response rate varies among studies and may be influenced by dosage.^1,3 Second-line treatments include methotrexate 7.5 to 25 mg once weekly, thalidomide 50 to 100 mg daily, and quinacrine. However, quinacrine is not currently commercially available. Thalidomide and quinacrine represented useful alternatives when hydroxychloroquine monotherapy failed. As with other immunomodulators, adverse effects should be monitored periodically.

Conclusion

Lupus erythematosus tumidus is characterized by erythematous papules and plaques that may be tender or pruritic. It follows an intermittent course and rarely is associated with SLE. Hydroxychloroquine is considered the first-line systemic treatment; however, recalcitrant disease could be managed with other immunomodulators, including methotrexate, thalidomide, or quinacrine.

Lupus erythematosus tumidus (LET) is a rare photosensitive dermatosis¹ that previously was considered a subtype of chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus; however, the clinical course and favorable prognosis of LET led to its reclassification into another category, called intermittent cutaneous lupus erythematosus.² Although known about for more than 100 years, the association of LET with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), its autoantibody profile, and its prognosis are not well characterized. The purpose of this study was to describe the demographics, clinical characteristics, autoantibody profile, comorbidities, and treatment of LET based on a retrospective review of patients with LET.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted in patients with histologically diagnosed LET who presented to the Department of Dermatology at the Wake Forest School of Medicine (Winston-Salem, North Carolina) over 6 years (July 2012 to July 2018). Inclusion criteria included males or females aged 18 to 75 years with clinical and histopathology-proven LET, which was defined as a superficial and deep lymphocytic infiltrate with abundant mucin deposition in the reticular dermis and absent or focal dermoepidermal junction alterations. Exclusion criteria included males or females younger than 18 years or older than 75 years or patients without clinical and histopathologically proven LET. Medical records were evaluated for demographics, clinical characteristics, diagnoses, autoantibodies, treatment, and recurrence. Photosensitivity was confirmed by clinical history. This study was approved by the Wake Forest School of Medicine institutional review board.

Results

Twenty-five patients were included in the study (eTable). The mean age (SD) at diagnosis was 46 (10.9) years, with a male to female ratio of 1:4. Twenty-two (88%) patients were White non-Hispanic, whereas 3 (12%) were Black. Lupus erythematosus tumidus most commonly affected the trunk (18/25 [72%]) and upper extremities (18/25 [72%]), followed by the head and neck (15/25 [60%]) and lower extremities (8/25 [32%])(Figure 1). The most common morphologies were plaques (18/25 [72%]), papules (17/25 [68%]), and nodules (6/25 [24%])(Figures 2 and 3). Most patients experienced painful (14/25 [56%]) or pruritic (13/25 [52%]) lesions as well as photosensitivity (13/25 [52%]). Of all measured autoantibodies, 5 of 22 (23%) patients had positive antinuclear antibody (ANA) titers greater than 1:80, 1 of 14 (7%) patients had positive anti-Ro (anti-SSA), 1 of 14 (7%) had positive anti-La (anti-SSB), 2 of 10 (20%) had positive anti–double-stranded DNA, and 0 of 6 (0%) patients had positive anti-Smith antibodies. Four (16%) patients with SLE had skin and joint involvement, whereas 1 had lupus nephritis. One (4%) patient had discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE). Seventeen (68%) patients reported recurrences or flares. The mean duration of symptoms (SD) was 28 (44) months.

Topical corticosteroids (21/25 [84%]) and hydroxychloroquine (20/25 [80%]) were the most commonly prescribed treatments. Hydroxychloroquine monotherapy achieved clearance or almost clearance in 12 (60%) patients. Four patients were prescribed thalidomide after hydroxychloroquine monotherapy failed; 2 achieved complete clearance with thalidomide and hydroxychloroquine, 1 achieved complete clearance with thalidomide monotherapy, and 1 improved but did not clear. Four patients were concurrently started on quinacrine (mepacrine) after hydroxychloroquine monotherapy failed; 1 patient had no clearance, 1 discontinued because of allergy, 1 improved, and 1 cleared. Four patients had short courses of prednisone lasting 1 to 4 weeks. Three of 4 patients treated with methotrexate discontinued because of adverse effects, and 1 patient improved. Other prescribed treatments included topical calcineurin inhibitors (10/25 [40%]), dapsone (1/25 [4%]), and clofazimine (1/25 [4%]).

Comment

Prevalence of LET—Although other European LET case series reported a male predominance or equal male to female ratio, our case series reported female predominance (1:4).^1,3-5 Our male to female ratio resembles similar ratios in DLE and subacute lupus erythematosus, whereas relative to our study, SLE male to female ratios favored females over males.^6,7

Clinical Distribution of LET—In one study enrolling 24 patients with LET, 79% (19/24) of patients had facial involvement, 50% (12/24) had V-neck involvement, 50% (12/24) had back involvement, and 46% (11/24) had arm involvement,² whereas our study reported 72% involvement of the trunk, 72% involvement of the upper extremities, 60% involvement of the head and neck region, and 32% involvement of the lower extremities. Although our study reported more lower extremity involvement, the aforementioned study used precise topographic locations, whereas we used more generalized topographic locations. Therefore, it was difficult to compare disease distribution between both studies.²

Presence of Autoantibodies and Comorbidities—Of the 22 patients tested for ANA, 23% reported titers greater than 1:80, similar to the 20% positive ANA prevalence in an LET case series of 25 patients.⁵ Of 4 patients diagnosed with SLE, 3 had articular and skin involvement, and 1 had renal involvement. These findings resemble a similar LET case series.² Nonetheless, given the numerous skin criteria in the American College of Rheumatology SLE classification criteria, patients with predominant skin disease and positive autoantibodies are diagnosed as having SLE without notable extracutaneous involvement.² Therefore, SLE diagnosis in the setting of LET could be reassessed periodically in this population. One patient in our study was diagnosed with DLE several years later. It is uncommon for LET to be reported concomitantly with DLE.⁸

Treatment of LET—Evidence supporting efficacious treatment options for LET is limited to case series. Sun protection is recommended in all patients with LET. Earlier case series reported a high response rate with sun protection and topical corticosteroids, with 19% to 55% of patients requiring subsequent systemic antimalarials.^3,4 However, one case series presented a need for systemic antimalarials,⁵ similar to our study. Hydroxychloroquine 200 to 400 mg daily is considered the first-line systemic treatment for LET. Its response rate varies among studies and may be influenced by dosage.^1,3 Second-line treatments include methotrexate 7.5 to 25 mg once weekly, thalidomide 50 to 100 mg daily, and quinacrine. However, quinacrine is not currently commercially available. Thalidomide and quinacrine represented useful alternatives when hydroxychloroquine monotherapy failed. As with other immunomodulators, adverse effects should be monitored periodically.

Conclusion

Lupus erythematosus tumidus is characterized by erythematous papules and plaques that may be tender or pruritic. It follows an intermittent course and rarely is associated with SLE. Hydroxychloroquine is considered the first-line systemic treatment; however, recalcitrant disease could be managed with other immunomodulators, including methotrexate, thalidomide, or quinacrine.

Lupus erythematosus tumidus (LET) is a rare photosensitive dermatosis¹ that previously was considered a subtype of chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus; however, the clinical course and favorable prognosis of LET led to its reclassification into another category, called intermittent cutaneous lupus erythematosus.² Although known about for more than 100 years, the association of LET with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), its autoantibody profile, and its prognosis are not well characterized. The purpose of this study was to describe the demographics, clinical characteristics, autoantibody profile, comorbidities, and treatment of LET based on a retrospective review of patients with LET.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted in patients with histologically diagnosed LET who presented to the Department of Dermatology at the Wake Forest School of Medicine (Winston-Salem, North Carolina) over 6 years (July 2012 to July 2018). Inclusion criteria included males or females aged 18 to 75 years with clinical and histopathology-proven LET, which was defined as a superficial and deep lymphocytic infiltrate with abundant mucin deposition in the reticular dermis and absent or focal dermoepidermal junction alterations. Exclusion criteria included males or females younger than 18 years or older than 75 years or patients without clinical and histopathologically proven LET. Medical records were evaluated for demographics, clinical characteristics, diagnoses, autoantibodies, treatment, and recurrence. Photosensitivity was confirmed by clinical history. This study was approved by the Wake Forest School of Medicine institutional review board.

Results

Twenty-five patients were included in the study (eTable). The mean age (SD) at diagnosis was 46 (10.9) years, with a male to female ratio of 1:4. Twenty-two (88%) patients were White non-Hispanic, whereas 3 (12%) were Black. Lupus erythematosus tumidus most commonly affected the trunk (18/25 [72%]) and upper extremities (18/25 [72%]), followed by the head and neck (15/25 [60%]) and lower extremities (8/25 [32%])(Figure 1). The most common morphologies were plaques (18/25 [72%]), papules (17/25 [68%]), and nodules (6/25 [24%])(Figures 2 and 3). Most patients experienced painful (14/25 [56%]) or pruritic (13/25 [52%]) lesions as well as photosensitivity (13/25 [52%]). Of all measured autoantibodies, 5 of 22 (23%) patients had positive antinuclear antibody (ANA) titers greater than 1:80, 1 of 14 (7%) patients had positive anti-Ro (anti-SSA), 1 of 14 (7%) had positive anti-La (anti-SSB), 2 of 10 (20%) had positive anti–double-stranded DNA, and 0 of 6 (0%) patients had positive anti-Smith antibodies. Four (16%) patients with SLE had skin and joint involvement, whereas 1 had lupus nephritis. One (4%) patient had discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE). Seventeen (68%) patients reported recurrences or flares. The mean duration of symptoms (SD) was 28 (44) months.

Topical corticosteroids (21/25 [84%]) and hydroxychloroquine (20/25 [80%]) were the most commonly prescribed treatments. Hydroxychloroquine monotherapy achieved clearance or almost clearance in 12 (60%) patients. Four patients were prescribed thalidomide after hydroxychloroquine monotherapy failed; 2 achieved complete clearance with thalidomide and hydroxychloroquine, 1 achieved complete clearance with thalidomide monotherapy, and 1 improved but did not clear. Four patients were concurrently started on quinacrine (mepacrine) after hydroxychloroquine monotherapy failed; 1 patient had no clearance, 1 discontinued because of allergy, 1 improved, and 1 cleared. Four patients had short courses of prednisone lasting 1 to 4 weeks. Three of 4 patients treated with methotrexate discontinued because of adverse effects, and 1 patient improved. Other prescribed treatments included topical calcineurin inhibitors (10/25 [40%]), dapsone (1/25 [4%]), and clofazimine (1/25 [4%]).

Comment

Prevalence of LET—Although other European LET case series reported a male predominance or equal male to female ratio, our case series reported female predominance (1:4).^1,3-5 Our male to female ratio resembles similar ratios in DLE and subacute lupus erythematosus, whereas relative to our study, SLE male to female ratios favored females over males.^6,7

Clinical Distribution of LET—In one study enrolling 24 patients with LET, 79% (19/24) of patients had facial involvement, 50% (12/24) had V-neck involvement, 50% (12/24) had back involvement, and 46% (11/24) had arm involvement,² whereas our study reported 72% involvement of the trunk, 72% involvement of the upper extremities, 60% involvement of the head and neck region, and 32% involvement of the lower extremities. Although our study reported more lower extremity involvement, the aforementioned study used precise topographic locations, whereas we used more generalized topographic locations. Therefore, it was difficult to compare disease distribution between both studies.²

Presence of Autoantibodies and Comorbidities—Of the 22 patients tested for ANA, 23% reported titers greater than 1:80, similar to the 20% positive ANA prevalence in an LET case series of 25 patients.⁵ Of 4 patients diagnosed with SLE, 3 had articular and skin involvement, and 1 had renal involvement. These findings resemble a similar LET case series.² Nonetheless, given the numerous skin criteria in the American College of Rheumatology SLE classification criteria, patients with predominant skin disease and positive autoantibodies are diagnosed as having SLE without notable extracutaneous involvement.² Therefore, SLE diagnosis in the setting of LET could be reassessed periodically in this population. One patient in our study was diagnosed with DLE several years later. It is uncommon for LET to be reported concomitantly with DLE.⁸

Treatment of LET—Evidence supporting efficacious treatment options for LET is limited to case series. Sun protection is recommended in all patients with LET. Earlier case series reported a high response rate with sun protection and topical corticosteroids, with 19% to 55% of patients requiring subsequent systemic antimalarials.^3,4 However, one case series presented a need for systemic antimalarials,⁵ similar to our study. Hydroxychloroquine 200 to 400 mg daily is considered the first-line systemic treatment for LET. Its response rate varies among studies and may be influenced by dosage.^1,3 Second-line treatments include methotrexate 7.5 to 25 mg once weekly, thalidomide 50 to 100 mg daily, and quinacrine. However, quinacrine is not currently commercially available. Thalidomide and quinacrine represented useful alternatives when hydroxychloroquine monotherapy failed. As with other immunomodulators, adverse effects should be monitored periodically.

Conclusion

Lupus erythematosus tumidus is characterized by erythematous papules and plaques that may be tender or pruritic. It follows an intermittent course and rarely is associated with SLE. Hydroxychloroquine is considered the first-line systemic treatment; however, recalcitrant disease could be managed with other immunomodulators, including methotrexate, thalidomide, or quinacrine.

The ability to find and target specific biomarkers in the DNA of advanced cancers is rapidly changing options and outcomes for patients with locally advanced and metastatic solid tumors. This strategy is the basis for precision oncology, defined here as using predictive biomarkers from tumor and/or germline sequencing to guide therapies. This article focuses specifically on the use of DNA sequencing to find those biomarkers and provides guidance about which test is optimal in a specific situation, as well as interpretation of the results. We emphasize the identification of biomarkers that provide adult patients with advanced solid tumors access to therapies that would not be an option had sequencing not been performed and that have the potential for significant clinical benefit. The best approach is to have an expert team with experience in precision oncology to assist in the interpretation of results.

Which test?

Deciding what test of the array of assays available to use and which tissue to test can be overwhelming, and uncertainty may prevent oncology practitioners from ordering germline or somatic sequencing. For the purposes of this article, we will focus on DNA sequencing for inherited/germline alterations (including mutations, copy number changes, or fusions), which may inform treatment, or alterations that arise in the process of carcinogenesis and tumor evolution (somatic alterations in tumor DNA). This focus is not meant to exclude any specific test but to focus on DNA-based tests in patients with locally advanced or metastatic malignancy.

Germline Testing

Germline testing is the sequencing of inherited DNA in noncancerous cells to find alterations that may play a role in the development of cancers and are actionable in some cases. Germline alterations can inform therapeutic decisions, predict future cancer risk, and provide information that can help family members to better manage their risks of malignancy. Detailed discussions of the importance of germline testing to inform cancer surveillance, risk-reducing interventions, and the testing of relatives to determine who carries inherited alterations (cascade testing) is extremely important with several advantages and is covered in a number of excellent reviews elsewhere.^1-3 Testing of germline DNA in patients with a metastatic malignancy can provide treatment options otherwise not available for patients, particularly for BRCA1/2 and Lynch syndrome–related cancers. Recent studies have shown that 10 to 15% of patients with advanced malignancies of many types have a pathogenic germline alteration.^4,5

Germline DNA is usually acquired from peripheral blood, a buccal swab, or saliva collection and is therefore readily available. This is advantageous because it does not require a biopsy to identify relevant alterations. Germline testing is also less susceptible to the rare situations in which artifacts occur in formalin-fixed tissues and obscure relevant alterations.

The cost of germline testing varies, but most commercial vendor assays for germline testing are significantly less expensive than the cost of somatic testing. The disadvantages include the inability of germline testing to find any alterations that arise solely in tumor tissue and the smaller gene panels included in germline testing as compared to somatic testing panels. Other considerations relate to the inherited nature of pathogenic germline variants and its implications for family members that may affect the patient’s psychosocial health and potentially change the family dynamics.

Deciding who is appropriate for germline testing and when to perform the testing should be individualized to the patient’s wishes and disease status. Treatment planning may be less complicated if testing has been performed and germline status is known. In some cases urgent germline testing is indicated to inform pending procedures and/or surgical decisions for risk reduction, including more extensive tissue resection, such as the removal of additional organs or contralateral tissue. A minor point regarding germline testing is that the DNA of patients with hematologic malignancies may be difficult to sequence because of sample contamination by the circulating malignancy. For this reason, most laboratories will not accept peripheral blood or saliva samples for germline testing in patients with active hematologic malignancies; they often require DNA from another source such as fibroblasts from a skin biopsy or cells from a muscle biopsy. Germline testing is recommended for all patients with metastatic prostate cancer, as well as any patient with any stage of pancreatic cancer or ovarian cancer and patients with breast cancer diagnosed at age ≤ 45 years. More detailed criteria for who is appropriate for germline testing outside of these groups can be found in the appropriate National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.^6-8 In patients with some malignancies such as prostate and pancreatic cancer, approximately half of patients who have a BRCA-related cancer developed that malignancy because of a germline BRCA alteration.^9-11 Testing germline DNA is therefore an easy way to quickly find almost half of all targetable alterations with a treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and at low cost, with the added benefit of providing critical information for families who may be unaware that members carry a relevant pathogenic germline alteration. In those families, cascade testing can provide surveillance and intervention strategies that can be lifesaving.

A related and particularly relevant question is when should a result found on a somatic testing panel prompt follow-up germline testing? Some institutions have algorithms in place to automate referral for germline testing based on specific genetic criteria.¹² Excellent reviews are available that outline the following considerations in more detail.¹³ Typically, somatic testing results that would trigger follow-up germline testing would be truncating or deleterious or likely deleterious mutations per germline datasets in high-risk genes associated with highly penetrant autosomal dominant conditions (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6), selected moderate-risk genes (BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D), and specific variants with a high probability of being germline because they are common germline founder mutations. Although the actionability and significance of specific genes remains a matter of some discussion, generally finding a somatic pathogenic sequencing result included in the 59-gene list of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines would be an indication for germline testing. Another indication for germline testing would be finding genes with germline mutations for which the NCCN has specific management guidelines, or the presence of alterations consistent with known founder mutations.¹⁴ When a patient’s tumor has microsatellite instability or is hypermutated (defined as > 10 mutations per megabase), a search for germline alterations is warranted given that about 15% of these patients with these tumors carry a Lynch syndrome gene.¹⁵ Genes that are commonly found as somatic alterations alone (eg, TP53 or APC) are generally not an indication for germline testing unless family history is compelling.

Although some clinicians use the variant allele fraction in the somatic sequencing report to decide whether to conduct germline testing, this approach is suboptimal, as allele fraction may be confounded by assay conditions and a high allele fraction may be found in pure tumors with loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of the other allele. There is also evidence that for a variety of reasons, somatic sequencing panels do not always detect germline alterations in somatic tissues.¹⁶ Reasons for this may include discordance between the genes being tested in the germline vs the somatic panel, technical differences such as interference of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) artifact with detecting the germline variant, lack of expertise in germline variant interpretation among laboratories doing tumor-only sequencing, and, in rare cases, large deletions in tumor tissue masking a germline point mutation.

Variant Interpretation of Germline Testing

A general understanding of the terminology used for germline variant interpretation allows for the ordering health care practitioner (HCP) to provide the best quality care and an appreciation for the limitations of current molecular testing. Not all variants are associated with disease; the clinical significance of a genetic variant falls on a spectrum. The criteria for determining pathogenicity differ between molecular laboratories, but most are influenced by the standards and guidelines set forth by the ACMG.¹⁴ The clinical molecular laboratory determines variant classification, and a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this primer. In brief, variant classification is based on evidence of varying strength in different categories including population data, computational and predictive data, functional data, segregation data, de novo data, allelic data, and information from various databases. The ACMG has proposed a 5-tiered classification system, by which most molecular laboratories adhere to in their genetic test reports (Table 1).¹⁴

Pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants are clinically actionable, whereas variants of uncertain significance (VUS) require additional data and/or functional studies before making clinical decisions. Depending on the clinical context and existing supporting evidence, it may be prudent to continue monitoring for worsening or new signs of disease in patients with one or more VUS while additional efforts are underway to understand the variant’s significance.

Somatic Testing

Testing of somatic (tumor) tissue is critical and is the approach most commonly taken in medical oncology (Table 2). Somatic testing may be performed on primary tumor, metastatic biopsy, or circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA, also referred to as cell-free DNA [cfDNA]), with each having its own advantages and disadvantages. Primary tumor tissue is appropriate for testing when the alteration is generally truncal, that is, present at the time that the tumor developed and would be expected to be carried through the evolution of the tumor because of a critical role in carcinogenesis and maintenance of the malignant phenotype. Examples include BRCA1/2, and many tyrosine kinase mutations. Somatic testing at diagnosis is part of standard of care for many malignancies, including adenocarcinoma of the lung, colon cancer, melanoma, and others.^17-19 Testing for specific genes or comprehensive genomic profiling will depend on the tumor histology, stage, and payer coverage.

The advantages of primary tumor are that it is usually in hand as a diagnostic biopsy, acquisition is standard of care, and several targetable alterations are truncal, defined as driver mutations present at the time of tumor development. Also, the potential that the tumor arose in the background of a predisposing germline alteration can be suggested by sequencing primary tumor as discussed above. Moreover, sequencing the primary tumor can be done at any time unless the biopsy sample is considered too old or degraded (per specific platform requirements). The information gained can be used to anticipate additional treatment options that are relevant when patients experience disease progression. Disadvantages include the problem that primary specimens may be old or have limited tumor content, both of which increase the likelihood that sequencing will not be technically successful.

Alterations that are targetable and arise as a result of either treatment pressure or clonal evolution are considered evolutionary. If evolutionary alterations are the main focus for sequencing, then metastasis biopsy or ctDNA are better choices. The advantages of a metastasis biopsy are that tissue is contemporary, tumor content may be higher than in primary tumor, and both truncal and evolutionary alterations can be detected.

For specific tumors, continued analysis of evolving genomic alterations can play a critical role in management. In non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), somatic testing is conducted again at progression on repeat biopsies to evaluate for emerging resistance mutations. In epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutated lung cancer, the resistance mutation, exon 20 p.T790M (point mutation), can present in patients after treatment with first- or second-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Even in patients who are treated with the third-generation EGFR TKI osimertinib that can treat T790M-mutated lung cancer, multiple possible evolutionary mutations can occur at progression, including other EGFR mutations, MET/HER2 amplification, and BRAF V600E, to name a few.²⁰ Resistance mechanisms develop due to treatment selection pressure and the molecular heterogeneity seen in lung cancer.

Disadvantages for metastatic biopsy include the inability to safely access a metastatic site, the time considerations for preauthorization and arrangement of biopsy, and a lower-than-average likelihood of successful sequencing from sites such as bone.^21,22 In addition, there is some concern that a single metastatic site may not capture all relevant alterations for multiple reasons, including tumor heterogeneity.

Selecting the Tissue

Deciding on the tissue to analyze is a critical part of the decision process (Table 3). If the primary tumor tissue is old the likelihood of productive sequencing is lower, although age alone is not the only consideration and the methods of fixation may be just as relevant.

For prostate cancer in particular, the ability to successfully sequence primary tumor tissue decreases as the amount of tumor decreases in low-volume biopsies such as prostate needle biopsies. Generally, if tumor content is < 10% of the biopsy specimen, then sequencing is less likely to be productive.²⁵ Also, if the alteration of interest is not known to be truncal, then a relevant target might be missed by sequencing tissue that does not reflect current biology. Metastasis biopsy may be the most appropriate tissue, particularly if this specimen has already been acquired. As above, a metastasis biopsy may have a higher tumor content, and it should reflect relevant biology if it is recent. However, bone biopsies have a relatively low yield for successful sequencing, so a soft tissue lesion (eg, liver or lymph node metastasis) is generally preferred.

The inability to safely access tissue is often a consideration. Proximity to vital structures such as large blood vessels or the potential for significant morbidity in the event of a complication (liver or lung biopsies, particularly in patients on anticoagulation medications) may make the risk/benefit ratio too high. The inability to conduct somatic testing has been reported to often be due to inadequate tissue sampling.²⁶ ctDNA is an attractive alternative but should typically be drawn when a tumor is progressing with a reasonable tumor burden that is more likely to be shedding DNA. Performing ctDNA analysis in patients without obvious radiographic metastasis or in patients whose tumor is under good control is unlikely to produce interpretable results.

Interpreting the Results

The intent of sequencing tumor tissue is to identify alterations that are biologically important and may provide a point of therapeutic leverage. However, deciding which alterations are relevant is not always straightforward. For example, any normal individual genome contains around 10,000 missense variants, hundreds of insertion/deletion variants, and dozens of protein-truncating variants. Distinguishing these alterations, which are part of the individual, from those that are tumor-specific and have functional significance can be difficult in the absence of paired sequencing of both normal and tissue samples.

Specific Alterations

Although most commercial vendors provide important information in sequencing reports to assist oncology HCPs in deciding which alterations are relevant, the reports are not always clear. In many cases the report will specifically indicate whether the alteration has been reported previously as pathogenic or benign. However, some platforms will report alterations that are not known to be drivers of tumor biology. It is critical to be aware that if variants are not reported as pathogenic, they should not be assumed to be pathogenic simply because they are included in the report. Alterations more likely to be drivers of relevant biology are those that change gene and protein structure and include frameshift (fs*), nonsense (denoted by sequence ending in “X” or “*”), or specific fusions or insertions/deletions (indel) that occur in important domains of the gene.

For some genes, only specific alterations are targetable and not all alterations have the same effect on protein function. Although overexpression of certain genes and proteins are actionable (eg, HER2), amplification of a gene does not necessarily indicate that it is targetable. In NSCLC, specific alterations convey sensitivity to targeted therapies. For example, in EGFR-mutated NSCLC, the sensitizing mutations to EGFR TKIs are exon19 deletions and exon 21 L858R point mutations (the most common mutations), as well as less common mutations found in exon 18-21. Exon 20 mutations, however, are not responsive to EGFR TKIs with a few exceptions.²⁷ Patients who have tumors that do not harbor a sensitizing EGFR mutation should not be treated with an EGFR TKI. In a variety of solid tumors, gene fusions of the NTRK 1/2/3, act as oncogenic drivers. The chromosomal fusion events involving the carboxy-terminal kinase domain of TRK and upstream amino-terminal partners lead to overexpression of the chimeric proteins tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) A/B/C, resulting in constitutively active, ligand-independent downstream signaling. In patients with NTRK 1/2/3 gene fusions, larotrectinib and entrectinib, small molecule inhibitors to TRK, have shown antitumor activity.^28,29 No alterations beyond these fusions are known to be targetable.

Allele Fraction

Knowing the fraction (or proportion) of the alteration of interest in the sequenced tissue relative to the estimated tumor content can assist in decision making. Not all platforms will provide this information, which is referred to as mutation allele fraction (MAF) or variant allele fraction (VAF), but sometimes will provide it on request. Platforms will usually provide an estimate of the percent tumor in the tissue being sampled if it is from a biopsy. If the MAF is around 50% in the sequenced tissue (including ctDNA), then there is a reasonable chance that it is a germline variant. However, there are nuances as germline alterations in some genes, such as BRCA1/2, can be accompanied by loss of the other allele of the gene (LOH). In that case, if most of the circulating DNA is from tumor, then the MAF can be > 50%.

If there are 2 alterations of the same gene with MAF percentages that are each half of the total percent tumor, there is a high likelihood of biallelic alteration. These sorts of paired alterations or one mutation with apparent LOH or copy loss would again indicate a high likelihood that the alteration is in fact pathogenic and a relevant driver. Not all pathogenic alterations have to be biallelic to be driver mutations but in BRCA1/2, or mismatch repair deficiency genes, the presence of biallelic alterations increases the likelihood of their being pathogenic.

Tumors that are hypermutated—containing sometimes hundreds of mutations per megabyte of DNA—can be particularly complicated to interpret, because the likelihood increases that many of the alterations are a function of the hypermutation and not a driver mutation. This is particularly important when there are concurrent mutations in mismatch repair genes and genes, such as BRCA1/2. If the tumor is microsatellite instability high or hypermutated, concurrent BRCA1/2 alterations are often passengers as the tumors rarely have coexisting “signatures” suggesting that they have a true deficiency in homologous recombination.³⁰ Large genes such as BRCA1/2 have microsatellite tracts that are prone to frameshift mutations as a result of microsatellite instability, and such mutations in this context are typically subclonal and not drivers. In hypermutated tumors, the likelihood is significantly decreased that any of the mutations other than mismatch repair deficiency or polymerase genes are targetable drivers.

Confounders

In some situations, interpretation can be particularly challenging. For example, several alterations for which there are FDA on-label indications (such as ATM or BRCA2) can be detected in ctDNA that may not be due to the tumor but to CHIP. CHIP represents hematopoietic clones that are dysplastic as a result of exposure to DNA-damaging agents (eg, platinum chemotherapy) or as a result of aging and arise when mutations in hematopoietic stem cells provide a competitive advantage.³¹ The most common CHIP clones that can be detected are DNMT3A, ASXL1, or TET2; because these alterations are not targetable, their importance lies primarily in whether patients have evidence of hematologic abnormality, which might represent an evolving hematopoietic disorder. Because CHIP alterations can overlap with somatic alterations for which FDA-approved drugs exist, such as ATM or CHEK2 (olaparib for prostate cancer) and BRCA2 (poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors in a range of indications) there is concern that CHIP might result in patient harm from inappropriate treatment of CHIP rather than the tumor, with no likelihood that the treatment would affect the tumor, causing treatment delays.³² General considerations for deciding whether an alteration represents CHIP include excluding alteration in which the VAF is < 1% and when the VAF in the alteration of interest is < 20% of the estimated tumor fraction in the sample. Exceptions to this are found in patients with true myelodysplasia or chronic lymphocytic leukemia, in whom the VAF can be well over 50% because of circulating tumor burden. The only way to be certain that an alteration detected on ctDNA reflects tumor rather than CHIP is to utilize an assay with matched tumor-normal sequencing.

Resources for Assistance

For oncology HCPs, perhaps the best resource to help in selecting and interpreting the appropriate testing is through a dedicated molecular oncology tumor board and subject matter experts who contribute to those tumor boards. In the US Department of Veterans Affairs, the national precision oncology program and its affiliated clinical services, such as the option to order a national consultation and molecular tumor board education, are easily accessible to all HCPs (www.cancer.va.gov). Many commercial vendors provide support to assist with questions of interpretation and to inform clinical decision-making. Other resources that can assist with deciding whether an alteration is pathogenic include extensive curated databases such as ClinVar (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar) and the Human Genetic Mutation Database (www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/index.php) for germline alterations or COSMIC (cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic) for somatic alterations. OncoKB (www.oncokb.org) is a resource for assistance in defining levels of evidence for the use of agents to target specific alterations and to assist in assigning pathogenicity to specific alterations. Additional educational resources for training in genomics and genetics are also included in the Appendix.

The rapid growth in technology and ability to enhance understanding of relevant tumor biology continues to improve the therapeutic landscape for men and women dealing with malignancy and our ability to find targetable genetic alterations with the potential for meaningful clinical benefit.

Acknowledgments

Dedicated to Neil Spector.

The ability to find and target specific biomarkers in the DNA of advanced cancers is rapidly changing options and outcomes for patients with locally advanced and metastatic solid tumors. This strategy is the basis for precision oncology, defined here as using predictive biomarkers from tumor and/or germline sequencing to guide therapies. This article focuses specifically on the use of DNA sequencing to find those biomarkers and provides guidance about which test is optimal in a specific situation, as well as interpretation of the results. We emphasize the identification of biomarkers that provide adult patients with advanced solid tumors access to therapies that would not be an option had sequencing not been performed and that have the potential for significant clinical benefit. The best approach is to have an expert team with experience in precision oncology to assist in the interpretation of results.

Which test?

Deciding what test of the array of assays available to use and which tissue to test can be overwhelming, and uncertainty may prevent oncology practitioners from ordering germline or somatic sequencing. For the purposes of this article, we will focus on DNA sequencing for inherited/germline alterations (including mutations, copy number changes, or fusions), which may inform treatment, or alterations that arise in the process of carcinogenesis and tumor evolution (somatic alterations in tumor DNA). This focus is not meant to exclude any specific test but to focus on DNA-based tests in patients with locally advanced or metastatic malignancy.

Germline Testing

Germline testing is the sequencing of inherited DNA in noncancerous cells to find alterations that may play a role in the development of cancers and are actionable in some cases. Germline alterations can inform therapeutic decisions, predict future cancer risk, and provide information that can help family members to better manage their risks of malignancy. Detailed discussions of the importance of germline testing to inform cancer surveillance, risk-reducing interventions, and the testing of relatives to determine who carries inherited alterations (cascade testing) is extremely important with several advantages and is covered in a number of excellent reviews elsewhere.^1-3 Testing of germline DNA in patients with a metastatic malignancy can provide treatment options otherwise not available for patients, particularly for BRCA1/2 and Lynch syndrome–related cancers. Recent studies have shown that 10 to 15% of patients with advanced malignancies of many types have a pathogenic germline alteration.^4,5

Germline DNA is usually acquired from peripheral blood, a buccal swab, or saliva collection and is therefore readily available. This is advantageous because it does not require a biopsy to identify relevant alterations. Germline testing is also less susceptible to the rare situations in which artifacts occur in formalin-fixed tissues and obscure relevant alterations.

The cost of germline testing varies, but most commercial vendor assays for germline testing are significantly less expensive than the cost of somatic testing. The disadvantages include the inability of germline testing to find any alterations that arise solely in tumor tissue and the smaller gene panels included in germline testing as compared to somatic testing panels. Other considerations relate to the inherited nature of pathogenic germline variants and its implications for family members that may affect the patient’s psychosocial health and potentially change the family dynamics.

Deciding who is appropriate for germline testing and when to perform the testing should be individualized to the patient’s wishes and disease status. Treatment planning may be less complicated if testing has been performed and germline status is known. In some cases urgent germline testing is indicated to inform pending procedures and/or surgical decisions for risk reduction, including more extensive tissue resection, such as the removal of additional organs or contralateral tissue. A minor point regarding germline testing is that the DNA of patients with hematologic malignancies may be difficult to sequence because of sample contamination by the circulating malignancy. For this reason, most laboratories will not accept peripheral blood or saliva samples for germline testing in patients with active hematologic malignancies; they often require DNA from another source such as fibroblasts from a skin biopsy or cells from a muscle biopsy. Germline testing is recommended for all patients with metastatic prostate cancer, as well as any patient with any stage of pancreatic cancer or ovarian cancer and patients with breast cancer diagnosed at age ≤ 45 years. More detailed criteria for who is appropriate for germline testing outside of these groups can be found in the appropriate National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.^6-8 In patients with some malignancies such as prostate and pancreatic cancer, approximately half of patients who have a BRCA-related cancer developed that malignancy because of a germline BRCA alteration.^9-11 Testing germline DNA is therefore an easy way to quickly find almost half of all targetable alterations with a treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and at low cost, with the added benefit of providing critical information for families who may be unaware that members carry a relevant pathogenic germline alteration. In those families, cascade testing can provide surveillance and intervention strategies that can be lifesaving.

A related and particularly relevant question is when should a result found on a somatic testing panel prompt follow-up germline testing? Some institutions have algorithms in place to automate referral for germline testing based on specific genetic criteria.¹² Excellent reviews are available that outline the following considerations in more detail.¹³ Typically, somatic testing results that would trigger follow-up germline testing would be truncating or deleterious or likely deleterious mutations per germline datasets in high-risk genes associated with highly penetrant autosomal dominant conditions (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6), selected moderate-risk genes (BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D), and specific variants with a high probability of being germline because they are common germline founder mutations. Although the actionability and significance of specific genes remains a matter of some discussion, generally finding a somatic pathogenic sequencing result included in the 59-gene list of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines would be an indication for germline testing. Another indication for germline testing would be finding genes with germline mutations for which the NCCN has specific management guidelines, or the presence of alterations consistent with known founder mutations.¹⁴ When a patient’s tumor has microsatellite instability or is hypermutated (defined as > 10 mutations per megabase), a search for germline alterations is warranted given that about 15% of these patients with these tumors carry a Lynch syndrome gene.¹⁵ Genes that are commonly found as somatic alterations alone (eg, TP53 or APC) are generally not an indication for germline testing unless family history is compelling.

Although some clinicians use the variant allele fraction in the somatic sequencing report to decide whether to conduct germline testing, this approach is suboptimal, as allele fraction may be confounded by assay conditions and a high allele fraction may be found in pure tumors with loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of the other allele. There is also evidence that for a variety of reasons, somatic sequencing panels do not always detect germline alterations in somatic tissues.¹⁶ Reasons for this may include discordance between the genes being tested in the germline vs the somatic panel, technical differences such as interference of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) artifact with detecting the germline variant, lack of expertise in germline variant interpretation among laboratories doing tumor-only sequencing, and, in rare cases, large deletions in tumor tissue masking a germline point mutation.

Variant Interpretation of Germline Testing

A general understanding of the terminology used for germline variant interpretation allows for the ordering health care practitioner (HCP) to provide the best quality care and an appreciation for the limitations of current molecular testing. Not all variants are associated with disease; the clinical significance of a genetic variant falls on a spectrum. The criteria for determining pathogenicity differ between molecular laboratories, but most are influenced by the standards and guidelines set forth by the ACMG.¹⁴ The clinical molecular laboratory determines variant classification, and a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this primer. In brief, variant classification is based on evidence of varying strength in different categories including population data, computational and predictive data, functional data, segregation data, de novo data, allelic data, and information from various databases. The ACMG has proposed a 5-tiered classification system, by which most molecular laboratories adhere to in their genetic test reports (Table 1).¹⁴

Pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants are clinically actionable, whereas variants of uncertain significance (VUS) require additional data and/or functional studies before making clinical decisions. Depending on the clinical context and existing supporting evidence, it may be prudent to continue monitoring for worsening or new signs of disease in patients with one or more VUS while additional efforts are underway to understand the variant’s significance.

Somatic Testing

Testing of somatic (tumor) tissue is critical and is the approach most commonly taken in medical oncology (Table 2). Somatic testing may be performed on primary tumor, metastatic biopsy, or circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA, also referred to as cell-free DNA [cfDNA]), with each having its own advantages and disadvantages. Primary tumor tissue is appropriate for testing when the alteration is generally truncal, that is, present at the time that the tumor developed and would be expected to be carried through the evolution of the tumor because of a critical role in carcinogenesis and maintenance of the malignant phenotype. Examples include BRCA1/2, and many tyrosine kinase mutations. Somatic testing at diagnosis is part of standard of care for many malignancies, including adenocarcinoma of the lung, colon cancer, melanoma, and others.^17-19 Testing for specific genes or comprehensive genomic profiling will depend on the tumor histology, stage, and payer coverage.

The advantages of primary tumor are that it is usually in hand as a diagnostic biopsy, acquisition is standard of care, and several targetable alterations are truncal, defined as driver mutations present at the time of tumor development. Also, the potential that the tumor arose in the background of a predisposing germline alteration can be suggested by sequencing primary tumor as discussed above. Moreover, sequencing the primary tumor can be done at any time unless the biopsy sample is considered too old or degraded (per specific platform requirements). The information gained can be used to anticipate additional treatment options that are relevant when patients experience disease progression. Disadvantages include the problem that primary specimens may be old or have limited tumor content, both of which increase the likelihood that sequencing will not be technically successful.

Alterations that are targetable and arise as a result of either treatment pressure or clonal evolution are considered evolutionary. If evolutionary alterations are the main focus for sequencing, then metastasis biopsy or ctDNA are better choices. The advantages of a metastasis biopsy are that tissue is contemporary, tumor content may be higher than in primary tumor, and both truncal and evolutionary alterations can be detected.

For specific tumors, continued analysis of evolving genomic alterations can play a critical role in management. In non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), somatic testing is conducted again at progression on repeat biopsies to evaluate for emerging resistance mutations. In epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutated lung cancer, the resistance mutation, exon 20 p.T790M (point mutation), can present in patients after treatment with first- or second-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Even in patients who are treated with the third-generation EGFR TKI osimertinib that can treat T790M-mutated lung cancer, multiple possible evolutionary mutations can occur at progression, including other EGFR mutations, MET/HER2 amplification, and BRAF V600E, to name a few.²⁰ Resistance mechanisms develop due to treatment selection pressure and the molecular heterogeneity seen in lung cancer.

Disadvantages for metastatic biopsy include the inability to safely access a metastatic site, the time considerations for preauthorization and arrangement of biopsy, and a lower-than-average likelihood of successful sequencing from sites such as bone.^21,22 In addition, there is some concern that a single metastatic site may not capture all relevant alterations for multiple reasons, including tumor heterogeneity.

Selecting the Tissue

Deciding on the tissue to analyze is a critical part of the decision process (Table 3). If the primary tumor tissue is old the likelihood of productive sequencing is lower, although age alone is not the only consideration and the methods of fixation may be just as relevant.

For prostate cancer in particular, the ability to successfully sequence primary tumor tissue decreases as the amount of tumor decreases in low-volume biopsies such as prostate needle biopsies. Generally, if tumor content is < 10% of the biopsy specimen, then sequencing is less likely to be productive.²⁵ Also, if the alteration of interest is not known to be truncal, then a relevant target might be missed by sequencing tissue that does not reflect current biology. Metastasis biopsy may be the most appropriate tissue, particularly if this specimen has already been acquired. As above, a metastasis biopsy may have a higher tumor content, and it should reflect relevant biology if it is recent. However, bone biopsies have a relatively low yield for successful sequencing, so a soft tissue lesion (eg, liver or lymph node metastasis) is generally preferred.

The inability to safely access tissue is often a consideration. Proximity to vital structures such as large blood vessels or the potential for significant morbidity in the event of a complication (liver or lung biopsies, particularly in patients on anticoagulation medications) may make the risk/benefit ratio too high. The inability to conduct somatic testing has been reported to often be due to inadequate tissue sampling.²⁶ ctDNA is an attractive alternative but should typically be drawn when a tumor is progressing with a reasonable tumor burden that is more likely to be shedding DNA. Performing ctDNA analysis in patients without obvious radiographic metastasis or in patients whose tumor is under good control is unlikely to produce interpretable results.

Interpreting the Results

The intent of sequencing tumor tissue is to identify alterations that are biologically important and may provide a point of therapeutic leverage. However, deciding which alterations are relevant is not always straightforward. For example, any normal individual genome contains around 10,000 missense variants, hundreds of insertion/deletion variants, and dozens of protein-truncating variants. Distinguishing these alterations, which are part of the individual, from those that are tumor-specific and have functional significance can be difficult in the absence of paired sequencing of both normal and tissue samples.

Specific Alterations

Although most commercial vendors provide important information in sequencing reports to assist oncology HCPs in deciding which alterations are relevant, the reports are not always clear. In many cases the report will specifically indicate whether the alteration has been reported previously as pathogenic or benign. However, some platforms will report alterations that are not known to be drivers of tumor biology. It is critical to be aware that if variants are not reported as pathogenic, they should not be assumed to be pathogenic simply because they are included in the report. Alterations more likely to be drivers of relevant biology are those that change gene and protein structure and include frameshift (fs*), nonsense (denoted by sequence ending in “X” or “*”), or specific fusions or insertions/deletions (indel) that occur in important domains of the gene.

For some genes, only specific alterations are targetable and not all alterations have the same effect on protein function. Although overexpression of certain genes and proteins are actionable (eg, HER2), amplification of a gene does not necessarily indicate that it is targetable. In NSCLC, specific alterations convey sensitivity to targeted therapies. For example, in EGFR-mutated NSCLC, the sensitizing mutations to EGFR TKIs are exon19 deletions and exon 21 L858R point mutations (the most common mutations), as well as less common mutations found in exon 18-21. Exon 20 mutations, however, are not responsive to EGFR TKIs with a few exceptions.²⁷ Patients who have tumors that do not harbor a sensitizing EGFR mutation should not be treated with an EGFR TKI. In a variety of solid tumors, gene fusions of the NTRK 1/2/3, act as oncogenic drivers. The chromosomal fusion events involving the carboxy-terminal kinase domain of TRK and upstream amino-terminal partners lead to overexpression of the chimeric proteins tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) A/B/C, resulting in constitutively active, ligand-independent downstream signaling. In patients with NTRK 1/2/3 gene fusions, larotrectinib and entrectinib, small molecule inhibitors to TRK, have shown antitumor activity.^28,29 No alterations beyond these fusions are known to be targetable.

Allele Fraction

Knowing the fraction (or proportion) of the alteration of interest in the sequenced tissue relative to the estimated tumor content can assist in decision making. Not all platforms will provide this information, which is referred to as mutation allele fraction (MAF) or variant allele fraction (VAF), but sometimes will provide it on request. Platforms will usually provide an estimate of the percent tumor in the tissue being sampled if it is from a biopsy. If the MAF is around 50% in the sequenced tissue (including ctDNA), then there is a reasonable chance that it is a germline variant. However, there are nuances as germline alterations in some genes, such as BRCA1/2, can be accompanied by loss of the other allele of the gene (LOH). In that case, if most of the circulating DNA is from tumor, then the MAF can be > 50%.

If there are 2 alterations of the same gene with MAF percentages that are each half of the total percent tumor, there is a high likelihood of biallelic alteration. These sorts of paired alterations or one mutation with apparent LOH or copy loss would again indicate a high likelihood that the alteration is in fact pathogenic and a relevant driver. Not all pathogenic alterations have to be biallelic to be driver mutations but in BRCA1/2, or mismatch repair deficiency genes, the presence of biallelic alterations increases the likelihood of their being pathogenic.

Tumors that are hypermutated—containing sometimes hundreds of mutations per megabyte of DNA—can be particularly complicated to interpret, because the likelihood increases that many of the alterations are a function of the hypermutation and not a driver mutation. This is particularly important when there are concurrent mutations in mismatch repair genes and genes, such as BRCA1/2. If the tumor is microsatellite instability high or hypermutated, concurrent BRCA1/2 alterations are often passengers as the tumors rarely have coexisting “signatures” suggesting that they have a true deficiency in homologous recombination.³⁰ Large genes such as BRCA1/2 have microsatellite tracts that are prone to frameshift mutations as a result of microsatellite instability, and such mutations in this context are typically subclonal and not drivers. In hypermutated tumors, the likelihood is significantly decreased that any of the mutations other than mismatch repair deficiency or polymerase genes are targetable drivers.

Confounders

In some situations, interpretation can be particularly challenging. For example, several alterations for which there are FDA on-label indications (such as ATM or BRCA2) can be detected in ctDNA that may not be due to the tumor but to CHIP. CHIP represents hematopoietic clones that are dysplastic as a result of exposure to DNA-damaging agents (eg, platinum chemotherapy) or as a result of aging and arise when mutations in hematopoietic stem cells provide a competitive advantage.³¹ The most common CHIP clones that can be detected are DNMT3A, ASXL1, or TET2; because these alterations are not targetable, their importance lies primarily in whether patients have evidence of hematologic abnormality, which might represent an evolving hematopoietic disorder. Because CHIP alterations can overlap with somatic alterations for which FDA-approved drugs exist, such as ATM or CHEK2 (olaparib for prostate cancer) and BRCA2 (poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors in a range of indications) there is concern that CHIP might result in patient harm from inappropriate treatment of CHIP rather than the tumor, with no likelihood that the treatment would affect the tumor, causing treatment delays.³² General considerations for deciding whether an alteration represents CHIP include excluding alteration in which the VAF is < 1% and when the VAF in the alteration of interest is < 20% of the estimated tumor fraction in the sample. Exceptions to this are found in patients with true myelodysplasia or chronic lymphocytic leukemia, in whom the VAF can be well over 50% because of circulating tumor burden. The only way to be certain that an alteration detected on ctDNA reflects tumor rather than CHIP is to utilize an assay with matched tumor-normal sequencing.

Resources for Assistance

For oncology HCPs, perhaps the best resource to help in selecting and interpreting the appropriate testing is through a dedicated molecular oncology tumor board and subject matter experts who contribute to those tumor boards. In the US Department of Veterans Affairs, the national precision oncology program and its affiliated clinical services, such as the option to order a national consultation and molecular tumor board education, are easily accessible to all HCPs (www.cancer.va.gov). Many commercial vendors provide support to assist with questions of interpretation and to inform clinical decision-making. Other resources that can assist with deciding whether an alteration is pathogenic include extensive curated databases such as ClinVar (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar) and the Human Genetic Mutation Database (www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/index.php) for germline alterations or COSMIC (cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic) for somatic alterations. OncoKB (www.oncokb.org) is a resource for assistance in defining levels of evidence for the use of agents to target specific alterations and to assist in assigning pathogenicity to specific alterations. Additional educational resources for training in genomics and genetics are also included in the Appendix.

The rapid growth in technology and ability to enhance understanding of relevant tumor biology continues to improve the therapeutic landscape for men and women dealing with malignancy and our ability to find targetable genetic alterations with the potential for meaningful clinical benefit.

Acknowledgments

Dedicated to Neil Spector.

The ability to find and target specific biomarkers in the DNA of advanced cancers is rapidly changing options and outcomes for patients with locally advanced and metastatic solid tumors. This strategy is the basis for precision oncology, defined here as using predictive biomarkers from tumor and/or germline sequencing to guide therapies. This article focuses specifically on the use of DNA sequencing to find those biomarkers and provides guidance about which test is optimal in a specific situation, as well as interpretation of the results. We emphasize the identification of biomarkers that provide adult patients with advanced solid tumors access to therapies that would not be an option had sequencing not been performed and that have the potential for significant clinical benefit. The best approach is to have an expert team with experience in precision oncology to assist in the interpretation of results.

Which test?

Deciding what test of the array of assays available to use and which tissue to test can be overwhelming, and uncertainty may prevent oncology practitioners from ordering germline or somatic sequencing. For the purposes of this article, we will focus on DNA sequencing for inherited/germline alterations (including mutations, copy number changes, or fusions), which may inform treatment, or alterations that arise in the process of carcinogenesis and tumor evolution (somatic alterations in tumor DNA). This focus is not meant to exclude any specific test but to focus on DNA-based tests in patients with locally advanced or metastatic malignancy.

Germline Testing

Germline testing is the sequencing of inherited DNA in noncancerous cells to find alterations that may play a role in the development of cancers and are actionable in some cases. Germline alterations can inform therapeutic decisions, predict future cancer risk, and provide information that can help family members to better manage their risks of malignancy. Detailed discussions of the importance of germline testing to inform cancer surveillance, risk-reducing interventions, and the testing of relatives to determine who carries inherited alterations (cascade testing) is extremely important with several advantages and is covered in a number of excellent reviews elsewhere.^1-3 Testing of germline DNA in patients with a metastatic malignancy can provide treatment options otherwise not available for patients, particularly for BRCA1/2 and Lynch syndrome–related cancers. Recent studies have shown that 10 to 15% of patients with advanced malignancies of many types have a pathogenic germline alteration.^4,5

Germline DNA is usually acquired from peripheral blood, a buccal swab, or saliva collection and is therefore readily available. This is advantageous because it does not require a biopsy to identify relevant alterations. Germline testing is also less susceptible to the rare situations in which artifacts occur in formalin-fixed tissues and obscure relevant alterations.

The cost of germline testing varies, but most commercial vendor assays for germline testing are significantly less expensive than the cost of somatic testing. The disadvantages include the inability of germline testing to find any alterations that arise solely in tumor tissue and the smaller gene panels included in germline testing as compared to somatic testing panels. Other considerations relate to the inherited nature of pathogenic germline variants and its implications for family members that may affect the patient’s psychosocial health and potentially change the family dynamics.

Deciding who is appropriate for germline testing and when to perform the testing should be individualized to the patient’s wishes and disease status. Treatment planning may be less complicated if testing has been performed and germline status is known. In some cases urgent germline testing is indicated to inform pending procedures and/or surgical decisions for risk reduction, including more extensive tissue resection, such as the removal of additional organs or contralateral tissue. A minor point regarding germline testing is that the DNA of patients with hematologic malignancies may be difficult to sequence because of sample contamination by the circulating malignancy. For this reason, most laboratories will not accept peripheral blood or saliva samples for germline testing in patients with active hematologic malignancies; they often require DNA from another source such as fibroblasts from a skin biopsy or cells from a muscle biopsy. Germline testing is recommended for all patients with metastatic prostate cancer, as well as any patient with any stage of pancreatic cancer or ovarian cancer and patients with breast cancer diagnosed at age ≤ 45 years. More detailed criteria for who is appropriate for germline testing outside of these groups can be found in the appropriate National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.^6-8 In patients with some malignancies such as prostate and pancreatic cancer, approximately half of patients who have a BRCA-related cancer developed that malignancy because of a germline BRCA alteration.^9-11 Testing germline DNA is therefore an easy way to quickly find almost half of all targetable alterations with a treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and at low cost, with the added benefit of providing critical information for families who may be unaware that members carry a relevant pathogenic germline alteration. In those families, cascade testing can provide surveillance and intervention strategies that can be lifesaving.

A related and particularly relevant question is when should a result found on a somatic testing panel prompt follow-up germline testing? Some institutions have algorithms in place to automate referral for germline testing based on specific genetic criteria.¹² Excellent reviews are available that outline the following considerations in more detail.¹³ Typically, somatic testing results that would trigger follow-up germline testing would be truncating or deleterious or likely deleterious mutations per germline datasets in high-risk genes associated with highly penetrant autosomal dominant conditions (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6), selected moderate-risk genes (BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D), and specific variants with a high probability of being germline because they are common germline founder mutations. Although the actionability and significance of specific genes remains a matter of some discussion, generally finding a somatic pathogenic sequencing result included in the 59-gene list of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines would be an indication for germline testing. Another indication for germline testing would be finding genes with germline mutations for which the NCCN has specific management guidelines, or the presence of alterations consistent with known founder mutations.¹⁴ When a patient’s tumor has microsatellite instability or is hypermutated (defined as > 10 mutations per megabase), a search for germline alterations is warranted given that about 15% of these patients with these tumors carry a Lynch syndrome gene.¹⁵ Genes that are commonly found as somatic alterations alone (eg, TP53 or APC) are generally not an indication for germline testing unless family history is compelling.

Although some clinicians use the variant allele fraction in the somatic sequencing report to decide whether to conduct germline testing, this approach is suboptimal, as allele fraction may be confounded by assay conditions and a high allele fraction may be found in pure tumors with loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of the other allele. There is also evidence that for a variety of reasons, somatic sequencing panels do not always detect germline alterations in somatic tissues.¹⁶ Reasons for this may include discordance between the genes being tested in the germline vs the somatic panel, technical differences such as interference of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) artifact with detecting the germline variant, lack of expertise in germline variant interpretation among laboratories doing tumor-only sequencing, and, in rare cases, large deletions in tumor tissue masking a germline point mutation.

Variant Interpretation of Germline Testing

A general understanding of the terminology used for germline variant interpretation allows for the ordering health care practitioner (HCP) to provide the best quality care and an appreciation for the limitations of current molecular testing. Not all variants are associated with disease; the clinical significance of a genetic variant falls on a spectrum. The criteria for determining pathogenicity differ between molecular laboratories, but most are influenced by the standards and guidelines set forth by the ACMG.¹⁴ The clinical molecular laboratory determines variant classification, and a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this primer. In brief, variant classification is based on evidence of varying strength in different categories including population data, computational and predictive data, functional data, segregation data, de novo data, allelic data, and information from various databases. The ACMG has proposed a 5-tiered classification system, by which most molecular laboratories adhere to in their genetic test reports (Table 1).¹⁴

Pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants are clinically actionable, whereas variants of uncertain significance (VUS) require additional data and/or functional studies before making clinical decisions. Depending on the clinical context and existing supporting evidence, it may be prudent to continue monitoring for worsening or new signs of disease in patients with one or more VUS while additional efforts are underway to understand the variant’s significance.

Somatic Testing

Testing of somatic (tumor) tissue is critical and is the approach most commonly taken in medical oncology (Table 2). Somatic testing may be performed on primary tumor, metastatic biopsy, or circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA, also referred to as cell-free DNA [cfDNA]), with each having its own advantages and disadvantages. Primary tumor tissue is appropriate for testing when the alteration is generally truncal, that is, present at the time that the tumor developed and would be expected to be carried through the evolution of the tumor because of a critical role in carcinogenesis and maintenance of the malignant phenotype. Examples include BRCA1/2, and many tyrosine kinase mutations. Somatic testing at diagnosis is part of standard of care for many malignancies, including adenocarcinoma of the lung, colon cancer, melanoma, and others.^17-19 Testing for specific genes or comprehensive genomic profiling will depend on the tumor histology, stage, and payer coverage.

The advantages of primary tumor are that it is usually in hand as a diagnostic biopsy, acquisition is standard of care, and several targetable alterations are truncal, defined as driver mutations present at the time of tumor development. Also, the potential that the tumor arose in the background of a predisposing germline alteration can be suggested by sequencing primary tumor as discussed above. Moreover, sequencing the primary tumor can be done at any time unless the biopsy sample is considered too old or degraded (per specific platform requirements). The information gained can be used to anticipate additional treatment options that are relevant when patients experience disease progression. Disadvantages include the problem that primary specimens may be old or have limited tumor content, both of which increase the likelihood that sequencing will not be technically successful.

Alterations that are targetable and arise as a result of either treatment pressure or clonal evolution are considered evolutionary. If evolutionary alterations are the main focus for sequencing, then metastasis biopsy or ctDNA are better choices. The advantages of a metastasis biopsy are that tissue is contemporary, tumor content may be higher than in primary tumor, and both truncal and evolutionary alterations can be detected.

For specific tumors, continued analysis of evolving genomic alterations can play a critical role in management. In non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), somatic testing is conducted again at progression on repeat biopsies to evaluate for emerging resistance mutations. In epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutated lung cancer, the resistance mutation, exon 20 p.T790M (point mutation), can present in patients after treatment with first- or second-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Even in patients who are treated with the third-generation EGFR TKI osimertinib that can treat T790M-mutated lung cancer, multiple possible evolutionary mutations can occur at progression, including other EGFR mutations, MET/HER2 amplification, and BRAF V600E, to name a few.²⁰ Resistance mechanisms develop due to treatment selection pressure and the molecular heterogeneity seen in lung cancer.

Disadvantages for metastatic biopsy include the inability to safely access a metastatic site, the time considerations for preauthorization and arrangement of biopsy, and a lower-than-average likelihood of successful sequencing from sites such as bone.^21,22 In addition, there is some concern that a single metastatic site may not capture all relevant alterations for multiple reasons, including tumor heterogeneity.

Selecting the Tissue

Deciding on the tissue to analyze is a critical part of the decision process (Table 3). If the primary tumor tissue is old the likelihood of productive sequencing is lower, although age alone is not the only consideration and the methods of fixation may be just as relevant.

For prostate cancer in particular, the ability to successfully sequence primary tumor tissue decreases as the amount of tumor decreases in low-volume biopsies such as prostate needle biopsies. Generally, if tumor content is < 10% of the biopsy specimen, then sequencing is less likely to be productive.²⁵ Also, if the alteration of interest is not known to be truncal, then a relevant target might be missed by sequencing tissue that does not reflect current biology. Metastasis biopsy may be the most appropriate tissue, particularly if this specimen has already been acquired. As above, a metastasis biopsy may have a higher tumor content, and it should reflect relevant biology if it is recent. However, bone biopsies have a relatively low yield for successful sequencing, so a soft tissue lesion (eg, liver or lymph node metastasis) is generally preferred.

The inability to safely access tissue is often a consideration. Proximity to vital structures such as large blood vessels or the potential for significant morbidity in the event of a complication (liver or lung biopsies, particularly in patients on anticoagulation medications) may make the risk/benefit ratio too high. The inability to conduct somatic testing has been reported to often be due to inadequate tissue sampling.²⁶ ctDNA is an attractive alternative but should typically be drawn when a tumor is progressing with a reasonable tumor burden that is more likely to be shedding DNA. Performing ctDNA analysis in patients without obvious radiographic metastasis or in patients whose tumor is under good control is unlikely to produce interpretable results.

Interpreting the Results

The intent of sequencing tumor tissue is to identify alterations that are biologically important and may provide a point of therapeutic leverage. However, deciding which alterations are relevant is not always straightforward. For example, any normal individual genome contains around 10,000 missense variants, hundreds of insertion/deletion variants, and dozens of protein-truncating variants. Distinguishing these alterations, which are part of the individual, from those that are tumor-specific and have functional significance can be difficult in the absence of paired sequencing of both normal and tissue samples.

Specific Alterations

Although most commercial vendors provide important information in sequencing reports to assist oncology HCPs in deciding which alterations are relevant, the reports are not always clear. In many cases the report will specifically indicate whether the alteration has been reported previously as pathogenic or benign. However, some platforms will report alterations that are not known to be drivers of tumor biology. It is critical to be aware that if variants are not reported as pathogenic, they should not be assumed to be pathogenic simply because they are included in the report. Alterations more likely to be drivers of relevant biology are those that change gene and protein structure and include frameshift (fs*), nonsense (denoted by sequence ending in “X” or “*”), or specific fusions or insertions/deletions (indel) that occur in important domains of the gene.

For some genes, only specific alterations are targetable and not all alterations have the same effect on protein function. Although overexpression of certain genes and proteins are actionable (eg, HER2), amplification of a gene does not necessarily indicate that it is targetable. In NSCLC, specific alterations convey sensitivity to targeted therapies. For example, in EGFR-mutated NSCLC, the sensitizing mutations to EGFR TKIs are exon19 deletions and exon 21 L858R point mutations (the most common mutations), as well as less common mutations found in exon 18-21. Exon 20 mutations, however, are not responsive to EGFR TKIs with a few exceptions.²⁷ Patients who have tumors that do not harbor a sensitizing EGFR mutation should not be treated with an EGFR TKI. In a variety of solid tumors, gene fusions of the NTRK 1/2/3, act as oncogenic drivers. The chromosomal fusion events involving the carboxy-terminal kinase domain of TRK and upstream amino-terminal partners lead to overexpression of the chimeric proteins tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) A/B/C, resulting in constitutively active, ligand-independent downstream signaling. In patients with NTRK 1/2/3 gene fusions, larotrectinib and entrectinib, small molecule inhibitors to TRK, have shown antitumor activity.^28,29 No alterations beyond these fusions are known to be targetable.

Allele Fraction

Knowing the fraction (or proportion) of the alteration of interest in the sequenced tissue relative to the estimated tumor content can assist in decision making. Not all platforms will provide this information, which is referred to as mutation allele fraction (MAF) or variant allele fraction (VAF), but sometimes will provide it on request. Platforms will usually provide an estimate of the percent tumor in the tissue being sampled if it is from a biopsy. If the MAF is around 50% in the sequenced tissue (including ctDNA), then there is a reasonable chance that it is a germline variant. However, there are nuances as germline alterations in some genes, such as BRCA1/2, can be accompanied by loss of the other allele of the gene (LOH). In that case, if most of the circulating DNA is from tumor, then the MAF can be > 50%.

If there are 2 alterations of the same gene with MAF percentages that are each half of the total percent tumor, there is a high likelihood of biallelic alteration. These sorts of paired alterations or one mutation with apparent LOH or copy loss would again indicate a high likelihood that the alteration is in fact pathogenic and a relevant driver. Not all pathogenic alterations have to be biallelic to be driver mutations but in BRCA1/2, or mismatch repair deficiency genes, the presence of biallelic alterations increases the likelihood of their being pathogenic.

Tumors that are hypermutated—containing sometimes hundreds of mutations per megabyte of DNA—can be particularly complicated to interpret, because the likelihood increases that many of the alterations are a function of the hypermutation and not a driver mutation. This is particularly important when there are concurrent mutations in mismatch repair genes and genes, such as BRCA1/2. If the tumor is microsatellite instability high or hypermutated, concurrent BRCA1/2 alterations are often passengers as the tumors rarely have coexisting “signatures” suggesting that they have a true deficiency in homologous recombination.³⁰ Large genes such as BRCA1/2 have microsatellite tracts that are prone to frameshift mutations as a result of microsatellite instability, and such mutations in this context are typically subclonal and not drivers. In hypermutated tumors, the likelihood is significantly decreased that any of the mutations other than mismatch repair deficiency or polymerase genes are targetable drivers.

Confounders

In some situations, interpretation can be particularly challenging. For example, several alterations for which there are FDA on-label indications (such as ATM or BRCA2) can be detected in ctDNA that may not be due to the tumor but to CHIP. CHIP represents hematopoietic clones that are dysplastic as a result of exposure to DNA-damaging agents (eg, platinum chemotherapy) or as a result of aging and arise when mutations in hematopoietic stem cells provide a competitive advantage.³¹ The most common CHIP clones that can be detected are DNMT3A, ASXL1, or TET2; because these alterations are not targetable, their importance lies primarily in whether patients have evidence of hematologic abnormality, which might represent an evolving hematopoietic disorder. Because CHIP alterations can overlap with somatic alterations for which FDA-approved drugs exist, such as ATM or CHEK2 (olaparib for prostate cancer) and BRCA2 (poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors in a range of indications) there is concern that CHIP might result in patient harm from inappropriate treatment of CHIP rather than the tumor, with no likelihood that the treatment would affect the tumor, causing treatment delays.³² General considerations for deciding whether an alteration represents CHIP include excluding alteration in which the VAF is < 1% and when the VAF in the alteration of interest is < 20% of the estimated tumor fraction in the sample. Exceptions to this are found in patients with true myelodysplasia or chronic lymphocytic leukemia, in whom the VAF can be well over 50% because of circulating tumor burden. The only way to be certain that an alteration detected on ctDNA reflects tumor rather than CHIP is to utilize an assay with matched tumor-normal sequencing.

Resources for Assistance

For oncology HCPs, perhaps the best resource to help in selecting and interpreting the appropriate testing is through a dedicated molecular oncology tumor board and subject matter experts who contribute to those tumor boards. In the US Department of Veterans Affairs, the national precision oncology program and its affiliated clinical services, such as the option to order a national consultation and molecular tumor board education, are easily accessible to all HCPs (www.cancer.va.gov). Many commercial vendors provide support to assist with questions of interpretation and to inform clinical decision-making. Other resources that can assist with deciding whether an alteration is pathogenic include extensive curated databases such as ClinVar (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar) and the Human Genetic Mutation Database (www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/index.php) for germline alterations or COSMIC (cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic) for somatic alterations. OncoKB (www.oncokb.org) is a resource for assistance in defining levels of evidence for the use of agents to target specific alterations and to assist in assigning pathogenicity to specific alterations. Additional educational resources for training in genomics and genetics are also included in the Appendix.

The rapid growth in technology and ability to enhance understanding of relevant tumor biology continues to improve the therapeutic landscape for men and women dealing with malignancy and our ability to find targetable genetic alterations with the potential for meaningful clinical benefit.

Acknowledgments

Dedicated to Neil Spector.

Cervical cancer is an important global health problem with an estimated 604,127 new cases and 341,831 deaths in 2020.¹ Nearly 85% of the disease burden affects individuals from low and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) set forth the goal for all countries to reach and maintain an incidence rate of below 4 per 100,000 women by 2030 as part of the Global Strategy to Accelerate the Elimination of Cervical Cancer.

Although traditional Pap cytology has been the cornerstone of screening programs, its poor sensitivity of approximately 50% and limitations in accessibility require new strategies to achieve the elimination of cervical cancer.² The discovery that persistent infection with oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) is an essential step in the development of cervical cancer led to the development of diagnostic HPV tests, which have higher sensitivity than cytology (96.1% vs 53.0%) but somewhat lower specificity (90.7% vs 96.3%) for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or worse lesions.² Initially, HPV testing was incorporated as a method to triage atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) cytology results.³ Later, the concept of cotesting with cytology emerged,^4,5 and since then, several clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of primary HPV screening.^6-9

In 2020, the WHO recommended HPV DNA testing as the primary screening method starting at the age of 30 years, with regular testing every 5 to 10 years, for the general population.¹⁰ Currently, primary HPV has been adopted in multiple countries, including Australia, the Netherlands, Turkey, England, and Argentina.

In the United States, there are 3 currently acceptable screening strategies: cytology, cytology plus HPV (cotesting), and primary HPV testing (TABLE). The American Cancer Society (ACS) specifically states that HPV testing alone every 5 years is preferred starting at age 25 years; cotesting every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years are also acceptable.¹¹ The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) states that cytology alone every 3 years starting at 21 years and then HPV testing alone or cotesting every 5 years or cytology every 3 years starting at age 30 are all acceptable strategies.¹²

When applying these guidelines, it is important to note that they are intended for the screening of patients with all prior normal results with no symptoms. These routine screening guidelines do not apply to special populations, such as those with a history of abnormal results or treatment, a history of immunosuppression,¹³ a history of HPV-related vulvar or vaginal dysplasia,^14-16 or a history of hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and no prior history of cervical dysplasia.^17,18 By contrast, surveillance is interval testing for those who have either an abnormal prior test result or treatment; these may be managed per risk-based estimates provided by the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP).^18,19 Finally, diagnosis is evaluation (which may include diagnostic cytology) of a patient with abnormal signs and/or symptoms (such as bleeding, pain, discharge, or cervical mass).

In this Update, we present the evidence for primary HPV testing, the management options for a positive result in the United States, and research that will improve uptake of primary HPV testing as well as accessibility.

Change in screening paradigm: Evidence for primary HPV testing

HPV DNA tests are multiplex assays that detect the DNA of targeted high-risk HPV types, using multiple probes, either by direct genomic detection or by amplification of a viral DNA fragment using polymerase chain reaction (PCR).^20,21 Alternatively, HPV mRNA-based tests detect the expression of E6 and E7 oncoproteins, a marker of viral integration.²⁰ In examining the data from well-conducted clinical trials, 2 important observations are that different HPV assays were used and that direct comparison may not be valid. In addition, not all tests used in the studies are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for primary HPV testing.

Continue to: FDA-approved HPV tests...

Currently, 2 tests are FDA approved for primary HPV screening. The Cobas HPV test (Roche Molecular Diagnostics) was the first FDA-approved test for primary HPV screening in women aged 25 years and older.⁶ This test reports pooled results from 12 high-risk (hr) HPV types (31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59/66/68) with reflex genotyping for HPV 16/18, and thus it provides an immediate triage option for HPV-positive women. Of note, it is also approved for cotesting. The second FDA-approved test is the BD Onclarity HPV assay (Becton, Dickinson and Company) for primary HPV screening.²² It detects 14 hrHPV types, types 16/18/45 specifically as well as types 31/33/35/39/51/52/56/58/59/66/68.

Other HPV tests are FDA approved for cotesting and reflex testing but not for primary HPV testing. The Hybrid Capture test, or HC2 (Qiagen Inc), was the first HPV test to be approved by the FDA in 1997 for reflex testing of women with ASCUS cytology. In 2003, it was approved for cotesting along with cytology in women aged 30 years and older.^20,21 In 2009, the Cervista HPV HR test (Hologic Inc) was approved for cotesting. The Aptima HPV assay (Hologic Inc), which is also approved for cotesting, is an RNA-based assay that allows detection of E6/E7 mRNA transcripts of 14 HPV types.²³

Comparing HPV testing with cytology

Ronco and colleagues pooled data from 4 European randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—Swedescreen, POBASCAM, NTCC, ARTISTIC—with a total of 176,464 participants randomly assigned to HPV or cytology screening.²⁴ Swedescreen and POBASCAM used GP5/GP6 PCR, while ARTISTIC and NTCC used HC2 for primary HPV screening. The screening interval was 3 years in all except 5 years in POBASCAM. The pooled detection rate of invasive disease was similar in the 2 arms, with pooled rate ratio for cancer detection being 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46–1.36) in the first 2.5 years, but was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.25–0.81), favoring the HPV arm, after 2.5 years. HPV testing was more effective in preventing cases of adenocarcinoma than squamous cell carcinoma (0.31 [95% CI, 0.14–0.69] vs 0.78 [95% CI, 0.49–1.25]). The authors concluded that HPV-based screening from age 30 years provided 60% to 70% better protection than cytology.

The result of the above meta-analysis was confirmed by the HPV FOCAL RCT that investigated the efficacy of HPV testing (HC2) in comparison with cytology.²⁵ The detection rates for CIN 3 lesions supported primary HPV screening, with an absolute difference in incidence rate of 2.67/1,000 (95% CI, 0.53–4.88) at study randomization and 3.22/1,000 (95% CI, 5.12–1.48) at study exit 4 years later.

Cotesting using HPV and cytology: Marginal benefit

Dillner and colleagues were one of the first groups to report on the risk of CIN 3 based on both HPV and cytology status.²⁶ Using pooled analysis of data from multiple countries, these investigators reported that the cumulative incidence rates (CIR) of CIN 3 after 6 years of follow-up increased consistently in HPV-positive subjects, and an HPV-positive result more accurately predicted CIN 3+ at 5 years than cytology alone. Furthermore, HPV negativity provided greater reassurance than cytology alone. At 5 years of follow-up, the rates of CIN 3+ were 0.25% (0.12%–0.41%) for women negative for HPV compared with 0.83% (0.50%–1.13%) for women with negative cytology results. There was little difference in rates for CIN 3+ between women with negative results on both tests and women who were negative for HPV.

The important question is then the marginal benefit of cotesting, which is the most costly screening option. A study of 331,818 women enrolled for cotesting at Kaiser Permanente found that the risk of CIN 3+ predicted by HPV testing alone when compared with cytology was significantly higher at both 3 years (5.0% vs 3.8%; P = .046) and 5 years (7.6% vs 4.7%; P = .001).²⁷ A negative cytology result did not decrease the risk of CIN 3 further for HPV-negative patients (3 years: 0.047% vs 0.063%, P = .6; 5 years: 0.16% vs 0.17%, P = .8). They concluded that a negative HPV test was enough reassurance for low risk of CIN 3+ and that an additional negative cytology result does not provide extra reassurance.

Furthermore, a systematic meta-analysis of 48 studies, including 8 RCTs, found that the addition of cytology to HPV testing raised the sensitivity by 2% for CIN 3 compared with HPV testing alone. This improvement in sensitivity was at the expense of considerable loss of specificity, with a ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92–0.95) for CIN 3.²⁸ Schiffman and colleagues also assessed the relative contribution of HPV testing and cytology in detection of CIN 3 and cancer.²⁹ The HPV component alone identified a significantly higher proportion of preinvasive and invasive disease than cytology. Only 3.5% of precancers and 5.9% of cancers were preceded by HPV-negative, cytology-positive results. Thus, cytology contributed only 5 cases per million women per year to the sensitivity of the combined test, at the cost of significantly more colposcopies. Hence, the evidence suggests that there is limited benefit of adding cytology to HPV testing.³⁰

Continue to: Triage of a positive HPV result...

An important limitation of HPV testing is its inability to discriminate between transient and persistent infections. Referral of all HPV-positive cases to colposcopy would overburden the system with associated unnecessary procedures. Hence, a triage strategy is essential to identify clinically important infections that truly require colposcopic evaluation. The FIGURE illustrates the management of a primary HPV test result performed for screening.

HPV genotyping

One strategy for triaging a positive HPV test result is genotyping. HPV 16 and 18 have the highest risk of persistence and progression and merit immediate referral to colposcopy. In the ATHENA trial, CIN 3 was identified in 17.8% (95% CI, 14.8–20.7%) of HPV 16 positive women at baseline, and the CIR increased to 25.2% (95% CI, 21.7–28.7%) after 3 years. The 3-year CIR of CIN 3 was only 5.4% (95% CI, 4.5–6.3%) in women with HPV genotypes other than 16/18. HPV 18–positive women had a 3-year CIR that was intermediate between women with HPV 16 and women with the 12 other genotypes.⁶ Hence, HPV 16/18–positive cases should be referred for immediate colposcopy, and negative cases should be followed up with cytology and referred for colposcopy if the cytology is ASCUS or worse.³¹

In July 2020, extended genotyping was approved by the FDA with individual detection of HPV 31, 51, 52 (in addition to 16, 18, and 45) and pooled detection of 33/58, 35/39/68, and 56/59/66. One study found that individual genotypes HPV 16 and 31 carry baseline risk values for CIN 3+ (8.1% and 7.5%, respectively) that are above the 5-year risk threshold for referral to colposcopy following the ASCCP risk-based management guideline.³²

Cytology

The higher specificity of cytology makes it an option for triaging HPV-positive cases, and current management guidelines recommend triage to both genotyping and cytology for all patients who are HPV positive, and especially if they are HPV positive but HPV 16/18 negative. Of note, cytology results remain more subjective than those of primary HPV testing, but the combination of initial HPV testing with reflex to cytology is a reasonable and cost effective next step.¹⁸ The VASCAR trial found higher colposcopy referrals in the HPV screening and cytology triage group compared with the cytology alone group (19.36 vs 14.54 per 1,000 women).³³ The ATHENA trial investigated various triage strategies for HPV-positive cases and its impact on colposcopy referrals.⁶ Using HPV genotyping and reflex cytology, if HPV 16/18 was positive, colposcopy was advised, but if any of the other 12 HPV types were positive, reflex cytology was done. If reported as ASCUS or worse, colposcopy was performed; conversely, if it was normal, women were rescreened with cotesting after 1 year. Although this strategy led to a reduction in the number of colposcopies, referrals were still higher in the primary HPV arm (3,769 colposcopies per 294 cases) compared with cytology (1,934 colposcopies per 179 cases) or cotesting (3,097 colposcopies per 240 cases) in women aged 25 years.¹⁴

p16/Ki-67 Dual-Stain

Diffused p16 immunohistochemical staining, as opposed to focal staining, is associated with active HPV infection but can be present in low-grade as well as high-grade lesions.³⁴ Ki-67 is a marker of cellular proliferation. Coexpression of p16 and Ki-67 indicates a loss of cell cycle regulation and is a hallmark of neoplastic transformation. When positive, these tests are supportive of active HPV infection and of a high-grade lesion. Incorporation of these stains to cytology alone provides additional objective reassurance to cytology, where there is much inter- and intra-observer variability. These stains can be done by laboratories using the stains alone or they can use the FDA-approved p16/Ki-67 Dual-Stain immunohistochemistry (DS), CINtec PLUS Cytology (Roche Diagnostics). However, DS is not yet formally incorporated into triage algorithms by national guidelines.

The IMPACT trial assessed the performance of DS compared with cytology in the triage of HPV-positive results, with or without HPV 16/18 genotyping.³⁵ This was a prospective observational screening study of 35,263 women aged 25 to 65 years across 32 sites in the United States. Of the 4,927 HPV-positive patients with DS results, the sensitivity of DS for CIN 3+ was 91.9% (95% CI, 86.1%–95.4%) and 86.0% (95% CI, 77.5%–91.6%) in HPV 16/18–positive and in the 12 other genotypes, respectively. Using DS alone to triage HPV-positive results showed significantly higher sensitivity and specificity than HPV 16/18 genotyping with cytology triage of 12 “other” genotypes, and substantially higher sensitivity but lower specificity than using cytology alone. Of note, triage with DS alone would have referred significantly fewer women to colposcopy than HPV 16/18 genotyping with cytology triage for the 12 other genotypes (48.6% vs 56.0%; P< .0001).

Similarly, a retrospective analysis of the ATHENA trial cohort of HPV-positive results of 7,727 patients aged 25 years or older also demonstrated increased sensitivity of DS compared with cytology (74.9% vs 51.9%; P<.0001) and similar specificities (74.1% vs 75%; P = .3198).³⁶ The European PALMS study, which included 27,349 women aged 18 years or older across 5 countries who underwent routine screening with HPV testing, cytology, and DS, confirmed these findings.³⁷ The sensitivity of DS was higher than that of cytology (86.7% vs 68.5%; P<.001) for CIN 3+ with comparable specificities (95.2% vs 95.4%; P = .15).

Challenges and opportunities to improve access to primary HPV screening

The historical success of the Pap test in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer relied on individuals having access to the test. This remains true as screening transitions to primary HPV testing. Limitations of HPV-based screening include provider and patient knowledge; access to tests; cost; need for new laboratory infrastructure; need to leverage the electronic health record to record results, calculate a patient’s risk and determine next steps; and the need to re-educate patients and providers about this new model of care. The American Cancer Society and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are currently leading initiatives to help adopt primary HPV screening in the United States and to facilitate new care approaches.

Self-collection and independence from subjective cytology would further improve access. Multiple effectiveness studies and patient acceptability studies have shown that primary HPV screening via self-collection is effective, cost effective, and acceptable to women, especially among underscreened populations.³⁸ Sensitivity is comparable to clinician-obtained samples with polymerase chain reaction–based HPV tests. Furthermore, newer molecular tests that detect methylated target host genes or methylated viral genome can be used to triage HPV-positive cases. Several host methylation markers that identify the specific host genes (for example, CADM1, MAL, and miR-124-2) have been shown to be more specific, reproducible, and can be used in self-collected samples as they are based on molecular methylation analysis.³⁹ The ASCCP monitors these new developments and will incorporate promising tests and approaches once validated and FDA approved into the risk-based management guidelines. An erratum was recently published, and the risk-calculator is also available on the ASCCP website free of charge (https://app.asccp.org).⁴⁰

In conclusion, transition to primary HPV testing from Pap cytology in cervical cancer screening has many challenges but also opportunities. Learning from the experience of countries that have already adopted primary HPV testing is crucial to successful implementation of this new screening paradigm.⁴¹ The evidence supporting primary HPV screening with its improved sensitivity is clear, and the existing triage options and innovations will continue to improve triage of patients with clinically important lesions as well as accessibility. With strong advocacy and sound implementation, the WHO goal of cervical cancer elimination and 70% of women being screened with a high-performance test by age 35 and again by age 45 is achievable. ●

Cervical cancer is an important global health problem with an estimated 604,127 new cases and 341,831 deaths in 2020.¹ Nearly 85% of the disease burden affects individuals from low and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) set forth the goal for all countries to reach and maintain an incidence rate of below 4 per 100,000 women by 2030 as part of the Global Strategy to Accelerate the Elimination of Cervical Cancer.

Although traditional Pap cytology has been the cornerstone of screening programs, its poor sensitivity of approximately 50% and limitations in accessibility require new strategies to achieve the elimination of cervical cancer.² The discovery that persistent infection with oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) is an essential step in the development of cervical cancer led to the development of diagnostic HPV tests, which have higher sensitivity than cytology (96.1% vs 53.0%) but somewhat lower specificity (90.7% vs 96.3%) for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or worse lesions.² Initially, HPV testing was incorporated as a method to triage atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) cytology results.³ Later, the concept of cotesting with cytology emerged,^4,5 and since then, several clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of primary HPV screening.^6-9

In 2020, the WHO recommended HPV DNA testing as the primary screening method starting at the age of 30 years, with regular testing every 5 to 10 years, for the general population.¹⁰ Currently, primary HPV has been adopted in multiple countries, including Australia, the Netherlands, Turkey, England, and Argentina.

In the United States, there are 3 currently acceptable screening strategies: cytology, cytology plus HPV (cotesting), and primary HPV testing (TABLE). The American Cancer Society (ACS) specifically states that HPV testing alone every 5 years is preferred starting at age 25 years; cotesting every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years are also acceptable.¹¹ The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) states that cytology alone every 3 years starting at 21 years and then HPV testing alone or cotesting every 5 years or cytology every 3 years starting at age 30 are all acceptable strategies.¹²

When applying these guidelines, it is important to note that they are intended for the screening of patients with all prior normal results with no symptoms. These routine screening guidelines do not apply to special populations, such as those with a history of abnormal results or treatment, a history of immunosuppression,¹³ a history of HPV-related vulvar or vaginal dysplasia,^14-16 or a history of hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and no prior history of cervical dysplasia.^17,18 By contrast, surveillance is interval testing for those who have either an abnormal prior test result or treatment; these may be managed per risk-based estimates provided by the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP).^18,19 Finally, diagnosis is evaluation (which may include diagnostic cytology) of a patient with abnormal signs and/or symptoms (such as bleeding, pain, discharge, or cervical mass).

In this Update, we present the evidence for primary HPV testing, the management options for a positive result in the United States, and research that will improve uptake of primary HPV testing as well as accessibility.

Change in screening paradigm: Evidence for primary HPV testing

HPV DNA tests are multiplex assays that detect the DNA of targeted high-risk HPV types, using multiple probes, either by direct genomic detection or by amplification of a viral DNA fragment using polymerase chain reaction (PCR).^20,21 Alternatively, HPV mRNA-based tests detect the expression of E6 and E7 oncoproteins, a marker of viral integration.²⁰ In examining the data from well-conducted clinical trials, 2 important observations are that different HPV assays were used and that direct comparison may not be valid. In addition, not all tests used in the studies are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for primary HPV testing.

Continue to: FDA-approved HPV tests...

Currently, 2 tests are FDA approved for primary HPV screening. The Cobas HPV test (Roche Molecular Diagnostics) was the first FDA-approved test for primary HPV screening in women aged 25 years and older.⁶ This test reports pooled results from 12 high-risk (hr) HPV types (31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59/66/68) with reflex genotyping for HPV 16/18, and thus it provides an immediate triage option for HPV-positive women. Of note, it is also approved for cotesting. The second FDA-approved test is the BD Onclarity HPV assay (Becton, Dickinson and Company) for primary HPV screening.²² It detects 14 hrHPV types, types 16/18/45 specifically as well as types 31/33/35/39/51/52/56/58/59/66/68.

Other HPV tests are FDA approved for cotesting and reflex testing but not for primary HPV testing. The Hybrid Capture test, or HC2 (Qiagen Inc), was the first HPV test to be approved by the FDA in 1997 for reflex testing of women with ASCUS cytology. In 2003, it was approved for cotesting along with cytology in women aged 30 years and older.^20,21 In 2009, the Cervista HPV HR test (Hologic Inc) was approved for cotesting. The Aptima HPV assay (Hologic Inc), which is also approved for cotesting, is an RNA-based assay that allows detection of E6/E7 mRNA transcripts of 14 HPV types.²³

Comparing HPV testing with cytology

Ronco and colleagues pooled data from 4 European randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—Swedescreen, POBASCAM, NTCC, ARTISTIC—with a total of 176,464 participants randomly assigned to HPV or cytology screening.²⁴ Swedescreen and POBASCAM used GP5/GP6 PCR, while ARTISTIC and NTCC used HC2 for primary HPV screening. The screening interval was 3 years in all except 5 years in POBASCAM. The pooled detection rate of invasive disease was similar in the 2 arms, with pooled rate ratio for cancer detection being 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46–1.36) in the first 2.5 years, but was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.25–0.81), favoring the HPV arm, after 2.5 years. HPV testing was more effective in preventing cases of adenocarcinoma than squamous cell carcinoma (0.31 [95% CI, 0.14–0.69] vs 0.78 [95% CI, 0.49–1.25]). The authors concluded that HPV-based screening from age 30 years provided 60% to 70% better protection than cytology.

The result of the above meta-analysis was confirmed by the HPV FOCAL RCT that investigated the efficacy of HPV testing (HC2) in comparison with cytology.²⁵ The detection rates for CIN 3 lesions supported primary HPV screening, with an absolute difference in incidence rate of 2.67/1,000 (95% CI, 0.53–4.88) at study randomization and 3.22/1,000 (95% CI, 5.12–1.48) at study exit 4 years later.

Cotesting using HPV and cytology: Marginal benefit

Dillner and colleagues were one of the first groups to report on the risk of CIN 3 based on both HPV and cytology status.²⁶ Using pooled analysis of data from multiple countries, these investigators reported that the cumulative incidence rates (CIR) of CIN 3 after 6 years of follow-up increased consistently in HPV-positive subjects, and an HPV-positive result more accurately predicted CIN 3+ at 5 years than cytology alone. Furthermore, HPV negativity provided greater reassurance than cytology alone. At 5 years of follow-up, the rates of CIN 3+ were 0.25% (0.12%–0.41%) for women negative for HPV compared with 0.83% (0.50%–1.13%) for women with negative cytology results. There was little difference in rates for CIN 3+ between women with negative results on both tests and women who were negative for HPV.

The important question is then the marginal benefit of cotesting, which is the most costly screening option. A study of 331,818 women enrolled for cotesting at Kaiser Permanente found that the risk of CIN 3+ predicted by HPV testing alone when compared with cytology was significantly higher at both 3 years (5.0% vs 3.8%; P = .046) and 5 years (7.6% vs 4.7%; P = .001).²⁷ A negative cytology result did not decrease the risk of CIN 3 further for HPV-negative patients (3 years: 0.047% vs 0.063%, P = .6; 5 years: 0.16% vs 0.17%, P = .8). They concluded that a negative HPV test was enough reassurance for low risk of CIN 3+ and that an additional negative cytology result does not provide extra reassurance.

Furthermore, a systematic meta-analysis of 48 studies, including 8 RCTs, found that the addition of cytology to HPV testing raised the sensitivity by 2% for CIN 3 compared with HPV testing alone. This improvement in sensitivity was at the expense of considerable loss of specificity, with a ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92–0.95) for CIN 3.²⁸ Schiffman and colleagues also assessed the relative contribution of HPV testing and cytology in detection of CIN 3 and cancer.²⁹ The HPV component alone identified a significantly higher proportion of preinvasive and invasive disease than cytology. Only 3.5% of precancers and 5.9% of cancers were preceded by HPV-negative, cytology-positive results. Thus, cytology contributed only 5 cases per million women per year to the sensitivity of the combined test, at the cost of significantly more colposcopies. Hence, the evidence suggests that there is limited benefit of adding cytology to HPV testing.³⁰

Continue to: Triage of a positive HPV result...

An important limitation of HPV testing is its inability to discriminate between transient and persistent infections. Referral of all HPV-positive cases to colposcopy would overburden the system with associated unnecessary procedures. Hence, a triage strategy is essential to identify clinically important infections that truly require colposcopic evaluation. The FIGURE illustrates the management of a primary HPV test result performed for screening.

HPV genotyping

One strategy for triaging a positive HPV test result is genotyping. HPV 16 and 18 have the highest risk of persistence and progression and merit immediate referral to colposcopy. In the ATHENA trial, CIN 3 was identified in 17.8% (95% CI, 14.8–20.7%) of HPV 16 positive women at baseline, and the CIR increased to 25.2% (95% CI, 21.7–28.7%) after 3 years. The 3-year CIR of CIN 3 was only 5.4% (95% CI, 4.5–6.3%) in women with HPV genotypes other than 16/18. HPV 18–positive women had a 3-year CIR that was intermediate between women with HPV 16 and women with the 12 other genotypes.⁶ Hence, HPV 16/18–positive cases should be referred for immediate colposcopy, and negative cases should be followed up with cytology and referred for colposcopy if the cytology is ASCUS or worse.³¹

In July 2020, extended genotyping was approved by the FDA with individual detection of HPV 31, 51, 52 (in addition to 16, 18, and 45) and pooled detection of 33/58, 35/39/68, and 56/59/66. One study found that individual genotypes HPV 16 and 31 carry baseline risk values for CIN 3+ (8.1% and 7.5%, respectively) that are above the 5-year risk threshold for referral to colposcopy following the ASCCP risk-based management guideline.³²

Cytology

The higher specificity of cytology makes it an option for triaging HPV-positive cases, and current management guidelines recommend triage to both genotyping and cytology for all patients who are HPV positive, and especially if they are HPV positive but HPV 16/18 negative. Of note, cytology results remain more subjective than those of primary HPV testing, but the combination of initial HPV testing with reflex to cytology is a reasonable and cost effective next step.¹⁸ The VASCAR trial found higher colposcopy referrals in the HPV screening and cytology triage group compared with the cytology alone group (19.36 vs 14.54 per 1,000 women).³³ The ATHENA trial investigated various triage strategies for HPV-positive cases and its impact on colposcopy referrals.⁶ Using HPV genotyping and reflex cytology, if HPV 16/18 was positive, colposcopy was advised, but if any of the other 12 HPV types were positive, reflex cytology was done. If reported as ASCUS or worse, colposcopy was performed; conversely, if it was normal, women were rescreened with cotesting after 1 year. Although this strategy led to a reduction in the number of colposcopies, referrals were still higher in the primary HPV arm (3,769 colposcopies per 294 cases) compared with cytology (1,934 colposcopies per 179 cases) or cotesting (3,097 colposcopies per 240 cases) in women aged 25 years.¹⁴

p16/Ki-67 Dual-Stain

Diffused p16 immunohistochemical staining, as opposed to focal staining, is associated with active HPV infection but can be present in low-grade as well as high-grade lesions.³⁴ Ki-67 is a marker of cellular proliferation. Coexpression of p16 and Ki-67 indicates a loss of cell cycle regulation and is a hallmark of neoplastic transformation. When positive, these tests are supportive of active HPV infection and of a high-grade lesion. Incorporation of these stains to cytology alone provides additional objective reassurance to cytology, where there is much inter- and intra-observer variability. These stains can be done by laboratories using the stains alone or they can use the FDA-approved p16/Ki-67 Dual-Stain immunohistochemistry (DS), CINtec PLUS Cytology (Roche Diagnostics). However, DS is not yet formally incorporated into triage algorithms by national guidelines.

The IMPACT trial assessed the performance of DS compared with cytology in the triage of HPV-positive results, with or without HPV 16/18 genotyping.³⁵ This was a prospective observational screening study of 35,263 women aged 25 to 65 years across 32 sites in the United States. Of the 4,927 HPV-positive patients with DS results, the sensitivity of DS for CIN 3+ was 91.9% (95% CI, 86.1%–95.4%) and 86.0% (95% CI, 77.5%–91.6%) in HPV 16/18–positive and in the 12 other genotypes, respectively. Using DS alone to triage HPV-positive results showed significantly higher sensitivity and specificity than HPV 16/18 genotyping with cytology triage of 12 “other” genotypes, and substantially higher sensitivity but lower specificity than using cytology alone. Of note, triage with DS alone would have referred significantly fewer women to colposcopy than HPV 16/18 genotyping with cytology triage for the 12 other genotypes (48.6% vs 56.0%; P< .0001).

Similarly, a retrospective analysis of the ATHENA trial cohort of HPV-positive results of 7,727 patients aged 25 years or older also demonstrated increased sensitivity of DS compared with cytology (74.9% vs 51.9%; P<.0001) and similar specificities (74.1% vs 75%; P = .3198).³⁶ The European PALMS study, which included 27,349 women aged 18 years or older across 5 countries who underwent routine screening with HPV testing, cytology, and DS, confirmed these findings.³⁷ The sensitivity of DS was higher than that of cytology (86.7% vs 68.5%; P<.001) for CIN 3+ with comparable specificities (95.2% vs 95.4%; P = .15).

Challenges and opportunities to improve access to primary HPV screening

The historical success of the Pap test in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer relied on individuals having access to the test. This remains true as screening transitions to primary HPV testing. Limitations of HPV-based screening include provider and patient knowledge; access to tests; cost; need for new laboratory infrastructure; need to leverage the electronic health record to record results, calculate a patient’s risk and determine next steps; and the need to re-educate patients and providers about this new model of care. The American Cancer Society and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are currently leading initiatives to help adopt primary HPV screening in the United States and to facilitate new care approaches.

Self-collection and independence from subjective cytology would further improve access. Multiple effectiveness studies and patient acceptability studies have shown that primary HPV screening via self-collection is effective, cost effective, and acceptable to women, especially among underscreened populations.³⁸ Sensitivity is comparable to clinician-obtained samples with polymerase chain reaction–based HPV tests. Furthermore, newer molecular tests that detect methylated target host genes or methylated viral genome can be used to triage HPV-positive cases. Several host methylation markers that identify the specific host genes (for example, CADM1, MAL, and miR-124-2) have been shown to be more specific, reproducible, and can be used in self-collected samples as they are based on molecular methylation analysis.³⁹ The ASCCP monitors these new developments and will incorporate promising tests and approaches once validated and FDA approved into the risk-based management guidelines. An erratum was recently published, and the risk-calculator is also available on the ASCCP website free of charge (https://app.asccp.org).⁴⁰

In conclusion, transition to primary HPV testing from Pap cytology in cervical cancer screening has many challenges but also opportunities. Learning from the experience of countries that have already adopted primary HPV testing is crucial to successful implementation of this new screening paradigm.⁴¹ The evidence supporting primary HPV screening with its improved sensitivity is clear, and the existing triage options and innovations will continue to improve triage of patients with clinically important lesions as well as accessibility. With strong advocacy and sound implementation, the WHO goal of cervical cancer elimination and 70% of women being screened with a high-performance test by age 35 and again by age 45 is achievable. ●

Cervical cancer is an important global health problem with an estimated 604,127 new cases and 341,831 deaths in 2020.¹ Nearly 85% of the disease burden affects individuals from low and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) set forth the goal for all countries to reach and maintain an incidence rate of below 4 per 100,000 women by 2030 as part of the Global Strategy to Accelerate the Elimination of Cervical Cancer.

Although traditional Pap cytology has been the cornerstone of screening programs, its poor sensitivity of approximately 50% and limitations in accessibility require new strategies to achieve the elimination of cervical cancer.² The discovery that persistent infection with oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) is an essential step in the development of cervical cancer led to the development of diagnostic HPV tests, which have higher sensitivity than cytology (96.1% vs 53.0%) but somewhat lower specificity (90.7% vs 96.3%) for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or worse lesions.² Initially, HPV testing was incorporated as a method to triage atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) cytology results.³ Later, the concept of cotesting with cytology emerged,^4,5 and since then, several clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of primary HPV screening.^6-9

In 2020, the WHO recommended HPV DNA testing as the primary screening method starting at the age of 30 years, with regular testing every 5 to 10 years, for the general population.¹⁰ Currently, primary HPV has been adopted in multiple countries, including Australia, the Netherlands, Turkey, England, and Argentina.

In the United States, there are 3 currently acceptable screening strategies: cytology, cytology plus HPV (cotesting), and primary HPV testing (TABLE). The American Cancer Society (ACS) specifically states that HPV testing alone every 5 years is preferred starting at age 25 years; cotesting every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years are also acceptable.¹¹ The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) states that cytology alone every 3 years starting at 21 years and then HPV testing alone or cotesting every 5 years or cytology every 3 years starting at age 30 are all acceptable strategies.¹²

When applying these guidelines, it is important to note that they are intended for the screening of patients with all prior normal results with no symptoms. These routine screening guidelines do not apply to special populations, such as those with a history of abnormal results or treatment, a history of immunosuppression,¹³ a history of HPV-related vulvar or vaginal dysplasia,^14-16 or a history of hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and no prior history of cervical dysplasia.^17,18 By contrast, surveillance is interval testing for those who have either an abnormal prior test result or treatment; these may be managed per risk-based estimates provided by the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP).^18,19 Finally, diagnosis is evaluation (which may include diagnostic cytology) of a patient with abnormal signs and/or symptoms (such as bleeding, pain, discharge, or cervical mass).

In this Update, we present the evidence for primary HPV testing, the management options for a positive result in the United States, and research that will improve uptake of primary HPV testing as well as accessibility.

Change in screening paradigm: Evidence for primary HPV testing

HPV DNA tests are multiplex assays that detect the DNA of targeted high-risk HPV types, using multiple probes, either by direct genomic detection or by amplification of a viral DNA fragment using polymerase chain reaction (PCR).^20,21 Alternatively, HPV mRNA-based tests detect the expression of E6 and E7 oncoproteins, a marker of viral integration.²⁰ In examining the data from well-conducted clinical trials, 2 important observations are that different HPV assays were used and that direct comparison may not be valid. In addition, not all tests used in the studies are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for primary HPV testing.

Continue to: FDA-approved HPV tests...

Currently, 2 tests are FDA approved for primary HPV screening. The Cobas HPV test (Roche Molecular Diagnostics) was the first FDA-approved test for primary HPV screening in women aged 25 years and older.⁶ This test reports pooled results from 12 high-risk (hr) HPV types (31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59/66/68) with reflex genotyping for HPV 16/18, and thus it provides an immediate triage option for HPV-positive women. Of note, it is also approved for cotesting. The second FDA-approved test is the BD Onclarity HPV assay (Becton, Dickinson and Company) for primary HPV screening.²² It detects 14 hrHPV types, types 16/18/45 specifically as well as types 31/33/35/39/51/52/56/58/59/66/68.

Other HPV tests are FDA approved for cotesting and reflex testing but not for primary HPV testing. The Hybrid Capture test, or HC2 (Qiagen Inc), was the first HPV test to be approved by the FDA in 1997 for reflex testing of women with ASCUS cytology. In 2003, it was approved for cotesting along with cytology in women aged 30 years and older.^20,21 In 2009, the Cervista HPV HR test (Hologic Inc) was approved for cotesting. The Aptima HPV assay (Hologic Inc), which is also approved for cotesting, is an RNA-based assay that allows detection of E6/E7 mRNA transcripts of 14 HPV types.²³

Comparing HPV testing with cytology

Ronco and colleagues pooled data from 4 European randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—Swedescreen, POBASCAM, NTCC, ARTISTIC—with a total of 176,464 participants randomly assigned to HPV or cytology screening.²⁴ Swedescreen and POBASCAM used GP5/GP6 PCR, while ARTISTIC and NTCC used HC2 for primary HPV screening. The screening interval was 3 years in all except 5 years in POBASCAM. The pooled detection rate of invasive disease was similar in the 2 arms, with pooled rate ratio for cancer detection being 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46–1.36) in the first 2.5 years, but was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.25–0.81), favoring the HPV arm, after 2.5 years. HPV testing was more effective in preventing cases of adenocarcinoma than squamous cell carcinoma (0.31 [95% CI, 0.14–0.69] vs 0.78 [95% CI, 0.49–1.25]). The authors concluded that HPV-based screening from age 30 years provided 60% to 70% better protection than cytology.

The result of the above meta-analysis was confirmed by the HPV FOCAL RCT that investigated the efficacy of HPV testing (HC2) in comparison with cytology.²⁵ The detection rates for CIN 3 lesions supported primary HPV screening, with an absolute difference in incidence rate of 2.67/1,000 (95% CI, 0.53–4.88) at study randomization and 3.22/1,000 (95% CI, 5.12–1.48) at study exit 4 years later.

Cotesting using HPV and cytology: Marginal benefit

Dillner and colleagues were one of the first groups to report on the risk of CIN 3 based on both HPV and cytology status.²⁶ Using pooled analysis of data from multiple countries, these investigators reported that the cumulative incidence rates (CIR) of CIN 3 after 6 years of follow-up increased consistently in HPV-positive subjects, and an HPV-positive result more accurately predicted CIN 3+ at 5 years than cytology alone. Furthermore, HPV negativity provided greater reassurance than cytology alone. At 5 years of follow-up, the rates of CIN 3+ were 0.25% (0.12%–0.41%) for women negative for HPV compared with 0.83% (0.50%–1.13%) for women with negative cytology results. There was little difference in rates for CIN 3+ between women with negative results on both tests and women who were negative for HPV.

The important question is then the marginal benefit of cotesting, which is the most costly screening option. A study of 331,818 women enrolled for cotesting at Kaiser Permanente found that the risk of CIN 3+ predicted by HPV testing alone when compared with cytology was significantly higher at both 3 years (5.0% vs 3.8%; P = .046) and 5 years (7.6% vs 4.7%; P = .001).²⁷ A negative cytology result did not decrease the risk of CIN 3 further for HPV-negative patients (3 years: 0.047% vs 0.063%, P = .6; 5 years: 0.16% vs 0.17%, P = .8). They concluded that a negative HPV test was enough reassurance for low risk of CIN 3+ and that an additional negative cytology result does not provide extra reassurance.

Furthermore, a systematic meta-analysis of 48 studies, including 8 RCTs, found that the addition of cytology to HPV testing raised the sensitivity by 2% for CIN 3 compared with HPV testing alone. This improvement in sensitivity was at the expense of considerable loss of specificity, with a ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92–0.95) for CIN 3.²⁸ Schiffman and colleagues also assessed the relative contribution of HPV testing and cytology in detection of CIN 3 and cancer.²⁹ The HPV component alone identified a significantly higher proportion of preinvasive and invasive disease than cytology. Only 3.5% of precancers and 5.9% of cancers were preceded by HPV-negative, cytology-positive results. Thus, cytology contributed only 5 cases per million women per year to the sensitivity of the combined test, at the cost of significantly more colposcopies. Hence, the evidence suggests that there is limited benefit of adding cytology to HPV testing.³⁰

Continue to: Triage of a positive HPV result...

An important limitation of HPV testing is its inability to discriminate between transient and persistent infections. Referral of all HPV-positive cases to colposcopy would overburden the system with associated unnecessary procedures. Hence, a triage strategy is essential to identify clinically important infections that truly require colposcopic evaluation. The FIGURE illustrates the management of a primary HPV test result performed for screening.

HPV genotyping

One strategy for triaging a positive HPV test result is genotyping. HPV 16 and 18 have the highest risk of persistence and progression and merit immediate referral to colposcopy. In the ATHENA trial, CIN 3 was identified in 17.8% (95% CI, 14.8–20.7%) of HPV 16 positive women at baseline, and the CIR increased to 25.2% (95% CI, 21.7–28.7%) after 3 years. The 3-year CIR of CIN 3 was only 5.4% (95% CI, 4.5–6.3%) in women with HPV genotypes other than 16/18. HPV 18–positive women had a 3-year CIR that was intermediate between women with HPV 16 and women with the 12 other genotypes.⁶ Hence, HPV 16/18–positive cases should be referred for immediate colposcopy, and negative cases should be followed up with cytology and referred for colposcopy if the cytology is ASCUS or worse.³¹

In July 2020, extended genotyping was approved by the FDA with individual detection of HPV 31, 51, 52 (in addition to 16, 18, and 45) and pooled detection of 33/58, 35/39/68, and 56/59/66. One study found that individual genotypes HPV 16 and 31 carry baseline risk values for CIN 3+ (8.1% and 7.5%, respectively) that are above the 5-year risk threshold for referral to colposcopy following the ASCCP risk-based management guideline.³²

Cytology

The higher specificity of cytology makes it an option for triaging HPV-positive cases, and current management guidelines recommend triage to both genotyping and cytology for all patients who are HPV positive, and especially if they are HPV positive but HPV 16/18 negative. Of note, cytology results remain more subjective than those of primary HPV testing, but the combination of initial HPV testing with reflex to cytology is a reasonable and cost effective next step.¹⁸ The VASCAR trial found higher colposcopy referrals in the HPV screening and cytology triage group compared with the cytology alone group (19.36 vs 14.54 per 1,000 women).³³ The ATHENA trial investigated various triage strategies for HPV-positive cases and its impact on colposcopy referrals.⁶ Using HPV genotyping and reflex cytology, if HPV 16/18 was positive, colposcopy was advised, but if any of the other 12 HPV types were positive, reflex cytology was done. If reported as ASCUS or worse, colposcopy was performed; conversely, if it was normal, women were rescreened with cotesting after 1 year. Although this strategy led to a reduction in the number of colposcopies, referrals were still higher in the primary HPV arm (3,769 colposcopies per 294 cases) compared with cytology (1,934 colposcopies per 179 cases) or cotesting (3,097 colposcopies per 240 cases) in women aged 25 years.¹⁴

p16/Ki-67 Dual-Stain

Diffused p16 immunohistochemical staining, as opposed to focal staining, is associated with active HPV infection but can be present in low-grade as well as high-grade lesions.³⁴ Ki-67 is a marker of cellular proliferation. Coexpression of p16 and Ki-67 indicates a loss of cell cycle regulation and is a hallmark of neoplastic transformation. When positive, these tests are supportive of active HPV infection and of a high-grade lesion. Incorporation of these stains to cytology alone provides additional objective reassurance to cytology, where there is much inter- and intra-observer variability. These stains can be done by laboratories using the stains alone or they can use the FDA-approved p16/Ki-67 Dual-Stain immunohistochemistry (DS), CINtec PLUS Cytology (Roche Diagnostics). However, DS is not yet formally incorporated into triage algorithms by national guidelines.

The IMPACT trial assessed the performance of DS compared with cytology in the triage of HPV-positive results, with or without HPV 16/18 genotyping.³⁵ This was a prospective observational screening study of 35,263 women aged 25 to 65 years across 32 sites in the United States. Of the 4,927 HPV-positive patients with DS results, the sensitivity of DS for CIN 3+ was 91.9% (95% CI, 86.1%–95.4%) and 86.0% (95% CI, 77.5%–91.6%) in HPV 16/18–positive and in the 12 other genotypes, respectively. Using DS alone to triage HPV-positive results showed significantly higher sensitivity and specificity than HPV 16/18 genotyping with cytology triage of 12 “other” genotypes, and substantially higher sensitivity but lower specificity than using cytology alone. Of note, triage with DS alone would have referred significantly fewer women to colposcopy than HPV 16/18 genotyping with cytology triage for the 12 other genotypes (48.6% vs 56.0%; P< .0001).

Similarly, a retrospective analysis of the ATHENA trial cohort of HPV-positive results of 7,727 patients aged 25 years or older also demonstrated increased sensitivity of DS compared with cytology (74.9% vs 51.9%; P<.0001) and similar specificities (74.1% vs 75%; P = .3198).³⁶ The European PALMS study, which included 27,349 women aged 18 years or older across 5 countries who underwent routine screening with HPV testing, cytology, and DS, confirmed these findings.³⁷ The sensitivity of DS was higher than that of cytology (86.7% vs 68.5%; P<.001) for CIN 3+ with comparable specificities (95.2% vs 95.4%; P = .15).

Challenges and opportunities to improve access to primary HPV screening

The historical success of the Pap test in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer relied on individuals having access to the test. This remains true as screening transitions to primary HPV testing. Limitations of HPV-based screening include provider and patient knowledge; access to tests; cost; need for new laboratory infrastructure; need to leverage the electronic health record to record results, calculate a patient’s risk and determine next steps; and the need to re-educate patients and providers about this new model of care. The American Cancer Society and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are currently leading initiatives to help adopt primary HPV screening in the United States and to facilitate new care approaches.

Self-collection and independence from subjective cytology would further improve access. Multiple effectiveness studies and patient acceptability studies have shown that primary HPV screening via self-collection is effective, cost effective, and acceptable to women, especially among underscreened populations.³⁸ Sensitivity is comparable to clinician-obtained samples with polymerase chain reaction–based HPV tests. Furthermore, newer molecular tests that detect methylated target host genes or methylated viral genome can be used to triage HPV-positive cases. Several host methylation markers that identify the specific host genes (for example, CADM1, MAL, and miR-124-2) have been shown to be more specific, reproducible, and can be used in self-collected samples as they are based on molecular methylation analysis.³⁹ The ASCCP monitors these new developments and will incorporate promising tests and approaches once validated and FDA approved into the risk-based management guidelines. An erratum was recently published, and the risk-calculator is also available on the ASCCP website free of charge (https://app.asccp.org).⁴⁰

In conclusion, transition to primary HPV testing from Pap cytology in cervical cancer screening has many challenges but also opportunities. Learning from the experience of countries that have already adopted primary HPV testing is crucial to successful implementation of this new screening paradigm.⁴¹ The evidence supporting primary HPV screening with its improved sensitivity is clear, and the existing triage options and innovations will continue to improve triage of patients with clinically important lesions as well as accessibility. With strong advocacy and sound implementation, the WHO goal of cervical cancer elimination and 70% of women being screened with a high-performance test by age 35 and again by age 45 is achievable. ●

ILLUSTRATION BY KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

David G. Mutch, MD: The cervical cancer screening guidelines, using Pap testing, have changed significantly since the times of yearly Paps and exams. Coupled with vaccination and new management guidelines (recommending HPV testing, etc), we actually hope that we are on the way to eradicating cervical cancer from our environment.

Screening: Current recommendations

Dr. Mutch: Warner, the American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP)¹ endorses the cervical cancer screening guidelines for several professional organizations, including the American Cancer Society (ACS),² the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF),³ and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).⁴ What are the current screening recommendations, as these organizations have disparate views?

Warner Huh, MD: There was a time, around 2012-2013, when for the first time ever, we had significant harmonization of the guidelines between ACOG and the USPSTF and ACS. But in the last 10 years there has been an explosion of data in terms of how to best screen patients.

The move to primary HPV testing. The USPSTF³ initially had recommended looking into primary HPV screening, which is just using HPV testing by itself as the screening modality. But there was a lot of pushback at that time. I think a lot of people thought that we were not prepared to make that leap. Therefore, they endorsed screening with cytology by itself as well as HPV testing by itself, as well as co-testing; but in their recommendations, they made it very clear that they were leaning toward primary HPV screening.

A new patient age to begin screening. In 2020, the ACS put out their new guidelines,² which are a significant departure from what we are used to—they are recommending that we start screening at 25 years of age. Like you said, Dr. Mutch, it doesn’t seem that long ago when we were screening people at age 18, or within 3 years of sexual intercourse. But the reason for it is that the rate of cervical cancer is extremely low under age 25, and other countries like the United Kingdom already do this.

The other major departure in the ACS guidelines is that they really are asking clinicians and screeners to focus on primary HPV screening. Overall, they have sort of doubled down on why they think primary HPV screening is so important.

ACOG sits sort of in the middle of the other recommendations. ACOG understands the value of primary HPV screening, but I don’t think that they are quite ready to recommend screening at age 25. If you look at their updated guidelines from April 2021,⁴ they state that we should continue a screening-starting age of 21 years. So there are some disparate views, but I am confident, Dr. Mutch, that in the next 2 to 3 years, there will be greater harmonization of these guidelines and less confusion for our providers. The greatest barrier is understanding the science and the comfort level of clinicians to go with just an HPV test, since for the last 40 years the Pap test has anchored gynecologic care in this country. And it took at least 10 years to get to what I consider to be widespread adoption to co-testing. The other thing that readers should recognize is that the Task Force is actually revisiting their cervical cancer screening guidance now, so expect another major revision.

Reimbursement and access are barriers. Reimbursement is a further real issue. We are now using one less test, but insurance companies may not reimburse when just the HPV test is used. The other issue is access to labs that can do the HPV testing.

Dr. Mutch: We used to see patients yearly and picked up a lot of adjunctive or additional illnesses. Now they are not being seen yearly it could impact negatively their overall health care. We need to understand that cervical cancer screening is simply a test, which should not eliminate other health care.

Dr. Huh: Yes, I think the extended interval between recommended HPV screenings scares people. I have been involved in these screening guidelines (and I can only speak for myself, not for my colleagues), but even I do think we made a leap to a longer interval way too quickly in this country. Screening changes are slow, and sometimes a glacial process. I think it can worry providers when we make rapid changes.

But this is a test that should not anchor the yearly visit. There are plenty of other reasons—and ACOG actually states this⁴—why patients should come for a wellness exam on a yearly basis. So I think our ObGyns in the United States need to recognize that, but I understand there are underlying concerns that if you extend intervals too long, (a) will patients come back, and (b), as a consequence, is the interval going to miss something in between? Those are real legitimate concerns.

Continue to: Management guidelines...

Dr. Mutch: The ASCCP issued new management guidelines in 2019.⁵ Can you address what you feel are the most important updates?

Dr. Huh: Going back to 2002, we have revised these guidelines every 5 years. For this one, the revision came out a little bit later for various reasons, but the reason we revised it is because we collect new data that we think markedly changes our understanding of the disease process and natural history and the interventions for women that have preinvasive disease of the cervix.

Briefly, I think the biggest changes based on what we were hearing from our providers and users of our apps and algorithms was that our algorithms were becoming way too complicated, and they were. If you look over the last 10 years, the number of branch points on our algorithms basically quadrupled. If we incorporated the new data this time, the algorithms would be unworkable, and you could not use them on your phone because they would be too complicated.

So, we created a system where, in essence, providers have 5 choices for patients:

• treatment
• colposcopy
• follow-up in 1 year
• follow-up in 3 years
• follow-up in 5 years.

Those recommendations are based on what we call “clinically actionable thresholds”—basically, the percent chance of developing immediate CIN3 or worse. That threshold will probably change over time, but what we did is create a system that (a) makes it easier for the provider, (although they have to trust the system—and they can look under the hood and understand how we did this) and (b) allows us to create a foundation where we can add future technologies that use the same rubric or paradigm so that they still wind up getting the same result without having to go to another algorithm.

This new system is probably the most marked change in the history of the ASCCP management guidelines, but we did it to make it ultimately easier for providers going forward for the next 10 to 20 years. There are real opportunities, Dr. Mutch, in terms of how do we integrate this into the electronic medical record (EMR), and how do we pull data so clinicians don’t have to manually enter it.

The other difference is now there is a web-based application. Back in 2012, there were a lot of people that were not using EMRs. Now the majority of the country is, and so they actually are on a browser more than they are on their phone. We actually have an equally robust web platform that allows them to get the information that they need.

Dr. Mutch: I think that is really important—the utility of utilizing a mobile app, if you will, for triaging your patient with a specific test result so that patients are followed up at the proper interval, and that ultimately becomes cost-effective.

Dr. Huh: Yes, the app now is very different than the app that I think people are used to using for the last almost 10 years. You don’t put inputs, pull up the algorithm, and look at the outcome. This is different. You enter the patient’s age. You add their cytology, their HPV results, the clinical scenario that you are in, and then it puts out a recommendation of what to do next. Over time, we want to get away from an algorithm and for our providers to understand what the risk is and how that risk calculation then translates into a clinical recommendation.

Dr. Mutch: I think to utilize an app is almost necessary given the complexity of the triaging process so that it does become, in fact, the most cost-effective way to screen patients.

Dr. Huh: I would agree with that. There is a learning curve for whenever you see new technology. There was a learning curve for even ASCCP leadership as they tried to educate providers. I think people will ultimately see that this is a much better way of managing patients with cervical abnormalities, and I am hoping actually that we will use a similar platform for many other diseases that we manage in women’s health.

Continue to: Chipping away of the yearly exam...

Dr. Mutch: With this moving away from the yearly exam and Pap test, women may not get yearly examinations. Do you feel that this could affect a stage migration to a higher stage at diagnosis, for instance, of a cervical cancer? Or that it might adversely impact other health issues?

Dr. Huh: I think that’s a good question. I am worried about the interval—I think 5 years is a bit long. I am more worried that patients will miss out on visits because they may think that they need to only come back for their Pap, even though they should be re-educated on that.

COVID-19 has made this a little hard for us to analyze because, clearly, we have had access to care issues. But I am a little concerned that we could see an uptick in invasive cancer rates in this country, including an uptick in the stage and more locally advanced cervical cancer because of the changes in the screening paradigms. But we don’t know that to be the case.

As with all screenings, the bottom line is you have to worry about what the false-negative and false-positive rates of screening are, and that affects everything. I want the readers to know that primary HPV should be used for screenings. It is not perfect, but it is much better than cytology alone. We need to think about how to better adapt screening in the age that we live in.

HPV self-sampling

Dr. Mutch: Could self-sampling for HPV testing, which obviously would be easier for the patient, and certainly useful in terms of screening, address some health care disparities with regard to cervical cancer?

Dr. Huh: The short answer is, yes. Self-sampling is not US Food and Drug Administration-approved in this country. It’s not being widely used without that approval. But there are multiple countries, including the United States, that have done lots of studies on this topic. There are many public health experts and champions for HPV self-sampling. I think we have learned, based on some studies, that the sensitivity is reasonable.⁶

I live in a part of the country that is woefully underserved; where you are there are pockets in Missouri that are woefully underserved as well. So the issue is, can we reduce these disparities and access to care with something like self-sampling? My personal feeling is I think that we can make a dent in that, and it is never going to fully replace screening, but it at least will allow us to reallocate our resources and attention to those women that are at highest risk for developing cervical cancer or precancer based on the self-sampling result.

I don’t think it will ever replace screening per se, but if we have an abnormal self-sampling test, we might say to that patient, “You really do need to come in to get re-tested or to get re-evaluated.” So it could be a better resource and use of our health care dollars and investments in terms of trying to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer. Of course the verdict is out, but I think there are a lot of people who would love to see this scenario.

If we screen and treat perfectly in this country, we would not even need the HPV vaccine when it comes to cervical cancer. That is how effective screening is. But, up to 50% to 60% of women in this country now still are underscreened or unscreened. We were talking about that number almost 25-30 years ago, Dr. Mutch. So access to screening is a big problem, but the other problem is how do you get patients in to be seen if they have an abnormal screening test? It’s not just about screening. It’s about screening, evaluation, and treatment; all 3 components are really important.

Continue to: Where do we stand with HPV vaccination?...

Dr. Mutch: Those are great points.

You brought up vaccination. We have a long way to go with regard to that, certainly in the United States, because of the various factions opposed to vaccination and so on. But do you think that vaccination has allowed us to decrease the incidence of cervical cancer?

Dr. Huh: Yes. There is clear evidence from the Nordic countries.⁷ There is emerging evidence from Australia.⁸ There is emerging evidence from other industrialized nations that clearly demonstrate vaccination’s positive effect in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer. None of this should be a surprise. Every population-based study that has been published with the HPV vaccine in populations that have a low frequency of vaccination have demonstrated substantial reductions in things like genital warts, abnormal Pap tests, precancer, and now evidence that there is a downward trend in terms of the incidence of cervical cancer.⁹

I don’t think that there is any debate anymore that vaccination is the way to go. Our challenge is about implementation and getting the vaccine to people. We still have a long way to go with that. There are parts of the world that are so affected by invasive cervical cancers; we need to get the vaccine to those parts of the world.

Dr. Mutch: What are the barriers to vaccination? How can we overcome those barriers?

Dr. Huh: There is a lot of criticism that we are not vaccinating more in the United States. However, the rates of vaccination are going up every single year. The pandemic may have blunted that rise a bit, but if you look at the vaccination curves, they are going up, not down. We need to continue to educate patients, parents, and pediatricians on the importance of vaccination.

Boys still get vaccinated less frequently than girls, so we have some work to do there. I think globally it is the issue of getting the vaccine to people, making sure that vaccine is available. The thing that I think will be the game-changer going forward is whether or not we will have evidence to indicate that 1 dose is as effective as 2 doses or 3 doses. If we can vaccinate boys and girls with just 1 dose, then in the next generation or two, we seriously might eradicate not just cervical cancer but a lot of HPV-related malignancies worldwide.

Educating patients, clinicians is key

Dr. Mutch: So it seems education, education, education, with regard to screening guidelines, with regard to the need for continued examinations, and that HPV testing is only a test, it does not supplant overall care. Finally, education regarding eradication of cervical cancer through vaccination.

Dr. Huh: That summarizes it well. We are still going to screen for cervical cancer. We are still going to vaccinate, and providers are still going to manage abnormal Pap tests. It is confusing because we are changing it up it seems every year or 2, so this conversation you and I are having is particularly important for clinicians to understand the basis of that. There has been an explosion of data that has come out in this area in the last decade.

Dr. Mutch: Thank you, Dr. Huh. I really appreciate your thoughts on this. As you all know, Dr. Huh has been President of the ASCCP and is instrumental in writing and disseminating these guidelines, so we are very grateful that he has consented to agree to come and talk with us today.

Dr. Huh: My pleasure. Thank you for inviting me. This was fun, and I have really enjoyed talking to you and participating. ●

ILLUSTRATION BY KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

David G. Mutch, MD: The cervical cancer screening guidelines, using Pap testing, have changed significantly since the times of yearly Paps and exams. Coupled with vaccination and new management guidelines (recommending HPV testing, etc), we actually hope that we are on the way to eradicating cervical cancer from our environment.

Screening: Current recommendations

Dr. Mutch: Warner, the American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP)¹ endorses the cervical cancer screening guidelines for several professional organizations, including the American Cancer Society (ACS),² the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF),³ and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).⁴ What are the current screening recommendations, as these organizations have disparate views?

Warner Huh, MD: There was a time, around 2012-2013, when for the first time ever, we had significant harmonization of the guidelines between ACOG and the USPSTF and ACS. But in the last 10 years there has been an explosion of data in terms of how to best screen patients.

The move to primary HPV testing. The USPSTF³ initially had recommended looking into primary HPV screening, which is just using HPV testing by itself as the screening modality. But there was a lot of pushback at that time. I think a lot of people thought that we were not prepared to make that leap. Therefore, they endorsed screening with cytology by itself as well as HPV testing by itself, as well as co-testing; but in their recommendations, they made it very clear that they were leaning toward primary HPV screening.

A new patient age to begin screening. In 2020, the ACS put out their new guidelines,² which are a significant departure from what we are used to—they are recommending that we start screening at 25 years of age. Like you said, Dr. Mutch, it doesn’t seem that long ago when we were screening people at age 18, or within 3 years of sexual intercourse. But the reason for it is that the rate of cervical cancer is extremely low under age 25, and other countries like the United Kingdom already do this.

The other major departure in the ACS guidelines is that they really are asking clinicians and screeners to focus on primary HPV screening. Overall, they have sort of doubled down on why they think primary HPV screening is so important.

ACOG sits sort of in the middle of the other recommendations. ACOG understands the value of primary HPV screening, but I don’t think that they are quite ready to recommend screening at age 25. If you look at their updated guidelines from April 2021,⁴ they state that we should continue a screening-starting age of 21 years. So there are some disparate views, but I am confident, Dr. Mutch, that in the next 2 to 3 years, there will be greater harmonization of these guidelines and less confusion for our providers. The greatest barrier is understanding the science and the comfort level of clinicians to go with just an HPV test, since for the last 40 years the Pap test has anchored gynecologic care in this country. And it took at least 10 years to get to what I consider to be widespread adoption to co-testing. The other thing that readers should recognize is that the Task Force is actually revisiting their cervical cancer screening guidance now, so expect another major revision.

Reimbursement and access are barriers. Reimbursement is a further real issue. We are now using one less test, but insurance companies may not reimburse when just the HPV test is used. The other issue is access to labs that can do the HPV testing.

Dr. Mutch: We used to see patients yearly and picked up a lot of adjunctive or additional illnesses. Now they are not being seen yearly it could impact negatively their overall health care. We need to understand that cervical cancer screening is simply a test, which should not eliminate other health care.

Dr. Huh: Yes, I think the extended interval between recommended HPV screenings scares people. I have been involved in these screening guidelines (and I can only speak for myself, not for my colleagues), but even I do think we made a leap to a longer interval way too quickly in this country. Screening changes are slow, and sometimes a glacial process. I think it can worry providers when we make rapid changes.

But this is a test that should not anchor the yearly visit. There are plenty of other reasons—and ACOG actually states this⁴—why patients should come for a wellness exam on a yearly basis. So I think our ObGyns in the United States need to recognize that, but I understand there are underlying concerns that if you extend intervals too long, (a) will patients come back, and (b), as a consequence, is the interval going to miss something in between? Those are real legitimate concerns.

Continue to: Management guidelines...

Dr. Mutch: The ASCCP issued new management guidelines in 2019.⁵ Can you address what you feel are the most important updates?

Dr. Huh: Going back to 2002, we have revised these guidelines every 5 years. For this one, the revision came out a little bit later for various reasons, but the reason we revised it is because we collect new data that we think markedly changes our understanding of the disease process and natural history and the interventions for women that have preinvasive disease of the cervix.

Briefly, I think the biggest changes based on what we were hearing from our providers and users of our apps and algorithms was that our algorithms were becoming way too complicated, and they were. If you look over the last 10 years, the number of branch points on our algorithms basically quadrupled. If we incorporated the new data this time, the algorithms would be unworkable, and you could not use them on your phone because they would be too complicated.

So, we created a system where, in essence, providers have 5 choices for patients:

• treatment
• colposcopy
• follow-up in 1 year
• follow-up in 3 years
• follow-up in 5 years.

Those recommendations are based on what we call “clinically actionable thresholds”—basically, the percent chance of developing immediate CIN3 or worse. That threshold will probably change over time, but what we did is create a system that (a) makes it easier for the provider, (although they have to trust the system—and they can look under the hood and understand how we did this) and (b) allows us to create a foundation where we can add future technologies that use the same rubric or paradigm so that they still wind up getting the same result without having to go to another algorithm.

This new system is probably the most marked change in the history of the ASCCP management guidelines, but we did it to make it ultimately easier for providers going forward for the next 10 to 20 years. There are real opportunities, Dr. Mutch, in terms of how do we integrate this into the electronic medical record (EMR), and how do we pull data so clinicians don’t have to manually enter it.

The other difference is now there is a web-based application. Back in 2012, there were a lot of people that were not using EMRs. Now the majority of the country is, and so they actually are on a browser more than they are on their phone. We actually have an equally robust web platform that allows them to get the information that they need.

Dr. Mutch: I think that is really important—the utility of utilizing a mobile app, if you will, for triaging your patient with a specific test result so that patients are followed up at the proper interval, and that ultimately becomes cost-effective.

Dr. Huh: Yes, the app now is very different than the app that I think people are used to using for the last almost 10 years. You don’t put inputs, pull up the algorithm, and look at the outcome. This is different. You enter the patient’s age. You add their cytology, their HPV results, the clinical scenario that you are in, and then it puts out a recommendation of what to do next. Over time, we want to get away from an algorithm and for our providers to understand what the risk is and how that risk calculation then translates into a clinical recommendation.

Dr. Mutch: I think to utilize an app is almost necessary given the complexity of the triaging process so that it does become, in fact, the most cost-effective way to screen patients.

Dr. Huh: I would agree with that. There is a learning curve for whenever you see new technology. There was a learning curve for even ASCCP leadership as they tried to educate providers. I think people will ultimately see that this is a much better way of managing patients with cervical abnormalities, and I am hoping actually that we will use a similar platform for many other diseases that we manage in women’s health.

Continue to: Chipping away of the yearly exam...

Dr. Mutch: With this moving away from the yearly exam and Pap test, women may not get yearly examinations. Do you feel that this could affect a stage migration to a higher stage at diagnosis, for instance, of a cervical cancer? Or that it might adversely impact other health issues?

Dr. Huh: I think that’s a good question. I am worried about the interval—I think 5 years is a bit long. I am more worried that patients will miss out on visits because they may think that they need to only come back for their Pap, even though they should be re-educated on that.

COVID-19 has made this a little hard for us to analyze because, clearly, we have had access to care issues. But I am a little concerned that we could see an uptick in invasive cancer rates in this country, including an uptick in the stage and more locally advanced cervical cancer because of the changes in the screening paradigms. But we don’t know that to be the case.

As with all screenings, the bottom line is you have to worry about what the false-negative and false-positive rates of screening are, and that affects everything. I want the readers to know that primary HPV should be used for screenings. It is not perfect, but it is much better than cytology alone. We need to think about how to better adapt screening in the age that we live in.

HPV self-sampling

Dr. Mutch: Could self-sampling for HPV testing, which obviously would be easier for the patient, and certainly useful in terms of screening, address some health care disparities with regard to cervical cancer?

Dr. Huh: The short answer is, yes. Self-sampling is not US Food and Drug Administration-approved in this country. It’s not being widely used without that approval. But there are multiple countries, including the United States, that have done lots of studies on this topic. There are many public health experts and champions for HPV self-sampling. I think we have learned, based on some studies, that the sensitivity is reasonable.⁶

I live in a part of the country that is woefully underserved; where you are there are pockets in Missouri that are woefully underserved as well. So the issue is, can we reduce these disparities and access to care with something like self-sampling? My personal feeling is I think that we can make a dent in that, and it is never going to fully replace screening, but it at least will allow us to reallocate our resources and attention to those women that are at highest risk for developing cervical cancer or precancer based on the self-sampling result.

I don’t think it will ever replace screening per se, but if we have an abnormal self-sampling test, we might say to that patient, “You really do need to come in to get re-tested or to get re-evaluated.” So it could be a better resource and use of our health care dollars and investments in terms of trying to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer. Of course the verdict is out, but I think there are a lot of people who would love to see this scenario.

If we screen and treat perfectly in this country, we would not even need the HPV vaccine when it comes to cervical cancer. That is how effective screening is. But, up to 50% to 60% of women in this country now still are underscreened or unscreened. We were talking about that number almost 25-30 years ago, Dr. Mutch. So access to screening is a big problem, but the other problem is how do you get patients in to be seen if they have an abnormal screening test? It’s not just about screening. It’s about screening, evaluation, and treatment; all 3 components are really important.

Continue to: Where do we stand with HPV vaccination?...

Dr. Mutch: Those are great points.

You brought up vaccination. We have a long way to go with regard to that, certainly in the United States, because of the various factions opposed to vaccination and so on. But do you think that vaccination has allowed us to decrease the incidence of cervical cancer?

Dr. Huh: Yes. There is clear evidence from the Nordic countries.⁷ There is emerging evidence from Australia.⁸ There is emerging evidence from other industrialized nations that clearly demonstrate vaccination’s positive effect in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer. None of this should be a surprise. Every population-based study that has been published with the HPV vaccine in populations that have a low frequency of vaccination have demonstrated substantial reductions in things like genital warts, abnormal Pap tests, precancer, and now evidence that there is a downward trend in terms of the incidence of cervical cancer.⁹

I don’t think that there is any debate anymore that vaccination is the way to go. Our challenge is about implementation and getting the vaccine to people. We still have a long way to go with that. There are parts of the world that are so affected by invasive cervical cancers; we need to get the vaccine to those parts of the world.

Dr. Mutch: What are the barriers to vaccination? How can we overcome those barriers?

Dr. Huh: There is a lot of criticism that we are not vaccinating more in the United States. However, the rates of vaccination are going up every single year. The pandemic may have blunted that rise a bit, but if you look at the vaccination curves, they are going up, not down. We need to continue to educate patients, parents, and pediatricians on the importance of vaccination.

Boys still get vaccinated less frequently than girls, so we have some work to do there. I think globally it is the issue of getting the vaccine to people, making sure that vaccine is available. The thing that I think will be the game-changer going forward is whether or not we will have evidence to indicate that 1 dose is as effective as 2 doses or 3 doses. If we can vaccinate boys and girls with just 1 dose, then in the next generation or two, we seriously might eradicate not just cervical cancer but a lot of HPV-related malignancies worldwide.

Educating patients, clinicians is key

Dr. Mutch: So it seems education, education, education, with regard to screening guidelines, with regard to the need for continued examinations, and that HPV testing is only a test, it does not supplant overall care. Finally, education regarding eradication of cervical cancer through vaccination.

Dr. Huh: That summarizes it well. We are still going to screen for cervical cancer. We are still going to vaccinate, and providers are still going to manage abnormal Pap tests. It is confusing because we are changing it up it seems every year or 2, so this conversation you and I are having is particularly important for clinicians to understand the basis of that. There has been an explosion of data that has come out in this area in the last decade.

Dr. Mutch: Thank you, Dr. Huh. I really appreciate your thoughts on this. As you all know, Dr. Huh has been President of the ASCCP and is instrumental in writing and disseminating these guidelines, so we are very grateful that he has consented to agree to come and talk with us today.

Dr. Huh: My pleasure. Thank you for inviting me. This was fun, and I have really enjoyed talking to you and participating. ●

ILLUSTRATION BY KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

David G. Mutch, MD: The cervical cancer screening guidelines, using Pap testing, have changed significantly since the times of yearly Paps and exams. Coupled with vaccination and new management guidelines (recommending HPV testing, etc), we actually hope that we are on the way to eradicating cervical cancer from our environment.

Screening: Current recommendations

Dr. Mutch: Warner, the American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP)¹ endorses the cervical cancer screening guidelines for several professional organizations, including the American Cancer Society (ACS),² the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF),³ and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).⁴ What are the current screening recommendations, as these organizations have disparate views?

Warner Huh, MD: There was a time, around 2012-2013, when for the first time ever, we had significant harmonization of the guidelines between ACOG and the USPSTF and ACS. But in the last 10 years there has been an explosion of data in terms of how to best screen patients.

The move to primary HPV testing. The USPSTF³ initially had recommended looking into primary HPV screening, which is just using HPV testing by itself as the screening modality. But there was a lot of pushback at that time. I think a lot of people thought that we were not prepared to make that leap. Therefore, they endorsed screening with cytology by itself as well as HPV testing by itself, as well as co-testing; but in their recommendations, they made it very clear that they were leaning toward primary HPV screening.

A new patient age to begin screening. In 2020, the ACS put out their new guidelines,² which are a significant departure from what we are used to—they are recommending that we start screening at 25 years of age. Like you said, Dr. Mutch, it doesn’t seem that long ago when we were screening people at age 18, or within 3 years of sexual intercourse. But the reason for it is that the rate of cervical cancer is extremely low under age 25, and other countries like the United Kingdom already do this.

The other major departure in the ACS guidelines is that they really are asking clinicians and screeners to focus on primary HPV screening. Overall, they have sort of doubled down on why they think primary HPV screening is so important.

ACOG sits sort of in the middle of the other recommendations. ACOG understands the value of primary HPV screening, but I don’t think that they are quite ready to recommend screening at age 25. If you look at their updated guidelines from April 2021,⁴ they state that we should continue a screening-starting age of 21 years. So there are some disparate views, but I am confident, Dr. Mutch, that in the next 2 to 3 years, there will be greater harmonization of these guidelines and less confusion for our providers. The greatest barrier is understanding the science and the comfort level of clinicians to go with just an HPV test, since for the last 40 years the Pap test has anchored gynecologic care in this country. And it took at least 10 years to get to what I consider to be widespread adoption to co-testing. The other thing that readers should recognize is that the Task Force is actually revisiting their cervical cancer screening guidance now, so expect another major revision.

Reimbursement and access are barriers. Reimbursement is a further real issue. We are now using one less test, but insurance companies may not reimburse when just the HPV test is used. The other issue is access to labs that can do the HPV testing.

Dr. Mutch: We used to see patients yearly and picked up a lot of adjunctive or additional illnesses. Now they are not being seen yearly it could impact negatively their overall health care. We need to understand that cervical cancer screening is simply a test, which should not eliminate other health care.

Dr. Huh: Yes, I think the extended interval between recommended HPV screenings scares people. I have been involved in these screening guidelines (and I can only speak for myself, not for my colleagues), but even I do think we made a leap to a longer interval way too quickly in this country. Screening changes are slow, and sometimes a glacial process. I think it can worry providers when we make rapid changes.

But this is a test that should not anchor the yearly visit. There are plenty of other reasons—and ACOG actually states this⁴—why patients should come for a wellness exam on a yearly basis. So I think our ObGyns in the United States need to recognize that, but I understand there are underlying concerns that if you extend intervals too long, (a) will patients come back, and (b), as a consequence, is the interval going to miss something in between? Those are real legitimate concerns.

Continue to: Management guidelines...

Dr. Mutch: The ASCCP issued new management guidelines in 2019.⁵ Can you address what you feel are the most important updates?

Dr. Huh: Going back to 2002, we have revised these guidelines every 5 years. For this one, the revision came out a little bit later for various reasons, but the reason we revised it is because we collect new data that we think markedly changes our understanding of the disease process and natural history and the interventions for women that have preinvasive disease of the cervix.

Briefly, I think the biggest changes based on what we were hearing from our providers and users of our apps and algorithms was that our algorithms were becoming way too complicated, and they were. If you look over the last 10 years, the number of branch points on our algorithms basically quadrupled. If we incorporated the new data this time, the algorithms would be unworkable, and you could not use them on your phone because they would be too complicated.

So, we created a system where, in essence, providers have 5 choices for patients:

• treatment
• colposcopy
• follow-up in 1 year
• follow-up in 3 years
• follow-up in 5 years.

Those recommendations are based on what we call “clinically actionable thresholds”—basically, the percent chance of developing immediate CIN3 or worse. That threshold will probably change over time, but what we did is create a system that (a) makes it easier for the provider, (although they have to trust the system—and they can look under the hood and understand how we did this) and (b) allows us to create a foundation where we can add future technologies that use the same rubric or paradigm so that they still wind up getting the same result without having to go to another algorithm.

This new system is probably the most marked change in the history of the ASCCP management guidelines, but we did it to make it ultimately easier for providers going forward for the next 10 to 20 years. There are real opportunities, Dr. Mutch, in terms of how do we integrate this into the electronic medical record (EMR), and how do we pull data so clinicians don’t have to manually enter it.

The other difference is now there is a web-based application. Back in 2012, there were a lot of people that were not using EMRs. Now the majority of the country is, and so they actually are on a browser more than they are on their phone. We actually have an equally robust web platform that allows them to get the information that they need.

Dr. Mutch: I think that is really important—the utility of utilizing a mobile app, if you will, for triaging your patient with a specific test result so that patients are followed up at the proper interval, and that ultimately becomes cost-effective.

Dr. Huh: Yes, the app now is very different than the app that I think people are used to using for the last almost 10 years. You don’t put inputs, pull up the algorithm, and look at the outcome. This is different. You enter the patient’s age. You add their cytology, their HPV results, the clinical scenario that you are in, and then it puts out a recommendation of what to do next. Over time, we want to get away from an algorithm and for our providers to understand what the risk is and how that risk calculation then translates into a clinical recommendation.

Dr. Mutch: I think to utilize an app is almost necessary given the complexity of the triaging process so that it does become, in fact, the most cost-effective way to screen patients.

Dr. Huh: I would agree with that. There is a learning curve for whenever you see new technology. There was a learning curve for even ASCCP leadership as they tried to educate providers. I think people will ultimately see that this is a much better way of managing patients with cervical abnormalities, and I am hoping actually that we will use a similar platform for many other diseases that we manage in women’s health.

Continue to: Chipping away of the yearly exam...

Dr. Mutch: With this moving away from the yearly exam and Pap test, women may not get yearly examinations. Do you feel that this could affect a stage migration to a higher stage at diagnosis, for instance, of a cervical cancer? Or that it might adversely impact other health issues?

Dr. Huh: I think that’s a good question. I am worried about the interval—I think 5 years is a bit long. I am more worried that patients will miss out on visits because they may think that they need to only come back for their Pap, even though they should be re-educated on that.

COVID-19 has made this a little hard for us to analyze because, clearly, we have had access to care issues. But I am a little concerned that we could see an uptick in invasive cancer rates in this country, including an uptick in the stage and more locally advanced cervical cancer because of the changes in the screening paradigms. But we don’t know that to be the case.

As with all screenings, the bottom line is you have to worry about what the false-negative and false-positive rates of screening are, and that affects everything. I want the readers to know that primary HPV should be used for screenings. It is not perfect, but it is much better than cytology alone. We need to think about how to better adapt screening in the age that we live in.

HPV self-sampling

Dr. Mutch: Could self-sampling for HPV testing, which obviously would be easier for the patient, and certainly useful in terms of screening, address some health care disparities with regard to cervical cancer?

Dr. Huh: The short answer is, yes. Self-sampling is not US Food and Drug Administration-approved in this country. It’s not being widely used without that approval. But there are multiple countries, including the United States, that have done lots of studies on this topic. There are many public health experts and champions for HPV self-sampling. I think we have learned, based on some studies, that the sensitivity is reasonable.⁶

I live in a part of the country that is woefully underserved; where you are there are pockets in Missouri that are woefully underserved as well. So the issue is, can we reduce these disparities and access to care with something like self-sampling? My personal feeling is I think that we can make a dent in that, and it is never going to fully replace screening, but it at least will allow us to reallocate our resources and attention to those women that are at highest risk for developing cervical cancer or precancer based on the self-sampling result.

I don’t think it will ever replace screening per se, but if we have an abnormal self-sampling test, we might say to that patient, “You really do need to come in to get re-tested or to get re-evaluated.” So it could be a better resource and use of our health care dollars and investments in terms of trying to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer. Of course the verdict is out, but I think there are a lot of people who would love to see this scenario.

If we screen and treat perfectly in this country, we would not even need the HPV vaccine when it comes to cervical cancer. That is how effective screening is. But, up to 50% to 60% of women in this country now still are underscreened or unscreened. We were talking about that number almost 25-30 years ago, Dr. Mutch. So access to screening is a big problem, but the other problem is how do you get patients in to be seen if they have an abnormal screening test? It’s not just about screening. It’s about screening, evaluation, and treatment; all 3 components are really important.

Continue to: Where do we stand with HPV vaccination?...

Dr. Mutch: Those are great points.

You brought up vaccination. We have a long way to go with regard to that, certainly in the United States, because of the various factions opposed to vaccination and so on. But do you think that vaccination has allowed us to decrease the incidence of cervical cancer?

Dr. Huh: Yes. There is clear evidence from the Nordic countries.⁷ There is emerging evidence from Australia.⁸ There is emerging evidence from other industrialized nations that clearly demonstrate vaccination’s positive effect in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer. None of this should be a surprise. Every population-based study that has been published with the HPV vaccine in populations that have a low frequency of vaccination have demonstrated substantial reductions in things like genital warts, abnormal Pap tests, precancer, and now evidence that there is a downward trend in terms of the incidence of cervical cancer.⁹

I don’t think that there is any debate anymore that vaccination is the way to go. Our challenge is about implementation and getting the vaccine to people. We still have a long way to go with that. There are parts of the world that are so affected by invasive cervical cancers; we need to get the vaccine to those parts of the world.

Dr. Mutch: What are the barriers to vaccination? How can we overcome those barriers?

Dr. Huh: There is a lot of criticism that we are not vaccinating more in the United States. However, the rates of vaccination are going up every single year. The pandemic may have blunted that rise a bit, but if you look at the vaccination curves, they are going up, not down. We need to continue to educate patients, parents, and pediatricians on the importance of vaccination.

Boys still get vaccinated less frequently than girls, so we have some work to do there. I think globally it is the issue of getting the vaccine to people, making sure that vaccine is available. The thing that I think will be the game-changer going forward is whether or not we will have evidence to indicate that 1 dose is as effective as 2 doses or 3 doses. If we can vaccinate boys and girls with just 1 dose, then in the next generation or two, we seriously might eradicate not just cervical cancer but a lot of HPV-related malignancies worldwide.

Educating patients, clinicians is key

Dr. Mutch: So it seems education, education, education, with regard to screening guidelines, with regard to the need for continued examinations, and that HPV testing is only a test, it does not supplant overall care. Finally, education regarding eradication of cervical cancer through vaccination.

Dr. Huh: That summarizes it well. We are still going to screen for cervical cancer. We are still going to vaccinate, and providers are still going to manage abnormal Pap tests. It is confusing because we are changing it up it seems every year or 2, so this conversation you and I are having is particularly important for clinicians to understand the basis of that. There has been an explosion of data that has come out in this area in the last decade.

Dr. Mutch: Thank you, Dr. Huh. I really appreciate your thoughts on this. As you all know, Dr. Huh has been President of the ASCCP and is instrumental in writing and disseminating these guidelines, so we are very grateful that he has consented to agree to come and talk with us today.

Dr. Huh: My pleasure. Thank you for inviting me. This was fun, and I have really enjoyed talking to you and participating. ●

Children who have greater acute appendicitis pain may be less likely to improve if they’re treated with antibiotics alone, according to a secondary analysis of a nonrandomized clinical trial.

“While approximately 35% of families chose nonoperative management, a high pain score between 7-10 on a 10-point scale nearly doubled in-hospital treatment failure,” Rebecca M. Rentea, MD, a pediatric surgeon and the director of the Comprehensive Colorectal Center at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., told this news organization in an email.

“Even if nonoperative management of pediatric appendicitis did not work – resulting in the need to remove the appendix in 34% of cases – families were happy with their decisions 1 year later,” added Dr. Rentea, who coauthored an invited commentary about the study.

Lead study author Peter C. Minneci, MD, MHSc, a pediatric surgeon at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues analyzed a subgroup of patients from a larger study in 10 tertiary children’s hospitals in the Midwest Pediatric Surgery Consortium.

As they reported in JAMA Network Open, the larger prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial enrolled 1,068 children between 2015 and 2018. The children ranged in age from 7 to 17 years, and they had imaging-confirmed appendicitis with an appendix diameter of 1.1 cm or less, no abscess, no appendicolith, and no phlegmon. White blood cell count was between 5,000 and 18,000 cells/μL, and abdominal pain began less than 48 hours before they received antibiotic therapy.

Caregivers chose either surgery or nonoperative antibiotic management. Patients who were treated first with antibiotics alone and who did not undergo appendectomy within 1 year were considered to have successfully completed nonoperative treatment.

The secondary analysis included the 370 children enrolled in the nonoperative group. Of these, 229 were boys, and the median age was 12.3 years. In this subgroup, the researchers compared outcomes after nonoperative, antibiotic management vs. surgery.

At 1 year, treatment failure had occurred in 125 patients, with 53 having undergone appendectomy during their first hospitalization, and 72 having experienced delayed treatment failure after being discharged.

• Higher patient-reported pain at presentation was linked to higher risk for in-hospital treatment failure (relative risk, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-4.4) but not for delayed treatment failure (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.7-2.3) or overall treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2).
• Pain lasting longer than 24 hours was linked to lower risk for delayed treatment failure (RR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-1.0) but not for in-hospital treatment failure (RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.5-2.7) or treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.4-1.2).
• Satisfaction with the decision was higher with successful nonoperative management at 30 days (28.0 vs. 27.0; difference, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.01-2.0) and at 1 year (28.1 vs 27.0; difference, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.2-2.0).

The researchers found no increased risk for treatment failure based on age, sex, race, ethnicity, white blood cell count, primary language, insurance status, transfer status, presentation symptoms, or imaging results.

Antibiotics-only is a safe option for children

“This study suggests that pediatric patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis should be offered treatment options, including nonoperative management,” the authors write. “Treatment with antibiotics alone is a safe and equitable option for children, with no increased risk of treatment failure based on sociodemographic or objective clinical characteristics at presentation.”

But, the authors advise: “Families need to be made aware that treatment failure is not uncommon, and they should be provided with anticipatory guidance on how to proceed should symptoms recur.”

The investigators acknowledged limitations to the study, including the nonrandomized design that may have introduced bias, the loss to follow-up, and the study population being U.S. Midwest children, who may differ from children elsewhere in the country.

Shawn D. St Peter, MD, a pediatric surgeon, medical chair, and a senior vice president at Children’s Mercy Kansas City told this news organization in an email that having a nonoperative alternative to surgical appendectomy is important.

“Antibiotics are the initial treatment for appendicitis and can be the definitive treatment,” he said.

“Surprisingly, no sociodemographic or clinical characteristics were associated with an increased risk of nonoperative appendicitis treatment failure,” added Dr. St Peter, who coauthored the commentary with Dr. Rentea.

Howard C. Jen, MD, a pediatric surgeon at University of California, Los Angeles, Mattel Children’s Hospital, was not surprised by the findings.

“Nonoperative management for acute noncomplicated appendicitis in children continues to be safe and effective in highly selected patients,” he said in an email. “This alternative to surgery should be offered routinely to patients with early acute appendicitis.” 

Dr. Jen, who was not involved with the current study, noted that it did not address the impact and costs to families of nonoperative management vs. surgery.

“For the most vulnerable children who had difficulties accessing medical care, what is the best treatment option? What factors are important to the families when making this decision?” he asked.

All study and editorial authors report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

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

Children who have greater acute appendicitis pain may be less likely to improve if they’re treated with antibiotics alone, according to a secondary analysis of a nonrandomized clinical trial.

“While approximately 35% of families chose nonoperative management, a high pain score between 7-10 on a 10-point scale nearly doubled in-hospital treatment failure,” Rebecca M. Rentea, MD, a pediatric surgeon and the director of the Comprehensive Colorectal Center at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., told this news organization in an email.

“Even if nonoperative management of pediatric appendicitis did not work – resulting in the need to remove the appendix in 34% of cases – families were happy with their decisions 1 year later,” added Dr. Rentea, who coauthored an invited commentary about the study.

Lead study author Peter C. Minneci, MD, MHSc, a pediatric surgeon at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues analyzed a subgroup of patients from a larger study in 10 tertiary children’s hospitals in the Midwest Pediatric Surgery Consortium.

As they reported in JAMA Network Open, the larger prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial enrolled 1,068 children between 2015 and 2018. The children ranged in age from 7 to 17 years, and they had imaging-confirmed appendicitis with an appendix diameter of 1.1 cm or less, no abscess, no appendicolith, and no phlegmon. White blood cell count was between 5,000 and 18,000 cells/μL, and abdominal pain began less than 48 hours before they received antibiotic therapy.

Caregivers chose either surgery or nonoperative antibiotic management. Patients who were treated first with antibiotics alone and who did not undergo appendectomy within 1 year were considered to have successfully completed nonoperative treatment.

The secondary analysis included the 370 children enrolled in the nonoperative group. Of these, 229 were boys, and the median age was 12.3 years. In this subgroup, the researchers compared outcomes after nonoperative, antibiotic management vs. surgery.

At 1 year, treatment failure had occurred in 125 patients, with 53 having undergone appendectomy during their first hospitalization, and 72 having experienced delayed treatment failure after being discharged.

• Higher patient-reported pain at presentation was linked to higher risk for in-hospital treatment failure (relative risk, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-4.4) but not for delayed treatment failure (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.7-2.3) or overall treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2).
• Pain lasting longer than 24 hours was linked to lower risk for delayed treatment failure (RR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-1.0) but not for in-hospital treatment failure (RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.5-2.7) or treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.4-1.2).
• Satisfaction with the decision was higher with successful nonoperative management at 30 days (28.0 vs. 27.0; difference, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.01-2.0) and at 1 year (28.1 vs 27.0; difference, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.2-2.0).

The researchers found no increased risk for treatment failure based on age, sex, race, ethnicity, white blood cell count, primary language, insurance status, transfer status, presentation symptoms, or imaging results.

Antibiotics-only is a safe option for children

“This study suggests that pediatric patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis should be offered treatment options, including nonoperative management,” the authors write. “Treatment with antibiotics alone is a safe and equitable option for children, with no increased risk of treatment failure based on sociodemographic or objective clinical characteristics at presentation.”

But, the authors advise: “Families need to be made aware that treatment failure is not uncommon, and they should be provided with anticipatory guidance on how to proceed should symptoms recur.”

The investigators acknowledged limitations to the study, including the nonrandomized design that may have introduced bias, the loss to follow-up, and the study population being U.S. Midwest children, who may differ from children elsewhere in the country.

Shawn D. St Peter, MD, a pediatric surgeon, medical chair, and a senior vice president at Children’s Mercy Kansas City told this news organization in an email that having a nonoperative alternative to surgical appendectomy is important.

“Antibiotics are the initial treatment for appendicitis and can be the definitive treatment,” he said.

“Surprisingly, no sociodemographic or clinical characteristics were associated with an increased risk of nonoperative appendicitis treatment failure,” added Dr. St Peter, who coauthored the commentary with Dr. Rentea.

Howard C. Jen, MD, a pediatric surgeon at University of California, Los Angeles, Mattel Children’s Hospital, was not surprised by the findings.

“Nonoperative management for acute noncomplicated appendicitis in children continues to be safe and effective in highly selected patients,” he said in an email. “This alternative to surgery should be offered routinely to patients with early acute appendicitis.” 

Dr. Jen, who was not involved with the current study, noted that it did not address the impact and costs to families of nonoperative management vs. surgery.

“For the most vulnerable children who had difficulties accessing medical care, what is the best treatment option? What factors are important to the families when making this decision?” he asked.

All study and editorial authors report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

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

Children who have greater acute appendicitis pain may be less likely to improve if they’re treated with antibiotics alone, according to a secondary analysis of a nonrandomized clinical trial.

“While approximately 35% of families chose nonoperative management, a high pain score between 7-10 on a 10-point scale nearly doubled in-hospital treatment failure,” Rebecca M. Rentea, MD, a pediatric surgeon and the director of the Comprehensive Colorectal Center at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., told this news organization in an email.

“Even if nonoperative management of pediatric appendicitis did not work – resulting in the need to remove the appendix in 34% of cases – families were happy with their decisions 1 year later,” added Dr. Rentea, who coauthored an invited commentary about the study.

Lead study author Peter C. Minneci, MD, MHSc, a pediatric surgeon at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues analyzed a subgroup of patients from a larger study in 10 tertiary children’s hospitals in the Midwest Pediatric Surgery Consortium.

As they reported in JAMA Network Open, the larger prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial enrolled 1,068 children between 2015 and 2018. The children ranged in age from 7 to 17 years, and they had imaging-confirmed appendicitis with an appendix diameter of 1.1 cm or less, no abscess, no appendicolith, and no phlegmon. White blood cell count was between 5,000 and 18,000 cells/μL, and abdominal pain began less than 48 hours before they received antibiotic therapy.

Caregivers chose either surgery or nonoperative antibiotic management. Patients who were treated first with antibiotics alone and who did not undergo appendectomy within 1 year were considered to have successfully completed nonoperative treatment.

The secondary analysis included the 370 children enrolled in the nonoperative group. Of these, 229 were boys, and the median age was 12.3 years. In this subgroup, the researchers compared outcomes after nonoperative, antibiotic management vs. surgery.

At 1 year, treatment failure had occurred in 125 patients, with 53 having undergone appendectomy during their first hospitalization, and 72 having experienced delayed treatment failure after being discharged.

• Higher patient-reported pain at presentation was linked to higher risk for in-hospital treatment failure (relative risk, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-4.4) but not for delayed treatment failure (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.7-2.3) or overall treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2).
• Pain lasting longer than 24 hours was linked to lower risk for delayed treatment failure (RR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-1.0) but not for in-hospital treatment failure (RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.5-2.7) or treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.4-1.2).
• Satisfaction with the decision was higher with successful nonoperative management at 30 days (28.0 vs. 27.0; difference, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.01-2.0) and at 1 year (28.1 vs 27.0; difference, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.2-2.0).

The researchers found no increased risk for treatment failure based on age, sex, race, ethnicity, white blood cell count, primary language, insurance status, transfer status, presentation symptoms, or imaging results.

Antibiotics-only is a safe option for children

“This study suggests that pediatric patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis should be offered treatment options, including nonoperative management,” the authors write. “Treatment with antibiotics alone is a safe and equitable option for children, with no increased risk of treatment failure based on sociodemographic or objective clinical characteristics at presentation.”

But, the authors advise: “Families need to be made aware that treatment failure is not uncommon, and they should be provided with anticipatory guidance on how to proceed should symptoms recur.”

The investigators acknowledged limitations to the study, including the nonrandomized design that may have introduced bias, the loss to follow-up, and the study population being U.S. Midwest children, who may differ from children elsewhere in the country.

Shawn D. St Peter, MD, a pediatric surgeon, medical chair, and a senior vice president at Children’s Mercy Kansas City told this news organization in an email that having a nonoperative alternative to surgical appendectomy is important.

“Antibiotics are the initial treatment for appendicitis and can be the definitive treatment,” he said.

“Surprisingly, no sociodemographic or clinical characteristics were associated with an increased risk of nonoperative appendicitis treatment failure,” added Dr. St Peter, who coauthored the commentary with Dr. Rentea.

Howard C. Jen, MD, a pediatric surgeon at University of California, Los Angeles, Mattel Children’s Hospital, was not surprised by the findings.

“Nonoperative management for acute noncomplicated appendicitis in children continues to be safe and effective in highly selected patients,” he said in an email. “This alternative to surgery should be offered routinely to patients with early acute appendicitis.” 

Dr. Jen, who was not involved with the current study, noted that it did not address the impact and costs to families of nonoperative management vs. surgery.

“For the most vulnerable children who had difficulties accessing medical care, what is the best treatment option? What factors are important to the families when making this decision?” he asked.

All study and editorial authors report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

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

Muraca GM, Boutin A, Razaz N, et al. Maternal and neonatal trauma following operative vaginal delivery. CMAJ. 2022;194:E1-E12. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.210841.
 

EXPERT COMMENTARY 

Operative vaginal delivery is used to achieve and expedite safe vaginal birth while avoiding CD and its associated morbidities.^1,2 Despite support from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) for the use of OVD as an alternative to CD, OVD was used in only 3% of all US births in 2013, a shift from approximately 30% in 1987.^1,3 Reported complications of OVD are biased by the level of experience of the operator, changes in practice, and by misinterpretation of the counterfactual.¹

Outcomes of OVD should be compared with appropriate reference groups, namely, with second-stage CD births rather than with spontaneous vaginal births.⁴ With decreasing rates of OVD, evidence of contemporary data is needed on appropriately compared perinatal outcomes.⁴
 

Details of the study 

Muraca and colleagues conducted an observational cohort study of births in Canada between 2013 and 2019 to assess the incidence of maternal and neonatal trauma following OVD. They used composites defined a priori— stratified by instrument, region, level of obstetric care, and institutional OVD volume. 

Results. Among 1,326,191 live or stillbirths, 2.9% were attempted forceps deliveries and 8.4% were attempted vacuum deliveries. Following forceps delivery, the maternal trauma rate was 25.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 24.8%–25.7%), and the neonatal trauma rate was 9.6 per 1,000 live births (95% CI, 8.6–10.6). Following vacuum delivery, maternal and neonatal trauma rates were 13.2% (95% CI, 13.0%–13.4%) and 9.6 per 1,000 live births (95% CI, 9.0–10.2), respectively. Maternal trauma was driven by higher order perineal lacerations. Some association was seen between increased forceps volume and decreased maternal trauma rates. 

The authors concluded that in Canada, rates of maternal and neonatal trauma following OVD are higher than previously reported in consensus statements.

Study strengths and limitations

This large contemporary study uniquely stratified perinatal outcomes following OVD. The outcomes are well defined and meaningful, but some limitations affect the generalizability of the findings. 

First, stillbirths were included for the maternal composite outcome, yet the incidence of this within the study population is not reported. Operative vaginal deliveries that involve stillbirths can be complex; a subgroup analysis excluding these would aid in interpretation.

Second, complicated OVDs, including sequential use of forceps and vacuum and OVDs from midpelvic station, were included; ACOG recommends against both these practices in routine circumstances due to known increases in maternal and neonatal morbidity.¹ As such, the inclusion of these OVDs may bias results away from the null. 

Finally, despite discussing the role of episiotomy, the episiotomy rate in this cohort is not reported.

Despite these limitations, the study by Muraca and colleagues is a positive step forward toward understanding the role of OVD in contemporary obstetric practice, and it uniquely ascertains the impact of OVD volume outcomes that previously had been an elusive exposure ●
 

Muraca GM, Boutin A, Razaz N, et al. Maternal and neonatal trauma following operative vaginal delivery. CMAJ. 2022;194:E1-E12. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.210841.
 

EXPERT COMMENTARY 

Operative vaginal delivery is used to achieve and expedite safe vaginal birth while avoiding CD and its associated morbidities.^1,2 Despite support from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) for the use of OVD as an alternative to CD, OVD was used in only 3% of all US births in 2013, a shift from approximately 30% in 1987.^1,3 Reported complications of OVD are biased by the level of experience of the operator, changes in practice, and by misinterpretation of the counterfactual.¹

Outcomes of OVD should be compared with appropriate reference groups, namely, with second-stage CD births rather than with spontaneous vaginal births.⁴ With decreasing rates of OVD, evidence of contemporary data is needed on appropriately compared perinatal outcomes.⁴
 

Details of the study 

Muraca and colleagues conducted an observational cohort study of births in Canada between 2013 and 2019 to assess the incidence of maternal and neonatal trauma following OVD. They used composites defined a priori— stratified by instrument, region, level of obstetric care, and institutional OVD volume. 

Results. Among 1,326,191 live or stillbirths, 2.9% were attempted forceps deliveries and 8.4% were attempted vacuum deliveries. Following forceps delivery, the maternal trauma rate was 25.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 24.8%–25.7%), and the neonatal trauma rate was 9.6 per 1,000 live births (95% CI, 8.6–10.6). Following vacuum delivery, maternal and neonatal trauma rates were 13.2% (95% CI, 13.0%–13.4%) and 9.6 per 1,000 live births (95% CI, 9.0–10.2), respectively. Maternal trauma was driven by higher order perineal lacerations. Some association was seen between increased forceps volume and decreased maternal trauma rates. 

The authors concluded that in Canada, rates of maternal and neonatal trauma following OVD are higher than previously reported in consensus statements.

Study strengths and limitations

This large contemporary study uniquely stratified perinatal outcomes following OVD. The outcomes are well defined and meaningful, but some limitations affect the generalizability of the findings. 

First, stillbirths were included for the maternal composite outcome, yet the incidence of this within the study population is not reported. Operative vaginal deliveries that involve stillbirths can be complex; a subgroup analysis excluding these would aid in interpretation.

Second, complicated OVDs, including sequential use of forceps and vacuum and OVDs from midpelvic station, were included; ACOG recommends against both these practices in routine circumstances due to known increases in maternal and neonatal morbidity.¹ As such, the inclusion of these OVDs may bias results away from the null. 

Finally, despite discussing the role of episiotomy, the episiotomy rate in this cohort is not reported.

Despite these limitations, the study by Muraca and colleagues is a positive step forward toward understanding the role of OVD in contemporary obstetric practice, and it uniquely ascertains the impact of OVD volume outcomes that previously had been an elusive exposure ●
 

Muraca GM, Boutin A, Razaz N, et al. Maternal and neonatal trauma following operative vaginal delivery. CMAJ. 2022;194:E1-E12. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.210841.
 

EXPERT COMMENTARY 

Operative vaginal delivery is used to achieve and expedite safe vaginal birth while avoiding CD and its associated morbidities.^1,2 Despite support from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) for the use of OVD as an alternative to CD, OVD was used in only 3% of all US births in 2013, a shift from approximately 30% in 1987.^1,3 Reported complications of OVD are biased by the level of experience of the operator, changes in practice, and by misinterpretation of the counterfactual.¹

Outcomes of OVD should be compared with appropriate reference groups, namely, with second-stage CD births rather than with spontaneous vaginal births.⁴ With decreasing rates of OVD, evidence of contemporary data is needed on appropriately compared perinatal outcomes.⁴
 

Details of the study 

Muraca and colleagues conducted an observational cohort study of births in Canada between 2013 and 2019 to assess the incidence of maternal and neonatal trauma following OVD. They used composites defined a priori— stratified by instrument, region, level of obstetric care, and institutional OVD volume. 

Results. Among 1,326,191 live or stillbirths, 2.9% were attempted forceps deliveries and 8.4% were attempted vacuum deliveries. Following forceps delivery, the maternal trauma rate was 25.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 24.8%–25.7%), and the neonatal trauma rate was 9.6 per 1,000 live births (95% CI, 8.6–10.6). Following vacuum delivery, maternal and neonatal trauma rates were 13.2% (95% CI, 13.0%–13.4%) and 9.6 per 1,000 live births (95% CI, 9.0–10.2), respectively. Maternal trauma was driven by higher order perineal lacerations. Some association was seen between increased forceps volume and decreased maternal trauma rates. 

The authors concluded that in Canada, rates of maternal and neonatal trauma following OVD are higher than previously reported in consensus statements.

Study strengths and limitations

This large contemporary study uniquely stratified perinatal outcomes following OVD. The outcomes are well defined and meaningful, but some limitations affect the generalizability of the findings. 

First, stillbirths were included for the maternal composite outcome, yet the incidence of this within the study population is not reported. Operative vaginal deliveries that involve stillbirths can be complex; a subgroup analysis excluding these would aid in interpretation.

Second, complicated OVDs, including sequential use of forceps and vacuum and OVDs from midpelvic station, were included; ACOG recommends against both these practices in routine circumstances due to known increases in maternal and neonatal morbidity.¹ As such, the inclusion of these OVDs may bias results away from the null. 

Finally, despite discussing the role of episiotomy, the episiotomy rate in this cohort is not reported.

Despite these limitations, the study by Muraca and colleagues is a positive step forward toward understanding the role of OVD in contemporary obstetric practice, and it uniquely ascertains the impact of OVD volume outcomes that previously had been an elusive exposure ●