Clinical Review

For many people, artificial intelligence (AI) brings to mind some form of humanoid robot that speaks and acts like a human. However, AI is much more than merely robotics and machines. Professor John McCarthy of Stanford University, who first coined the term “artificial intelligence” in the early 1950s, defined it as “the science and engineering of making intelligent machines, especially intelligent computer programs”; he defined intelligence as “the computational part of the ability to achieve goals.^”1 Artificial intelligence also is commonly defined as the development of computer systems able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence.² English Mathematician Alan Turing is considered one of the forefathers of AI research, and devised the first test to determine if a computer program was intelligent (Box 1³). Today, AI has established itself as an integral part of medicine and psychiatry.

Box 1

The semantics of AI

Two subsets of AI are machine learning and deep learning.^4,5 Machine learning is defined as a set of methods that can automatically detect patterns in data and then use the uncovered pattern to predict future data.⁴ Deep learning is a form of machine learning that enables computers to learn from experience and understand the world in terms of a hierarchy of concepts.⁵

Machine learning can be supervised, semi-supervised, or unsupervised. The majority of practical machine learning uses supervised learning, where all data are labeled and an algorithm is used to learn the mapping function from the input to the output. In unsupervised learning, all data are unlabeled and the algorithm models the underlying structure of the data by itself. Semi-supervised learning is a mixture of both.⁶

Many researchers also categorize AI into 2 types: general or “strong” AI, and narrow or “weak” AI. Strong AI is defined as computers that can think on a level at least equal to humans and are able to experience emotions and even consciousness.⁷ Weak AI includes adding “thinking-like” features to computers to make them more useful tools. Almost all AI technologies available today are considered to be weak AI.

AI in medicine

AI is being developed for a broad range of applications in medicine. This includes informatics approaches, including learning in health management systems such as electronic health records, and actively guiding physicians in their treatment decisions.⁸

AI has been applied to assist administrative workflows that reach beyond automated non-patient care activities such as chart documentation and placing orders. One example is the Judy Reitz Capacity Command Center, which was designed and built with GE Healthcare Partners.⁹ It combines AI technology in the form of systems engineering and predictive analytics to better manage multiple workflows in different administrative settings, including patient safety, volume, flow, and access to care.⁹

In April 2018, Intel Corporation surveyed 200 health-care decision makers in the United States regarding their use of AI in practice and their attitudes toward it.¹⁰ Overall, 37% of respondents reported using AI and 54% expected to increase their use of AI in the next 5 years. Clinical use of AI (77%) was more common than administrative use (41%) or financial use (26 %).¹⁰

Continue to: Box 2

Box 2^11-19 describes studies that evaluated the clinical use of AI in specialties other than psychiatry.

Box 2

How can AI be used in psychiatry?

Artificially intelligent technologies have been used in psychiatry for several decades. One of the earliest examples is ELIZA, a computer program published by Professor Joseph Weizenbaum of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1966.²⁰ ELIZA consisted of a language analyzer and a script or a set of rules to improvise around a certain theme; the script DOCTOR was used to simulate a Rogerian psychotherapist.²⁰

The application of AI in psychiatry has come a long way since the pioneering work of Weizenbaum. A recent study examined AI’s ability to distinguish between an individual who had suicidal ideation vs a control group. Machine-learning algorithms were used to evaluate functional MRI scans of 34 participants (17 who had suicidal ideation and 17 controls) to identify certain neural signatures of concepts related to life and death.²¹ The machine-learning algorithms were able to distinguish between these 2 groups with 91% accuracy. They also were able to distinguish between individuals who attempted suicide and those who did not with 94% accuracy.²¹

A study from the University of Cincinnati looked at using machine learning and natural language processing to distinguish genuine suicide notes from “fake” suicide notes that had been written by a healthy control group.²² Sixty-six notes were evaluated and categorized by 11 mental health professionals (psychiatrists, social workers, and emergency medicine physicians) and 31 PGY-3 residents. The accuracy of their results was compared with that of 9 machine-learning algorithms.²² The best machine-learning algorithm accurately classified the notes 78% of the time, compared with 63% of the time for the mental health professionals and 49% of the time for the residents.²²

Researchers at Vanderbilt University examined using machine learning to predict suicide risk.²³ They developed algorithms to scan electronic health records of 5,167 adults, 3,250 of whom had attempted suicide. In a review of the patients’ data from 1 week to 2 years before the attempt, the algorithms looked for certain predictors of suicide attempts, including recurrent depression, psychotic disorder, and substance use. The algorithm was 80% accurate at predicting whether a patient would attempt suicide within the next 2 years, and 84% accurate at predicting an attempt within the next week.²³

Continue to: In a prospective study...

In a prospective study, researchers at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital used a machine-learning algorithm to evaluate 379 patients who were categorized into 3 groups: suicidal, mentally ill but not suicidal, or controls.²⁴ All participants completed a standardized behavioral rating scale and participated in a semi-structured interview. Based on the participants’ linguistic and acoustic characteristics, the algorithm was able to classify them into the 3 groups with 85% accuracy.²⁴

Many studies have looked at using language analysis to predicting the risk of psychosis in at-risk individuals. In one study, researchers evaluated individuals known to be at high risk for developing psychosis, some of whom eventually did develop psychosis.²⁵ Participants were asked to retell a story and to answer questions about that story. Researchers fed the transcripts of these interviews into a language analysis program that looked at semantic coherence, syntactic complexity, and other factors. The algorithm was able to predict the future occurrence of psychosis with 82% accuracy. Participants who converted to psychosis had decreased semantic coherence and reduced syntactic complexity.²⁵

A similar study looked at 34 at-risk youth in an attempt to predict who would develop psychosis based on speech pattern analysis.²⁶ The participants underwent baseline interviews and were assessed quarterly for 2.5 years. The algorithm was able to predict who would develop psychosis with 100% accuracy.²⁶

Challenges and limitations

The amount of research about applying machine learning to various fields of psychiatry continues to grow. With this increased interest, there have been reports of bias and human influence in the various stages of machine learning. Therefore, being aware of these challenges and engaging in practices to minimize their effects are necessary. Such practices include providing more details on data collection and processing, and constantly evaluating machine learning models for their relevance and utility to the research question proposed.²⁷

As is the case with most innovative, fast-growing technologies, AI has its fair share of criticisms and concerns. Critics have focused on the potential threat of privacy issues, medical errors, and ethical concerns. Researchers at the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics emphasize the importance of being aware of the different types of bias that humans and algorithm designs can introduce into health data.²⁸

Continue to: The Nuffield Council on Bioethics...

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics also emphasizes the importance of identifying the ethical issues raised by using AI in health care. Concerns include erroneous decisions made by AI and determining who is responsible for such errors, difficulty in validating the outputs of AI systems, and the potential for AI to be used for malicious purposes.²⁹

For clinicians who are considering implementing AI into their practice, it is vital to recognize where this technology belongs in a workflow and in the decision-making process. Jeffery Axt, a researcher on the clinical applications of AI, encourages clinicians to view using AI as a consulting tool to eliminate the element of fear associated with not having control over diagnostics and management.³⁰

What’s on the horizon

Research into using AI in psychiatry has drawn the attention of large companies. IBM is building an automated speech analysis application that uses machine learning to provide a real-time overview of a patient’s mental health.³¹ Social media platforms are also starting to incorporate AI technologies to scan posts for language and image patterns suggestive of suicidal thoughts or behavior.³²

“Chat bots”—AI that can conduct a conversation in natural language—are becoming popular as well. Woebot is a cognitive-behavioral therapy–based chat bot designed by a Stanford psychologist that can be accessed through Facebook Messenger. In a 2-week study, 70 young adults (age 18 to 28) with depression were randomly assigned to use Woebot or to read mental health e-books.³³ Participants who used Woebot experienced a significant reduction in depressive symptoms as measured by change in score on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, while those assigned to the reading group did not.³³

Other researchers have focused on identifying patterns of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity in children using AI technologies such as computer vision, machine learning, and data mining. For example, researchers at the University of Texas at Arlington and Yale University are analyzing data from watching children perform certain tasks involving attention, decision making, and emotion management.³⁴ There have been several advances in using AI to note abnormalities in a child’s gaze pattern that might suggest autism.³⁵

Continue to: A project at...

A project at the University of Southern California called SimSensei/Multisense uses software to track real-time behavior descriptors such as facial expressions, body postures, and acoustic features that can help identify psychological distress.³⁶ This software is combined with a virtual human platform that communicates with the patient as a therapist would.³⁶

The future of AI in health care appears to have great possibilities. Putting aside irrational fears of being replaced by computers one day, AI may someday be highly transformative, leading to vast improvements in patient care.

Bottom Line

Artificial intelligence (AI) —the development of computer systems able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence—is being developed for use in a wide range of medical specialties. Potential uses in psychiatry include predicting a patient’s risk for suicide or psychosis. Privacy concerns, ethical issues, and the potential for medical errors are among the challenges of AI use in psychiatry.

Related Resources

• Durstewitz D, Koppe G, Meyer-Lindenberg A. Deep neural networks in psychiatry. Mol Psychiatry. 2019. doi:10.1038/s41380-019-0365-9.
• Kretzschmar K, Tyroll H, Pavarini G, et al; NeurOx Young People’s Advisory Group. Can your phone be your therapist? Young people’s ethical perspectives on the use of fully automated conversational agents (chatbots) in mental health support. Biomed Inform Insights. 2019;11:1178222619829083. doi: 10.1177/1178222619829083.

For many people, artificial intelligence (AI) brings to mind some form of humanoid robot that speaks and acts like a human. However, AI is much more than merely robotics and machines. Professor John McCarthy of Stanford University, who first coined the term “artificial intelligence” in the early 1950s, defined it as “the science and engineering of making intelligent machines, especially intelligent computer programs”; he defined intelligence as “the computational part of the ability to achieve goals.^”1 Artificial intelligence also is commonly defined as the development of computer systems able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence.² English Mathematician Alan Turing is considered one of the forefathers of AI research, and devised the first test to determine if a computer program was intelligent (Box 1³). Today, AI has established itself as an integral part of medicine and psychiatry.

Box 1

The semantics of AI

Two subsets of AI are machine learning and deep learning.^4,5 Machine learning is defined as a set of methods that can automatically detect patterns in data and then use the uncovered pattern to predict future data.⁴ Deep learning is a form of machine learning that enables computers to learn from experience and understand the world in terms of a hierarchy of concepts.⁵

Machine learning can be supervised, semi-supervised, or unsupervised. The majority of practical machine learning uses supervised learning, where all data are labeled and an algorithm is used to learn the mapping function from the input to the output. In unsupervised learning, all data are unlabeled and the algorithm models the underlying structure of the data by itself. Semi-supervised learning is a mixture of both.⁶

Many researchers also categorize AI into 2 types: general or “strong” AI, and narrow or “weak” AI. Strong AI is defined as computers that can think on a level at least equal to humans and are able to experience emotions and even consciousness.⁷ Weak AI includes adding “thinking-like” features to computers to make them more useful tools. Almost all AI technologies available today are considered to be weak AI.

AI in medicine

AI is being developed for a broad range of applications in medicine. This includes informatics approaches, including learning in health management systems such as electronic health records, and actively guiding physicians in their treatment decisions.⁸

AI has been applied to assist administrative workflows that reach beyond automated non-patient care activities such as chart documentation and placing orders. One example is the Judy Reitz Capacity Command Center, which was designed and built with GE Healthcare Partners.⁹ It combines AI technology in the form of systems engineering and predictive analytics to better manage multiple workflows in different administrative settings, including patient safety, volume, flow, and access to care.⁹

In April 2018, Intel Corporation surveyed 200 health-care decision makers in the United States regarding their use of AI in practice and their attitudes toward it.¹⁰ Overall, 37% of respondents reported using AI and 54% expected to increase their use of AI in the next 5 years. Clinical use of AI (77%) was more common than administrative use (41%) or financial use (26 %).¹⁰

Continue to: Box 2

Box 2^11-19 describes studies that evaluated the clinical use of AI in specialties other than psychiatry.

Box 2

How can AI be used in psychiatry?

Artificially intelligent technologies have been used in psychiatry for several decades. One of the earliest examples is ELIZA, a computer program published by Professor Joseph Weizenbaum of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1966.²⁰ ELIZA consisted of a language analyzer and a script or a set of rules to improvise around a certain theme; the script DOCTOR was used to simulate a Rogerian psychotherapist.²⁰

The application of AI in psychiatry has come a long way since the pioneering work of Weizenbaum. A recent study examined AI’s ability to distinguish between an individual who had suicidal ideation vs a control group. Machine-learning algorithms were used to evaluate functional MRI scans of 34 participants (17 who had suicidal ideation and 17 controls) to identify certain neural signatures of concepts related to life and death.²¹ The machine-learning algorithms were able to distinguish between these 2 groups with 91% accuracy. They also were able to distinguish between individuals who attempted suicide and those who did not with 94% accuracy.²¹

A study from the University of Cincinnati looked at using machine learning and natural language processing to distinguish genuine suicide notes from “fake” suicide notes that had been written by a healthy control group.²² Sixty-six notes were evaluated and categorized by 11 mental health professionals (psychiatrists, social workers, and emergency medicine physicians) and 31 PGY-3 residents. The accuracy of their results was compared with that of 9 machine-learning algorithms.²² The best machine-learning algorithm accurately classified the notes 78% of the time, compared with 63% of the time for the mental health professionals and 49% of the time for the residents.²²

Researchers at Vanderbilt University examined using machine learning to predict suicide risk.²³ They developed algorithms to scan electronic health records of 5,167 adults, 3,250 of whom had attempted suicide. In a review of the patients’ data from 1 week to 2 years before the attempt, the algorithms looked for certain predictors of suicide attempts, including recurrent depression, psychotic disorder, and substance use. The algorithm was 80% accurate at predicting whether a patient would attempt suicide within the next 2 years, and 84% accurate at predicting an attempt within the next week.²³

Continue to: In a prospective study...

In a prospective study, researchers at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital used a machine-learning algorithm to evaluate 379 patients who were categorized into 3 groups: suicidal, mentally ill but not suicidal, or controls.²⁴ All participants completed a standardized behavioral rating scale and participated in a semi-structured interview. Based on the participants’ linguistic and acoustic characteristics, the algorithm was able to classify them into the 3 groups with 85% accuracy.²⁴

Many studies have looked at using language analysis to predicting the risk of psychosis in at-risk individuals. In one study, researchers evaluated individuals known to be at high risk for developing psychosis, some of whom eventually did develop psychosis.²⁵ Participants were asked to retell a story and to answer questions about that story. Researchers fed the transcripts of these interviews into a language analysis program that looked at semantic coherence, syntactic complexity, and other factors. The algorithm was able to predict the future occurrence of psychosis with 82% accuracy. Participants who converted to psychosis had decreased semantic coherence and reduced syntactic complexity.²⁵

A similar study looked at 34 at-risk youth in an attempt to predict who would develop psychosis based on speech pattern analysis.²⁶ The participants underwent baseline interviews and were assessed quarterly for 2.5 years. The algorithm was able to predict who would develop psychosis with 100% accuracy.²⁶

Challenges and limitations

The amount of research about applying machine learning to various fields of psychiatry continues to grow. With this increased interest, there have been reports of bias and human influence in the various stages of machine learning. Therefore, being aware of these challenges and engaging in practices to minimize their effects are necessary. Such practices include providing more details on data collection and processing, and constantly evaluating machine learning models for their relevance and utility to the research question proposed.²⁷

As is the case with most innovative, fast-growing technologies, AI has its fair share of criticisms and concerns. Critics have focused on the potential threat of privacy issues, medical errors, and ethical concerns. Researchers at the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics emphasize the importance of being aware of the different types of bias that humans and algorithm designs can introduce into health data.²⁸

Continue to: The Nuffield Council on Bioethics...

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics also emphasizes the importance of identifying the ethical issues raised by using AI in health care. Concerns include erroneous decisions made by AI and determining who is responsible for such errors, difficulty in validating the outputs of AI systems, and the potential for AI to be used for malicious purposes.²⁹

For clinicians who are considering implementing AI into their practice, it is vital to recognize where this technology belongs in a workflow and in the decision-making process. Jeffery Axt, a researcher on the clinical applications of AI, encourages clinicians to view using AI as a consulting tool to eliminate the element of fear associated with not having control over diagnostics and management.³⁰

What’s on the horizon

Research into using AI in psychiatry has drawn the attention of large companies. IBM is building an automated speech analysis application that uses machine learning to provide a real-time overview of a patient’s mental health.³¹ Social media platforms are also starting to incorporate AI technologies to scan posts for language and image patterns suggestive of suicidal thoughts or behavior.³²

“Chat bots”—AI that can conduct a conversation in natural language—are becoming popular as well. Woebot is a cognitive-behavioral therapy–based chat bot designed by a Stanford psychologist that can be accessed through Facebook Messenger. In a 2-week study, 70 young adults (age 18 to 28) with depression were randomly assigned to use Woebot or to read mental health e-books.³³ Participants who used Woebot experienced a significant reduction in depressive symptoms as measured by change in score on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, while those assigned to the reading group did not.³³

Other researchers have focused on identifying patterns of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity in children using AI technologies such as computer vision, machine learning, and data mining. For example, researchers at the University of Texas at Arlington and Yale University are analyzing data from watching children perform certain tasks involving attention, decision making, and emotion management.³⁴ There have been several advances in using AI to note abnormalities in a child’s gaze pattern that might suggest autism.³⁵

Continue to: A project at...

A project at the University of Southern California called SimSensei/Multisense uses software to track real-time behavior descriptors such as facial expressions, body postures, and acoustic features that can help identify psychological distress.³⁶ This software is combined with a virtual human platform that communicates with the patient as a therapist would.³⁶

The future of AI in health care appears to have great possibilities. Putting aside irrational fears of being replaced by computers one day, AI may someday be highly transformative, leading to vast improvements in patient care.

Bottom Line

Artificial intelligence (AI) —the development of computer systems able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence—is being developed for use in a wide range of medical specialties. Potential uses in psychiatry include predicting a patient’s risk for suicide or psychosis. Privacy concerns, ethical issues, and the potential for medical errors are among the challenges of AI use in psychiatry.

Related Resources

• Durstewitz D, Koppe G, Meyer-Lindenberg A. Deep neural networks in psychiatry. Mol Psychiatry. 2019. doi:10.1038/s41380-019-0365-9.
• Kretzschmar K, Tyroll H, Pavarini G, et al; NeurOx Young People’s Advisory Group. Can your phone be your therapist? Young people’s ethical perspectives on the use of fully automated conversational agents (chatbots) in mental health support. Biomed Inform Insights. 2019;11:1178222619829083. doi: 10.1177/1178222619829083.

For many people, artificial intelligence (AI) brings to mind some form of humanoid robot that speaks and acts like a human. However, AI is much more than merely robotics and machines. Professor John McCarthy of Stanford University, who first coined the term “artificial intelligence” in the early 1950s, defined it as “the science and engineering of making intelligent machines, especially intelligent computer programs”; he defined intelligence as “the computational part of the ability to achieve goals.^”1 Artificial intelligence also is commonly defined as the development of computer systems able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence.² English Mathematician Alan Turing is considered one of the forefathers of AI research, and devised the first test to determine if a computer program was intelligent (Box 1³). Today, AI has established itself as an integral part of medicine and psychiatry.

Box 1

The semantics of AI

Two subsets of AI are machine learning and deep learning.^4,5 Machine learning is defined as a set of methods that can automatically detect patterns in data and then use the uncovered pattern to predict future data.⁴ Deep learning is a form of machine learning that enables computers to learn from experience and understand the world in terms of a hierarchy of concepts.⁵

Machine learning can be supervised, semi-supervised, or unsupervised. The majority of practical machine learning uses supervised learning, where all data are labeled and an algorithm is used to learn the mapping function from the input to the output. In unsupervised learning, all data are unlabeled and the algorithm models the underlying structure of the data by itself. Semi-supervised learning is a mixture of both.⁶

Many researchers also categorize AI into 2 types: general or “strong” AI, and narrow or “weak” AI. Strong AI is defined as computers that can think on a level at least equal to humans and are able to experience emotions and even consciousness.⁷ Weak AI includes adding “thinking-like” features to computers to make them more useful tools. Almost all AI technologies available today are considered to be weak AI.

AI in medicine

AI is being developed for a broad range of applications in medicine. This includes informatics approaches, including learning in health management systems such as electronic health records, and actively guiding physicians in their treatment decisions.⁸

AI has been applied to assist administrative workflows that reach beyond automated non-patient care activities such as chart documentation and placing orders. One example is the Judy Reitz Capacity Command Center, which was designed and built with GE Healthcare Partners.⁹ It combines AI technology in the form of systems engineering and predictive analytics to better manage multiple workflows in different administrative settings, including patient safety, volume, flow, and access to care.⁹

In April 2018, Intel Corporation surveyed 200 health-care decision makers in the United States regarding their use of AI in practice and their attitudes toward it.¹⁰ Overall, 37% of respondents reported using AI and 54% expected to increase their use of AI in the next 5 years. Clinical use of AI (77%) was more common than administrative use (41%) or financial use (26 %).¹⁰

Continue to: Box 2

Box 2^11-19 describes studies that evaluated the clinical use of AI in specialties other than psychiatry.

Box 2

How can AI be used in psychiatry?

Artificially intelligent technologies have been used in psychiatry for several decades. One of the earliest examples is ELIZA, a computer program published by Professor Joseph Weizenbaum of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1966.²⁰ ELIZA consisted of a language analyzer and a script or a set of rules to improvise around a certain theme; the script DOCTOR was used to simulate a Rogerian psychotherapist.²⁰

The application of AI in psychiatry has come a long way since the pioneering work of Weizenbaum. A recent study examined AI’s ability to distinguish between an individual who had suicidal ideation vs a control group. Machine-learning algorithms were used to evaluate functional MRI scans of 34 participants (17 who had suicidal ideation and 17 controls) to identify certain neural signatures of concepts related to life and death.²¹ The machine-learning algorithms were able to distinguish between these 2 groups with 91% accuracy. They also were able to distinguish between individuals who attempted suicide and those who did not with 94% accuracy.²¹

A study from the University of Cincinnati looked at using machine learning and natural language processing to distinguish genuine suicide notes from “fake” suicide notes that had been written by a healthy control group.²² Sixty-six notes were evaluated and categorized by 11 mental health professionals (psychiatrists, social workers, and emergency medicine physicians) and 31 PGY-3 residents. The accuracy of their results was compared with that of 9 machine-learning algorithms.²² The best machine-learning algorithm accurately classified the notes 78% of the time, compared with 63% of the time for the mental health professionals and 49% of the time for the residents.²²

Researchers at Vanderbilt University examined using machine learning to predict suicide risk.²³ They developed algorithms to scan electronic health records of 5,167 adults, 3,250 of whom had attempted suicide. In a review of the patients’ data from 1 week to 2 years before the attempt, the algorithms looked for certain predictors of suicide attempts, including recurrent depression, psychotic disorder, and substance use. The algorithm was 80% accurate at predicting whether a patient would attempt suicide within the next 2 years, and 84% accurate at predicting an attempt within the next week.²³

Continue to: In a prospective study...

In a prospective study, researchers at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital used a machine-learning algorithm to evaluate 379 patients who were categorized into 3 groups: suicidal, mentally ill but not suicidal, or controls.²⁴ All participants completed a standardized behavioral rating scale and participated in a semi-structured interview. Based on the participants’ linguistic and acoustic characteristics, the algorithm was able to classify them into the 3 groups with 85% accuracy.²⁴

Many studies have looked at using language analysis to predicting the risk of psychosis in at-risk individuals. In one study, researchers evaluated individuals known to be at high risk for developing psychosis, some of whom eventually did develop psychosis.²⁵ Participants were asked to retell a story and to answer questions about that story. Researchers fed the transcripts of these interviews into a language analysis program that looked at semantic coherence, syntactic complexity, and other factors. The algorithm was able to predict the future occurrence of psychosis with 82% accuracy. Participants who converted to psychosis had decreased semantic coherence and reduced syntactic complexity.²⁵

A similar study looked at 34 at-risk youth in an attempt to predict who would develop psychosis based on speech pattern analysis.²⁶ The participants underwent baseline interviews and were assessed quarterly for 2.5 years. The algorithm was able to predict who would develop psychosis with 100% accuracy.²⁶

Challenges and limitations

The amount of research about applying machine learning to various fields of psychiatry continues to grow. With this increased interest, there have been reports of bias and human influence in the various stages of machine learning. Therefore, being aware of these challenges and engaging in practices to minimize their effects are necessary. Such practices include providing more details on data collection and processing, and constantly evaluating machine learning models for their relevance and utility to the research question proposed.²⁷

As is the case with most innovative, fast-growing technologies, AI has its fair share of criticisms and concerns. Critics have focused on the potential threat of privacy issues, medical errors, and ethical concerns. Researchers at the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics emphasize the importance of being aware of the different types of bias that humans and algorithm designs can introduce into health data.²⁸

Continue to: The Nuffield Council on Bioethics...

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics also emphasizes the importance of identifying the ethical issues raised by using AI in health care. Concerns include erroneous decisions made by AI and determining who is responsible for such errors, difficulty in validating the outputs of AI systems, and the potential for AI to be used for malicious purposes.²⁹

For clinicians who are considering implementing AI into their practice, it is vital to recognize where this technology belongs in a workflow and in the decision-making process. Jeffery Axt, a researcher on the clinical applications of AI, encourages clinicians to view using AI as a consulting tool to eliminate the element of fear associated with not having control over diagnostics and management.³⁰

What’s on the horizon

Research into using AI in psychiatry has drawn the attention of large companies. IBM is building an automated speech analysis application that uses machine learning to provide a real-time overview of a patient’s mental health.³¹ Social media platforms are also starting to incorporate AI technologies to scan posts for language and image patterns suggestive of suicidal thoughts or behavior.³²

“Chat bots”—AI that can conduct a conversation in natural language—are becoming popular as well. Woebot is a cognitive-behavioral therapy–based chat bot designed by a Stanford psychologist that can be accessed through Facebook Messenger. In a 2-week study, 70 young adults (age 18 to 28) with depression were randomly assigned to use Woebot or to read mental health e-books.³³ Participants who used Woebot experienced a significant reduction in depressive symptoms as measured by change in score on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, while those assigned to the reading group did not.³³

Other researchers have focused on identifying patterns of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity in children using AI technologies such as computer vision, machine learning, and data mining. For example, researchers at the University of Texas at Arlington and Yale University are analyzing data from watching children perform certain tasks involving attention, decision making, and emotion management.³⁴ There have been several advances in using AI to note abnormalities in a child’s gaze pattern that might suggest autism.³⁵

Continue to: A project at...

A project at the University of Southern California called SimSensei/Multisense uses software to track real-time behavior descriptors such as facial expressions, body postures, and acoustic features that can help identify psychological distress.³⁶ This software is combined with a virtual human platform that communicates with the patient as a therapist would.³⁶

The future of AI in health care appears to have great possibilities. Putting aside irrational fears of being replaced by computers one day, AI may someday be highly transformative, leading to vast improvements in patient care.

Bottom Line

Artificial intelligence (AI) —the development of computer systems able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence—is being developed for use in a wide range of medical specialties. Potential uses in psychiatry include predicting a patient’s risk for suicide or psychosis. Privacy concerns, ethical issues, and the potential for medical errors are among the challenges of AI use in psychiatry.

Related Resources

• Durstewitz D, Koppe G, Meyer-Lindenberg A. Deep neural networks in psychiatry. Mol Psychiatry. 2019. doi:10.1038/s41380-019-0365-9.
• Kretzschmar K, Tyroll H, Pavarini G, et al; NeurOx Young People’s Advisory Group. Can your phone be your therapist? Young people’s ethical perspectives on the use of fully automated conversational agents (chatbots) in mental health support. Biomed Inform Insights. 2019;11:1178222619829083. doi: 10.1177/1178222619829083.

The opioid crisis has brought added scrutiny to opioid prescribing, particularly to health care providers, whom many blame for the genesis of the opioid overdose epidemic. Family physicians are acutely aware of these complexities: By sheer volume, family physicians prescribe more opioid analgesics than any other subspecialist.¹

Overwhelmed by opioid prescriptions

Because of a complexity of factors (notably, the influence of the US pharmaceutical industry), the quantity of opioid prescriptions has risen substantially—enough so that, in 2010, opioids were prescribed in great enough quantity to medicate every American around the clock for a month.² Among people who began abusing opioids in the 2000s, 75% reported that their first opioid was a prescription drug; this is a shift from prior decades, when heroin was the gateway to opioid addiction.³ As the reality of the size of the opioid problem sunk in, many were hopeful that the epidemic would reverse itself as quickly as it began if the medical community would simply prescribe fewer opioids.

©Stuart Bradford

Since 2010, the opioid overdose fatality rate has risen dramatically, even though prescription opioid overdose mortality has leveled off, or even declined. ² One explanation for this paradox? As availability of prescription opioids declined, people suffering from an underlying opioid use disorder (OUD) turned instead first to heroin, then later to potent fentanyl analogues to fuel their addiction. In most communities, the prevalence of fentanyl analogues—alone or more commonly mixed with other opioids—has driven the staggering rise in opioid-related fatalities in recent years.

No question: Prescription opioids played a critical role in the origins of this epidemic, but just withdrawing prescriptions will not result in marked reduction in the epidemic. This quandary is no more apparent than in primary care, where the considerable risk of continuing opioids—especially at high dosages—must be weighed against the potential risks of discontinuation. Adding to this dilemma are lack of access to treatment for patients with an OUD and the continued stigma and misunderstanding of substance use disorders.

In this article, we describe the challenges of long-term opioid use and review necessary protocols and precautions for maintaining or tapering an opioid regimen in patients who suffer chronic pain.

Managing chronic pain is fraught with complexity

Chronic pain is both real and a disease in its own right. Although definitions of chronic pain vary, pain that lasts > 3 months or past the duration of normal tissue healing is typically considered chronic.⁴ Approximations of prevalence vary, but in 1 study that examined a representative sample, it was estimated that 14.6% of US adults experience chronic pain.⁵

Patients who report symptoms or a history of chronic pain can elicit negative reactions from physicians—stemming from our biases, which can inadvertently provoke emotions on our part.⁶ Unflattering portrayals of patients in the media can further fuel unwarranted biases and prejudices.⁷

Continue to: Preventing, assessing, and treating...

Preventing, assessing, and treating chronic pain can be difficult, at the level of both the individual physician and the larger system of care, even without adding in complications of the opioid epidemic. For racial and ethnic minority groups, women, older people, and people with cognitive impairment or cancer, pain can be underrecognized and go inadequately treated.

Among people who began abusing opioids in the 2000s, 75% said that their first opioid was a prescription drug; in prior decades, heroin was the gateway to opioid addiction.

Chronic pain itself has clinical, psychological, and social consequences and is associated with limitations in activity, work productivity, quality of life, and stigma.⁸ Treatment of chronic pain—with opioids or other modalities—remains an important component of patient-centered primary care. Interestingly, however, many patients struggling through chronic pain report that efforts to curb the opioid epidemic have inadvertently led to lower-quality pain management and, therefore, understandable concern among patients whose chronic pain is well managed with opioid pain medications.^9,10

When is it appropriate to continue opioids for chronic pain?

Apart from the treatment of active cancer, palliative care, and end-of-life care, the appropriate use of opioids for chronic and acute pain has become clouded in recent years. To assist with this problem, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidelines in 2016 for primary care physicians who are faced with this clinical dilemma.¹¹ The guidelines (1) address circumstances in which it is safe to consider opioid prescribing and (2) provide ongoing reassessment of indications for chronic opioid prescribing within the context of potential risk to the patient and society. Because appropriate use of opioids has grown murky, nonpharmacotherapeutic management and nonopioid pharmacotherapy are preferred for chronic pain.

The therapeutic window— between safe dosages and those that could lead to respiratory depression or overdose— is narrow for older patients.

Plan ahead. Establish goals of treatment that focus on both pain and function when starting opioid therapy. This will facilitate decision-making when it comes time to continue—or discontinue—opioids down the road. Opioids should be prescribed at the lowest effective dosage; ongoing reassessment of benefit should be made, and particular caution should be exercised, if the daily opioid dosage reaches ≥ 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) and especially as the dosage approaches ≥ 90 MME/d. Prescribers should ensure that patients are educated about known risks and the limited evidence of benefit of opioid therapy.

An age-related concern. Special consideration is warranted in older patients, who might have reduced renal function even in the absence of renal disease; this can lead to a reduction in clearance of pain medication. Because of that increased risk of drug accumulation, the therapeutic window—between safe dosages and those that could lead to respiratory depression or overdose—is narrow for these patients.¹¹

Continue to: Use in pregnancy

Use in pregnancy. Treatment with opioid medication in pregnancy warrants special consideration. In general, it’s wise to avoid opioid use in pregnant women because data on long- and short-term safety are limited.¹² In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a safety announcement that further investigation is needed to determine whether the fetus is at increased risk of a neural tube defect related to opioid exposure during the first trimester.¹³ In women with an OUD, both methadone and buprenorphine are safe to use. Buprenorphine is associated with slightly better outcomes for neonatal abstinence syndrome and length of hospital stay.¹⁴

Ongoing monitoring of risk. Periodically assessing risk factors for opioid-related harm during continuation of opioid treatment is important. Tools such as the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) or the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised, or SOAPP-R, can be used to evaluate the risk of misuse in adults who are prescribed opioids for chronic pain,¹⁵ although the evidence for utilizing these tools is inconclusive.¹¹

Offering naloxone should be considered when factors that increase the risk of opioid overdose are present, such as a history of substance use disorder, a daily opioid dosage > 50 MME, concurrent use of benzodiazepines, and medical comorbidities that increase the risk of overdose (eg, sleep apnea, pulmonary disease, heart failure).¹⁶ Prescribers should review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, to assess treatment adherence and to obtain a collateral history that might suggest abuse or diversion. Urine drug testing can be a useful adjunct to ongoing therapy—again, to assess treatment adherence and look for evidence of other substance use disorders.

Watchfulness for misuse and OUD. Opioid misuse—the nontherapeutic use of opioids—includes taking opioids in amounts other than prescribed, for indications other than prescribed, and administering by alternative routes other than prescribed (eg, crushing and snorting, rather than ingesting). The presence of opioid misuse does not always signify OUD. However, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed.,¹⁷ defines OUD as out-of-control use; devoting increasing mental and physical resources to obtaining, using, and recovering from substances; and continued use despite adverse consequences.

Behaviors that increase the risk of, and might signal, opioid misuse and OUD include¹⁸

• seeking early refills
• obtaining opioids from the emergency room
• using medications prescribed to others
• using opioids to treat symptoms other than pain, such as anxiety or insomnia
• “doctor-shopping.”

Continue to: Furthermore...

Furthermore, psychiatric comorbidities,¹⁹ a personal or family history of substance use disorder,²⁰ and a preadolescent history of sexual abuse²¹ are associated with a higher risk of a substance use disorder.

If OUD is identified, remain nonjudgmental and acknowledge that addiction is a chronic disease. Assumptions about a patient’s character or morality have no place in the appropriate management of OUD; remain mindful of your own implicit biases.

When is it appropriateto start an opioid taper?

The decision to taper opioids is difficult and can provoke anxiety for both prescriber and patient. Complicating matters is that there is insufficient evidence to evaluate opioid dosage-reduction interventions for patients with chronic noncancer pain.²²

Safety concerns. Even in patients who are taking opioids as prescribed and for whom no red flags have been raised, the long-term safety of high-dosage opioids remains unclear. There is no “safe” dosage of opioids; however, evidence is clear that the risk of death from overdose increases with dosage. Compared with patients taking a dosage anywhere from 1 to 20 MME/d, those taking 50 to 99 MME/d have a 3.7-fold increased risk of overdose; patients taking ≥ 100 MME/d had an 8.9-fold increased risk.²³ Patients for whom concomitant benzodiazepines are prescribed are also at higher risk of overdose and death. In studies of opioid overdose deaths, there was evidence of concurrent benzodiazepine use in 31% to 61% of cases.¹¹

Inadequate analgesia. Given the well-established risk of drug tolerance, the inability to achieve or maintain pain relief or functional improvement can still occur—even when the opioid dosage is escalated reasonably. It might be prudent in that situation to taper opioids while also considering alternative modalities, including ones that were deferred previously.

Continue to: Intolerable adverse effects

Intolerable adverse effects. Adverse effects are common. Constipation has a reported prevalence of 15% to 90% among patients on long-term opioid treatment.²⁴ Short-term, mild constipation is often manageable; long-term opioid use, however, can produce constipation refractory to bowel regimens and, in rare cases, lead to bowel obstruction, perforation, and even death. Other adverse effects include²⁵

• sedation and drowsiness
• impaired memory or concentration
• mood changes
• dry mouth
• abdominal pain and nausea
• sexual dysfunction.

When these effects limit the tolerability of treatment, tapering might be indicated.

How are opioids tapered?

There is no definitive evidence of an optimal rate of taper or frequency of follow-up. Most guidelines suggest tapering opioids at 10% of the dosage each week; patients who have been taking opioids for many years, however, might require a slower taper (eg, a dosage decrease of 5%-20% every 2-4 weeks).¹¹

Psychosocial support and maximizing nonopioid pain management techniques are critical to successful opioid tapering. When tapering is part of a comprehensive pain and rehabilitative plan, patients might find their symptoms alleviated.²⁶ Given the potential risks in patients taking both short- and long-acting opioids, tapering the long-acting opioid should be the initial priority.

Psychiatric comorbidities, a personal or family history of substance use disorder, and a preadolescent history of sexual abuse are associated with a higher risk of a substance use disorder.

A more rapid taper—eg, a 20% reduction each week or even abrupt discontinuation of opioids—might be necessary if diversion is suspected or if there is concern that continued use of the medication presents high risk. In such cases, consultation with an addiction medicine specialist can be helpful—to assess whether medication-assisted therapy for OUD would be appropriate and how to support patients who are having withdrawal symptoms.

Continue to: For all patients...

For all patients, frequent follow-up visits with their primary care clinician, as well as referrals to mental health, physical therapy, and pain or rehabilitation services, can promote a successful taper. It is advised that, before beginning a taper, a treatment plan should be written out with the patient so that expectations are shared by physician and patient for the goals of the taper, the speed of dosage decreases, and the frequency of follow-up after each dosage change. At each follow-up visit, education regarding self-management and individualized recommendations for psychosocial support, mental health services, and substance use disorder services should be updated.

Assessing risk when tapering chronic opioid therapy

The goals of tapering should be to (1) reduce adverse effects of treatment and (2) mitigate short- and long-term risks.

Three short-term risks

Unmasking OUD. Tapering prescribed opioids, or even just discussing tapering, can unmask OUD in some patients. Follow-up visits during the tapering schedule should include frequent screening for OUD. If OUD is diagnosed, we recommend beginning medication-assisted treatment or referring the patient to a substance use treatment center. There is strong evidence of the safety and efficacy of medication-assisted treatment, even with a coexisting chronic pain disorder.²⁷

Withdrawal syndrome. Opioid withdrawal syndrome is characterized by signs and symptoms of sympathetic stimulation, resulting from decreased sympathetic blockade by opioids (TABLE).²⁸ (See “Changes in the locus ceruleus lead to withdrawal.”²⁹) Symptoms start 2 to 3 half-lives after the last dose of opioid. Oxycodone, for example, has a half-life of 3 to 4 hours; withdrawal symptoms should therefore be anticipated in 6 to 12 hours. Because mixing opioids is commonplace, it can be difficult to predict exactly when withdrawal symptoms will begin. Patients are often most helpful in predicting the onset and severity of withdrawal symptoms.

Withdrawal can be measured using any of a number of validated tools, including

• the Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale, or SOWS³⁰ (FIGURE 1), which utilizes a patient self-report
• the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale, or COWS³¹ (FIGURE 2), which relies on assessment made by the physician.

Continue to: Although withdrawal...

Although withdrawal is generally not considered life-threatening in patients without significant comorbidities, do not underestimate the severity of withdrawal symptoms. Often, the desire to avoid these intense symptoms drives patients with OUD to continue to overuse.

Increased pain. Patients might fear that pain will become worse if opioids are tapered. Although it is important to acknowledge this fear, studies of patients undergoing a long-term opioid taper report improvements in function without loss of adequate pain control; some even report that pain control improves.³²

Three long-term risks

Relapse. The most dangerous risk of tapering opioids is use of illicit opioids, a danger made worse by the increasing presence of highly lethal synthetic fentanyl analogues in the community. Risk factors for relapse following a full taper include the presence of depressive symptoms at initiation of tapering and higher pain scores at initiation and conclusion of the taper.³³ Having low pain at the end of an opioid taper, on the other hand, is predictive of long-term abstinence from opioids.³²

Declining function. As is the case while prescribing opioids for pain, maintenance of function remains a priority when tapering opioids. Function can be difficult to assess, given the many variables that can influence an individual’s function. Psychosocial factors, such as coping strategies and mood, strongly influence function; so do psychiatric morbidities, which are more prevalent in patients with chronic pain and disability, compared with the general population.³⁴

Medicolegal matters. Although difficult to characterize, medicolegal risk is an inevitable consideration when tapering opioids:

• In a study of closed malpractice claims involving all medical specialties, narcotic pain medications were the most common drug class involved, representing 1% of claims.³⁵
• In a study of closed malpractice claims involving pain medicine specialists, 3% were related to medication management. Most claims arose following death from opioid overdose.³⁶

Continue to: What else is needed in this area of practice?

Increasingly, family physicians face the inherent tension of wanting to provide patient-centered, compassionate care for patients in pain while being mindful of opioid prescription stewardship. To support their work and help allay this tension, clinical research on this topic in the future should focus on

• new options for nonopioid pharmacotherapy for pain
• best practices for using opioids in noncancer chronic pain.

In addition, health care systems can help—by providing insurance coverage of nonpharmacotherapeutic options for treating pain.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael Mendoza, MD, MPH, MS, FAAFP, 111 Westfall Road, Room 952, Rochester, NY 14620; MichaelMendoza@ monroecounty.gov

The opioid crisis has brought added scrutiny to opioid prescribing, particularly to health care providers, whom many blame for the genesis of the opioid overdose epidemic. Family physicians are acutely aware of these complexities: By sheer volume, family physicians prescribe more opioid analgesics than any other subspecialist.¹

Overwhelmed by opioid prescriptions

Because of a complexity of factors (notably, the influence of the US pharmaceutical industry), the quantity of opioid prescriptions has risen substantially—enough so that, in 2010, opioids were prescribed in great enough quantity to medicate every American around the clock for a month.² Among people who began abusing opioids in the 2000s, 75% reported that their first opioid was a prescription drug; this is a shift from prior decades, when heroin was the gateway to opioid addiction.³ As the reality of the size of the opioid problem sunk in, many were hopeful that the epidemic would reverse itself as quickly as it began if the medical community would simply prescribe fewer opioids.

©Stuart Bradford

Since 2010, the opioid overdose fatality rate has risen dramatically, even though prescription opioid overdose mortality has leveled off, or even declined. ² One explanation for this paradox? As availability of prescription opioids declined, people suffering from an underlying opioid use disorder (OUD) turned instead first to heroin, then later to potent fentanyl analogues to fuel their addiction. In most communities, the prevalence of fentanyl analogues—alone or more commonly mixed with other opioids—has driven the staggering rise in opioid-related fatalities in recent years.

No question: Prescription opioids played a critical role in the origins of this epidemic, but just withdrawing prescriptions will not result in marked reduction in the epidemic. This quandary is no more apparent than in primary care, where the considerable risk of continuing opioids—especially at high dosages—must be weighed against the potential risks of discontinuation. Adding to this dilemma are lack of access to treatment for patients with an OUD and the continued stigma and misunderstanding of substance use disorders.

In this article, we describe the challenges of long-term opioid use and review necessary protocols and precautions for maintaining or tapering an opioid regimen in patients who suffer chronic pain.

Managing chronic pain is fraught with complexity

Chronic pain is both real and a disease in its own right. Although definitions of chronic pain vary, pain that lasts > 3 months or past the duration of normal tissue healing is typically considered chronic.⁴ Approximations of prevalence vary, but in 1 study that examined a representative sample, it was estimated that 14.6% of US adults experience chronic pain.⁵

Patients who report symptoms or a history of chronic pain can elicit negative reactions from physicians—stemming from our biases, which can inadvertently provoke emotions on our part.⁶ Unflattering portrayals of patients in the media can further fuel unwarranted biases and prejudices.⁷

Continue to: Preventing, assessing, and treating...

Preventing, assessing, and treating chronic pain can be difficult, at the level of both the individual physician and the larger system of care, even without adding in complications of the opioid epidemic. For racial and ethnic minority groups, women, older people, and people with cognitive impairment or cancer, pain can be underrecognized and go inadequately treated.

Among people who began abusing opioids in the 2000s, 75% said that their first opioid was a prescription drug; in prior decades, heroin was the gateway to opioid addiction.

Chronic pain itself has clinical, psychological, and social consequences and is associated with limitations in activity, work productivity, quality of life, and stigma.⁸ Treatment of chronic pain—with opioids or other modalities—remains an important component of patient-centered primary care. Interestingly, however, many patients struggling through chronic pain report that efforts to curb the opioid epidemic have inadvertently led to lower-quality pain management and, therefore, understandable concern among patients whose chronic pain is well managed with opioid pain medications.^9,10

When is it appropriate to continue opioids for chronic pain?

Apart from the treatment of active cancer, palliative care, and end-of-life care, the appropriate use of opioids for chronic and acute pain has become clouded in recent years. To assist with this problem, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidelines in 2016 for primary care physicians who are faced with this clinical dilemma.¹¹ The guidelines (1) address circumstances in which it is safe to consider opioid prescribing and (2) provide ongoing reassessment of indications for chronic opioid prescribing within the context of potential risk to the patient and society. Because appropriate use of opioids has grown murky, nonpharmacotherapeutic management and nonopioid pharmacotherapy are preferred for chronic pain.

The therapeutic window— between safe dosages and those that could lead to respiratory depression or overdose— is narrow for older patients.

Plan ahead. Establish goals of treatment that focus on both pain and function when starting opioid therapy. This will facilitate decision-making when it comes time to continue—or discontinue—opioids down the road. Opioids should be prescribed at the lowest effective dosage; ongoing reassessment of benefit should be made, and particular caution should be exercised, if the daily opioid dosage reaches ≥ 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) and especially as the dosage approaches ≥ 90 MME/d. Prescribers should ensure that patients are educated about known risks and the limited evidence of benefit of opioid therapy.

An age-related concern. Special consideration is warranted in older patients, who might have reduced renal function even in the absence of renal disease; this can lead to a reduction in clearance of pain medication. Because of that increased risk of drug accumulation, the therapeutic window—between safe dosages and those that could lead to respiratory depression or overdose—is narrow for these patients.¹¹

Continue to: Use in pregnancy

Use in pregnancy. Treatment with opioid medication in pregnancy warrants special consideration. In general, it’s wise to avoid opioid use in pregnant women because data on long- and short-term safety are limited.¹² In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a safety announcement that further investigation is needed to determine whether the fetus is at increased risk of a neural tube defect related to opioid exposure during the first trimester.¹³ In women with an OUD, both methadone and buprenorphine are safe to use. Buprenorphine is associated with slightly better outcomes for neonatal abstinence syndrome and length of hospital stay.¹⁴

Ongoing monitoring of risk. Periodically assessing risk factors for opioid-related harm during continuation of opioid treatment is important. Tools such as the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) or the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised, or SOAPP-R, can be used to evaluate the risk of misuse in adults who are prescribed opioids for chronic pain,¹⁵ although the evidence for utilizing these tools is inconclusive.¹¹

Offering naloxone should be considered when factors that increase the risk of opioid overdose are present, such as a history of substance use disorder, a daily opioid dosage > 50 MME, concurrent use of benzodiazepines, and medical comorbidities that increase the risk of overdose (eg, sleep apnea, pulmonary disease, heart failure).¹⁶ Prescribers should review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, to assess treatment adherence and to obtain a collateral history that might suggest abuse or diversion. Urine drug testing can be a useful adjunct to ongoing therapy—again, to assess treatment adherence and look for evidence of other substance use disorders.

Watchfulness for misuse and OUD. Opioid misuse—the nontherapeutic use of opioids—includes taking opioids in amounts other than prescribed, for indications other than prescribed, and administering by alternative routes other than prescribed (eg, crushing and snorting, rather than ingesting). The presence of opioid misuse does not always signify OUD. However, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed.,¹⁷ defines OUD as out-of-control use; devoting increasing mental and physical resources to obtaining, using, and recovering from substances; and continued use despite adverse consequences.

Behaviors that increase the risk of, and might signal, opioid misuse and OUD include¹⁸

• seeking early refills
• obtaining opioids from the emergency room
• using medications prescribed to others
• using opioids to treat symptoms other than pain, such as anxiety or insomnia
• “doctor-shopping.”

Continue to: Furthermore...

Furthermore, psychiatric comorbidities,¹⁹ a personal or family history of substance use disorder,²⁰ and a preadolescent history of sexual abuse²¹ are associated with a higher risk of a substance use disorder.

If OUD is identified, remain nonjudgmental and acknowledge that addiction is a chronic disease. Assumptions about a patient’s character or morality have no place in the appropriate management of OUD; remain mindful of your own implicit biases.

When is it appropriateto start an opioid taper?

The decision to taper opioids is difficult and can provoke anxiety for both prescriber and patient. Complicating matters is that there is insufficient evidence to evaluate opioid dosage-reduction interventions for patients with chronic noncancer pain.²²

Safety concerns. Even in patients who are taking opioids as prescribed and for whom no red flags have been raised, the long-term safety of high-dosage opioids remains unclear. There is no “safe” dosage of opioids; however, evidence is clear that the risk of death from overdose increases with dosage. Compared with patients taking a dosage anywhere from 1 to 20 MME/d, those taking 50 to 99 MME/d have a 3.7-fold increased risk of overdose; patients taking ≥ 100 MME/d had an 8.9-fold increased risk.²³ Patients for whom concomitant benzodiazepines are prescribed are also at higher risk of overdose and death. In studies of opioid overdose deaths, there was evidence of concurrent benzodiazepine use in 31% to 61% of cases.¹¹

Inadequate analgesia. Given the well-established risk of drug tolerance, the inability to achieve or maintain pain relief or functional improvement can still occur—even when the opioid dosage is escalated reasonably. It might be prudent in that situation to taper opioids while also considering alternative modalities, including ones that were deferred previously.

Continue to: Intolerable adverse effects

Intolerable adverse effects. Adverse effects are common. Constipation has a reported prevalence of 15% to 90% among patients on long-term opioid treatment.²⁴ Short-term, mild constipation is often manageable; long-term opioid use, however, can produce constipation refractory to bowel regimens and, in rare cases, lead to bowel obstruction, perforation, and even death. Other adverse effects include²⁵

• sedation and drowsiness
• impaired memory or concentration
• mood changes
• dry mouth
• abdominal pain and nausea
• sexual dysfunction.

When these effects limit the tolerability of treatment, tapering might be indicated.

How are opioids tapered?

There is no definitive evidence of an optimal rate of taper or frequency of follow-up. Most guidelines suggest tapering opioids at 10% of the dosage each week; patients who have been taking opioids for many years, however, might require a slower taper (eg, a dosage decrease of 5%-20% every 2-4 weeks).¹¹

Psychosocial support and maximizing nonopioid pain management techniques are critical to successful opioid tapering. When tapering is part of a comprehensive pain and rehabilitative plan, patients might find their symptoms alleviated.²⁶ Given the potential risks in patients taking both short- and long-acting opioids, tapering the long-acting opioid should be the initial priority.

Psychiatric comorbidities, a personal or family history of substance use disorder, and a preadolescent history of sexual abuse are associated with a higher risk of a substance use disorder.

A more rapid taper—eg, a 20% reduction each week or even abrupt discontinuation of opioids—might be necessary if diversion is suspected or if there is concern that continued use of the medication presents high risk. In such cases, consultation with an addiction medicine specialist can be helpful—to assess whether medication-assisted therapy for OUD would be appropriate and how to support patients who are having withdrawal symptoms.

Continue to: For all patients...

For all patients, frequent follow-up visits with their primary care clinician, as well as referrals to mental health, physical therapy, and pain or rehabilitation services, can promote a successful taper. It is advised that, before beginning a taper, a treatment plan should be written out with the patient so that expectations are shared by physician and patient for the goals of the taper, the speed of dosage decreases, and the frequency of follow-up after each dosage change. At each follow-up visit, education regarding self-management and individualized recommendations for psychosocial support, mental health services, and substance use disorder services should be updated.

Assessing risk when tapering chronic opioid therapy

The goals of tapering should be to (1) reduce adverse effects of treatment and (2) mitigate short- and long-term risks.

Three short-term risks

Unmasking OUD. Tapering prescribed opioids, or even just discussing tapering, can unmask OUD in some patients. Follow-up visits during the tapering schedule should include frequent screening for OUD. If OUD is diagnosed, we recommend beginning medication-assisted treatment or referring the patient to a substance use treatment center. There is strong evidence of the safety and efficacy of medication-assisted treatment, even with a coexisting chronic pain disorder.²⁷

Withdrawal syndrome. Opioid withdrawal syndrome is characterized by signs and symptoms of sympathetic stimulation, resulting from decreased sympathetic blockade by opioids (TABLE).²⁸ (See “Changes in the locus ceruleus lead to withdrawal.”²⁹) Symptoms start 2 to 3 half-lives after the last dose of opioid. Oxycodone, for example, has a half-life of 3 to 4 hours; withdrawal symptoms should therefore be anticipated in 6 to 12 hours. Because mixing opioids is commonplace, it can be difficult to predict exactly when withdrawal symptoms will begin. Patients are often most helpful in predicting the onset and severity of withdrawal symptoms.

Withdrawal can be measured using any of a number of validated tools, including

• the Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale, or SOWS³⁰ (FIGURE 1), which utilizes a patient self-report
• the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale, or COWS³¹ (FIGURE 2), which relies on assessment made by the physician.

Continue to: Although withdrawal...

Although withdrawal is generally not considered life-threatening in patients without significant comorbidities, do not underestimate the severity of withdrawal symptoms. Often, the desire to avoid these intense symptoms drives patients with OUD to continue to overuse.

Increased pain. Patients might fear that pain will become worse if opioids are tapered. Although it is important to acknowledge this fear, studies of patients undergoing a long-term opioid taper report improvements in function without loss of adequate pain control; some even report that pain control improves.³²

Three long-term risks

Relapse. The most dangerous risk of tapering opioids is use of illicit opioids, a danger made worse by the increasing presence of highly lethal synthetic fentanyl analogues in the community. Risk factors for relapse following a full taper include the presence of depressive symptoms at initiation of tapering and higher pain scores at initiation and conclusion of the taper.³³ Having low pain at the end of an opioid taper, on the other hand, is predictive of long-term abstinence from opioids.³²

Declining function. As is the case while prescribing opioids for pain, maintenance of function remains a priority when tapering opioids. Function can be difficult to assess, given the many variables that can influence an individual’s function. Psychosocial factors, such as coping strategies and mood, strongly influence function; so do psychiatric morbidities, which are more prevalent in patients with chronic pain and disability, compared with the general population.³⁴

Medicolegal matters. Although difficult to characterize, medicolegal risk is an inevitable consideration when tapering opioids:

• In a study of closed malpractice claims involving all medical specialties, narcotic pain medications were the most common drug class involved, representing 1% of claims.³⁵
• In a study of closed malpractice claims involving pain medicine specialists, 3% were related to medication management. Most claims arose following death from opioid overdose.³⁶

Continue to: What else is needed in this area of practice?

Increasingly, family physicians face the inherent tension of wanting to provide patient-centered, compassionate care for patients in pain while being mindful of opioid prescription stewardship. To support their work and help allay this tension, clinical research on this topic in the future should focus on

• new options for nonopioid pharmacotherapy for pain
• best practices for using opioids in noncancer chronic pain.

In addition, health care systems can help—by providing insurance coverage of nonpharmacotherapeutic options for treating pain.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael Mendoza, MD, MPH, MS, FAAFP, 111 Westfall Road, Room 952, Rochester, NY 14620; MichaelMendoza@ monroecounty.gov

The opioid crisis has brought added scrutiny to opioid prescribing, particularly to health care providers, whom many blame for the genesis of the opioid overdose epidemic. Family physicians are acutely aware of these complexities: By sheer volume, family physicians prescribe more opioid analgesics than any other subspecialist.¹

Overwhelmed by opioid prescriptions

Because of a complexity of factors (notably, the influence of the US pharmaceutical industry), the quantity of opioid prescriptions has risen substantially—enough so that, in 2010, opioids were prescribed in great enough quantity to medicate every American around the clock for a month.² Among people who began abusing opioids in the 2000s, 75% reported that their first opioid was a prescription drug; this is a shift from prior decades, when heroin was the gateway to opioid addiction.³ As the reality of the size of the opioid problem sunk in, many were hopeful that the epidemic would reverse itself as quickly as it began if the medical community would simply prescribe fewer opioids.

©Stuart Bradford

Since 2010, the opioid overdose fatality rate has risen dramatically, even though prescription opioid overdose mortality has leveled off, or even declined. ² One explanation for this paradox? As availability of prescription opioids declined, people suffering from an underlying opioid use disorder (OUD) turned instead first to heroin, then later to potent fentanyl analogues to fuel their addiction. In most communities, the prevalence of fentanyl analogues—alone or more commonly mixed with other opioids—has driven the staggering rise in opioid-related fatalities in recent years.

No question: Prescription opioids played a critical role in the origins of this epidemic, but just withdrawing prescriptions will not result in marked reduction in the epidemic. This quandary is no more apparent than in primary care, where the considerable risk of continuing opioids—especially at high dosages—must be weighed against the potential risks of discontinuation. Adding to this dilemma are lack of access to treatment for patients with an OUD and the continued stigma and misunderstanding of substance use disorders.

In this article, we describe the challenges of long-term opioid use and review necessary protocols and precautions for maintaining or tapering an opioid regimen in patients who suffer chronic pain.

Managing chronic pain is fraught with complexity

Chronic pain is both real and a disease in its own right. Although definitions of chronic pain vary, pain that lasts > 3 months or past the duration of normal tissue healing is typically considered chronic.⁴ Approximations of prevalence vary, but in 1 study that examined a representative sample, it was estimated that 14.6% of US adults experience chronic pain.⁵

Patients who report symptoms or a history of chronic pain can elicit negative reactions from physicians—stemming from our biases, which can inadvertently provoke emotions on our part.⁶ Unflattering portrayals of patients in the media can further fuel unwarranted biases and prejudices.⁷

Continue to: Preventing, assessing, and treating...

Preventing, assessing, and treating chronic pain can be difficult, at the level of both the individual physician and the larger system of care, even without adding in complications of the opioid epidemic. For racial and ethnic minority groups, women, older people, and people with cognitive impairment or cancer, pain can be underrecognized and go inadequately treated.

Among people who began abusing opioids in the 2000s, 75% said that their first opioid was a prescription drug; in prior decades, heroin was the gateway to opioid addiction.

Chronic pain itself has clinical, psychological, and social consequences and is associated with limitations in activity, work productivity, quality of life, and stigma.⁸ Treatment of chronic pain—with opioids or other modalities—remains an important component of patient-centered primary care. Interestingly, however, many patients struggling through chronic pain report that efforts to curb the opioid epidemic have inadvertently led to lower-quality pain management and, therefore, understandable concern among patients whose chronic pain is well managed with opioid pain medications.^9,10

When is it appropriate to continue opioids for chronic pain?

Apart from the treatment of active cancer, palliative care, and end-of-life care, the appropriate use of opioids for chronic and acute pain has become clouded in recent years. To assist with this problem, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidelines in 2016 for primary care physicians who are faced with this clinical dilemma.¹¹ The guidelines (1) address circumstances in which it is safe to consider opioid prescribing and (2) provide ongoing reassessment of indications for chronic opioid prescribing within the context of potential risk to the patient and society. Because appropriate use of opioids has grown murky, nonpharmacotherapeutic management and nonopioid pharmacotherapy are preferred for chronic pain.

The therapeutic window— between safe dosages and those that could lead to respiratory depression or overdose— is narrow for older patients.

Plan ahead. Establish goals of treatment that focus on both pain and function when starting opioid therapy. This will facilitate decision-making when it comes time to continue—or discontinue—opioids down the road. Opioids should be prescribed at the lowest effective dosage; ongoing reassessment of benefit should be made, and particular caution should be exercised, if the daily opioid dosage reaches ≥ 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) and especially as the dosage approaches ≥ 90 MME/d. Prescribers should ensure that patients are educated about known risks and the limited evidence of benefit of opioid therapy.

An age-related concern. Special consideration is warranted in older patients, who might have reduced renal function even in the absence of renal disease; this can lead to a reduction in clearance of pain medication. Because of that increased risk of drug accumulation, the therapeutic window—between safe dosages and those that could lead to respiratory depression or overdose—is narrow for these patients.¹¹

Continue to: Use in pregnancy

Use in pregnancy. Treatment with opioid medication in pregnancy warrants special consideration. In general, it’s wise to avoid opioid use in pregnant women because data on long- and short-term safety are limited.¹² In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a safety announcement that further investigation is needed to determine whether the fetus is at increased risk of a neural tube defect related to opioid exposure during the first trimester.¹³ In women with an OUD, both methadone and buprenorphine are safe to use. Buprenorphine is associated with slightly better outcomes for neonatal abstinence syndrome and length of hospital stay.¹⁴

Ongoing monitoring of risk. Periodically assessing risk factors for opioid-related harm during continuation of opioid treatment is important. Tools such as the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) or the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised, or SOAPP-R, can be used to evaluate the risk of misuse in adults who are prescribed opioids for chronic pain,¹⁵ although the evidence for utilizing these tools is inconclusive.¹¹

Offering naloxone should be considered when factors that increase the risk of opioid overdose are present, such as a history of substance use disorder, a daily opioid dosage > 50 MME, concurrent use of benzodiazepines, and medical comorbidities that increase the risk of overdose (eg, sleep apnea, pulmonary disease, heart failure).¹⁶ Prescribers should review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, to assess treatment adherence and to obtain a collateral history that might suggest abuse or diversion. Urine drug testing can be a useful adjunct to ongoing therapy—again, to assess treatment adherence and look for evidence of other substance use disorders.

Watchfulness for misuse and OUD. Opioid misuse—the nontherapeutic use of opioids—includes taking opioids in amounts other than prescribed, for indications other than prescribed, and administering by alternative routes other than prescribed (eg, crushing and snorting, rather than ingesting). The presence of opioid misuse does not always signify OUD. However, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed.,¹⁷ defines OUD as out-of-control use; devoting increasing mental and physical resources to obtaining, using, and recovering from substances; and continued use despite adverse consequences.

Behaviors that increase the risk of, and might signal, opioid misuse and OUD include¹⁸

• seeking early refills
• obtaining opioids from the emergency room
• using medications prescribed to others
• using opioids to treat symptoms other than pain, such as anxiety or insomnia
• “doctor-shopping.”

Continue to: Furthermore...

Furthermore, psychiatric comorbidities,¹⁹ a personal or family history of substance use disorder,²⁰ and a preadolescent history of sexual abuse²¹ are associated with a higher risk of a substance use disorder.

If OUD is identified, remain nonjudgmental and acknowledge that addiction is a chronic disease. Assumptions about a patient’s character or morality have no place in the appropriate management of OUD; remain mindful of your own implicit biases.

When is it appropriateto start an opioid taper?

The decision to taper opioids is difficult and can provoke anxiety for both prescriber and patient. Complicating matters is that there is insufficient evidence to evaluate opioid dosage-reduction interventions for patients with chronic noncancer pain.²²

Safety concerns. Even in patients who are taking opioids as prescribed and for whom no red flags have been raised, the long-term safety of high-dosage opioids remains unclear. There is no “safe” dosage of opioids; however, evidence is clear that the risk of death from overdose increases with dosage. Compared with patients taking a dosage anywhere from 1 to 20 MME/d, those taking 50 to 99 MME/d have a 3.7-fold increased risk of overdose; patients taking ≥ 100 MME/d had an 8.9-fold increased risk.²³ Patients for whom concomitant benzodiazepines are prescribed are also at higher risk of overdose and death. In studies of opioid overdose deaths, there was evidence of concurrent benzodiazepine use in 31% to 61% of cases.¹¹

Inadequate analgesia. Given the well-established risk of drug tolerance, the inability to achieve or maintain pain relief or functional improvement can still occur—even when the opioid dosage is escalated reasonably. It might be prudent in that situation to taper opioids while also considering alternative modalities, including ones that were deferred previously.

Continue to: Intolerable adverse effects

Intolerable adverse effects. Adverse effects are common. Constipation has a reported prevalence of 15% to 90% among patients on long-term opioid treatment.²⁴ Short-term, mild constipation is often manageable; long-term opioid use, however, can produce constipation refractory to bowel regimens and, in rare cases, lead to bowel obstruction, perforation, and even death. Other adverse effects include²⁵

• sedation and drowsiness
• impaired memory or concentration
• mood changes
• dry mouth
• abdominal pain and nausea
• sexual dysfunction.

When these effects limit the tolerability of treatment, tapering might be indicated.

How are opioids tapered?

There is no definitive evidence of an optimal rate of taper or frequency of follow-up. Most guidelines suggest tapering opioids at 10% of the dosage each week; patients who have been taking opioids for many years, however, might require a slower taper (eg, a dosage decrease of 5%-20% every 2-4 weeks).¹¹

Psychosocial support and maximizing nonopioid pain management techniques are critical to successful opioid tapering. When tapering is part of a comprehensive pain and rehabilitative plan, patients might find their symptoms alleviated.²⁶ Given the potential risks in patients taking both short- and long-acting opioids, tapering the long-acting opioid should be the initial priority.

Psychiatric comorbidities, a personal or family history of substance use disorder, and a preadolescent history of sexual abuse are associated with a higher risk of a substance use disorder.

A more rapid taper—eg, a 20% reduction each week or even abrupt discontinuation of opioids—might be necessary if diversion is suspected or if there is concern that continued use of the medication presents high risk. In such cases, consultation with an addiction medicine specialist can be helpful—to assess whether medication-assisted therapy for OUD would be appropriate and how to support patients who are having withdrawal symptoms.

Continue to: For all patients...

For all patients, frequent follow-up visits with their primary care clinician, as well as referrals to mental health, physical therapy, and pain or rehabilitation services, can promote a successful taper. It is advised that, before beginning a taper, a treatment plan should be written out with the patient so that expectations are shared by physician and patient for the goals of the taper, the speed of dosage decreases, and the frequency of follow-up after each dosage change. At each follow-up visit, education regarding self-management and individualized recommendations for psychosocial support, mental health services, and substance use disorder services should be updated.

Assessing risk when tapering chronic opioid therapy

The goals of tapering should be to (1) reduce adverse effects of treatment and (2) mitigate short- and long-term risks.

Three short-term risks

Unmasking OUD. Tapering prescribed opioids, or even just discussing tapering, can unmask OUD in some patients. Follow-up visits during the tapering schedule should include frequent screening for OUD. If OUD is diagnosed, we recommend beginning medication-assisted treatment or referring the patient to a substance use treatment center. There is strong evidence of the safety and efficacy of medication-assisted treatment, even with a coexisting chronic pain disorder.²⁷

Withdrawal syndrome. Opioid withdrawal syndrome is characterized by signs and symptoms of sympathetic stimulation, resulting from decreased sympathetic blockade by opioids (TABLE).²⁸ (See “Changes in the locus ceruleus lead to withdrawal.”²⁹) Symptoms start 2 to 3 half-lives after the last dose of opioid. Oxycodone, for example, has a half-life of 3 to 4 hours; withdrawal symptoms should therefore be anticipated in 6 to 12 hours. Because mixing opioids is commonplace, it can be difficult to predict exactly when withdrawal symptoms will begin. Patients are often most helpful in predicting the onset and severity of withdrawal symptoms.

Withdrawal can be measured using any of a number of validated tools, including

• the Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale, or SOWS³⁰ (FIGURE 1), which utilizes a patient self-report
• the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale, or COWS³¹ (FIGURE 2), which relies on assessment made by the physician.

Continue to: Although withdrawal...

Although withdrawal is generally not considered life-threatening in patients without significant comorbidities, do not underestimate the severity of withdrawal symptoms. Often, the desire to avoid these intense symptoms drives patients with OUD to continue to overuse.

Increased pain. Patients might fear that pain will become worse if opioids are tapered. Although it is important to acknowledge this fear, studies of patients undergoing a long-term opioid taper report improvements in function without loss of adequate pain control; some even report that pain control improves.³²

Three long-term risks

Relapse. The most dangerous risk of tapering opioids is use of illicit opioids, a danger made worse by the increasing presence of highly lethal synthetic fentanyl analogues in the community. Risk factors for relapse following a full taper include the presence of depressive symptoms at initiation of tapering and higher pain scores at initiation and conclusion of the taper.³³ Having low pain at the end of an opioid taper, on the other hand, is predictive of long-term abstinence from opioids.³²

Declining function. As is the case while prescribing opioids for pain, maintenance of function remains a priority when tapering opioids. Function can be difficult to assess, given the many variables that can influence an individual’s function. Psychosocial factors, such as coping strategies and mood, strongly influence function; so do psychiatric morbidities, which are more prevalent in patients with chronic pain and disability, compared with the general population.³⁴

Medicolegal matters. Although difficult to characterize, medicolegal risk is an inevitable consideration when tapering opioids:

• In a study of closed malpractice claims involving all medical specialties, narcotic pain medications were the most common drug class involved, representing 1% of claims.³⁵
• In a study of closed malpractice claims involving pain medicine specialists, 3% were related to medication management. Most claims arose following death from opioid overdose.³⁶

Continue to: What else is needed in this area of practice?

Increasingly, family physicians face the inherent tension of wanting to provide patient-centered, compassionate care for patients in pain while being mindful of opioid prescription stewardship. To support their work and help allay this tension, clinical research on this topic in the future should focus on

• new options for nonopioid pharmacotherapy for pain
• best practices for using opioids in noncancer chronic pain.

In addition, health care systems can help—by providing insurance coverage of nonpharmacotherapeutic options for treating pain.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael Mendoza, MD, MPH, MS, FAAFP, 111 Westfall Road, Room 952, Rochester, NY 14620; MichaelMendoza@ monroecounty.gov

Rosacea is an inflammatory skin condition that affects approximately 5% of the adult population, with the highest prevalence in Europe and North America.¹ Despite its prevalence, rosacea remains poorly understood from a pathophysiologic perspective, with no diagnostic laboratory markers.² Because diagnosis relies on clinical judgment, the nomenclature for describing and characterizing rosacea becomes paramount in ensuring that patients are given an accurate diagnosis and subsequent treatment. We review the shortfalls in the recent history of rosacea classification and discuss their implications.

Subtype to Phenotype Classification

In 2002, the National Rosacea Society (NRS) Expert Committee published a standardized classification schema for rosacea (Table).³ The authors described primary and secondary diagnostic criteria. The presence of 1 or more primary features in a central facial distribution was indicative of rosacea. Primary characteristics included flushing (transient erythema), nontransient erythema, papules and pustules, and telangiectasia. Secondary features, which could occur with or independently of primary features, included burning or stinging of the face, dry appearance, facial edema, ocular manifestations, peripheral (nonfacial) occurrence, phymatous changes, and red facial plaques. Whereas these features often present simultaneously in a characteristic pattern, they were grouped into 4 main subtypes—erythematotelangiectatic (ETR), papulopustular, phymatous, and ocular—and 1 variant, granulomatous rosacea.³

To enhance clinical and research applications of this categorization system as well as offer further standardization, the NRS released a supplementary clinical grading scorecard in 2004 in which each of the primary and secondary characteristics could be assigned a subjective severity score of absent, mild, moderate, or severe. The goal was that the subtype classification and clinical grading system, when used in conjunction with each other, would establish a common language for patients, clinicians, and researchers to describe and further investigate rosacea.⁴

The 2002 categorization system was certainly an impactful first step in the organization of rosacea. It was not without its critics, however, namely rosacea-oriented dermatologists who were concerned about its lack of specificity.^5-7 For instance, the NRS Expert Committee did not address the time frame for flushing, which typically has a long duration in rosacea patients, or for the nontransient erythema; telangiectasia secondary to heliodermatitis; or the often-observed periocular sparing. Additionally, the schema did not account for conditions such as gram-negative folliculitis (pustules characteristically located on the central face) or discuss the need to rule out carcinoid, mastocytosis, or connective-tissue disease, which can lead to nontransient facial erythema. Without strict definitions and exclusions, nonrosacea disorders could be incorrectly labeled as rosacea.

Beyond the lack of specificity, there was additional concern if a subtype system was the ideal way to capture disease presentation and severity. By subtyping, there was unnecessary division of interrelated disease into individual disorders; an individual’s clinical presentation might fall along a spectrum rather than within a discrete box.⁸

Furthermore, from a research standpoint, subtyping rosacea could hinder or confuse epidemiologic studies. For instance, if patients present with phenotypes from different subtypes, into which subtype would they fall?^8-10

The global ROSacea COnsensus (ROSCO) panel, comprising 17 international dermatologists and ophthalmologists, convened in 2016 to address this matter. The panel proposed a new system (published in 2017) based on individual phenotypes.⁹ In this new system, diagnostic features include persistent centrofacial erythema with periods of increased intensity and phymatous changes. Major features, which are diagnostic when there are at least 2, include flushing (transient erythema), inflammatory papules and pustules, centrofacial telangiectasia, and ocular manifestations. Each feature could then be graded on a severity spectrum independent of concurrent phenotypes (Table).⁸

The panel concluded that this system would provide a stronger foundation for standardization as new knowledge of rosacea continues to be elucidated.⁸ In support of their argument, ROSCO also released a treatment algorithm that depended on a phenotype scheme.¹¹ The panel emphasized that by focusing on individual lesions rather than a subtype encompassing many characteristics, treatment could be tailored to the patient. Using this à-la-carte therapy option, physicians could choose those rosacea aspects that are particularly concerning to the patient and manage only those aspects or overlap treatments to improve multiple aspects.¹¹

In 2017, 15 years after the original classification system was proposed, the NRS updated their classification system (published in 2018), taking into consideration some of the criticisms as well as new scientific data on rosacea. Similar to the schema proposed by ROSCO, this system was based on phenotype. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were more robust in this update compared to the original classification in 2002. The criteria provide a timeline for transient flushing—it must occur within seconds or minutes in response to a neurovascular stimulant—and state that it is characteristically prolonged (Table).¹²

However, the Expert Committee still did not define either the length of time of flushing or nontransient erythema. It also did not specify convex surfaces of the face with periocular sparing as the characteristic pattern or provide additional information on how photoaging fits into the definition. The updated classification stated that centrofacial erythema must not be from cutaneous lupus or seborrheic eczema, and steroid-induced rosacea was still excluded.¹² However, there is still the need to exclude other systemic conditions, such as mastocytosis, carcinoid, polycythemia vera, and dermatomyositis. Therefore, the potential for subjective error and inclusion of nonrosacea diseases persists.

A critical change was elimination of the granulomatous rosacea variant. In 2002, this variant was defined by monomorphic, yellow-brown to red papules and nodules that led to scarring. This variant, however, did not share the commonalities of the other subtypes, including persistent facial erythema, limitation to convex surfaces, periocular sparing, and transient flushing.^3,13 At the time, Crawford et al⁶ proposed that the variant be recategorized as granulomatous facial dermatitis. In the updated NRS classification, this variant and phenotypic description was eliminated from the schema.¹² It is unclear if it was removed because of these discrepancies or if the NRS panel felt it had a distinct pathogenesis from the proposed rosacea pathophysiology; however, we applaud this change.

Subtype Progression

Both the ROSCO and NRS classification schemes mention progression between the various phenotypes,^10,12 suggesting that rosacea phenotypes exist along a continuum, progressing and regressing with disease severity. The main study addressing this point was based on the self-reported retrospective patient memory of disease features in rosacea patients. The authors used a modified criterion of centrofacial erythema alone to define ETR; therefore, a person who began their disease with this finding but then acquired inflammatory lesions or phymas was defined as progressing along a spectrum.¹⁴ Given that persistent erythema of convex surfaces of the face is common in all subtypes, we do not find it surprising that the authors found (using their modified criteria) that ETR appeared to progress to papulopustular and phymatous subtypes in a small number of patients. We strongly disagree with their interpretation and conclusion.

In our experience, ETR patients have fine textured skin without sebaceous quality or a history of extensive acne (Figure 1). Flushing is common and usually lasts 10 minutes to 1 hour. There might be concurrent burning or stinging; however, there is no associated sweating, lightheadedness, palpitations, or diagnostic laboratory findings, which distinguishes ETR from other common causes of flushing. The persistent centrofacial erythema involves convex surfaces, spares periocular skin, and can be best defined as present for longer than 3 months.

Implications and Future Directions

We present an overview of 2 rosacea classification systems, hoping to stimulate further refinement. Looking forward, there are many directions for further investigation into the pathophysiology of rosacea. From a genetic standpoint, there needs to be continued molecular and epidemiologic data to determine the underlying genetic contributions to disease.

There has been some progress in the realm of understanding the mechanisms of inflammation; we urge further investigation to elucidate how “subclinical neuroinflammation” might lead to glandular hyperplasia.¹² We also see value in examining the genetic and hormonal contributions to phymas, as they may be different than those seen in the ETR-type patients. Last, more studies focusing on comorbidities that contribute to or arise from rosacea are welcomed.

The ultimate goal is to develop a classification system that integrates clinical descriptions, pathophysiologic mechanisms, and benchmark indicators of disease. Only then can we have a true gold standard for the diagnosis of rosacea, one that allows for improved personalized treatment and better outcomes.

Rosacea is an inflammatory skin condition that affects approximately 5% of the adult population, with the highest prevalence in Europe and North America.¹ Despite its prevalence, rosacea remains poorly understood from a pathophysiologic perspective, with no diagnostic laboratory markers.² Because diagnosis relies on clinical judgment, the nomenclature for describing and characterizing rosacea becomes paramount in ensuring that patients are given an accurate diagnosis and subsequent treatment. We review the shortfalls in the recent history of rosacea classification and discuss their implications.

Subtype to Phenotype Classification

In 2002, the National Rosacea Society (NRS) Expert Committee published a standardized classification schema for rosacea (Table).³ The authors described primary and secondary diagnostic criteria. The presence of 1 or more primary features in a central facial distribution was indicative of rosacea. Primary characteristics included flushing (transient erythema), nontransient erythema, papules and pustules, and telangiectasia. Secondary features, which could occur with or independently of primary features, included burning or stinging of the face, dry appearance, facial edema, ocular manifestations, peripheral (nonfacial) occurrence, phymatous changes, and red facial plaques. Whereas these features often present simultaneously in a characteristic pattern, they were grouped into 4 main subtypes—erythematotelangiectatic (ETR), papulopustular, phymatous, and ocular—and 1 variant, granulomatous rosacea.³

To enhance clinical and research applications of this categorization system as well as offer further standardization, the NRS released a supplementary clinical grading scorecard in 2004 in which each of the primary and secondary characteristics could be assigned a subjective severity score of absent, mild, moderate, or severe. The goal was that the subtype classification and clinical grading system, when used in conjunction with each other, would establish a common language for patients, clinicians, and researchers to describe and further investigate rosacea.⁴

The 2002 categorization system was certainly an impactful first step in the organization of rosacea. It was not without its critics, however, namely rosacea-oriented dermatologists who were concerned about its lack of specificity.^5-7 For instance, the NRS Expert Committee did not address the time frame for flushing, which typically has a long duration in rosacea patients, or for the nontransient erythema; telangiectasia secondary to heliodermatitis; or the often-observed periocular sparing. Additionally, the schema did not account for conditions such as gram-negative folliculitis (pustules characteristically located on the central face) or discuss the need to rule out carcinoid, mastocytosis, or connective-tissue disease, which can lead to nontransient facial erythema. Without strict definitions and exclusions, nonrosacea disorders could be incorrectly labeled as rosacea.

Beyond the lack of specificity, there was additional concern if a subtype system was the ideal way to capture disease presentation and severity. By subtyping, there was unnecessary division of interrelated disease into individual disorders; an individual’s clinical presentation might fall along a spectrum rather than within a discrete box.⁸

Furthermore, from a research standpoint, subtyping rosacea could hinder or confuse epidemiologic studies. For instance, if patients present with phenotypes from different subtypes, into which subtype would they fall?^8-10

The global ROSacea COnsensus (ROSCO) panel, comprising 17 international dermatologists and ophthalmologists, convened in 2016 to address this matter. The panel proposed a new system (published in 2017) based on individual phenotypes.⁹ In this new system, diagnostic features include persistent centrofacial erythema with periods of increased intensity and phymatous changes. Major features, which are diagnostic when there are at least 2, include flushing (transient erythema), inflammatory papules and pustules, centrofacial telangiectasia, and ocular manifestations. Each feature could then be graded on a severity spectrum independent of concurrent phenotypes (Table).⁸

The panel concluded that this system would provide a stronger foundation for standardization as new knowledge of rosacea continues to be elucidated.⁸ In support of their argument, ROSCO also released a treatment algorithm that depended on a phenotype scheme.¹¹ The panel emphasized that by focusing on individual lesions rather than a subtype encompassing many characteristics, treatment could be tailored to the patient. Using this à-la-carte therapy option, physicians could choose those rosacea aspects that are particularly concerning to the patient and manage only those aspects or overlap treatments to improve multiple aspects.¹¹

In 2017, 15 years after the original classification system was proposed, the NRS updated their classification system (published in 2018), taking into consideration some of the criticisms as well as new scientific data on rosacea. Similar to the schema proposed by ROSCO, this system was based on phenotype. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were more robust in this update compared to the original classification in 2002. The criteria provide a timeline for transient flushing—it must occur within seconds or minutes in response to a neurovascular stimulant—and state that it is characteristically prolonged (Table).¹²

However, the Expert Committee still did not define either the length of time of flushing or nontransient erythema. It also did not specify convex surfaces of the face with periocular sparing as the characteristic pattern or provide additional information on how photoaging fits into the definition. The updated classification stated that centrofacial erythema must not be from cutaneous lupus or seborrheic eczema, and steroid-induced rosacea was still excluded.¹² However, there is still the need to exclude other systemic conditions, such as mastocytosis, carcinoid, polycythemia vera, and dermatomyositis. Therefore, the potential for subjective error and inclusion of nonrosacea diseases persists.

A critical change was elimination of the granulomatous rosacea variant. In 2002, this variant was defined by monomorphic, yellow-brown to red papules and nodules that led to scarring. This variant, however, did not share the commonalities of the other subtypes, including persistent facial erythema, limitation to convex surfaces, periocular sparing, and transient flushing.^3,13 At the time, Crawford et al⁶ proposed that the variant be recategorized as granulomatous facial dermatitis. In the updated NRS classification, this variant and phenotypic description was eliminated from the schema.¹² It is unclear if it was removed because of these discrepancies or if the NRS panel felt it had a distinct pathogenesis from the proposed rosacea pathophysiology; however, we applaud this change.

Subtype Progression

Both the ROSCO and NRS classification schemes mention progression between the various phenotypes,^10,12 suggesting that rosacea phenotypes exist along a continuum, progressing and regressing with disease severity. The main study addressing this point was based on the self-reported retrospective patient memory of disease features in rosacea patients. The authors used a modified criterion of centrofacial erythema alone to define ETR; therefore, a person who began their disease with this finding but then acquired inflammatory lesions or phymas was defined as progressing along a spectrum.¹⁴ Given that persistent erythema of convex surfaces of the face is common in all subtypes, we do not find it surprising that the authors found (using their modified criteria) that ETR appeared to progress to papulopustular and phymatous subtypes in a small number of patients. We strongly disagree with their interpretation and conclusion.

In our experience, ETR patients have fine textured skin without sebaceous quality or a history of extensive acne (Figure 1). Flushing is common and usually lasts 10 minutes to 1 hour. There might be concurrent burning or stinging; however, there is no associated sweating, lightheadedness, palpitations, or diagnostic laboratory findings, which distinguishes ETR from other common causes of flushing. The persistent centrofacial erythema involves convex surfaces, spares periocular skin, and can be best defined as present for longer than 3 months.

Implications and Future Directions

We present an overview of 2 rosacea classification systems, hoping to stimulate further refinement. Looking forward, there are many directions for further investigation into the pathophysiology of rosacea. From a genetic standpoint, there needs to be continued molecular and epidemiologic data to determine the underlying genetic contributions to disease.

There has been some progress in the realm of understanding the mechanisms of inflammation; we urge further investigation to elucidate how “subclinical neuroinflammation” might lead to glandular hyperplasia.¹² We also see value in examining the genetic and hormonal contributions to phymas, as they may be different than those seen in the ETR-type patients. Last, more studies focusing on comorbidities that contribute to or arise from rosacea are welcomed.

The ultimate goal is to develop a classification system that integrates clinical descriptions, pathophysiologic mechanisms, and benchmark indicators of disease. Only then can we have a true gold standard for the diagnosis of rosacea, one that allows for improved personalized treatment and better outcomes.

Rosacea is an inflammatory skin condition that affects approximately 5% of the adult population, with the highest prevalence in Europe and North America.¹ Despite its prevalence, rosacea remains poorly understood from a pathophysiologic perspective, with no diagnostic laboratory markers.² Because diagnosis relies on clinical judgment, the nomenclature for describing and characterizing rosacea becomes paramount in ensuring that patients are given an accurate diagnosis and subsequent treatment. We review the shortfalls in the recent history of rosacea classification and discuss their implications.

Subtype to Phenotype Classification

In 2002, the National Rosacea Society (NRS) Expert Committee published a standardized classification schema for rosacea (Table).³ The authors described primary and secondary diagnostic criteria. The presence of 1 or more primary features in a central facial distribution was indicative of rosacea. Primary characteristics included flushing (transient erythema), nontransient erythema, papules and pustules, and telangiectasia. Secondary features, which could occur with or independently of primary features, included burning or stinging of the face, dry appearance, facial edema, ocular manifestations, peripheral (nonfacial) occurrence, phymatous changes, and red facial plaques. Whereas these features often present simultaneously in a characteristic pattern, they were grouped into 4 main subtypes—erythematotelangiectatic (ETR), papulopustular, phymatous, and ocular—and 1 variant, granulomatous rosacea.³

To enhance clinical and research applications of this categorization system as well as offer further standardization, the NRS released a supplementary clinical grading scorecard in 2004 in which each of the primary and secondary characteristics could be assigned a subjective severity score of absent, mild, moderate, or severe. The goal was that the subtype classification and clinical grading system, when used in conjunction with each other, would establish a common language for patients, clinicians, and researchers to describe and further investigate rosacea.⁴

The 2002 categorization system was certainly an impactful first step in the organization of rosacea. It was not without its critics, however, namely rosacea-oriented dermatologists who were concerned about its lack of specificity.^5-7 For instance, the NRS Expert Committee did not address the time frame for flushing, which typically has a long duration in rosacea patients, or for the nontransient erythema; telangiectasia secondary to heliodermatitis; or the often-observed periocular sparing. Additionally, the schema did not account for conditions such as gram-negative folliculitis (pustules characteristically located on the central face) or discuss the need to rule out carcinoid, mastocytosis, or connective-tissue disease, which can lead to nontransient facial erythema. Without strict definitions and exclusions, nonrosacea disorders could be incorrectly labeled as rosacea.

Beyond the lack of specificity, there was additional concern if a subtype system was the ideal way to capture disease presentation and severity. By subtyping, there was unnecessary division of interrelated disease into individual disorders; an individual’s clinical presentation might fall along a spectrum rather than within a discrete box.⁸

Furthermore, from a research standpoint, subtyping rosacea could hinder or confuse epidemiologic studies. For instance, if patients present with phenotypes from different subtypes, into which subtype would they fall?^8-10

The global ROSacea COnsensus (ROSCO) panel, comprising 17 international dermatologists and ophthalmologists, convened in 2016 to address this matter. The panel proposed a new system (published in 2017) based on individual phenotypes.⁹ In this new system, diagnostic features include persistent centrofacial erythema with periods of increased intensity and phymatous changes. Major features, which are diagnostic when there are at least 2, include flushing (transient erythema), inflammatory papules and pustules, centrofacial telangiectasia, and ocular manifestations. Each feature could then be graded on a severity spectrum independent of concurrent phenotypes (Table).⁸

The panel concluded that this system would provide a stronger foundation for standardization as new knowledge of rosacea continues to be elucidated.⁸ In support of their argument, ROSCO also released a treatment algorithm that depended on a phenotype scheme.¹¹ The panel emphasized that by focusing on individual lesions rather than a subtype encompassing many characteristics, treatment could be tailored to the patient. Using this à-la-carte therapy option, physicians could choose those rosacea aspects that are particularly concerning to the patient and manage only those aspects or overlap treatments to improve multiple aspects.¹¹

In 2017, 15 years after the original classification system was proposed, the NRS updated their classification system (published in 2018), taking into consideration some of the criticisms as well as new scientific data on rosacea. Similar to the schema proposed by ROSCO, this system was based on phenotype. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were more robust in this update compared to the original classification in 2002. The criteria provide a timeline for transient flushing—it must occur within seconds or minutes in response to a neurovascular stimulant—and state that it is characteristically prolonged (Table).¹²

However, the Expert Committee still did not define either the length of time of flushing or nontransient erythema. It also did not specify convex surfaces of the face with periocular sparing as the characteristic pattern or provide additional information on how photoaging fits into the definition. The updated classification stated that centrofacial erythema must not be from cutaneous lupus or seborrheic eczema, and steroid-induced rosacea was still excluded.¹² However, there is still the need to exclude other systemic conditions, such as mastocytosis, carcinoid, polycythemia vera, and dermatomyositis. Therefore, the potential for subjective error and inclusion of nonrosacea diseases persists.

A critical change was elimination of the granulomatous rosacea variant. In 2002, this variant was defined by monomorphic, yellow-brown to red papules and nodules that led to scarring. This variant, however, did not share the commonalities of the other subtypes, including persistent facial erythema, limitation to convex surfaces, periocular sparing, and transient flushing.^3,13 At the time, Crawford et al⁶ proposed that the variant be recategorized as granulomatous facial dermatitis. In the updated NRS classification, this variant and phenotypic description was eliminated from the schema.¹² It is unclear if it was removed because of these discrepancies or if the NRS panel felt it had a distinct pathogenesis from the proposed rosacea pathophysiology; however, we applaud this change.

Subtype Progression

Both the ROSCO and NRS classification schemes mention progression between the various phenotypes,^10,12 suggesting that rosacea phenotypes exist along a continuum, progressing and regressing with disease severity. The main study addressing this point was based on the self-reported retrospective patient memory of disease features in rosacea patients. The authors used a modified criterion of centrofacial erythema alone to define ETR; therefore, a person who began their disease with this finding but then acquired inflammatory lesions or phymas was defined as progressing along a spectrum.¹⁴ Given that persistent erythema of convex surfaces of the face is common in all subtypes, we do not find it surprising that the authors found (using their modified criteria) that ETR appeared to progress to papulopustular and phymatous subtypes in a small number of patients. We strongly disagree with their interpretation and conclusion.

In our experience, ETR patients have fine textured skin without sebaceous quality or a history of extensive acne (Figure 1). Flushing is common and usually lasts 10 minutes to 1 hour. There might be concurrent burning or stinging; however, there is no associated sweating, lightheadedness, palpitations, or diagnostic laboratory findings, which distinguishes ETR from other common causes of flushing. The persistent centrofacial erythema involves convex surfaces, spares periocular skin, and can be best defined as present for longer than 3 months.

Implications and Future Directions

We present an overview of 2 rosacea classification systems, hoping to stimulate further refinement. Looking forward, there are many directions for further investigation into the pathophysiology of rosacea. From a genetic standpoint, there needs to be continued molecular and epidemiologic data to determine the underlying genetic contributions to disease.

There has been some progress in the realm of understanding the mechanisms of inflammation; we urge further investigation to elucidate how “subclinical neuroinflammation” might lead to glandular hyperplasia.¹² We also see value in examining the genetic and hormonal contributions to phymas, as they may be different than those seen in the ETR-type patients. Last, more studies focusing on comorbidities that contribute to or arise from rosacea are welcomed.

The ultimate goal is to develop a classification system that integrates clinical descriptions, pathophysiologic mechanisms, and benchmark indicators of disease. Only then can we have a true gold standard for the diagnosis of rosacea, one that allows for improved personalized treatment and better outcomes.

Inflammation is a backdrop to the commonly cited elements of the pathophysiology of acne: Propionibacterium acnes proliferation, increased sebum production with an increase in circulating androgens, and faulty keratinization.^1,2 In fact, research shows that the initiating lesion of acne vulgaris—the microcomedone—is, in essence, an inflammatory lesion.³ This realization has clearly influenced the approach to acne treatment but has not yielded a bevy of new treatments.

A better understanding of acne pathophysiology and the role of inflammation has, however, yielded a better understanding of how existing therapies treat the disease and have led to more comprehensive treatment strategies that are multitargeted. Nonetheless, topical and oral antibiotics remain mainstays of acne therapy, along with topical retinoids and benzoyl peroxide. Current guidelines of care for acne emphasize strategies that reduce dependence on antibiotics and minimize the risk for resistance.⁴ The therapeutic landscape might at last be shifting, with new chemical entities for acne and several novel formulations in development.

Sarecycline: A Novel Tetracycline

Tetracycline antibiotics have been used to manage acne since the 1950s, but their method of action in the disease has not been fully elucidated.⁵ In addition to antibiotic effects, tetracyclines have been shown to confer anti-inflammatory properties and other biologic effects.^6,7

First-generation tetracycline is broad spectrum. As such, it is associated with increased potential for antibiotic resistance and greater impact on gastrointestinal health. The novel compound sarecycline is a tetracycline with a narrower spectrum of activity compared to other tetracyclines and with reduced activity against enteric gram-negative bacteria⁸ (Figure 1). Sarecycline recently was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a once-daily oral formulation for the treatment of inflammatory lesions of nonnodular moderate to severe acne vulgaris in patients 9 years and older. Sarecycline is dosed at 1.5 mg/kg daily. The FDA approval marks the first new antibiotic approved for acne in 4 decades.

Sarecycline also was assessed in the 2 trials for efficacy in the treatment of back and chest acne; in the active treatment group, IGA success was achieved by 29.6% and 36.6%, respectively, compared to 19.6% and 21.6%, respectively, of controls.⁹

Tazarotene Foam in Focus

Topical tazarotene is commercially available in cream, gel, and foam formulations. Tazarotene foam 0.1% was FDA approved in 2012 for the treatment of acne vulgaris in patients 12 years and older. However, the product was recently relaunched to the market and therefore warrants discussion.

Similar to other retinoids, topical tazarotene has been associated with the potential for application-site irritation. This aqueous foam formulation of tazarotene was designed for ease of application and to attempt to impart moisturizing effects to offset potential irritation. It contains noncomedogenic light mineral oil, which is an emollient. The foam spreads easily, including on hair-bearing skin, with demonstrated penetration of the active drug into the epidermis and dermis. Nonetheless, compared to the gel formulation of tazarotene, the foam formulation was associated with reduced systemic exposure.¹⁰

The tazarotene foam formulation does not contain alcohol, fragrance, propylene glycol, or parabens. Clinical trial participants, blinded to whether they were on active treatment or vehicle foam, consistently rated the foam formulation favorably for ease of application and spreadability, lack of stickiness or residue, and moisturizing effect. The foam vehicle is suggested to increase compliance and satisfaction in some patients.¹¹The efficacy and tolerability of tazarotene foam 0.1% was investigated in 2 randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group studies in the United States and Canada.¹² The studies involved participants aged 2 to 45 years who were randomized to receive treatment with either tazarotene foam 0.1% or vehicle foam once daily for 12 weeks (N=1486). Lesion counts, investigator static global assessment, and subject global assessment were evaluated at baseline and at weeks 2, 4, 8, and 12. At week 12, mean reduction from baseline in noninflammatory lesions was 55.9% for active treatment, mean reduction in inflammatory lesions was 56.1%, and mean total lesion reduction was 56% compared to mean reductions of 37.7%, 45.3%, and 40.8%, respectively, for vehicle. In all, 28.2% of participants achieved treatment success with active treatment compared to 14.7% of controls. There was a greater proportion of active-treatment participants with investigator static global assessment scores of 0 or 1 compared to vehicle. The only adverse events reported by more than 5% of participants in the active-treatment groups in both studies were application-site skin irritation and dryness.¹²

Topical Minocycline

Systemic minocycline is the most commonly prescribed oral antibiotic for acne management.¹³ Despite its widespread use, it is not without potential safety concerns. Minocycline is distinct among tetracyclines for posing a small risk for systemic lupus erythematosus and autoimmune TEAE.Gastrointestinal side effects and bluish discoloration also are reported.¹⁴ Topical application of minocycline for acne would optimize the therapeutic effect while reducing systemic effects. FMX101 4%, an investigational minocycline foam, is being studied for the treatment of moderate to severe acne.

In a pharmacokinetic study, minocycline exposure was 730- to 765-times lower with foam application vs oral minocycline.¹⁵ No evidence of minocycline accumulation was identified over the 21 days of application of minocycline foam 4%. Minocycline foam 4% appeared to be safe and well tolerated, without serious TEAEs, treatment-related TEAEs, or TEAEs that led to treatment discontinuation.¹⁵

In 2 identical phase 3 studies in which 961 participants were randomized (2:1) to once-daily minocycline foam 4% or foam vehicle for 12 weeks, participants in the active-treatment group demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in both inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions in both studies (both P<.05) and a greater rate of treatment success (≥2 point reduction in IGA and score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear]) in 1 study. Treatment was generally safe and well tolerated, with skin-related adverse events reported in fewer than 1% of participants receiving active treatment.¹⁶

In an open-label safety extension study that enrolled 657 patients, treatment with FMX101 continued for as long as 40 weeks.¹⁷ In total, 291 participants completed 52 weeks of therapy. Rates and types of reported TEAEs in the open-label extension phase were similar to those seen in the phase 3 trials. Application-site TEAEs occurred in fewer than 2% of participants. Participants reported a high level of treatment satisfaction at week 52.¹⁷

In a more recent phase 3 study, 1507 participants were randomized (1:1) to once-daily minocycline foam 4% or foam vehicle for 12 weeks to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of FMX101 4% for moderate to severe acne vulgaris.¹⁸ The study met both primary end points: absolute change from baseline in the inflammatory lesion count (−16.93 vs −13.40; P<.0001) and the noninflammatory lesion count (−18.80 vs −15.89; P<.05), as well as percentage of participants with IGA treatment success at week 12 (30.80% vs 19.63%; P<.0001). The percentage reduction in the inflammatory lesion count was statistically significantly greater for minocycline foam 4% compared to vehicle as early as week 3 (P<.0001). The safety profile was found to be consistent with the 2 earlier phase 3 studies.¹⁸

Topical Minocycline in Rosacea

A similar foam formulation of minocycline (1.5% concentration) has shown benefit in 2 identical phase 3 studies.¹⁹ A total of 1522 participants were enrolled in 2 phase 3, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, 2-arm studies in participants 18 years and older with moderate to severe papulopustular rosacea. Participants were randomized (2:1) to either minocycline foam 1.5% or vehicle once daily to the face for 12 weeks.¹⁹

Treatment was associated with a statistically significant reduction in counts of inflammatory lesions of rosacea (Study FX2016-11: −17.57 vs −15.65 [P=.003]; Study FX2016-12: −18.54 vs −14.88 [P<.0001]) and a significantly higher rate of IGA treatment success compared to vehicle (Study FX2016-11: 52.1% vs 43.0% [P=.027]; Study FX2016-12: 49.1% vs 39.0% [P=.008]), highlighting the anti-inflammatory action of the topically applied agent.¹⁹

The most common TEAE for both studies was upper respiratory tract infection; there were no serious TEAEs. Overall, 9 participants across both studies discontinued because of a TEAE (foam, 7 participants; vehicle, 2 participants).¹⁹

Clascoterone: First-in-Class Topical

Clascoterone cream 1% is a new chemical entity under investigation for the treatment of moderate to severe acne in patients 9 years and older. Clascoterone targets androgen receptors in the skin to block the effects of circulating endogenous androgens; chemically, it shares a 4-ring backbone identical to dihydrotestosterone and spironolactone (Figure 2). Clascoterone competes with dihydrotestosterone for binding to the androgen receptor to limit or block transcription of androgen-responsive genes and modify specific gene expression.²⁰

Androgens are known to promote both sebum production and inflammatory responses within the follicle, contributing to the cycle of acne.²¹ Antiandrogen therapy would, therefore, inhibit excess sebum production and directly reduce the presence of certain inflammatory mediators in skin. This effect is expected to lead to reduced follicular plugging and a reduction in growth of P acnes and its inflammatory by-products.

Direct and indirect hormonal modulation have been successfully employed to manage acne in women; however, such therapies have not been considered first-line interventions for the disease.²² Although systemic antiandrogens and hormonal modulation are effective for certain women with acne, there may be concerns about systemic exposure²³; no hormone-modulating agent has been adopted for use in men with acne.

As an androgen inhibitor, clascoterone is thought to displace androgen hormones from androgen receptors located at the sebaceous gland and hair follicle, thus inhibiting the cycle of physiologic events that leads to acne formation. Clascoterone is applied topically and acts locally on androgen receptors in the skin, with no systemic exposure seen. In phase 2 trials, clascoterone was found to be safe and effective with no systemic exposure and was suggested to have better tolerability than topical tretinoin.

Preliminary individual study analysis of data from 2 phase 3 trials showed that topical clascoterone met its primary end points, achieving statistically significantly greater rates of IGA treatment success (≥2 point reduction in IGA and score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear]) at week 12 (P<.0001).²⁴ Rates of treatment success for actively treated participants were 16.1% and 18.7%, respectively, compared to 7% and 4.7%, respectively, for vehicle. The study population included both males and nonpregnant females 9 years and older who had a baseline IGA score of 3 (moderate) or 4 (severe). At baseline, participants had a mix of inflammatory lesions (≥30, to a maximum of 75) and noninflammatory lesions (≥30, to a maximum of 100).²⁴

Intention-to-treat analysis at week 12 showed a mean total lesion reduction from baseline for active treatment of 37.1% and 37.7%, respectively, compared to 28.5% and 22.2%, respectively, for controls.²⁴ Mean reductions from baseline in noninflammatory lesions for active treatment were 30.7% and 29.3%, respectively, compared to 21.9% and 15.8%, respectively, for controls. Mean reductions from baseline in inflammatory lesions for active treatment were 44.8% and 47%, respectively, compared to 36.6% and 29.8%, respectively, for controls. Similarly low rates of TEAEs were reported in active and placebo groups in both studies. No TEAE suggested systemic antiandrogen exposure.²⁴

Advancements in Cannabinoids

Advancements in pharmaceutical development of cannabinoid compounds have largely coincided with the controversial national movement to legalize medical marijuana and decriminalize recreational marijuana use. Despite the temporal connection, the 2 topics are entirely distinct. Importantly, pharmaceutical development is largely focused on the effects of cannabidiol (CBD), which is 1 of approximately 113 cannabinoids identified from Cannabis sativa. Cannabidiol is not tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the compound responsible for marijuana’s psychoactive effects and addictive properties; CBD does not have any psychoactive effects and is not addictive (Figure 3).²⁵

A CBD oral solution agent recently gained FDA approval for seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients 2 years and older; it is estimated that more than 180 trials of CBD are ongoing in the United States for various indications.²⁶ A notable question in the development of CBD-based therapies is: What is the role of natural plant-derived CBD compared to a pure synthetic form of CBD? The latter is akin to a pharmaceutical process in which a single molecule is developed as the active drug.²⁷ Although the potency and composition of plant-derived CBD can vary with crop conditions, plant strains, and the extraction process, a synthetic molecule would allow for consistency in safety, potency, and pharmacokinetic properties, as well as efficacy, as a consequence.²⁶

There are intriguing data to suggest a potential use for topical CBD in the management of skin diseases, including acne vulgaris. Researchers have, for at least a decade, been investigating the role of the endocannabinoid system, which has physiologic regulatory functions in proliferation, differentiation, apoptosis and cytokine, mediator, and hormone production of various cell types in skin, hair follicles, and sebaceous glands.²⁸ Cannabidiol has been shown to suppress proliferation of sebocytes through activation of transient receptor potential vanilloid 4 ion channels and to have anti-inflammatory effects on sebocytes.²⁹ It has been shown to inhibit human keratinocyte proliferation through a non-CB1/CB2 mechanism³⁰ and to possess potent antimicrobial activity against gram-positive bacteria such as P acnes.³¹

Given these effects on sebocytes, modulation of keratinocyte proliferation, and anti-inflammatory and antibacterial effects, CBD could prove beneficial in the management of acne vulgaris. A new synthetic CBD topical formulation, BTX 1503, is under investigation for the treatment of acne vulgaris.

Early clinical data confirm both the anti-inflammatory effects of topical BTX 1503 as well as its effects on noninflammatory lesions, with 4-week reductions in inflammatory lesion counts similar to what are reported in clinical trials for leading FDA-approved topical therapies in the same time frame.

The phase 1b trial was a 4-week, open-label study in participants with moderate to severe acne vulgaris.³² The primary end point was safety, as demonstrated by the incidence of TEAE, laboratory monitoring, and assessment of cutaneous tolerability. Exploratory end points included changes in inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts and IGA score. A total of 21 participants aged 18 to 65 years with moderate to severe acne vulgaris were enrolled. BTX 1503 was applied topically twice daily. At baseline, eligible participants had 20 to 50 inflammatory lesions and 20 to 100 noninflammatory acne lesions on the face, an IGA of 3 (moderate) or 4 (severe), and 3 or fewer nodular or cystic lesions (>5 mm in diameter). No serious or severe TEAEs were reported; no participants withdrew due to a TEAE. Slight erythema, slight scaling, slight dryness, and slight burning and stinging were reported; there were no reports of irritant or allergic contact dermatitis. Only 1 TEAE was thought to be possibly related to treatment: mild pain at the application site.³²

In addition to presenting a potential new chemical entity for the topical treatment of acne, the novel topical vehicle formulation of BTX 1503 represents an innovative approach to drug delivery. The formulation utilizes proprietary technology to deliver high doses of drug into the skin without controversial penetration enhancers, preservatives, or other potential irritating additives. Instead, volatile excipients are used that evaporate upon application to the skin, leaving a so-called superconcentrated secondary formulation on the skin. The concentration gradient effect then drives the concentrated drug into skin. Although the formulation efficiently delivers active drug into the skin and its appendages, systemic exposure has been reported to be very low. A phase 2 randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial ongoing in the United States and Australia in 360 patients with moderate to severe acne vulgaris will provide key data to confirm the efficacy and safety of BTX 1503 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03573518).

Conclusion

Drug development continues to focus on the challenge of treating acne effectively and safely. Vehicle innovations are optimizing existing active drugs and creating opportunities to deliver new compounds to the skin. The approval of sarecycline as the first new chemical entity approved for acne in several years may be followed in coming years by other new actives, including clascoterone and CBD.

Inflammation is a backdrop to the commonly cited elements of the pathophysiology of acne: Propionibacterium acnes proliferation, increased sebum production with an increase in circulating androgens, and faulty keratinization.^1,2 In fact, research shows that the initiating lesion of acne vulgaris—the microcomedone—is, in essence, an inflammatory lesion.³ This realization has clearly influenced the approach to acne treatment but has not yielded a bevy of new treatments.

A better understanding of acne pathophysiology and the role of inflammation has, however, yielded a better understanding of how existing therapies treat the disease and have led to more comprehensive treatment strategies that are multitargeted. Nonetheless, topical and oral antibiotics remain mainstays of acne therapy, along with topical retinoids and benzoyl peroxide. Current guidelines of care for acne emphasize strategies that reduce dependence on antibiotics and minimize the risk for resistance.⁴ The therapeutic landscape might at last be shifting, with new chemical entities for acne and several novel formulations in development.

Sarecycline: A Novel Tetracycline

Tetracycline antibiotics have been used to manage acne since the 1950s, but their method of action in the disease has not been fully elucidated.⁵ In addition to antibiotic effects, tetracyclines have been shown to confer anti-inflammatory properties and other biologic effects.^6,7

First-generation tetracycline is broad spectrum. As such, it is associated with increased potential for antibiotic resistance and greater impact on gastrointestinal health. The novel compound sarecycline is a tetracycline with a narrower spectrum of activity compared to other tetracyclines and with reduced activity against enteric gram-negative bacteria⁸ (Figure 1). Sarecycline recently was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a once-daily oral formulation for the treatment of inflammatory lesions of nonnodular moderate to severe acne vulgaris in patients 9 years and older. Sarecycline is dosed at 1.5 mg/kg daily. The FDA approval marks the first new antibiotic approved for acne in 4 decades.

Sarecycline also was assessed in the 2 trials for efficacy in the treatment of back and chest acne; in the active treatment group, IGA success was achieved by 29.6% and 36.6%, respectively, compared to 19.6% and 21.6%, respectively, of controls.⁹

Tazarotene Foam in Focus

Topical tazarotene is commercially available in cream, gel, and foam formulations. Tazarotene foam 0.1% was FDA approved in 2012 for the treatment of acne vulgaris in patients 12 years and older. However, the product was recently relaunched to the market and therefore warrants discussion.

Similar to other retinoids, topical tazarotene has been associated with the potential for application-site irritation. This aqueous foam formulation of tazarotene was designed for ease of application and to attempt to impart moisturizing effects to offset potential irritation. It contains noncomedogenic light mineral oil, which is an emollient. The foam spreads easily, including on hair-bearing skin, with demonstrated penetration of the active drug into the epidermis and dermis. Nonetheless, compared to the gel formulation of tazarotene, the foam formulation was associated with reduced systemic exposure.¹⁰

The tazarotene foam formulation does not contain alcohol, fragrance, propylene glycol, or parabens. Clinical trial participants, blinded to whether they were on active treatment or vehicle foam, consistently rated the foam formulation favorably for ease of application and spreadability, lack of stickiness or residue, and moisturizing effect. The foam vehicle is suggested to increase compliance and satisfaction in some patients.¹¹The efficacy and tolerability of tazarotene foam 0.1% was investigated in 2 randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group studies in the United States and Canada.¹² The studies involved participants aged 2 to 45 years who were randomized to receive treatment with either tazarotene foam 0.1% or vehicle foam once daily for 12 weeks (N=1486). Lesion counts, investigator static global assessment, and subject global assessment were evaluated at baseline and at weeks 2, 4, 8, and 12. At week 12, mean reduction from baseline in noninflammatory lesions was 55.9% for active treatment, mean reduction in inflammatory lesions was 56.1%, and mean total lesion reduction was 56% compared to mean reductions of 37.7%, 45.3%, and 40.8%, respectively, for vehicle. In all, 28.2% of participants achieved treatment success with active treatment compared to 14.7% of controls. There was a greater proportion of active-treatment participants with investigator static global assessment scores of 0 or 1 compared to vehicle. The only adverse events reported by more than 5% of participants in the active-treatment groups in both studies were application-site skin irritation and dryness.¹²

Topical Minocycline

Systemic minocycline is the most commonly prescribed oral antibiotic for acne management.¹³ Despite its widespread use, it is not without potential safety concerns. Minocycline is distinct among tetracyclines for posing a small risk for systemic lupus erythematosus and autoimmune TEAE.Gastrointestinal side effects and bluish discoloration also are reported.¹⁴ Topical application of minocycline for acne would optimize the therapeutic effect while reducing systemic effects. FMX101 4%, an investigational minocycline foam, is being studied for the treatment of moderate to severe acne.

In a pharmacokinetic study, minocycline exposure was 730- to 765-times lower with foam application vs oral minocycline.¹⁵ No evidence of minocycline accumulation was identified over the 21 days of application of minocycline foam 4%. Minocycline foam 4% appeared to be safe and well tolerated, without serious TEAEs, treatment-related TEAEs, or TEAEs that led to treatment discontinuation.¹⁵

In 2 identical phase 3 studies in which 961 participants were randomized (2:1) to once-daily minocycline foam 4% or foam vehicle for 12 weeks, participants in the active-treatment group demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in both inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions in both studies (both P<.05) and a greater rate of treatment success (≥2 point reduction in IGA and score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear]) in 1 study. Treatment was generally safe and well tolerated, with skin-related adverse events reported in fewer than 1% of participants receiving active treatment.¹⁶

In an open-label safety extension study that enrolled 657 patients, treatment with FMX101 continued for as long as 40 weeks.¹⁷ In total, 291 participants completed 52 weeks of therapy. Rates and types of reported TEAEs in the open-label extension phase were similar to those seen in the phase 3 trials. Application-site TEAEs occurred in fewer than 2% of participants. Participants reported a high level of treatment satisfaction at week 52.¹⁷

In a more recent phase 3 study, 1507 participants were randomized (1:1) to once-daily minocycline foam 4% or foam vehicle for 12 weeks to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of FMX101 4% for moderate to severe acne vulgaris.¹⁸ The study met both primary end points: absolute change from baseline in the inflammatory lesion count (−16.93 vs −13.40; P<.0001) and the noninflammatory lesion count (−18.80 vs −15.89; P<.05), as well as percentage of participants with IGA treatment success at week 12 (30.80% vs 19.63%; P<.0001). The percentage reduction in the inflammatory lesion count was statistically significantly greater for minocycline foam 4% compared to vehicle as early as week 3 (P<.0001). The safety profile was found to be consistent with the 2 earlier phase 3 studies.¹⁸

Topical Minocycline in Rosacea

A similar foam formulation of minocycline (1.5% concentration) has shown benefit in 2 identical phase 3 studies.¹⁹ A total of 1522 participants were enrolled in 2 phase 3, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, 2-arm studies in participants 18 years and older with moderate to severe papulopustular rosacea. Participants were randomized (2:1) to either minocycline foam 1.5% or vehicle once daily to the face for 12 weeks.¹⁹

Treatment was associated with a statistically significant reduction in counts of inflammatory lesions of rosacea (Study FX2016-11: −17.57 vs −15.65 [P=.003]; Study FX2016-12: −18.54 vs −14.88 [P<.0001]) and a significantly higher rate of IGA treatment success compared to vehicle (Study FX2016-11: 52.1% vs 43.0% [P=.027]; Study FX2016-12: 49.1% vs 39.0% [P=.008]), highlighting the anti-inflammatory action of the topically applied agent.¹⁹

The most common TEAE for both studies was upper respiratory tract infection; there were no serious TEAEs. Overall, 9 participants across both studies discontinued because of a TEAE (foam, 7 participants; vehicle, 2 participants).¹⁹

Clascoterone: First-in-Class Topical

Clascoterone cream 1% is a new chemical entity under investigation for the treatment of moderate to severe acne in patients 9 years and older. Clascoterone targets androgen receptors in the skin to block the effects of circulating endogenous androgens; chemically, it shares a 4-ring backbone identical to dihydrotestosterone and spironolactone (Figure 2). Clascoterone competes with dihydrotestosterone for binding to the androgen receptor to limit or block transcription of androgen-responsive genes and modify specific gene expression.²⁰

Androgens are known to promote both sebum production and inflammatory responses within the follicle, contributing to the cycle of acne.²¹ Antiandrogen therapy would, therefore, inhibit excess sebum production and directly reduce the presence of certain inflammatory mediators in skin. This effect is expected to lead to reduced follicular plugging and a reduction in growth of P acnes and its inflammatory by-products.

Direct and indirect hormonal modulation have been successfully employed to manage acne in women; however, such therapies have not been considered first-line interventions for the disease.²² Although systemic antiandrogens and hormonal modulation are effective for certain women with acne, there may be concerns about systemic exposure²³; no hormone-modulating agent has been adopted for use in men with acne.

As an androgen inhibitor, clascoterone is thought to displace androgen hormones from androgen receptors located at the sebaceous gland and hair follicle, thus inhibiting the cycle of physiologic events that leads to acne formation. Clascoterone is applied topically and acts locally on androgen receptors in the skin, with no systemic exposure seen. In phase 2 trials, clascoterone was found to be safe and effective with no systemic exposure and was suggested to have better tolerability than topical tretinoin.

Preliminary individual study analysis of data from 2 phase 3 trials showed that topical clascoterone met its primary end points, achieving statistically significantly greater rates of IGA treatment success (≥2 point reduction in IGA and score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear]) at week 12 (P<.0001).²⁴ Rates of treatment success for actively treated participants were 16.1% and 18.7%, respectively, compared to 7% and 4.7%, respectively, for vehicle. The study population included both males and nonpregnant females 9 years and older who had a baseline IGA score of 3 (moderate) or 4 (severe). At baseline, participants had a mix of inflammatory lesions (≥30, to a maximum of 75) and noninflammatory lesions (≥30, to a maximum of 100).²⁴

Intention-to-treat analysis at week 12 showed a mean total lesion reduction from baseline for active treatment of 37.1% and 37.7%, respectively, compared to 28.5% and 22.2%, respectively, for controls.²⁴ Mean reductions from baseline in noninflammatory lesions for active treatment were 30.7% and 29.3%, respectively, compared to 21.9% and 15.8%, respectively, for controls. Mean reductions from baseline in inflammatory lesions for active treatment were 44.8% and 47%, respectively, compared to 36.6% and 29.8%, respectively, for controls. Similarly low rates of TEAEs were reported in active and placebo groups in both studies. No TEAE suggested systemic antiandrogen exposure.²⁴

Advancements in Cannabinoids

Advancements in pharmaceutical development of cannabinoid compounds have largely coincided with the controversial national movement to legalize medical marijuana and decriminalize recreational marijuana use. Despite the temporal connection, the 2 topics are entirely distinct. Importantly, pharmaceutical development is largely focused on the effects of cannabidiol (CBD), which is 1 of approximately 113 cannabinoids identified from Cannabis sativa. Cannabidiol is not tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the compound responsible for marijuana’s psychoactive effects and addictive properties; CBD does not have any psychoactive effects and is not addictive (Figure 3).²⁵

A CBD oral solution agent recently gained FDA approval for seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients 2 years and older; it is estimated that more than 180 trials of CBD are ongoing in the United States for various indications.²⁶ A notable question in the development of CBD-based therapies is: What is the role of natural plant-derived CBD compared to a pure synthetic form of CBD? The latter is akin to a pharmaceutical process in which a single molecule is developed as the active drug.²⁷ Although the potency and composition of plant-derived CBD can vary with crop conditions, plant strains, and the extraction process, a synthetic molecule would allow for consistency in safety, potency, and pharmacokinetic properties, as well as efficacy, as a consequence.²⁶

There are intriguing data to suggest a potential use for topical CBD in the management of skin diseases, including acne vulgaris. Researchers have, for at least a decade, been investigating the role of the endocannabinoid system, which has physiologic regulatory functions in proliferation, differentiation, apoptosis and cytokine, mediator, and hormone production of various cell types in skin, hair follicles, and sebaceous glands.²⁸ Cannabidiol has been shown to suppress proliferation of sebocytes through activation of transient receptor potential vanilloid 4 ion channels and to have anti-inflammatory effects on sebocytes.²⁹ It has been shown to inhibit human keratinocyte proliferation through a non-CB1/CB2 mechanism³⁰ and to possess potent antimicrobial activity against gram-positive bacteria such as P acnes.³¹

Given these effects on sebocytes, modulation of keratinocyte proliferation, and anti-inflammatory and antibacterial effects, CBD could prove beneficial in the management of acne vulgaris. A new synthetic CBD topical formulation, BTX 1503, is under investigation for the treatment of acne vulgaris.

Early clinical data confirm both the anti-inflammatory effects of topical BTX 1503 as well as its effects on noninflammatory lesions, with 4-week reductions in inflammatory lesion counts similar to what are reported in clinical trials for leading FDA-approved topical therapies in the same time frame.

The phase 1b trial was a 4-week, open-label study in participants with moderate to severe acne vulgaris.³² The primary end point was safety, as demonstrated by the incidence of TEAE, laboratory monitoring, and assessment of cutaneous tolerability. Exploratory end points included changes in inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts and IGA score. A total of 21 participants aged 18 to 65 years with moderate to severe acne vulgaris were enrolled. BTX 1503 was applied topically twice daily. At baseline, eligible participants had 20 to 50 inflammatory lesions and 20 to 100 noninflammatory acne lesions on the face, an IGA of 3 (moderate) or 4 (severe), and 3 or fewer nodular or cystic lesions (>5 mm in diameter). No serious or severe TEAEs were reported; no participants withdrew due to a TEAE. Slight erythema, slight scaling, slight dryness, and slight burning and stinging were reported; there were no reports of irritant or allergic contact dermatitis. Only 1 TEAE was thought to be possibly related to treatment: mild pain at the application site.³²

In addition to presenting a potential new chemical entity for the topical treatment of acne, the novel topical vehicle formulation of BTX 1503 represents an innovative approach to drug delivery. The formulation utilizes proprietary technology to deliver high doses of drug into the skin without controversial penetration enhancers, preservatives, or other potential irritating additives. Instead, volatile excipients are used that evaporate upon application to the skin, leaving a so-called superconcentrated secondary formulation on the skin. The concentration gradient effect then drives the concentrated drug into skin. Although the formulation efficiently delivers active drug into the skin and its appendages, systemic exposure has been reported to be very low. A phase 2 randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial ongoing in the United States and Australia in 360 patients with moderate to severe acne vulgaris will provide key data to confirm the efficacy and safety of BTX 1503 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03573518).

Conclusion

Drug development continues to focus on the challenge of treating acne effectively and safely. Vehicle innovations are optimizing existing active drugs and creating opportunities to deliver new compounds to the skin. The approval of sarecycline as the first new chemical entity approved for acne in several years may be followed in coming years by other new actives, including clascoterone and CBD.

Inflammation is a backdrop to the commonly cited elements of the pathophysiology of acne: Propionibacterium acnes proliferation, increased sebum production with an increase in circulating androgens, and faulty keratinization.^1,2 In fact, research shows that the initiating lesion of acne vulgaris—the microcomedone—is, in essence, an inflammatory lesion.³ This realization has clearly influenced the approach to acne treatment but has not yielded a bevy of new treatments.

A better understanding of acne pathophysiology and the role of inflammation has, however, yielded a better understanding of how existing therapies treat the disease and have led to more comprehensive treatment strategies that are multitargeted. Nonetheless, topical and oral antibiotics remain mainstays of acne therapy, along with topical retinoids and benzoyl peroxide. Current guidelines of care for acne emphasize strategies that reduce dependence on antibiotics and minimize the risk for resistance.⁴ The therapeutic landscape might at last be shifting, with new chemical entities for acne and several novel formulations in development.

Sarecycline: A Novel Tetracycline

Tetracycline antibiotics have been used to manage acne since the 1950s, but their method of action in the disease has not been fully elucidated.⁵ In addition to antibiotic effects, tetracyclines have been shown to confer anti-inflammatory properties and other biologic effects.^6,7

First-generation tetracycline is broad spectrum. As such, it is associated with increased potential for antibiotic resistance and greater impact on gastrointestinal health. The novel compound sarecycline is a tetracycline with a narrower spectrum of activity compared to other tetracyclines and with reduced activity against enteric gram-negative bacteria⁸ (Figure 1). Sarecycline recently was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a once-daily oral formulation for the treatment of inflammatory lesions of nonnodular moderate to severe acne vulgaris in patients 9 years and older. Sarecycline is dosed at 1.5 mg/kg daily. The FDA approval marks the first new antibiotic approved for acne in 4 decades.

Sarecycline also was assessed in the 2 trials for efficacy in the treatment of back and chest acne; in the active treatment group, IGA success was achieved by 29.6% and 36.6%, respectively, compared to 19.6% and 21.6%, respectively, of controls.⁹

Tazarotene Foam in Focus

Topical tazarotene is commercially available in cream, gel, and foam formulations. Tazarotene foam 0.1% was FDA approved in 2012 for the treatment of acne vulgaris in patients 12 years and older. However, the product was recently relaunched to the market and therefore warrants discussion.

Similar to other retinoids, topical tazarotene has been associated with the potential for application-site irritation. This aqueous foam formulation of tazarotene was designed for ease of application and to attempt to impart moisturizing effects to offset potential irritation. It contains noncomedogenic light mineral oil, which is an emollient. The foam spreads easily, including on hair-bearing skin, with demonstrated penetration of the active drug into the epidermis and dermis. Nonetheless, compared to the gel formulation of tazarotene, the foam formulation was associated with reduced systemic exposure.¹⁰

The tazarotene foam formulation does not contain alcohol, fragrance, propylene glycol, or parabens. Clinical trial participants, blinded to whether they were on active treatment or vehicle foam, consistently rated the foam formulation favorably for ease of application and spreadability, lack of stickiness or residue, and moisturizing effect. The foam vehicle is suggested to increase compliance and satisfaction in some patients.¹¹The efficacy and tolerability of tazarotene foam 0.1% was investigated in 2 randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group studies in the United States and Canada.¹² The studies involved participants aged 2 to 45 years who were randomized to receive treatment with either tazarotene foam 0.1% or vehicle foam once daily for 12 weeks (N=1486). Lesion counts, investigator static global assessment, and subject global assessment were evaluated at baseline and at weeks 2, 4, 8, and 12. At week 12, mean reduction from baseline in noninflammatory lesions was 55.9% for active treatment, mean reduction in inflammatory lesions was 56.1%, and mean total lesion reduction was 56% compared to mean reductions of 37.7%, 45.3%, and 40.8%, respectively, for vehicle. In all, 28.2% of participants achieved treatment success with active treatment compared to 14.7% of controls. There was a greater proportion of active-treatment participants with investigator static global assessment scores of 0 or 1 compared to vehicle. The only adverse events reported by more than 5% of participants in the active-treatment groups in both studies were application-site skin irritation and dryness.¹²

Topical Minocycline

Systemic minocycline is the most commonly prescribed oral antibiotic for acne management.¹³ Despite its widespread use, it is not without potential safety concerns. Minocycline is distinct among tetracyclines for posing a small risk for systemic lupus erythematosus and autoimmune TEAE.Gastrointestinal side effects and bluish discoloration also are reported.¹⁴ Topical application of minocycline for acne would optimize the therapeutic effect while reducing systemic effects. FMX101 4%, an investigational minocycline foam, is being studied for the treatment of moderate to severe acne.

In a pharmacokinetic study, minocycline exposure was 730- to 765-times lower with foam application vs oral minocycline.¹⁵ No evidence of minocycline accumulation was identified over the 21 days of application of minocycline foam 4%. Minocycline foam 4% appeared to be safe and well tolerated, without serious TEAEs, treatment-related TEAEs, or TEAEs that led to treatment discontinuation.¹⁵

In 2 identical phase 3 studies in which 961 participants were randomized (2:1) to once-daily minocycline foam 4% or foam vehicle for 12 weeks, participants in the active-treatment group demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in both inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions in both studies (both P<.05) and a greater rate of treatment success (≥2 point reduction in IGA and score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear]) in 1 study. Treatment was generally safe and well tolerated, with skin-related adverse events reported in fewer than 1% of participants receiving active treatment.¹⁶

In an open-label safety extension study that enrolled 657 patients, treatment with FMX101 continued for as long as 40 weeks.¹⁷ In total, 291 participants completed 52 weeks of therapy. Rates and types of reported TEAEs in the open-label extension phase were similar to those seen in the phase 3 trials. Application-site TEAEs occurred in fewer than 2% of participants. Participants reported a high level of treatment satisfaction at week 52.¹⁷

In a more recent phase 3 study, 1507 participants were randomized (1:1) to once-daily minocycline foam 4% or foam vehicle for 12 weeks to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of FMX101 4% for moderate to severe acne vulgaris.¹⁸ The study met both primary end points: absolute change from baseline in the inflammatory lesion count (−16.93 vs −13.40; P<.0001) and the noninflammatory lesion count (−18.80 vs −15.89; P<.05), as well as percentage of participants with IGA treatment success at week 12 (30.80% vs 19.63%; P<.0001). The percentage reduction in the inflammatory lesion count was statistically significantly greater for minocycline foam 4% compared to vehicle as early as week 3 (P<.0001). The safety profile was found to be consistent with the 2 earlier phase 3 studies.¹⁸

Topical Minocycline in Rosacea

A similar foam formulation of minocycline (1.5% concentration) has shown benefit in 2 identical phase 3 studies.¹⁹ A total of 1522 participants were enrolled in 2 phase 3, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, 2-arm studies in participants 18 years and older with moderate to severe papulopustular rosacea. Participants were randomized (2:1) to either minocycline foam 1.5% or vehicle once daily to the face for 12 weeks.¹⁹

Treatment was associated with a statistically significant reduction in counts of inflammatory lesions of rosacea (Study FX2016-11: −17.57 vs −15.65 [P=.003]; Study FX2016-12: −18.54 vs −14.88 [P<.0001]) and a significantly higher rate of IGA treatment success compared to vehicle (Study FX2016-11: 52.1% vs 43.0% [P=.027]; Study FX2016-12: 49.1% vs 39.0% [P=.008]), highlighting the anti-inflammatory action of the topically applied agent.¹⁹

The most common TEAE for both studies was upper respiratory tract infection; there were no serious TEAEs. Overall, 9 participants across both studies discontinued because of a TEAE (foam, 7 participants; vehicle, 2 participants).¹⁹

Clascoterone: First-in-Class Topical

Clascoterone cream 1% is a new chemical entity under investigation for the treatment of moderate to severe acne in patients 9 years and older. Clascoterone targets androgen receptors in the skin to block the effects of circulating endogenous androgens; chemically, it shares a 4-ring backbone identical to dihydrotestosterone and spironolactone (Figure 2). Clascoterone competes with dihydrotestosterone for binding to the androgen receptor to limit or block transcription of androgen-responsive genes and modify specific gene expression.²⁰

Androgens are known to promote both sebum production and inflammatory responses within the follicle, contributing to the cycle of acne.²¹ Antiandrogen therapy would, therefore, inhibit excess sebum production and directly reduce the presence of certain inflammatory mediators in skin. This effect is expected to lead to reduced follicular plugging and a reduction in growth of P acnes and its inflammatory by-products.

Direct and indirect hormonal modulation have been successfully employed to manage acne in women; however, such therapies have not been considered first-line interventions for the disease.²² Although systemic antiandrogens and hormonal modulation are effective for certain women with acne, there may be concerns about systemic exposure²³; no hormone-modulating agent has been adopted for use in men with acne.

As an androgen inhibitor, clascoterone is thought to displace androgen hormones from androgen receptors located at the sebaceous gland and hair follicle, thus inhibiting the cycle of physiologic events that leads to acne formation. Clascoterone is applied topically and acts locally on androgen receptors in the skin, with no systemic exposure seen. In phase 2 trials, clascoterone was found to be safe and effective with no systemic exposure and was suggested to have better tolerability than topical tretinoin.

Preliminary individual study analysis of data from 2 phase 3 trials showed that topical clascoterone met its primary end points, achieving statistically significantly greater rates of IGA treatment success (≥2 point reduction in IGA and score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear]) at week 12 (P<.0001).²⁴ Rates of treatment success for actively treated participants were 16.1% and 18.7%, respectively, compared to 7% and 4.7%, respectively, for vehicle. The study population included both males and nonpregnant females 9 years and older who had a baseline IGA score of 3 (moderate) or 4 (severe). At baseline, participants had a mix of inflammatory lesions (≥30, to a maximum of 75) and noninflammatory lesions (≥30, to a maximum of 100).²⁴

Intention-to-treat analysis at week 12 showed a mean total lesion reduction from baseline for active treatment of 37.1% and 37.7%, respectively, compared to 28.5% and 22.2%, respectively, for controls.²⁴ Mean reductions from baseline in noninflammatory lesions for active treatment were 30.7% and 29.3%, respectively, compared to 21.9% and 15.8%, respectively, for controls. Mean reductions from baseline in inflammatory lesions for active treatment were 44.8% and 47%, respectively, compared to 36.6% and 29.8%, respectively, for controls. Similarly low rates of TEAEs were reported in active and placebo groups in both studies. No TEAE suggested systemic antiandrogen exposure.²⁴

Advancements in Cannabinoids

Advancements in pharmaceutical development of cannabinoid compounds have largely coincided with the controversial national movement to legalize medical marijuana and decriminalize recreational marijuana use. Despite the temporal connection, the 2 topics are entirely distinct. Importantly, pharmaceutical development is largely focused on the effects of cannabidiol (CBD), which is 1 of approximately 113 cannabinoids identified from Cannabis sativa. Cannabidiol is not tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the compound responsible for marijuana’s psychoactive effects and addictive properties; CBD does not have any psychoactive effects and is not addictive (Figure 3).²⁵

A CBD oral solution agent recently gained FDA approval for seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients 2 years and older; it is estimated that more than 180 trials of CBD are ongoing in the United States for various indications.²⁶ A notable question in the development of CBD-based therapies is: What is the role of natural plant-derived CBD compared to a pure synthetic form of CBD? The latter is akin to a pharmaceutical process in which a single molecule is developed as the active drug.²⁷ Although the potency and composition of plant-derived CBD can vary with crop conditions, plant strains, and the extraction process, a synthetic molecule would allow for consistency in safety, potency, and pharmacokinetic properties, as well as efficacy, as a consequence.²⁶

There are intriguing data to suggest a potential use for topical CBD in the management of skin diseases, including acne vulgaris. Researchers have, for at least a decade, been investigating the role of the endocannabinoid system, which has physiologic regulatory functions in proliferation, differentiation, apoptosis and cytokine, mediator, and hormone production of various cell types in skin, hair follicles, and sebaceous glands.²⁸ Cannabidiol has been shown to suppress proliferation of sebocytes through activation of transient receptor potential vanilloid 4 ion channels and to have anti-inflammatory effects on sebocytes.²⁹ It has been shown to inhibit human keratinocyte proliferation through a non-CB1/CB2 mechanism³⁰ and to possess potent antimicrobial activity against gram-positive bacteria such as P acnes.³¹

Given these effects on sebocytes, modulation of keratinocyte proliferation, and anti-inflammatory and antibacterial effects, CBD could prove beneficial in the management of acne vulgaris. A new synthetic CBD topical formulation, BTX 1503, is under investigation for the treatment of acne vulgaris.

Early clinical data confirm both the anti-inflammatory effects of topical BTX 1503 as well as its effects on noninflammatory lesions, with 4-week reductions in inflammatory lesion counts similar to what are reported in clinical trials for leading FDA-approved topical therapies in the same time frame.

The phase 1b trial was a 4-week, open-label study in participants with moderate to severe acne vulgaris.³² The primary end point was safety, as demonstrated by the incidence of TEAE, laboratory monitoring, and assessment of cutaneous tolerability. Exploratory end points included changes in inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts and IGA score. A total of 21 participants aged 18 to 65 years with moderate to severe acne vulgaris were enrolled. BTX 1503 was applied topically twice daily. At baseline, eligible participants had 20 to 50 inflammatory lesions and 20 to 100 noninflammatory acne lesions on the face, an IGA of 3 (moderate) or 4 (severe), and 3 or fewer nodular or cystic lesions (>5 mm in diameter). No serious or severe TEAEs were reported; no participants withdrew due to a TEAE. Slight erythema, slight scaling, slight dryness, and slight burning and stinging were reported; there were no reports of irritant or allergic contact dermatitis. Only 1 TEAE was thought to be possibly related to treatment: mild pain at the application site.³²

In addition to presenting a potential new chemical entity for the topical treatment of acne, the novel topical vehicle formulation of BTX 1503 represents an innovative approach to drug delivery. The formulation utilizes proprietary technology to deliver high doses of drug into the skin without controversial penetration enhancers, preservatives, or other potential irritating additives. Instead, volatile excipients are used that evaporate upon application to the skin, leaving a so-called superconcentrated secondary formulation on the skin. The concentration gradient effect then drives the concentrated drug into skin. Although the formulation efficiently delivers active drug into the skin and its appendages, systemic exposure has been reported to be very low. A phase 2 randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial ongoing in the United States and Australia in 360 patients with moderate to severe acne vulgaris will provide key data to confirm the efficacy and safety of BTX 1503 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03573518).

Conclusion

Drug development continues to focus on the challenge of treating acne effectively and safely. Vehicle innovations are optimizing existing active drugs and creating opportunities to deliver new compounds to the skin. The approval of sarecycline as the first new chemical entity approved for acne in several years may be followed in coming years by other new actives, including clascoterone and CBD.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted on March 23, 2010. Controversies, complaints, and detractors have and continue to abound. But the ACA’s landmark women’s health gains are unmistakable. Contraceptive coverage, maternity coverage, Medicaid coverage of low-income women, coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions, and gender-neutral premiums are now a part of the fabric of our society. For most.

Many physicians and patients—many lawmakers, too—do not remember the serious problems people had with their insurance companies before the ACA. Maternity coverage was usually a free-standing rider to an insurance policy, making it very expensive. Insurance plans did not have to, and often did not, cover contraceptives, and none did without copays or deductibles. Women were routinely denied coverage if they had ever had a cesarean delivery, had once been the victim of domestic violence, or had any one of many common conditions, like diabetes. The many exclusionary conditions are so common, in fact, that one study estimated that around 52 million adults in the United States (27% of those younger than age 65 years) have preexisting conditions that would potentially make them uninsurable without the ACA’s protections.¹

Before the ACA, it also was common for women with insurance policies to find their coverage rescinded, often with no explanation, even though they paid their premiums every month. And women with serious medical conditions often saw their coverage ended midway through their course of treatment. That placed their ObGyns in a terrible situation, too.

The insurance industry as a whole was running rough-shod over its customers, and making a lot of money by creatively and routinely denying coverage and payment for care. People were often insured, but not covered. The ACA halted many of these practices, and required insurers to meet high medical loss ratios, guaranteeing that 80% of the premiums’ for individual and small market insurers (and 85% for large insurers) are returned to patients in care payments or even in checks. In fact, nearly $4 billion in premiums have been rebated to insured individuals over the last 7 years under the ACA.²

The commitment of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to women’s health and to our members’ ability to provide the best care has centered on preserving the critical gains of the ACA for women, improving them when we can, and making sure politicians don’t turn back the clock on women’s health. We have been busy.

In this article, we will look at what has happened to these landmark gains and promises of improved women’s health, specifically preexisting condition protections and contraceptive coverage, under a new Administration. What happens when good health care policy and political enmity collide?

Preexisting coverage protections

The 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) defines a preexisting condition exclusionas a “limitation or exclusion of benefits relating to a condition based on the fact that the condition was present before the date of enrollment for the coverage, whether or not any medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended or received before that date.” HIPPA prohibited employer-sponsored health plans from discriminating against individuals through denying them coverage or charging them more based on their or their family members’ health problems. The ACA expanded protections to prohibit the insurance practice of denying coverage altogether to an individual with a preexisting condition.³

Continue to: Under Congress...

Under Congress

Republicans held the majority in both chambers of the 115th Congress (2017–2018), and hoped to use their majority status to get an ACA repeal bill to the Republican President’s desk for speedy enactment. It was not easy, and they were not successful. Four major bills—the American Health Care Act, the Better Care Reconciliation Act, the Health Care Freedom Act, and the Graham-Cassidy Amendment—never made it over the finish line, with some not even making it to a vote. The Health Care Freedom Act was voted down in the Senate 51-49 when Senator John McCain came back from brain surgery to cast his famous thumbs-down vote.⁴ These bills all would have repealed or hobbled guaranteed issue, community rating, and essential health benefits of the ACA. Of all the legislative attempts to undermine the ACA, only the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was signed into law, repealing the ACA individual mandate.

Handling by the courts

The TCJA gave ACA opponents their opening in court. Twenty Republican state attorneys general and governors brought suit in February 2018 (Texas v Azar), arguing that because the ACA relies on the mandate, and the mandate has been repealed, the rest of the ACA also should be struck down. A federal district judge agreed, on December 15, 2018, declaring the entire ACA unconstitutional.⁵

That decision has been limited in its practical effect so far, and maybe it was not altogether unexpected. What was unexpected was that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) refused to defend a federal law, in this case, the ACA. In June 2018, the DOJ declined to defend the individual mandate, as well as guaranteed issue, community rating, the ban on preexisting condition exclusions, and discrimination based on health status in the ACA. The DOJ at that time, however, did not agree with the plaintiffs that without the mandate the entire ACA should be struck down. It said, “There is no reason why the ACA’s particular expansion of Medicaid hinges on the individual mandate.” Later, after the December 15 ruling, the DOJ changed its position and agreed with the judge, in a two-sentence letter to the court, that the ACA should be stricken altogether—shortly after which 3 career DOJ attorneys resigned.⁶

A legal expert observed: “The DOJ’s decision not to defend the ACA breaks with the Department’s long-standing bipartisan commitment to defend federal laws if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. Decisions not to defend federal law are exceedingly rare. It seems even rarer to change the government’s position mid-appeal in such a high-profile lawsuit that risks disrupting the entire health care system and health insurance coverage for millions of Americans.”⁷

Regulatory tactics

What a policy maker cannot do by law, he or she can try to accomplish by regulation. The Administration is using 3 regulatory routes to undercut the ACA preexisting coverage protections and market stability.

Route 1: Short-Term Limited Duration (STLD) plans. These plans were created in the ACA to provide bridge coverage for up to 3 months for individuals in between health insurance plans. These plans do not have to comply with ACA patient protections, can deny coverage for preexisting conditions, and do not cover maternity care. In 2018, the Administration moved to allow these plans to be marketed broadly and renewed for up to 3 years. Because these plans provide less coverage and often come with high deductibles, they can be marketed with lower premiums, skimming off healthier younger people who do not expect to need much care, as well as lower-income families. This destabilizes the market and leaves people insured but not covered, exactly the situation before the ACA. Seven public health and medical groups sued to challenge the Administration’s STLD regulation; the lawsuit is presently pending.

Continue to: Route 2: Association Health Plans (AHPs)...

Route 2: Association Health Plans (AHPs). The Administration also has allowed the sale of AHPs, marketed to small employers and self-employed individuals. These plans also do not have to comply with ACA consumer protections. They often do not cover maternity care or other essential benefits, and can charge women higher premiums for the same insurance. This regulation, too, resulted in litigation and a federal judge enjoined the rule, but the case is now on appeal.

Route 3: ACA Section 1332 waivers. These waivers were created in the ACA to encourage state innovation to increase access to health coverage, under certain guardrails: states must ensure coverage is at least as comprehensive as the Essential Health Benefits; cost sharing protections must be at least as affordable as under the ACA; the plan must cover at least a comparable number of its residents; and the plan must not increase the federal deficit.

The Adminstration has come under fire for approving 1332 waiver plans that do not meet these guardrails, and allow insurers to exclude coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions, as well as skirt other important ACA patient protections. In response, Seema Verma, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, promised as recently as April 23, that the Administration will not allow any weakening of the ACA preexisting coverage guarantee.⁸ So far, however, we do not know what action this means, and not surprisingly, House Democrats, now in the majority, are waiting to see those assurances come true. Consistent polling shows that a large majority of Americans, across political parties, think preexisting coverage protections are very important.⁹

Already, the House passed HR986, to repeal the Administration’s changes to the 1332 waiver rules. The bill won only 4 Republican votes in the House and now waits a Senate vote.

The House is ready to vote on HR1010, which returns the STLD rules to the original ACA version. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will reduce the federal deficit by $8.9 billion over 10 years, in part by reestablishing a large risk pool. Lower ACA premiums would mean lower federal subsidies and small federal outlays.

Contraceptive coverage

Since 2012, the ACA has required non-grandfathered individual and group health plans to cover, with no copays or deductibles, women’s preventive services, as determined by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). HRSA asked the National Academy of Medicine (the Institute of Medicine [IOM] at the time) to develop these coverage guidelines based on clinical and scientific relevance. The IOM relied heavily on ACOG’s testimony and women’s health guidelines. The guidelines are updated every 5 years, based on extensive review by the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative, led by ACOG. By law and regulation, covered services include:

• well-woman visits
• contraceptive methods and counseling, including all methods approved for women by the FDA
• breast and cervical cancer screening
• counseling for sexually transmitted infections
• counseling and screening for HIV
• screening for gestational diabetes
• breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling
• screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence.

Continue to: The previous administration offered a narrow exemption...

The previous administration offered a narrow exemption—an accommodation—for churches, religious orders, and integrated auxiliaries (organizations with financial support primarily from churches). That accommodation was expanded in the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby, for closely held for-profit organizations that had religious objections to covering some or all contraceptives. Under the accommodation, the entity’s insurer or third-party administrator was responsible for providing contraceptive services to the entity’s plan participants and beneficiaries.

In October 2017, the Trump administration acted to greatly expand the ability of any employer, college or university, individual, or insurer to opt out of the ACA’s contraceptive coverage requirement. You will read more about this later.

ACOG’s business case for contraception

Early in the Trump Administration, the White House released a statement saying, “Ensuring affordable, accessible, and quality healthcare is critical to improving women’s health and ensuring that it fits their priorities at any stage of life.”¹⁰ ACOG could not agree more, and we encouraged the President to accomplish this important goal by protecting the landmark women’s health gains of the ACA. Our call to the President and the US Congress was: “Don’t turn back the clock on women’s health.”

We made a business case for continued contraceptive coverage:

Contraception reduces unintended pregnancies and saves federal dollars.

• Approximately 45% of US pregnancies are unintended.¹¹
• No-copay coverage of contraception has contributed to a dramatic decline in the unintended pregnancy rate in the United States, now at a 30-year low.¹²
• When cost is not a barrier, women choose more effective forms of contraception, such as intrauterine devices and implants.¹³
• Unintended pregnancies cost approximately $12.5 billion in government expenditures in 2008.¹⁴
• Private health plans spend as much as $4.6 billion annually in costs related to unintended pregnancies.¹⁵

Contraception means healthier women and healthier families.

• Under the ACA, the uninsured rate among women ages 18 to 64 almost halved, decreasing from 19.3% to 10.8%.¹⁶
• More than 55 million women gained access to preventive services, including contraception, without a copay or a deductible.¹⁶
• Women with unintended pregnancies are more likely to delay prenatal care. Infants are at greater risk of birth defects, low birth weight, and poor mental and physical functioning in early childhood.¹⁷

Increased access to contraception helps families and improves economic security.

• Women saved $1.4 billion in out-of-pocket costs for contraception in 1 year.¹⁸
• Before the ACA, women were spending between 30% and 44% of their total out-of-pocket health costs just on birth control.¹⁹
• The ability to plan a pregnancy increases engagement of women in the workforce and improves economic stability for women and their families.²⁰

Administration expands religious exemptions to contraception coverage

Still, on October 6, 2017, the Trump Administration moved to curtail women’s access to and coverage of contraception with the Religious Exemptions and Accommodations for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services under the Affordable Care Act and Moral Exemptions and Accommodations for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act. In November 2018, the Administration published a revised rule, to take effect in January 2019.²¹ The rule immediately was taken to court by more than a dozen states and, 1 month later, was subject to an injunction by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, blocking the rules from going into effect in those states.

Continue to: The rule vastly expands the Obama Administration’s religious accommodation...

The rule vastly expands the Obama Administration’s religious accommodation to include “nonprofit organizations, small businesses, and individuals that have nonreligious moral convictions opposing services covered by the contraceptive mandate.” The covered entities include²¹:

• churches, integrated auxiliaries, and religious orders with religious objections
• nonprofit organizations with religious or moral objections
• for-profit entities that are not publicly traded, with religious or moral objections
• for-profit entities that are publicly traded, with religious objections
• other nongovernmental employers with religious objections
• nongovernmental institutions of higher education with religious or moral objections
• individuals with religious or moral objections, with employer sponsored or individual market coverage, where the plan sponsor and/or issuer (as applicable) are willing to offer them a plan omitting contraceptive coverage to which they object
• issuers with religious or moral objections, to the extent they provide coverage to a plan sponsor or individual that is also exempt.

The Administration says women losing coverage can get contraceptives through Title X clinics or other government programs. Of course, many women losing coverage are employed, and earn above the low income (100% of the federal poverty level) eligibility requirement for Title X assistance. To address that, the Administration, through its proposed Title X regulations, broadens the definition of “low income” in that program to include women who lose their contraceptive coverage through the employer-base health insurance plan. This move further limits the ability of the Title X program to adequately care for already-qualified individuals.

The Administration’s rule also relied on major inaccuracies, which ACOG corrected.²² First, ACOG pointed out that, in fact, FDA-approved contraceptive methods are not abortifacients, countering the Administration’s contention that contraception is an abortifacient, and that contraceptives cause abortions or miscarriages. Every FDA-approved contraceptive acts before implantation, does not interfere with a pregnancy, and is not effective after a fertilized egg has implanted successfully in the uterus.²³ No credible research supports the false statement that birth control causes miscarriages.²⁴

Second, ACOG offered data proving that increased access to contraception is not associated with increased unsafe sexual behavior or increased sexual activity.^25,26 The facts are that:

• The percentage of teens who are having sex has declined significantly, by 14% for female and 22% for male teenagers, over the past 25 years.²⁷
• More women are using contraception the first time they have sex. Young women who do not use birth control at first sexual intercourse are twice as likely to become teen mothers.²⁸
• Increased access to and use of contraception has contributed to a dramatic decline in rates of adolescent pregnancy.²⁹
• School-based health centers that provide access to contraceptives are proven to increase use of contraceptives by already sexually active students, not to increase onset of sexual activity.^30,31

Third, ACOG made clear the benefits to women’s health from contraception. ACOG asserted: As with any medication, certain types of contraception may be contraindicated for patients with certain medical conditions, including high blood pressure, lupus, or a history of breast cancer.^32,33 For these and many other reasons, access to the full range of FDA-approved contraception, with no cost sharing or other barriers, is critical to women’s health. Regarding VTE, the risk among oral contraceptive users is very low. In fact, it is much lower than the risk of VTE during pregnancy or in the immediate postpartum period.³⁴

Continue to: Regarding breast cancer: there is no proven increased risk...

Regarding breast cancer: there is no proven increased risk of breast cancer among contraceptive users, particularly among those younger than age 40. For women older than 40, health care providers must consider both the risks of becoming pregnant at advanced reproductive age and the risks of continuing contraception use until menopause.³⁵

ACOG has 2 clear messages for politicians

ACOG has remained steadfast in its opposition to the Administration’s proposals to block access to contraception. ACOG expressed its strong opposition to political interference in medical care, saying “Every woman, regardless of her insurer, employer, state of residence, or income, should have affordable, seamless access to the right form of contraception for her, free from interference from her employer or politicians.”²²

ACOG’s voice has been joined by 5 other major medical associations—American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American Osteopathic Association—together representing more than 560,000 physicians and medical students, in urging the Administration to immediately withdraw its proposals. This broad coalition unequivocally stated³⁶:

Contraception is an integral part of preventive care and a medical necessity for women during approximately 30 years of their lives. Access to no-copay contraception leads to healthier women and families. Changes to our healthcare system come with very high stakes – impacting tens of millions of our patients. Access to contraception allows women to achieve, lead and reach their full potentials, becoming key drivers of our Nation’s economic success. These rules would create a new standard whereby employers can deny their employees coverage, based on their own moral objections. This interferes in the personal health care decisions of our patients, and inappropriately inserts a patient’s employer into the physician-patient relationship. In addition, these rules open the door to moral exemptions for other essential health care, including vaccinations.

These are challenging days for women’s health policy and legislation federally, and in many states. ACOG has two clear messages for politicians: Don’t turn back the clock on women’s health, and stay out of our exam rooms.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted on March 23, 2010. Controversies, complaints, and detractors have and continue to abound. But the ACA’s landmark women’s health gains are unmistakable. Contraceptive coverage, maternity coverage, Medicaid coverage of low-income women, coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions, and gender-neutral premiums are now a part of the fabric of our society. For most.

Many physicians and patients—many lawmakers, too—do not remember the serious problems people had with their insurance companies before the ACA. Maternity coverage was usually a free-standing rider to an insurance policy, making it very expensive. Insurance plans did not have to, and often did not, cover contraceptives, and none did without copays or deductibles. Women were routinely denied coverage if they had ever had a cesarean delivery, had once been the victim of domestic violence, or had any one of many common conditions, like diabetes. The many exclusionary conditions are so common, in fact, that one study estimated that around 52 million adults in the United States (27% of those younger than age 65 years) have preexisting conditions that would potentially make them uninsurable without the ACA’s protections.¹

Before the ACA, it also was common for women with insurance policies to find their coverage rescinded, often with no explanation, even though they paid their premiums every month. And women with serious medical conditions often saw their coverage ended midway through their course of treatment. That placed their ObGyns in a terrible situation, too.

The insurance industry as a whole was running rough-shod over its customers, and making a lot of money by creatively and routinely denying coverage and payment for care. People were often insured, but not covered. The ACA halted many of these practices, and required insurers to meet high medical loss ratios, guaranteeing that 80% of the premiums’ for individual and small market insurers (and 85% for large insurers) are returned to patients in care payments or even in checks. In fact, nearly $4 billion in premiums have been rebated to insured individuals over the last 7 years under the ACA.²

The commitment of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to women’s health and to our members’ ability to provide the best care has centered on preserving the critical gains of the ACA for women, improving them when we can, and making sure politicians don’t turn back the clock on women’s health. We have been busy.

In this article, we will look at what has happened to these landmark gains and promises of improved women’s health, specifically preexisting condition protections and contraceptive coverage, under a new Administration. What happens when good health care policy and political enmity collide?

Preexisting coverage protections

The 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) defines a preexisting condition exclusionas a “limitation or exclusion of benefits relating to a condition based on the fact that the condition was present before the date of enrollment for the coverage, whether or not any medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended or received before that date.” HIPPA prohibited employer-sponsored health plans from discriminating against individuals through denying them coverage or charging them more based on their or their family members’ health problems. The ACA expanded protections to prohibit the insurance practice of denying coverage altogether to an individual with a preexisting condition.³

Continue to: Under Congress...

Under Congress

Republicans held the majority in both chambers of the 115th Congress (2017–2018), and hoped to use their majority status to get an ACA repeal bill to the Republican President’s desk for speedy enactment. It was not easy, and they were not successful. Four major bills—the American Health Care Act, the Better Care Reconciliation Act, the Health Care Freedom Act, and the Graham-Cassidy Amendment—never made it over the finish line, with some not even making it to a vote. The Health Care Freedom Act was voted down in the Senate 51-49 when Senator John McCain came back from brain surgery to cast his famous thumbs-down vote.⁴ These bills all would have repealed or hobbled guaranteed issue, community rating, and essential health benefits of the ACA. Of all the legislative attempts to undermine the ACA, only the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was signed into law, repealing the ACA individual mandate.

Handling by the courts

The TCJA gave ACA opponents their opening in court. Twenty Republican state attorneys general and governors brought suit in February 2018 (Texas v Azar), arguing that because the ACA relies on the mandate, and the mandate has been repealed, the rest of the ACA also should be struck down. A federal district judge agreed, on December 15, 2018, declaring the entire ACA unconstitutional.⁵

That decision has been limited in its practical effect so far, and maybe it was not altogether unexpected. What was unexpected was that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) refused to defend a federal law, in this case, the ACA. In June 2018, the DOJ declined to defend the individual mandate, as well as guaranteed issue, community rating, the ban on preexisting condition exclusions, and discrimination based on health status in the ACA. The DOJ at that time, however, did not agree with the plaintiffs that without the mandate the entire ACA should be struck down. It said, “There is no reason why the ACA’s particular expansion of Medicaid hinges on the individual mandate.” Later, after the December 15 ruling, the DOJ changed its position and agreed with the judge, in a two-sentence letter to the court, that the ACA should be stricken altogether—shortly after which 3 career DOJ attorneys resigned.⁶

A legal expert observed: “The DOJ’s decision not to defend the ACA breaks with the Department’s long-standing bipartisan commitment to defend federal laws if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. Decisions not to defend federal law are exceedingly rare. It seems even rarer to change the government’s position mid-appeal in such a high-profile lawsuit that risks disrupting the entire health care system and health insurance coverage for millions of Americans.”⁷

Regulatory tactics

What a policy maker cannot do by law, he or she can try to accomplish by regulation. The Administration is using 3 regulatory routes to undercut the ACA preexisting coverage protections and market stability.

Route 1: Short-Term Limited Duration (STLD) plans. These plans were created in the ACA to provide bridge coverage for up to 3 months for individuals in between health insurance plans. These plans do not have to comply with ACA patient protections, can deny coverage for preexisting conditions, and do not cover maternity care. In 2018, the Administration moved to allow these plans to be marketed broadly and renewed for up to 3 years. Because these plans provide less coverage and often come with high deductibles, they can be marketed with lower premiums, skimming off healthier younger people who do not expect to need much care, as well as lower-income families. This destabilizes the market and leaves people insured but not covered, exactly the situation before the ACA. Seven public health and medical groups sued to challenge the Administration’s STLD regulation; the lawsuit is presently pending.

Continue to: Route 2: Association Health Plans (AHPs)...

Route 2: Association Health Plans (AHPs). The Administration also has allowed the sale of AHPs, marketed to small employers and self-employed individuals. These plans also do not have to comply with ACA consumer protections. They often do not cover maternity care or other essential benefits, and can charge women higher premiums for the same insurance. This regulation, too, resulted in litigation and a federal judge enjoined the rule, but the case is now on appeal.

Route 3: ACA Section 1332 waivers. These waivers were created in the ACA to encourage state innovation to increase access to health coverage, under certain guardrails: states must ensure coverage is at least as comprehensive as the Essential Health Benefits; cost sharing protections must be at least as affordable as under the ACA; the plan must cover at least a comparable number of its residents; and the plan must not increase the federal deficit.

The Adminstration has come under fire for approving 1332 waiver plans that do not meet these guardrails, and allow insurers to exclude coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions, as well as skirt other important ACA patient protections. In response, Seema Verma, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, promised as recently as April 23, that the Administration will not allow any weakening of the ACA preexisting coverage guarantee.⁸ So far, however, we do not know what action this means, and not surprisingly, House Democrats, now in the majority, are waiting to see those assurances come true. Consistent polling shows that a large majority of Americans, across political parties, think preexisting coverage protections are very important.⁹

Already, the House passed HR986, to repeal the Administration’s changes to the 1332 waiver rules. The bill won only 4 Republican votes in the House and now waits a Senate vote.

The House is ready to vote on HR1010, which returns the STLD rules to the original ACA version. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will reduce the federal deficit by $8.9 billion over 10 years, in part by reestablishing a large risk pool. Lower ACA premiums would mean lower federal subsidies and small federal outlays.

Contraceptive coverage

Since 2012, the ACA has required non-grandfathered individual and group health plans to cover, with no copays or deductibles, women’s preventive services, as determined by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). HRSA asked the National Academy of Medicine (the Institute of Medicine [IOM] at the time) to develop these coverage guidelines based on clinical and scientific relevance. The IOM relied heavily on ACOG’s testimony and women’s health guidelines. The guidelines are updated every 5 years, based on extensive review by the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative, led by ACOG. By law and regulation, covered services include:

• well-woman visits
• contraceptive methods and counseling, including all methods approved for women by the FDA
• breast and cervical cancer screening
• counseling for sexually transmitted infections
• counseling and screening for HIV
• screening for gestational diabetes
• breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling
• screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence.

Continue to: The previous administration offered a narrow exemption...

The previous administration offered a narrow exemption—an accommodation—for churches, religious orders, and integrated auxiliaries (organizations with financial support primarily from churches). That accommodation was expanded in the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby, for closely held for-profit organizations that had religious objections to covering some or all contraceptives. Under the accommodation, the entity’s insurer or third-party administrator was responsible for providing contraceptive services to the entity’s plan participants and beneficiaries.

In October 2017, the Trump administration acted to greatly expand the ability of any employer, college or university, individual, or insurer to opt out of the ACA’s contraceptive coverage requirement. You will read more about this later.

ACOG’s business case for contraception

Early in the Trump Administration, the White House released a statement saying, “Ensuring affordable, accessible, and quality healthcare is critical to improving women’s health and ensuring that it fits their priorities at any stage of life.”¹⁰ ACOG could not agree more, and we encouraged the President to accomplish this important goal by protecting the landmark women’s health gains of the ACA. Our call to the President and the US Congress was: “Don’t turn back the clock on women’s health.”

We made a business case for continued contraceptive coverage:

Contraception reduces unintended pregnancies and saves federal dollars.

• Approximately 45% of US pregnancies are unintended.¹¹
• No-copay coverage of contraception has contributed to a dramatic decline in the unintended pregnancy rate in the United States, now at a 30-year low.¹²
• When cost is not a barrier, women choose more effective forms of contraception, such as intrauterine devices and implants.¹³
• Unintended pregnancies cost approximately $12.5 billion in government expenditures in 2008.¹⁴
• Private health plans spend as much as $4.6 billion annually in costs related to unintended pregnancies.¹⁵

Contraception means healthier women and healthier families.

• Under the ACA, the uninsured rate among women ages 18 to 64 almost halved, decreasing from 19.3% to 10.8%.¹⁶
• More than 55 million women gained access to preventive services, including contraception, without a copay or a deductible.¹⁶
• Women with unintended pregnancies are more likely to delay prenatal care. Infants are at greater risk of birth defects, low birth weight, and poor mental and physical functioning in early childhood.¹⁷

Increased access to contraception helps families and improves economic security.

• Women saved $1.4 billion in out-of-pocket costs for contraception in 1 year.¹⁸
• Before the ACA, women were spending between 30% and 44% of their total out-of-pocket health costs just on birth control.¹⁹
• The ability to plan a pregnancy increases engagement of women in the workforce and improves economic stability for women and their families.²⁰

Administration expands religious exemptions to contraception coverage

Still, on October 6, 2017, the Trump Administration moved to curtail women’s access to and coverage of contraception with the Religious Exemptions and Accommodations for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services under the Affordable Care Act and Moral Exemptions and Accommodations for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act. In November 2018, the Administration published a revised rule, to take effect in January 2019.²¹ The rule immediately was taken to court by more than a dozen states and, 1 month later, was subject to an injunction by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, blocking the rules from going into effect in those states.

Continue to: The rule vastly expands the Obama Administration’s religious accommodation...

The rule vastly expands the Obama Administration’s religious accommodation to include “nonprofit organizations, small businesses, and individuals that have nonreligious moral convictions opposing services covered by the contraceptive mandate.” The covered entities include²¹:

• churches, integrated auxiliaries, and religious orders with religious objections
• nonprofit organizations with religious or moral objections
• for-profit entities that are not publicly traded, with religious or moral objections
• for-profit entities that are publicly traded, with religious objections
• other nongovernmental employers with religious objections
• nongovernmental institutions of higher education with religious or moral objections
• individuals with religious or moral objections, with employer sponsored or individual market coverage, where the plan sponsor and/or issuer (as applicable) are willing to offer them a plan omitting contraceptive coverage to which they object
• issuers with religious or moral objections, to the extent they provide coverage to a plan sponsor or individual that is also exempt.

The Administration says women losing coverage can get contraceptives through Title X clinics or other government programs. Of course, many women losing coverage are employed, and earn above the low income (100% of the federal poverty level) eligibility requirement for Title X assistance. To address that, the Administration, through its proposed Title X regulations, broadens the definition of “low income” in that program to include women who lose their contraceptive coverage through the employer-base health insurance plan. This move further limits the ability of the Title X program to adequately care for already-qualified individuals.

The Administration’s rule also relied on major inaccuracies, which ACOG corrected.²² First, ACOG pointed out that, in fact, FDA-approved contraceptive methods are not abortifacients, countering the Administration’s contention that contraception is an abortifacient, and that contraceptives cause abortions or miscarriages. Every FDA-approved contraceptive acts before implantation, does not interfere with a pregnancy, and is not effective after a fertilized egg has implanted successfully in the uterus.²³ No credible research supports the false statement that birth control causes miscarriages.²⁴

Second, ACOG offered data proving that increased access to contraception is not associated with increased unsafe sexual behavior or increased sexual activity.^25,26 The facts are that:

• The percentage of teens who are having sex has declined significantly, by 14% for female and 22% for male teenagers, over the past 25 years.²⁷
• More women are using contraception the first time they have sex. Young women who do not use birth control at first sexual intercourse are twice as likely to become teen mothers.²⁸
• Increased access to and use of contraception has contributed to a dramatic decline in rates of adolescent pregnancy.²⁹
• School-based health centers that provide access to contraceptives are proven to increase use of contraceptives by already sexually active students, not to increase onset of sexual activity.^30,31

Third, ACOG made clear the benefits to women’s health from contraception. ACOG asserted: As with any medication, certain types of contraception may be contraindicated for patients with certain medical conditions, including high blood pressure, lupus, or a history of breast cancer.^32,33 For these and many other reasons, access to the full range of FDA-approved contraception, with no cost sharing or other barriers, is critical to women’s health. Regarding VTE, the risk among oral contraceptive users is very low. In fact, it is much lower than the risk of VTE during pregnancy or in the immediate postpartum period.³⁴

Continue to: Regarding breast cancer: there is no proven increased risk...

Regarding breast cancer: there is no proven increased risk of breast cancer among contraceptive users, particularly among those younger than age 40. For women older than 40, health care providers must consider both the risks of becoming pregnant at advanced reproductive age and the risks of continuing contraception use until menopause.³⁵

ACOG has 2 clear messages for politicians

ACOG has remained steadfast in its opposition to the Administration’s proposals to block access to contraception. ACOG expressed its strong opposition to political interference in medical care, saying “Every woman, regardless of her insurer, employer, state of residence, or income, should have affordable, seamless access to the right form of contraception for her, free from interference from her employer or politicians.”²²

ACOG’s voice has been joined by 5 other major medical associations—American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American Osteopathic Association—together representing more than 560,000 physicians and medical students, in urging the Administration to immediately withdraw its proposals. This broad coalition unequivocally stated³⁶:

Contraception is an integral part of preventive care and a medical necessity for women during approximately 30 years of their lives. Access to no-copay contraception leads to healthier women and families. Changes to our healthcare system come with very high stakes – impacting tens of millions of our patients. Access to contraception allows women to achieve, lead and reach their full potentials, becoming key drivers of our Nation’s economic success. These rules would create a new standard whereby employers can deny their employees coverage, based on their own moral objections. This interferes in the personal health care decisions of our patients, and inappropriately inserts a patient’s employer into the physician-patient relationship. In addition, these rules open the door to moral exemptions for other essential health care, including vaccinations.

These are challenging days for women’s health policy and legislation federally, and in many states. ACOG has two clear messages for politicians: Don’t turn back the clock on women’s health, and stay out of our exam rooms.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted on March 23, 2010. Controversies, complaints, and detractors have and continue to abound. But the ACA’s landmark women’s health gains are unmistakable. Contraceptive coverage, maternity coverage, Medicaid coverage of low-income women, coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions, and gender-neutral premiums are now a part of the fabric of our society. For most.

Many physicians and patients—many lawmakers, too—do not remember the serious problems people had with their insurance companies before the ACA. Maternity coverage was usually a free-standing rider to an insurance policy, making it very expensive. Insurance plans did not have to, and often did not, cover contraceptives, and none did without copays or deductibles. Women were routinely denied coverage if they had ever had a cesarean delivery, had once been the victim of domestic violence, or had any one of many common conditions, like diabetes. The many exclusionary conditions are so common, in fact, that one study estimated that around 52 million adults in the United States (27% of those younger than age 65 years) have preexisting conditions that would potentially make them uninsurable without the ACA’s protections.¹

Before the ACA, it also was common for women with insurance policies to find their coverage rescinded, often with no explanation, even though they paid their premiums every month. And women with serious medical conditions often saw their coverage ended midway through their course of treatment. That placed their ObGyns in a terrible situation, too.

The insurance industry as a whole was running rough-shod over its customers, and making a lot of money by creatively and routinely denying coverage and payment for care. People were often insured, but not covered. The ACA halted many of these practices, and required insurers to meet high medical loss ratios, guaranteeing that 80% of the premiums’ for individual and small market insurers (and 85% for large insurers) are returned to patients in care payments or even in checks. In fact, nearly $4 billion in premiums have been rebated to insured individuals over the last 7 years under the ACA.²

The commitment of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to women’s health and to our members’ ability to provide the best care has centered on preserving the critical gains of the ACA for women, improving them when we can, and making sure politicians don’t turn back the clock on women’s health. We have been busy.

In this article, we will look at what has happened to these landmark gains and promises of improved women’s health, specifically preexisting condition protections and contraceptive coverage, under a new Administration. What happens when good health care policy and political enmity collide?

Preexisting coverage protections

The 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) defines a preexisting condition exclusionas a “limitation or exclusion of benefits relating to a condition based on the fact that the condition was present before the date of enrollment for the coverage, whether or not any medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended or received before that date.” HIPPA prohibited employer-sponsored health plans from discriminating against individuals through denying them coverage or charging them more based on their or their family members’ health problems. The ACA expanded protections to prohibit the insurance practice of denying coverage altogether to an individual with a preexisting condition.³

Continue to: Under Congress...

Under Congress

Republicans held the majority in both chambers of the 115th Congress (2017–2018), and hoped to use their majority status to get an ACA repeal bill to the Republican President’s desk for speedy enactment. It was not easy, and they were not successful. Four major bills—the American Health Care Act, the Better Care Reconciliation Act, the Health Care Freedom Act, and the Graham-Cassidy Amendment—never made it over the finish line, with some not even making it to a vote. The Health Care Freedom Act was voted down in the Senate 51-49 when Senator John McCain came back from brain surgery to cast his famous thumbs-down vote.⁴ These bills all would have repealed or hobbled guaranteed issue, community rating, and essential health benefits of the ACA. Of all the legislative attempts to undermine the ACA, only the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was signed into law, repealing the ACA individual mandate.

Handling by the courts

The TCJA gave ACA opponents their opening in court. Twenty Republican state attorneys general and governors brought suit in February 2018 (Texas v Azar), arguing that because the ACA relies on the mandate, and the mandate has been repealed, the rest of the ACA also should be struck down. A federal district judge agreed, on December 15, 2018, declaring the entire ACA unconstitutional.⁵

That decision has been limited in its practical effect so far, and maybe it was not altogether unexpected. What was unexpected was that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) refused to defend a federal law, in this case, the ACA. In June 2018, the DOJ declined to defend the individual mandate, as well as guaranteed issue, community rating, the ban on preexisting condition exclusions, and discrimination based on health status in the ACA. The DOJ at that time, however, did not agree with the plaintiffs that without the mandate the entire ACA should be struck down. It said, “There is no reason why the ACA’s particular expansion of Medicaid hinges on the individual mandate.” Later, after the December 15 ruling, the DOJ changed its position and agreed with the judge, in a two-sentence letter to the court, that the ACA should be stricken altogether—shortly after which 3 career DOJ attorneys resigned.⁶

A legal expert observed: “The DOJ’s decision not to defend the ACA breaks with the Department’s long-standing bipartisan commitment to defend federal laws if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. Decisions not to defend federal law are exceedingly rare. It seems even rarer to change the government’s position mid-appeal in such a high-profile lawsuit that risks disrupting the entire health care system and health insurance coverage for millions of Americans.”⁷

Regulatory tactics

What a policy maker cannot do by law, he or she can try to accomplish by regulation. The Administration is using 3 regulatory routes to undercut the ACA preexisting coverage protections and market stability.

Route 1: Short-Term Limited Duration (STLD) plans. These plans were created in the ACA to provide bridge coverage for up to 3 months for individuals in between health insurance plans. These plans do not have to comply with ACA patient protections, can deny coverage for preexisting conditions, and do not cover maternity care. In 2018, the Administration moved to allow these plans to be marketed broadly and renewed for up to 3 years. Because these plans provide less coverage and often come with high deductibles, they can be marketed with lower premiums, skimming off healthier younger people who do not expect to need much care, as well as lower-income families. This destabilizes the market and leaves people insured but not covered, exactly the situation before the ACA. Seven public health and medical groups sued to challenge the Administration’s STLD regulation; the lawsuit is presently pending.

Continue to: Route 2: Association Health Plans (AHPs)...

Route 2: Association Health Plans (AHPs). The Administration also has allowed the sale of AHPs, marketed to small employers and self-employed individuals. These plans also do not have to comply with ACA consumer protections. They often do not cover maternity care or other essential benefits, and can charge women higher premiums for the same insurance. This regulation, too, resulted in litigation and a federal judge enjoined the rule, but the case is now on appeal.

Route 3: ACA Section 1332 waivers. These waivers were created in the ACA to encourage state innovation to increase access to health coverage, under certain guardrails: states must ensure coverage is at least as comprehensive as the Essential Health Benefits; cost sharing protections must be at least as affordable as under the ACA; the plan must cover at least a comparable number of its residents; and the plan must not increase the federal deficit.

The Adminstration has come under fire for approving 1332 waiver plans that do not meet these guardrails, and allow insurers to exclude coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions, as well as skirt other important ACA patient protections. In response, Seema Verma, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, promised as recently as April 23, that the Administration will not allow any weakening of the ACA preexisting coverage guarantee.⁸ So far, however, we do not know what action this means, and not surprisingly, House Democrats, now in the majority, are waiting to see those assurances come true. Consistent polling shows that a large majority of Americans, across political parties, think preexisting coverage protections are very important.⁹

Already, the House passed HR986, to repeal the Administration’s changes to the 1332 waiver rules. The bill won only 4 Republican votes in the House and now waits a Senate vote.

The House is ready to vote on HR1010, which returns the STLD rules to the original ACA version. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will reduce the federal deficit by $8.9 billion over 10 years, in part by reestablishing a large risk pool. Lower ACA premiums would mean lower federal subsidies and small federal outlays.

Contraceptive coverage

Since 2012, the ACA has required non-grandfathered individual and group health plans to cover, with no copays or deductibles, women’s preventive services, as determined by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). HRSA asked the National Academy of Medicine (the Institute of Medicine [IOM] at the time) to develop these coverage guidelines based on clinical and scientific relevance. The IOM relied heavily on ACOG’s testimony and women’s health guidelines. The guidelines are updated every 5 years, based on extensive review by the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative, led by ACOG. By law and regulation, covered services include:

• well-woman visits
• contraceptive methods and counseling, including all methods approved for women by the FDA
• breast and cervical cancer screening
• counseling for sexually transmitted infections
• counseling and screening for HIV
• screening for gestational diabetes
• breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling
• screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence.

Continue to: The previous administration offered a narrow exemption...

The previous administration offered a narrow exemption—an accommodation—for churches, religious orders, and integrated auxiliaries (organizations with financial support primarily from churches). That accommodation was expanded in the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby, for closely held for-profit organizations that had religious objections to covering some or all contraceptives. Under the accommodation, the entity’s insurer or third-party administrator was responsible for providing contraceptive services to the entity’s plan participants and beneficiaries.

In October 2017, the Trump administration acted to greatly expand the ability of any employer, college or university, individual, or insurer to opt out of the ACA’s contraceptive coverage requirement. You will read more about this later.

ACOG’s business case for contraception

Early in the Trump Administration, the White House released a statement saying, “Ensuring affordable, accessible, and quality healthcare is critical to improving women’s health and ensuring that it fits their priorities at any stage of life.”¹⁰ ACOG could not agree more, and we encouraged the President to accomplish this important goal by protecting the landmark women’s health gains of the ACA. Our call to the President and the US Congress was: “Don’t turn back the clock on women’s health.”

We made a business case for continued contraceptive coverage:

Contraception reduces unintended pregnancies and saves federal dollars.

• Approximately 45% of US pregnancies are unintended.¹¹
• No-copay coverage of contraception has contributed to a dramatic decline in the unintended pregnancy rate in the United States, now at a 30-year low.¹²
• When cost is not a barrier, women choose more effective forms of contraception, such as intrauterine devices and implants.¹³
• Unintended pregnancies cost approximately $12.5 billion in government expenditures in 2008.¹⁴
• Private health plans spend as much as $4.6 billion annually in costs related to unintended pregnancies.¹⁵

Contraception means healthier women and healthier families.

• Under the ACA, the uninsured rate among women ages 18 to 64 almost halved, decreasing from 19.3% to 10.8%.¹⁶
• More than 55 million women gained access to preventive services, including contraception, without a copay or a deductible.¹⁶
• Women with unintended pregnancies are more likely to delay prenatal care. Infants are at greater risk of birth defects, low birth weight, and poor mental and physical functioning in early childhood.¹⁷

Increased access to contraception helps families and improves economic security.

• Women saved $1.4 billion in out-of-pocket costs for contraception in 1 year.¹⁸
• Before the ACA, women were spending between 30% and 44% of their total out-of-pocket health costs just on birth control.¹⁹
• The ability to plan a pregnancy increases engagement of women in the workforce and improves economic stability for women and their families.²⁰

Administration expands religious exemptions to contraception coverage

Still, on October 6, 2017, the Trump Administration moved to curtail women’s access to and coverage of contraception with the Religious Exemptions and Accommodations for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services under the Affordable Care Act and Moral Exemptions and Accommodations for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act. In November 2018, the Administration published a revised rule, to take effect in January 2019.²¹ The rule immediately was taken to court by more than a dozen states and, 1 month later, was subject to an injunction by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, blocking the rules from going into effect in those states.

Continue to: The rule vastly expands the Obama Administration’s religious accommodation...

The rule vastly expands the Obama Administration’s religious accommodation to include “nonprofit organizations, small businesses, and individuals that have nonreligious moral convictions opposing services covered by the contraceptive mandate.” The covered entities include²¹:

• churches, integrated auxiliaries, and religious orders with religious objections
• nonprofit organizations with religious or moral objections
• for-profit entities that are not publicly traded, with religious or moral objections
• for-profit entities that are publicly traded, with religious objections
• other nongovernmental employers with religious objections
• nongovernmental institutions of higher education with religious or moral objections
• individuals with religious or moral objections, with employer sponsored or individual market coverage, where the plan sponsor and/or issuer (as applicable) are willing to offer them a plan omitting contraceptive coverage to which they object
• issuers with religious or moral objections, to the extent they provide coverage to a plan sponsor or individual that is also exempt.

The Administration says women losing coverage can get contraceptives through Title X clinics or other government programs. Of course, many women losing coverage are employed, and earn above the low income (100% of the federal poverty level) eligibility requirement for Title X assistance. To address that, the Administration, through its proposed Title X regulations, broadens the definition of “low income” in that program to include women who lose their contraceptive coverage through the employer-base health insurance plan. This move further limits the ability of the Title X program to adequately care for already-qualified individuals.

The Administration’s rule also relied on major inaccuracies, which ACOG corrected.²² First, ACOG pointed out that, in fact, FDA-approved contraceptive methods are not abortifacients, countering the Administration’s contention that contraception is an abortifacient, and that contraceptives cause abortions or miscarriages. Every FDA-approved contraceptive acts before implantation, does not interfere with a pregnancy, and is not effective after a fertilized egg has implanted successfully in the uterus.²³ No credible research supports the false statement that birth control causes miscarriages.²⁴

Second, ACOG offered data proving that increased access to contraception is not associated with increased unsafe sexual behavior or increased sexual activity.^25,26 The facts are that:

• The percentage of teens who are having sex has declined significantly, by 14% for female and 22% for male teenagers, over the past 25 years.²⁷
• More women are using contraception the first time they have sex. Young women who do not use birth control at first sexual intercourse are twice as likely to become teen mothers.²⁸
• Increased access to and use of contraception has contributed to a dramatic decline in rates of adolescent pregnancy.²⁹
• School-based health centers that provide access to contraceptives are proven to increase use of contraceptives by already sexually active students, not to increase onset of sexual activity.^30,31

Third, ACOG made clear the benefits to women’s health from contraception. ACOG asserted: As with any medication, certain types of contraception may be contraindicated for patients with certain medical conditions, including high blood pressure, lupus, or a history of breast cancer.^32,33 For these and many other reasons, access to the full range of FDA-approved contraception, with no cost sharing or other barriers, is critical to women’s health. Regarding VTE, the risk among oral contraceptive users is very low. In fact, it is much lower than the risk of VTE during pregnancy or in the immediate postpartum period.³⁴

Continue to: Regarding breast cancer: there is no proven increased risk...

Regarding breast cancer: there is no proven increased risk of breast cancer among contraceptive users, particularly among those younger than age 40. For women older than 40, health care providers must consider both the risks of becoming pregnant at advanced reproductive age and the risks of continuing contraception use until menopause.³⁵

ACOG has 2 clear messages for politicians

ACOG has remained steadfast in its opposition to the Administration’s proposals to block access to contraception. ACOG expressed its strong opposition to political interference in medical care, saying “Every woman, regardless of her insurer, employer, state of residence, or income, should have affordable, seamless access to the right form of contraception for her, free from interference from her employer or politicians.”²²

ACOG’s voice has been joined by 5 other major medical associations—American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American Osteopathic Association—together representing more than 560,000 physicians and medical students, in urging the Administration to immediately withdraw its proposals. This broad coalition unequivocally stated³⁶:

Contraception is an integral part of preventive care and a medical necessity for women during approximately 30 years of their lives. Access to no-copay contraception leads to healthier women and families. Changes to our healthcare system come with very high stakes – impacting tens of millions of our patients. Access to contraception allows women to achieve, lead and reach their full potentials, becoming key drivers of our Nation’s economic success. These rules would create a new standard whereby employers can deny their employees coverage, based on their own moral objections. This interferes in the personal health care decisions of our patients, and inappropriately inserts a patient’s employer into the physician-patient relationship. In addition, these rules open the door to moral exemptions for other essential health care, including vaccinations.

These are challenging days for women’s health policy and legislation federally, and in many states. ACOG has two clear messages for politicians: Don’t turn back the clock on women’s health, and stay out of our exam rooms.

Malignant testicular neoplasms can arise from either the germ cells or sex-cord stromal cells, with the former comprising approximately 95% of all testicular cancers (Table 1). Germ cell tumors may contain a single histology or a mix of multiple histologies. For clinical decision making, testicular tumors are categorized as either pure seminoma (no nonseminomatous elements present) or nonseminomatous germ cell tumors (NSGCT). The prevalence of seminoma and NSGCT is roughly equal. If a testicular tumor contains both seminomatous and nonseminomatous components, it is called a mixed germ cell tumor. Because of similarities in biological behavior, the approach to treatment of mixed germ cell tumors is similar to that for NSGCT.

The key points to remember for testicular cancer are:

1. With early diagnosis and aggressive multidisciplinary therapy, the overwhelming majority of patients can be cured;
2. Specialized care is often critical and affects outcomes; and
3. Survivorship, or post-treatment care, is very important for these patients, as they often have lifespan of several decades and a unique set of short- and long-term treatment-related complications.

Developmental Biology and Genetics

The developmental biology of germ cells and germ cell neoplasms is beyond the scope of this review, and interested readers are recommended to refer to pertinent articles on the topic.^1,2 A characteristic genetic marker of all germ cell tumors is an isochromosome of the short arm of chromosome 12, i(12p). This is present in testicular tumors regardless of histologic subtype as well as in carcinoma-in-situ. In germ cell tumors without i(12p) karyotype, excess 12p genetic material consisting of repetitive segments has been found, suggesting that this is an early and potentially critical change in oncogenesis.³ Several recent studies have revealed a diverse genomic landscape in testicular cancers, including KIT, KRAS and NRAS mutations in addition to a hyperdiploid karyotype.^4,5

Evaluation and Diagnosis

Case Presentation

A 23-year-old Caucasian man presents to a primary care clinic for a pre-employment history and physical exam. He reports testicular pain on the sexually transmitted infections screening questionnaire. On examination, the physician finds a firm, mobile, minimally-tender, 1.5-cm mass in the inferior aspect of left testicle. No contralateral testicular mass or inguinal lymphadenopathy is noted, and a detailed physical exam is otherwise unremarkable. The physician immediately orders an ultrasound of the testicles, which shows a 1.5-cm hypoechoic mass in the inferior aspect of the left testicle, with an unremarkable contralateral testicle. After discussion of the results, the patient is referred a urologic oncologist with expertise in testicular cancer for further care.

The urologic oncologist orders a computed tomography (CT) abdomen and pelvis with and without contrast, which shows a 1.8-cm pathologic-appearing retroperitoneal lymph node at the level of the left renal vein. Chest radiograph with anteroposterior and lateral views is unremarkable. Tumor markers are as follows: beta human chorionic gonadotropin (beta-HCG) 8 mIU/mL (normal range, 0–4 mIU/mL), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) 2 ng/mL (normal range, 0–8.5 ng/mL), and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) 195 U/L (normal range, 119–213 U/L).

What is the approach to the initial workup and diagnosis of testicular cancer?

Clinical Presentation and Physical Exam

The majority of testicular cancers are diagnosed on work-up of a nodule or painless swelling of one testicle, usually noted incidentally by the patient. Approximately 30% to 40% of patients complain of a dull ache or heavy sensation in the lower abdomen, perianal area, or scrotum, while acute pain is the presenting symptom in 10%.³

In approximately 10% of patients, the presenting symptom is a result of distant metastatic involvement, such as cough and dyspnea on exertion (pulmonary or mediastinal metastasis), intractable bone pain (skeletal metastasis), intractable back/flank pain, presence of psoas sign or unexplained lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (bulky retroperitoneal metastasis), or central nervous system symptoms (vertebral, spinal or brain metastasis). Constitutional symptoms (unexplained weight loss, anorexia, fatigue) often accompany these symptoms.³

Rarely (5% or less), testicular cancer may present with systemic endocrine symptoms or paraneoplastic symptoms. Gynecomastia is the most common in this category, occurring in approximately 2% of germ cell tumors and more commonly (20%–30%) in Leydig cell tumors of testis.⁶ Classically, these patients are either 6- to 10-year-old boys with precocious puberty or young men (mid 20s-mid 30s) with a combination of testicular mass, gynecomastia, loss of libido, and impotence. Workup typically reveals increased beta-HCG levels in blood.

Anti-Ma2-antibody-associated limbic encephalitis is the most common (and still quite rare) paraneoplastic complication associated with testicular germ cell tumors. The Ma2 antigen is selectively expressed in the neuronal nucleoli of normal brain tissue and the testicular tumor of the patient. Importantly, in a subset of these patients, the treatment of testicular cancer may result in improvement of symptoms of encephalitis.⁷

The first step in the diagnosis of testicular neoplasm is a physical exam. This should include a bimanual examination of the scrotal contents, starting with the normal contralateral testis. Normal testicle has a homogeneous texture and consistency, is freely movable, and is separable from the epididymis. Any firm, hard, or fixed mass within the substance of the tunica albuginea should be considered suspicious until proven otherwise. Spread to the epididymis or spermatic cord occurs in 10% to 15% of patients and examination should include these structures as well.³ A comprehensive system-wise examination for features of metastatic spread as discussed above should then be performed. If the patient has cryptorchidism, ultrasound is a mandatory part of the diagnostic workup.

If clinical evaluation suggests a possibility of testicular cancer, the patient must be counseled to undergo an expedited diagnostic workup and specialist evaluation, as a prompt diagnosis and treatment is key to not only improving the likelihood of cure, but also minimizing the treatments needed to achieve it.

Role of Imaging

Scrotal Ultrasound

Scrotal ultrasound is the first imaging modality used in the diagnostic workup of patient with suspected testicular cancer. Bilateral scrotal ultrasound can detect lesions as small as 1 to 2 mm in diameter and help differentiate intratesticular lesions from extrinsic masses. A cystic mass on ultrasound is unlikely to be malignant. Seminomas appear as well-defined hypoechoic lesions without cystic areas, while NSGCTs are typically inhomogeneous with calcifications, cystic areas, and indistinct margins. However, this distinction is not always apparent or reliable. Ultrasound alone is also insufficient for tumor staging.⁸ For these reasons, a radical inguinal orchiectomy must be pursued for accurate determination of histology and local stage.

If testicular ultrasound shows a suspicious intratesticular mass, the following workup is typically done:

• Measurement of serum tumor markers (beta-HCG, AFP and LDH);
• CT abdomen and pelvis with and without contrast;
• Chest radiograph anteroposterior and lateral views, or CT chest with and without contrast if clinically indicated;
• Any additional focal imaging based on symptoms (eg, magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] scan with and without contrast to evaluate the brain if the patient has CNS symptoms).

CT Scan

CT scan is the preferred imaging modality for staging of testicular cancers, specifically for evaluation of the retroperitoneum, as it is the predominant site for metastases.⁹ CT scan should encompass the abdomen and pelvis, and contrast-enhanced sequences should be obtained unless medically contraindicated. CT scan of the chest (if not initially done) is compulsory should a CT of abdomen and pelvis and/or a chest radiograph show abnormal findings.

The sensitivity and specificity of CT scans for detection of nodal metastases can vary significantly based on the cutoff. For example, in a series of 70 patients using a cutoff of 10 mm, the sensitivity and specificity of CT scans for patients undergoing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection were 37% and 100%, respectively.¹⁰ In the same study, a cutoff of 4 mm increased the sensitivity to 93% and decreased the specificity to 58%. The current general consensus for this cutoff value is 8 to 10 mm measured in the short axis in the transverse (axial) plane.

Approximately 20% of men with clinical stage I testicular cancer (ie, those with non-enlarged retroperitoneal lymph nodes) who do not undergo any adjuvant therapy will have disease relapse in the retroperitoneum, suggesting that they had occult micrometastases that were missed on the initial CT scans.^11,12

MRI/Radionuclide Bone Scan/PET Scan

Abdominal or pelvic MRI, whole-body radionuclide bone scan, and positron emission tomography (PET) scans are almost never needed as part of the initial staging workup for testicular cancers due to several limitations, including a high false-negative rate, specifically for the PET scans, and lack of any additional value compared with CT and testicular ultrasound alone.^9,13,14 If necessary, these should only be ordered after a multidisciplinary oncology consultation to prevent unnecessary delays in treatment, inappropriate changes to treatment, and unnecessary increases in cost of care.

Tumor Markers, Biopsy, and Staging

What is the role of tumor markers in the management of testicular cancers?

Serum AFP, beta-hCG, and LDH have a well-established role as tumor markers in testicular cancer. The alpha subunit of hCG is shared between multiple pituitary hormones and hence does not serve as a specific marker for testicular cancer. Serum levels of AFP and/or beta-hCG are elevated in approximately 80% percent of men with NSGCTs, even in absence of metastatic spread. On the other hand, serum beta-hCG is elevated in less than 20% and AFP is not elevated in pure seminomas.³

Tumor markers by themselves are not sufficiently sensitive or specific for the diagnosis of testicular cancer, in general, or to differentiate among its subtypes. Despite this limitation, marked elevations in these markers are rarely due to causes other than germ cell tumor. For example, serum beta-hCG concentrations greater than 10,000 mIU/mL occur only in germ cell tumors, trophoblastic differentiation of a primary lung or gastric cancer, gestational trophoblastic disease, or pregnancy. Serum AFP concentrations greater than 10,000 ng/mL occur almost exclusively in germ cell tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma.¹⁵

The pattern of marker elevation may play an important role in management of testicular cancer patients. For example, in our practice, several patients have had discordant serum tumor markers and pathology results (eg, elevated AFP with pure seminoma on orchiectomy). One of these patients was treated with adjuvant retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, which confirmed that he had a NSGCT with a seminoma, choriocarcinoma, and teratoma on pathology evaluation of retroperitoneal lymph nodes.

Serum tumor markers have 2 additional critical roles—(1) in the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) staging¹⁶ and International Germ Cell Cancer Collaboration Group (IGCCCG) risk stratification of testicular cancer,¹⁷ and (2) in post-treatment disease monitoring.

Is a testicular biopsy necessary for diagnosis?

A testicular biopsy is almost never pursued to confirm the diagnosis of testicular cancer. There is a concern that percutaneous testicular biopsy, which is associated with scrotal skin violation, can adversely affect outcomes due to tumor seeding of scrotal sac or metastatic spread into the inguinal nodes via scrotal skin lymphatics.

Tissue diagnosis is made by radical orchiectomy in a majority of cases. Rarely in our practice, we obtain a biopsy of metastatic lesion for a tissue diagnosis. This is only done in cases where chemotherapy must be started urgently to prevent worsening of complications from metastatic spread. This decision should be made only after a multidisciplinary consultation with urologic and medical oncology teams.

How is testicular cancer staged?

Both seminomatous and nonseminomatous germ cell tumors of the testis are staged using the AJCC/UICC staging system, which incorporates assessments of the primary tumor (T), lymph nodes (N), and distant metastases (M) and serum tumor marker values (S). Details of this staging system are beyond the scope of this review and further information can be obtained through the AJCC website (www.cancerstaging.org). This TNMS staging enables a prognostic assessment and helps with the therapeutic approach.

For patients with advanced germ cell tumors, a risk group classification developed by the IGCCCG is used to classify patients into good-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk category (Table 2). This classification has been extensively validated for the past 2 decades, provides important prognostic information, and helps inform therapy decisions.

Case 1 Continued

Based on the patient’s imaging and biomarker results, the patient undergoes a left radical inguinal orchiectomy. The physician’s operative note mentions that the left testicle was delivered without violation of scrotal integrity. A pathology report shows pure spermatocytic seminoma (unifocal, 1.4 cm size) with negative margins and no evidence of lymphovascular invasion. No lymph nodes are identified in the resection specimen. Post-orchiectomy markers are “negative,” meaning within normal range. After discussions with medical and radiation oncology physicians, the patient opts to pursue active surveillance.

Surgery alone followed by active surveillance is an appropriate option for this patient, as the likelihood of recurrence is low and most recurrences can be subsequently salvaged using treatment options detailed below.

What are the therapeutic options for testicular cancer?

An overview of management for most testicular cancers is presented in Table 3. Note that the actual treatments are significantly more complex and need a comprehensive multidisciplinary consultation (urologic, medical and radiation oncology) at centers with specialized testicular cancer teams, if possible.

Fertility Preservation

All patients initiating treatment for testicular cancer must be offered options for fertility preservation and consultation with a reproductive health team, if available. At the time of diagnosis, approximately 50% patients have some degree of impairment in spermatogenesis, but with effective fertility preservation, successful pregnancy can occur for as many as 30% to 60% of patients.^18,19

Orchiectomy

Radical inguinal orchiectomy with high ligation of the spermatic cord at the level of the internal ring is the procedure of choice for suspected testicular cancer. The goal is to provide a definitive tissue diagnosis and local tumor control with minimal morbidity. It can be performed under general, regional, or local anesthesia. Depending on the complexity and surgical expertise, it can be done in an inpatient or outpatient setting. During the procedure, the testicle is delivered from the scrotum through an incision in the inguinal region and then resected. A testicular prosthesis is usually inserted, with resultant excellent cosmetic and patient satisfaction outcomes.²⁰

Testicular sparing surgery (TSS) has been explored as an alternative to radical orchiectomy but is not considered a standard-of-care option at this time. Small studies have shown evidence for comparable short-term oncologic outcomes in a very select group of patients, generally with solitary tumors < 2 cm in size and solitary testicle. If this is being considered as an option, we recommended obtaining a consultation from a urologist at a high-volume center. For a majority of patients, the value of a TSS is diminished due to excellent anatomic/cosmetic outcomes with a testicular prosthesis implanted during the radical orchiectomy, and resumption of sexual functions by the unaffected contralateral testicle.

Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection

As discussed, conventional cross-sectional imaging has a high false-negative rate for detection of retroperitoneal involvement. General indications for RPLND in various stages and histologies of testicular cancer germ cell tumors are outlined in Table 3. Seminoma tends to most commonly metastasize to retroperitoneum, but RPLND for seminoma is generally reserved for a very small subset of these patients. Patterns of metastases of NSGCT (except choriocarcinoma) are considered to be well-defined. In a series of patients with stage II NSGCTs, left-sided tumors metastasized to the pre- and para-aortic nodes in 88% and 86% of cases, respectively (drainage basin of left testicular vein); and right-sided tumors involved the interaortocaval nodes in 93% of patients.³ Inguinal and pelvic nodal metastases may rarely be seen and should not be used to rule out the diagnosis of testicular cancer.

Choriocarcinoma is an exception to this pattern of retroperitoneal spread, as it tends to have a higher likelihood of hematogenous metastases to distant organs. Compared with NSGCTs, pure seminomas are either localized to the testis (80% of all cases) or limited to the retroperitoneum (an additional 15% of all cases) at presentation.³

Depending on the case and expertise of the surgical team, robotic or open RPLND can be performed.²¹ Regardless of the approach used, RPLND remains a technically challenging surgery. The retroperitoneal “landing zone” lymph nodes lie in close proximity to, and are often densely adherent to, the abdominal great vessels. Complication rates vary widely in the reported literature, but can be as high as 50%.^21-23 As detailed in Table 2, the number and size of involved retroperitoneal lymph nodes have prognostic importance.

In summary, RPLND is considered to be a viable option for a subset of early-stage NSGCT (T1-3, N0-2, M0) and for those with advanced seminoma, NSGCT, or mixed germ cell tumors with post-chemotherapy residual disease.

Systemic Chemotherapy

Except for the single-agent carboplatin, most chemotherapy regimens used to treat testicular cancer are combinations of 2 or more chemotherapy agents. For this review, we will focus on the 3 most commonly used regimens: bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP), etoposide and cisplatin (EP), and etoposide, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (VIP).

The core principles of testicular cancer chemotherapy are:

1. Minimize dose interruptions, delays, or reductions, as these adversely affect outcomes without clearly improving side effect profile;
2. Do not substitute carboplatin for cisplatin in combination regimens because carboplatin-containing combination regimens have been shown to result in significantly poorer outcomes in multiple trials of adults with germ cell tumors;^24-27 and
3. Give myeloid growth factor support, if necessary.

BEP

The standard BEP regimen comprises a 21-day cycle with bleomycin 30 units on days 1, 8, and 15; etoposide 100 mg/m² on days 1 to 5; and cisplatin 20 mg/m² on days 1 to 5. Number of cycles varies based on histology and stage (Table 3). A strong justification to maintain treatment intensity comes from the Australian and New Zealand Germ Cell Trial Group trial. In this study, 166 men were randomly assigned to treatment using 3 cycles of standard BEP or 4 cycles of a modified BEP regimen (bleomycin 30 units day 1; etoposide 120 mg/m² days 1 to 3; cisplatin 100 mg/m² day 1) every 21 days. This trial was stopped at interim analyses because the modified BEP arm was inferior to the standard BEP arm. With a median follow-up of 8.5 years, 8-year overall survival was 92% with standard BEP and 83% with modified BEP (P = 0.037).²⁸

Bleomycin used in the BEP regimen has been associated with uncommon but potentially fatal pulmonary toxicity that tends to present as interstitial pneumonitis, which may ultimately progress to fibrosis or bronchiolitis obliterans with organizing pneumonia.²⁹ This has led to evaluation of EP as an alternative to BEP.

EP

The standard EP regimen consists of a 21-day cycle with etoposide 100 mg/m² on days 1 to 5, and cisplatin 20 mg/m² on days 1 to 5. Due to conflicting data from multiple randomized trials, there is considerable debate in the field regarding whether 4 cycles of EP are equivalent to 3 cycles of BEP.^30,31 The benefit of the EP regimen is that it avoids the higher rates of pulmonary, cutaneous, and neurologic toxicities associated bleomycin, but it does result in the patient receiving an up to 33% higher cumulative dose of cisplatin and etoposide due to the extra cycle of treatment. This has important implications in terms of tolerability and side effects, including delayed toxicities such as second malignancies, which increase with a higher cumulative dose of these agents (etoposide in particular).

VIP

The standard VIP regimen consists of a 21-day cycle with etoposide 75 mg/m² on days 1 to 5; cisplatin 20 mg/m² on days 1 to 5; ifosfamide 1200 mg/m² on days 1 to 5; and mesna 120 mg/m² IV push on day 1 followed by 1200 mg/m² on days 1 to 5. For patients with intermediate- or poor-risk disease, 4 cycles of VIP has demonstrated comparable efficacy but higher rates of hematologic toxicities compared with 4 cycles of BEP.^32-34 It remains an option for upfront treatment of patients who are not good candidates for a bleomycin-based regimen, and for patients who need salvage chemotherapy.

Adverse Effects of Chemotherapy

Acute and late chemotherapy toxicities vary significantly between regimens depending on the chemotherapy drugs used. Bleomycin-induced pneumonitis may masquerade as a “pneumonia,” which can lead to a delay in diagnosis or institution of treatment, as well as institution of an incorrect treatment (for example, there is a concern that bleomycin toxicity can be precipitated or worsened by a high fraction of inspired oxygen). Chemotherapy-associated neutropenia tends to occur a few days (7–10 days) after initiation of chemotherapy, and neutrophil counts recover without intervention in most patients after an additional 7 to 10 days. Myeloid growth factor support (eg, filgrastim, pegfilgrastim) can be given to patients either prophylactically (if they had an episode of febrile or prolonged neutropenia with the preceding cycle) or secondarily if they present with neutropenia (an absolute neutrophil count ≤ 500 cells/µL) with fever or active infection. Such interventions tend to shorten the duration of neutropenia but does not affect overall survival. Patients with asymptomatic neutropenia do not benefit from growth factor use.³⁵

Autologous stem cell transplant (SCT) is the preferred type of SCT for patients with testicular cancer and involves delivery of high doses of chemotherapy followed by infusion of patient-derived myeloid stem cells. While the details of this treatment are outside the scope of this review, decades of experience has shown that this is an effective curative option for a subset of patients with poor prognosis, such as those with platinum-refractory or relapsed disease.³⁶

Clinical Trials

Due to excellent clinical outcomes with front-line therapy, as described, and the relatively low incidence of testicular and other germ cell tumors, clinical trial options for patients with testicular cancer are limited. The TIGER trial is an ongoing international, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing conventional TIP (paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin) chemotherapy with high-dose chemotherapy with SCT as the first salvage treatment for relapsed/refractory germ cell tumors (NCT02375204). It is enrolling at multiple centers in the United States and results are expected in 2022. At least 2 ongoing trials are evaluating the role of immunotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory germ cell tumors (NCT03081923 and NCT03726281). Cluster of differentiation antigen-30 (CD30) has emerged as a potential target of interest in germ cell tumors, and brentuximab vedotin, an anti-CD30 monoclonal antibody, is undergoing evaluation in a phase 2 trial of CD-30–expressing germ cell tumors (NCT01851200). This trial has completed enrollment and results are expected to be available in late 2019 or early 2020.

When possible, patients with relapsed/refractory germ cell tumors should be referred to centers of excellence with access to either testicular/germ-cell tumor specific clinical trials or phase 1 clinical trials.

Radiation Therapy

Adjuvant radiation to the retroperitoneum has a role in the management of stage I and IIA seminomas (Table 3). In a randomized noninferiority trial of radiation therapy versus single-dose carboplatin in stage I seminoma patients, 5-year recurrence-free survival was comparable at approximately 95% in either arm.^37,38 In a retrospective database review of 2437 patients receiving either radiation therapy or multi-agent chemotherapy for stage II seminoma, the 5-year survival exceeded 90% in both treatment groups.³⁹ Typically, a total of 30 to 36 Gy of radiation is delivered to para-aortic and ipsilateral external iliac lymph nodes (“dog-leg” field), followed by an optional boost to the involved nodal areas.⁴⁰ Radiation is associated with acute side effects such as fatigue, gastrointestinal effects, myelosuppression as well as late side effects such as second cancers in the irradiated field (eg, sarcoma, bladder cancer).

Evaluation of Treatment Response

Monitoring of treatment response is fairly straightforward for patients with testicular cancer. Our practice is the following:

1. Measure tumor markers on day 1 of each chemotherapy cycle and 3 to 4 weeks after completion of treatment.
2. CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis with intravenous contrast prior to chemotherapy and upon completion of chemotherapy. Interim imaging is only needed for a small subset of patients with additional clinical indications (eg, new symptoms, lack of improvement in existing symptoms).
3. For patients with stage II/III seminoma who have a residual mass ≥ 3 cm on post-treatment CT scan, a PET-CT scan is indicated 6 to 8 weeks after the completion of chemotherapy to determine the need for further treatment.

Active Surveillance

Because testicular cancer has high cure rates even when patients have disease relapse after primary therapy, and additional therapies have significant short- and long-term side effects in these generally young patients, active surveillance is a critical option used in the management of testicular cancer.⁴¹

Patients must be counseled that active surveillance is a form of treatment itself in that it involves close clinical and radiographic monitoring. Because there is a risk of disease relapse, patients opting to undergo active surveillance must fully understand the risks of disease recurrence and be willing to abide by the recommended follow-up schedule.

Surveillance is necessary for a minimum of 5 years and possibly 10 years following orchiectomy, and most relapses tend to occur within the first 2 years. Late relapses such as skeletal metastatic disease from seminoma have been reported to occur more than 15 years after orchiectomy, but are generally rare and unpredictable.

The general guidelines for active surveillance are as follows:

For patients with seminoma, history and physical exam and tumor marker assessment should be performed every 3 to 6 months for the first year, then every 6 to 12 months in years 2 and 3, and then annually. CT of the abdomen and pelvis should be done at 3, 6, and 12 months, every 6 to 12 months in years 2 and 3, and then every 12 to 24 months in years 4 and 5. A chest radiograph is performed only if clinically indicated, as the likelihood of distant metastatic recurrence is low.

For patients with nonseminoma, history and physical exam and tumor markers assessment should be performed every 2 to 3 months for first 2 years, every 4 to 6 months in years 3 and 4, and then annually. CT of the abdomen and pelvis should be obtained every 4 to 6 months in year 1, gradually decreasing to annually in year 3 or 4. Chest radiograph is indicated at 4 and 12 months and annually thereafter for stage IA disease. For those with stage IB disease, chest radiograph is indicated every 2 months during the first year and then gradually decreasing to annually beginning year 5.

These recommendations are expected to change over time, and treating physicians are recommended to exercise discretion and consider the patient and tumor characteristics to develop the optimal surveillance plan.

Testicular cancer is the most common cancer afflicting young men. Prompt diagnostic workup initiated in a primary care or hospital setting followed by a referral to a multidisciplinary team of urologists, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists enables cure in a majority of patients. For patients with stage I seminoma, a radical inguinal orchiectomy followed by active surveillance may offer the best long-term outcome with minimal side effects. For patients with relapsed/refractory testicular cancers, clinical trial participation is strongly encouraged. Patients with a history of testicular cancer benefit from robust survivorship care tailored to their prior therapies. This can be safely delivered through their primary care providers in collaboration with the multidisciplinary oncology team.

Malignant testicular neoplasms can arise from either the germ cells or sex-cord stromal cells, with the former comprising approximately 95% of all testicular cancers (Table 1). Germ cell tumors may contain a single histology or a mix of multiple histologies. For clinical decision making, testicular tumors are categorized as either pure seminoma (no nonseminomatous elements present) or nonseminomatous germ cell tumors (NSGCT). The prevalence of seminoma and NSGCT is roughly equal. If a testicular tumor contains both seminomatous and nonseminomatous components, it is called a mixed germ cell tumor. Because of similarities in biological behavior, the approach to treatment of mixed germ cell tumors is similar to that for NSGCT.

The key points to remember for testicular cancer are:

1. With early diagnosis and aggressive multidisciplinary therapy, the overwhelming majority of patients can be cured;
2. Specialized care is often critical and affects outcomes; and
3. Survivorship, or post-treatment care, is very important for these patients, as they often have lifespan of several decades and a unique set of short- and long-term treatment-related complications.

Developmental Biology and Genetics

The developmental biology of germ cells and germ cell neoplasms is beyond the scope of this review, and interested readers are recommended to refer to pertinent articles on the topic.^1,2 A characteristic genetic marker of all germ cell tumors is an isochromosome of the short arm of chromosome 12, i(12p). This is present in testicular tumors regardless of histologic subtype as well as in carcinoma-in-situ. In germ cell tumors without i(12p) karyotype, excess 12p genetic material consisting of repetitive segments has been found, suggesting that this is an early and potentially critical change in oncogenesis.³ Several recent studies have revealed a diverse genomic landscape in testicular cancers, including KIT, KRAS and NRAS mutations in addition to a hyperdiploid karyotype.^4,5

Evaluation and Diagnosis

Case Presentation

A 23-year-old Caucasian man presents to a primary care clinic for a pre-employment history and physical exam. He reports testicular pain on the sexually transmitted infections screening questionnaire. On examination, the physician finds a firm, mobile, minimally-tender, 1.5-cm mass in the inferior aspect of left testicle. No contralateral testicular mass or inguinal lymphadenopathy is noted, and a detailed physical exam is otherwise unremarkable. The physician immediately orders an ultrasound of the testicles, which shows a 1.5-cm hypoechoic mass in the inferior aspect of the left testicle, with an unremarkable contralateral testicle. After discussion of the results, the patient is referred a urologic oncologist with expertise in testicular cancer for further care.

The urologic oncologist orders a computed tomography (CT) abdomen and pelvis with and without contrast, which shows a 1.8-cm pathologic-appearing retroperitoneal lymph node at the level of the left renal vein. Chest radiograph with anteroposterior and lateral views is unremarkable. Tumor markers are as follows: beta human chorionic gonadotropin (beta-HCG) 8 mIU/mL (normal range, 0–4 mIU/mL), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) 2 ng/mL (normal range, 0–8.5 ng/mL), and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) 195 U/L (normal range, 119–213 U/L).

What is the approach to the initial workup and diagnosis of testicular cancer?

Clinical Presentation and Physical Exam

The majority of testicular cancers are diagnosed on work-up of a nodule or painless swelling of one testicle, usually noted incidentally by the patient. Approximately 30% to 40% of patients complain of a dull ache or heavy sensation in the lower abdomen, perianal area, or scrotum, while acute pain is the presenting symptom in 10%.³

In approximately 10% of patients, the presenting symptom is a result of distant metastatic involvement, such as cough and dyspnea on exertion (pulmonary or mediastinal metastasis), intractable bone pain (skeletal metastasis), intractable back/flank pain, presence of psoas sign or unexplained lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (bulky retroperitoneal metastasis), or central nervous system symptoms (vertebral, spinal or brain metastasis). Constitutional symptoms (unexplained weight loss, anorexia, fatigue) often accompany these symptoms.³

Rarely (5% or less), testicular cancer may present with systemic endocrine symptoms or paraneoplastic symptoms. Gynecomastia is the most common in this category, occurring in approximately 2% of germ cell tumors and more commonly (20%–30%) in Leydig cell tumors of testis.⁶ Classically, these patients are either 6- to 10-year-old boys with precocious puberty or young men (mid 20s-mid 30s) with a combination of testicular mass, gynecomastia, loss of libido, and impotence. Workup typically reveals increased beta-HCG levels in blood.

Anti-Ma2-antibody-associated limbic encephalitis is the most common (and still quite rare) paraneoplastic complication associated with testicular germ cell tumors. The Ma2 antigen is selectively expressed in the neuronal nucleoli of normal brain tissue and the testicular tumor of the patient. Importantly, in a subset of these patients, the treatment of testicular cancer may result in improvement of symptoms of encephalitis.⁷

The first step in the diagnosis of testicular neoplasm is a physical exam. This should include a bimanual examination of the scrotal contents, starting with the normal contralateral testis. Normal testicle has a homogeneous texture and consistency, is freely movable, and is separable from the epididymis. Any firm, hard, or fixed mass within the substance of the tunica albuginea should be considered suspicious until proven otherwise. Spread to the epididymis or spermatic cord occurs in 10% to 15% of patients and examination should include these structures as well.³ A comprehensive system-wise examination for features of metastatic spread as discussed above should then be performed. If the patient has cryptorchidism, ultrasound is a mandatory part of the diagnostic workup.

If clinical evaluation suggests a possibility of testicular cancer, the patient must be counseled to undergo an expedited diagnostic workup and specialist evaluation, as a prompt diagnosis and treatment is key to not only improving the likelihood of cure, but also minimizing the treatments needed to achieve it.

Role of Imaging

Scrotal Ultrasound

Scrotal ultrasound is the first imaging modality used in the diagnostic workup of patient with suspected testicular cancer. Bilateral scrotal ultrasound can detect lesions as small as 1 to 2 mm in diameter and help differentiate intratesticular lesions from extrinsic masses. A cystic mass on ultrasound is unlikely to be malignant. Seminomas appear as well-defined hypoechoic lesions without cystic areas, while NSGCTs are typically inhomogeneous with calcifications, cystic areas, and indistinct margins. However, this distinction is not always apparent or reliable. Ultrasound alone is also insufficient for tumor staging.⁸ For these reasons, a radical inguinal orchiectomy must be pursued for accurate determination of histology and local stage.

If testicular ultrasound shows a suspicious intratesticular mass, the following workup is typically done:

• Measurement of serum tumor markers (beta-HCG, AFP and LDH);
• CT abdomen and pelvis with and without contrast;
• Chest radiograph anteroposterior and lateral views, or CT chest with and without contrast if clinically indicated;
• Any additional focal imaging based on symptoms (eg, magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] scan with and without contrast to evaluate the brain if the patient has CNS symptoms).

CT Scan

CT scan is the preferred imaging modality for staging of testicular cancers, specifically for evaluation of the retroperitoneum, as it is the predominant site for metastases.⁹ CT scan should encompass the abdomen and pelvis, and contrast-enhanced sequences should be obtained unless medically contraindicated. CT scan of the chest (if not initially done) is compulsory should a CT of abdomen and pelvis and/or a chest radiograph show abnormal findings.

The sensitivity and specificity of CT scans for detection of nodal metastases can vary significantly based on the cutoff. For example, in a series of 70 patients using a cutoff of 10 mm, the sensitivity and specificity of CT scans for patients undergoing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection were 37% and 100%, respectively.¹⁰ In the same study, a cutoff of 4 mm increased the sensitivity to 93% and decreased the specificity to 58%. The current general consensus for this cutoff value is 8 to 10 mm measured in the short axis in the transverse (axial) plane.

Approximately 20% of men with clinical stage I testicular cancer (ie, those with non-enlarged retroperitoneal lymph nodes) who do not undergo any adjuvant therapy will have disease relapse in the retroperitoneum, suggesting that they had occult micrometastases that were missed on the initial CT scans.^11,12

MRI/Radionuclide Bone Scan/PET Scan

Abdominal or pelvic MRI, whole-body radionuclide bone scan, and positron emission tomography (PET) scans are almost never needed as part of the initial staging workup for testicular cancers due to several limitations, including a high false-negative rate, specifically for the PET scans, and lack of any additional value compared with CT and testicular ultrasound alone.^9,13,14 If necessary, these should only be ordered after a multidisciplinary oncology consultation to prevent unnecessary delays in treatment, inappropriate changes to treatment, and unnecessary increases in cost of care.

Tumor Markers, Biopsy, and Staging

What is the role of tumor markers in the management of testicular cancers?

Serum AFP, beta-hCG, and LDH have a well-established role as tumor markers in testicular cancer. The alpha subunit of hCG is shared between multiple pituitary hormones and hence does not serve as a specific marker for testicular cancer. Serum levels of AFP and/or beta-hCG are elevated in approximately 80% percent of men with NSGCTs, even in absence of metastatic spread. On the other hand, serum beta-hCG is elevated in less than 20% and AFP is not elevated in pure seminomas.³

Tumor markers by themselves are not sufficiently sensitive or specific for the diagnosis of testicular cancer, in general, or to differentiate among its subtypes. Despite this limitation, marked elevations in these markers are rarely due to causes other than germ cell tumor. For example, serum beta-hCG concentrations greater than 10,000 mIU/mL occur only in germ cell tumors, trophoblastic differentiation of a primary lung or gastric cancer, gestational trophoblastic disease, or pregnancy. Serum AFP concentrations greater than 10,000 ng/mL occur almost exclusively in germ cell tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma.¹⁵

The pattern of marker elevation may play an important role in management of testicular cancer patients. For example, in our practice, several patients have had discordant serum tumor markers and pathology results (eg, elevated AFP with pure seminoma on orchiectomy). One of these patients was treated with adjuvant retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, which confirmed that he had a NSGCT with a seminoma, choriocarcinoma, and teratoma on pathology evaluation of retroperitoneal lymph nodes.

Serum tumor markers have 2 additional critical roles—(1) in the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) staging¹⁶ and International Germ Cell Cancer Collaboration Group (IGCCCG) risk stratification of testicular cancer,¹⁷ and (2) in post-treatment disease monitoring.

Is a testicular biopsy necessary for diagnosis?

A testicular biopsy is almost never pursued to confirm the diagnosis of testicular cancer. There is a concern that percutaneous testicular biopsy, which is associated with scrotal skin violation, can adversely affect outcomes due to tumor seeding of scrotal sac or metastatic spread into the inguinal nodes via scrotal skin lymphatics.

Tissue diagnosis is made by radical orchiectomy in a majority of cases. Rarely in our practice, we obtain a biopsy of metastatic lesion for a tissue diagnosis. This is only done in cases where chemotherapy must be started urgently to prevent worsening of complications from metastatic spread. This decision should be made only after a multidisciplinary consultation with urologic and medical oncology teams.

How is testicular cancer staged?

Both seminomatous and nonseminomatous germ cell tumors of the testis are staged using the AJCC/UICC staging system, which incorporates assessments of the primary tumor (T), lymph nodes (N), and distant metastases (M) and serum tumor marker values (S). Details of this staging system are beyond the scope of this review and further information can be obtained through the AJCC website (www.cancerstaging.org). This TNMS staging enables a prognostic assessment and helps with the therapeutic approach.

For patients with advanced germ cell tumors, a risk group classification developed by the IGCCCG is used to classify patients into good-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk category (Table 2). This classification has been extensively validated for the past 2 decades, provides important prognostic information, and helps inform therapy decisions.

Case 1 Continued

Based on the patient’s imaging and biomarker results, the patient undergoes a left radical inguinal orchiectomy. The physician’s operative note mentions that the left testicle was delivered without violation of scrotal integrity. A pathology report shows pure spermatocytic seminoma (unifocal, 1.4 cm size) with negative margins and no evidence of lymphovascular invasion. No lymph nodes are identified in the resection specimen. Post-orchiectomy markers are “negative,” meaning within normal range. After discussions with medical and radiation oncology physicians, the patient opts to pursue active surveillance.

Surgery alone followed by active surveillance is an appropriate option for this patient, as the likelihood of recurrence is low and most recurrences can be subsequently salvaged using treatment options detailed below.

What are the therapeutic options for testicular cancer?

An overview of management for most testicular cancers is presented in Table 3. Note that the actual treatments are significantly more complex and need a comprehensive multidisciplinary consultation (urologic, medical and radiation oncology) at centers with specialized testicular cancer teams, if possible.

Fertility Preservation

All patients initiating treatment for testicular cancer must be offered options for fertility preservation and consultation with a reproductive health team, if available. At the time of diagnosis, approximately 50% patients have some degree of impairment in spermatogenesis, but with effective fertility preservation, successful pregnancy can occur for as many as 30% to 60% of patients.^18,19

Orchiectomy

Radical inguinal orchiectomy with high ligation of the spermatic cord at the level of the internal ring is the procedure of choice for suspected testicular cancer. The goal is to provide a definitive tissue diagnosis and local tumor control with minimal morbidity. It can be performed under general, regional, or local anesthesia. Depending on the complexity and surgical expertise, it can be done in an inpatient or outpatient setting. During the procedure, the testicle is delivered from the scrotum through an incision in the inguinal region and then resected. A testicular prosthesis is usually inserted, with resultant excellent cosmetic and patient satisfaction outcomes.²⁰

Testicular sparing surgery (TSS) has been explored as an alternative to radical orchiectomy but is not considered a standard-of-care option at this time. Small studies have shown evidence for comparable short-term oncologic outcomes in a very select group of patients, generally with solitary tumors < 2 cm in size and solitary testicle. If this is being considered as an option, we recommended obtaining a consultation from a urologist at a high-volume center. For a majority of patients, the value of a TSS is diminished due to excellent anatomic/cosmetic outcomes with a testicular prosthesis implanted during the radical orchiectomy, and resumption of sexual functions by the unaffected contralateral testicle.

Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection

As discussed, conventional cross-sectional imaging has a high false-negative rate for detection of retroperitoneal involvement. General indications for RPLND in various stages and histologies of testicular cancer germ cell tumors are outlined in Table 3. Seminoma tends to most commonly metastasize to retroperitoneum, but RPLND for seminoma is generally reserved for a very small subset of these patients. Patterns of metastases of NSGCT (except choriocarcinoma) are considered to be well-defined. In a series of patients with stage II NSGCTs, left-sided tumors metastasized to the pre- and para-aortic nodes in 88% and 86% of cases, respectively (drainage basin of left testicular vein); and right-sided tumors involved the interaortocaval nodes in 93% of patients.³ Inguinal and pelvic nodal metastases may rarely be seen and should not be used to rule out the diagnosis of testicular cancer.

Choriocarcinoma is an exception to this pattern of retroperitoneal spread, as it tends to have a higher likelihood of hematogenous metastases to distant organs. Compared with NSGCTs, pure seminomas are either localized to the testis (80% of all cases) or limited to the retroperitoneum (an additional 15% of all cases) at presentation.³

Depending on the case and expertise of the surgical team, robotic or open RPLND can be performed.²¹ Regardless of the approach used, RPLND remains a technically challenging surgery. The retroperitoneal “landing zone” lymph nodes lie in close proximity to, and are often densely adherent to, the abdominal great vessels. Complication rates vary widely in the reported literature, but can be as high as 50%.^21-23 As detailed in Table 2, the number and size of involved retroperitoneal lymph nodes have prognostic importance.

In summary, RPLND is considered to be a viable option for a subset of early-stage NSGCT (T1-3, N0-2, M0) and for those with advanced seminoma, NSGCT, or mixed germ cell tumors with post-chemotherapy residual disease.

Systemic Chemotherapy

Except for the single-agent carboplatin, most chemotherapy regimens used to treat testicular cancer are combinations of 2 or more chemotherapy agents. For this review, we will focus on the 3 most commonly used regimens: bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP), etoposide and cisplatin (EP), and etoposide, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (VIP).

The core principles of testicular cancer chemotherapy are:

1. Minimize dose interruptions, delays, or reductions, as these adversely affect outcomes without clearly improving side effect profile;
2. Do not substitute carboplatin for cisplatin in combination regimens because carboplatin-containing combination regimens have been shown to result in significantly poorer outcomes in multiple trials of adults with germ cell tumors;^24-27 and
3. Give myeloid growth factor support, if necessary.

BEP

The standard BEP regimen comprises a 21-day cycle with bleomycin 30 units on days 1, 8, and 15; etoposide 100 mg/m² on days 1 to 5; and cisplatin 20 mg/m² on days 1 to 5. Number of cycles varies based on histology and stage (Table 3). A strong justification to maintain treatment intensity comes from the Australian and New Zealand Germ Cell Trial Group trial. In this study, 166 men were randomly assigned to treatment using 3 cycles of standard BEP or 4 cycles of a modified BEP regimen (bleomycin 30 units day 1; etoposide 120 mg/m² days 1 to 3; cisplatin 100 mg/m² day 1) every 21 days. This trial was stopped at interim analyses because the modified BEP arm was inferior to the standard BEP arm. With a median follow-up of 8.5 years, 8-year overall survival was 92% with standard BEP and 83% with modified BEP (P = 0.037).²⁸

Bleomycin used in the BEP regimen has been associated with uncommon but potentially fatal pulmonary toxicity that tends to present as interstitial pneumonitis, which may ultimately progress to fibrosis or bronchiolitis obliterans with organizing pneumonia.²⁹ This has led to evaluation of EP as an alternative to BEP.

EP

The standard EP regimen consists of a 21-day cycle with etoposide 100 mg/m² on days 1 to 5, and cisplatin 20 mg/m² on days 1 to 5. Due to conflicting data from multiple randomized trials, there is considerable debate in the field regarding whether 4 cycles of EP are equivalent to 3 cycles of BEP.^30,31 The benefit of the EP regimen is that it avoids the higher rates of pulmonary, cutaneous, and neurologic toxicities associated bleomycin, but it does result in the patient receiving an up to 33% higher cumulative dose of cisplatin and etoposide due to the extra cycle of treatment. This has important implications in terms of tolerability and side effects, including delayed toxicities such as second malignancies, which increase with a higher cumulative dose of these agents (etoposide in particular).

VIP

The standard VIP regimen consists of a 21-day cycle with etoposide 75 mg/m² on days 1 to 5; cisplatin 20 mg/m² on days 1 to 5; ifosfamide 1200 mg/m² on days 1 to 5; and mesna 120 mg/m² IV push on day 1 followed by 1200 mg/m² on days 1 to 5. For patients with intermediate- or poor-risk disease, 4 cycles of VIP has demonstrated comparable efficacy but higher rates of hematologic toxicities compared with 4 cycles of BEP.^32-34 It remains an option for upfront treatment of patients who are not good candidates for a bleomycin-based regimen, and for patients who need salvage chemotherapy.

Adverse Effects of Chemotherapy

Acute and late chemotherapy toxicities vary significantly between regimens depending on the chemotherapy drugs used. Bleomycin-induced pneumonitis may masquerade as a “pneumonia,” which can lead to a delay in diagnosis or institution of treatment, as well as institution of an incorrect treatment (for example, there is a concern that bleomycin toxicity can be precipitated or worsened by a high fraction of inspired oxygen). Chemotherapy-associated neutropenia tends to occur a few days (7–10 days) after initiation of chemotherapy, and neutrophil counts recover without intervention in most patients after an additional 7 to 10 days. Myeloid growth factor support (eg, filgrastim, pegfilgrastim) can be given to patients either prophylactically (if they had an episode of febrile or prolonged neutropenia with the preceding cycle) or secondarily if they present with neutropenia (an absolute neutrophil count ≤ 500 cells/µL) with fever or active infection. Such interventions tend to shorten the duration of neutropenia but does not affect overall survival. Patients with asymptomatic neutropenia do not benefit from growth factor use.³⁵

Autologous stem cell transplant (SCT) is the preferred type of SCT for patients with testicular cancer and involves delivery of high doses of chemotherapy followed by infusion of patient-derived myeloid stem cells. While the details of this treatment are outside the scope of this review, decades of experience has shown that this is an effective curative option for a subset of patients with poor prognosis, such as those with platinum-refractory or relapsed disease.³⁶

Clinical Trials

Due to excellent clinical outcomes with front-line therapy, as described, and the relatively low incidence of testicular and other germ cell tumors, clinical trial options for patients with testicular cancer are limited. The TIGER trial is an ongoing international, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing conventional TIP (paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin) chemotherapy with high-dose chemotherapy with SCT as the first salvage treatment for relapsed/refractory germ cell tumors (NCT02375204). It is enrolling at multiple centers in the United States and results are expected in 2022. At least 2 ongoing trials are evaluating the role of immunotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory germ cell tumors (NCT03081923 and NCT03726281). Cluster of differentiation antigen-30 (CD30) has emerged as a potential target of interest in germ cell tumors, and brentuximab vedotin, an anti-CD30 monoclonal antibody, is undergoing evaluation in a phase 2 trial of CD-30–expressing germ cell tumors (NCT01851200). This trial has completed enrollment and results are expected to be available in late 2019 or early 2020.

When possible, patients with relapsed/refractory germ cell tumors should be referred to centers of excellence with access to either testicular/germ-cell tumor specific clinical trials or phase 1 clinical trials.

Radiation Therapy

Adjuvant radiation to the retroperitoneum has a role in the management of stage I and IIA seminomas (Table 3). In a randomized noninferiority trial of radiation therapy versus single-dose carboplatin in stage I seminoma patients, 5-year recurrence-free survival was comparable at approximately 95% in either arm.^37,38 In a retrospective database review of 2437 patients receiving either radiation therapy or multi-agent chemotherapy for stage II seminoma, the 5-year survival exceeded 90% in both treatment groups.³⁹ Typically, a total of 30 to 36 Gy of radiation is delivered to para-aortic and ipsilateral external iliac lymph nodes (“dog-leg” field), followed by an optional boost to the involved nodal areas.⁴⁰ Radiation is associated with acute side effects such as fatigue, gastrointestinal effects, myelosuppression as well as late side effects such as second cancers in the irradiated field (eg, sarcoma, bladder cancer).

Evaluation of Treatment Response

Monitoring of treatment response is fairly straightforward for patients with testicular cancer. Our practice is the following:

1. Measure tumor markers on day 1 of each chemotherapy cycle and 3 to 4 weeks after completion of treatment.
2. CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis with intravenous contrast prior to chemotherapy and upon completion of chemotherapy. Interim imaging is only needed for a small subset of patients with additional clinical indications (eg, new symptoms, lack of improvement in existing symptoms).
3. For patients with stage II/III seminoma who have a residual mass ≥ 3 cm on post-treatment CT scan, a PET-CT scan is indicated 6 to 8 weeks after the completion of chemotherapy to determine the need for further treatment.

Active Surveillance

Because testicular cancer has high cure rates even when patients have disease relapse after primary therapy, and additional therapies have significant short- and long-term side effects in these generally young patients, active surveillance is a critical option used in the management of testicular cancer.⁴¹

Patients must be counseled that active surveillance is a form of treatment itself in that it involves close clinical and radiographic monitoring. Because there is a risk of disease relapse, patients opting to undergo active surveillance must fully understand the risks of disease recurrence and be willing to abide by the recommended follow-up schedule.

Surveillance is necessary for a minimum of 5 years and possibly 10 years following orchiectomy, and most relapses tend to occur within the first 2 years. Late relapses such as skeletal metastatic disease from seminoma have been reported to occur more than 15 years after orchiectomy, but are generally rare and unpredictable.

The general guidelines for active surveillance are as follows:

For patients with seminoma, history and physical exam and tumor marker assessment should be performed every 3 to 6 months for the first year, then every 6 to 12 months in years 2 and 3, and then annually. CT of the abdomen and pelvis should be done at 3, 6, and 12 months, every 6 to 12 months in years 2 and 3, and then every 12 to 24 months in years 4 and 5. A chest radiograph is performed only if clinically indicated, as the likelihood of distant metastatic recurrence is low.

For patients with nonseminoma, history and physical exam and tumor markers assessment should be performed every 2 to 3 months for first 2 years, every 4 to 6 months in years 3 and 4, and then annually. CT of the abdomen and pelvis should be obtained every 4 to 6 months in year 1, gradually decreasing to annually in year 3 or 4. Chest radiograph is indicated at 4 and 12 months and annually thereafter for stage IA disease. For those with stage IB disease, chest radiograph is indicated every 2 months during the first year and then gradually decreasing to annually beginning year 5.

These recommendations are expected to change over time, and treating physicians are recommended to exercise discretion and consider the patient and tumor characteristics to develop the optimal surveillance plan.

Testicular cancer is the most common cancer afflicting young men. Prompt diagnostic workup initiated in a primary care or hospital setting followed by a referral to a multidisciplinary team of urologists, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists enables cure in a majority of patients. For patients with stage I seminoma, a radical inguinal orchiectomy followed by active surveillance may offer the best long-term outcome with minimal side effects. For patients with relapsed/refractory testicular cancers, clinical trial participation is strongly encouraged. Patients with a history of testicular cancer benefit from robust survivorship care tailored to their prior therapies. This can be safely delivered through their primary care providers in collaboration with the multidisciplinary oncology team.

Malignant testicular neoplasms can arise from either the germ cells or sex-cord stromal cells, with the former comprising approximately 95% of all testicular cancers (Table 1). Germ cell tumors may contain a single histology or a mix of multiple histologies. For clinical decision making, testicular tumors are categorized as either pure seminoma (no nonseminomatous elements present) or nonseminomatous germ cell tumors (NSGCT). The prevalence of seminoma and NSGCT is roughly equal. If a testicular tumor contains both seminomatous and nonseminomatous components, it is called a mixed germ cell tumor. Because of similarities in biological behavior, the approach to treatment of mixed germ cell tumors is similar to that for NSGCT.

The key points to remember for testicular cancer are:

1. With early diagnosis and aggressive multidisciplinary therapy, the overwhelming majority of patients can be cured;
2. Specialized care is often critical and affects outcomes; and
3. Survivorship, or post-treatment care, is very important for these patients, as they often have lifespan of several decades and a unique set of short- and long-term treatment-related complications.

Developmental Biology and Genetics

The developmental biology of germ cells and germ cell neoplasms is beyond the scope of this review, and interested readers are recommended to refer to pertinent articles on the topic.^1,2 A characteristic genetic marker of all germ cell tumors is an isochromosome of the short arm of chromosome 12, i(12p). This is present in testicular tumors regardless of histologic subtype as well as in carcinoma-in-situ. In germ cell tumors without i(12p) karyotype, excess 12p genetic material consisting of repetitive segments has been found, suggesting that this is an early and potentially critical change in oncogenesis.³ Several recent studies have revealed a diverse genomic landscape in testicular cancers, including KIT, KRAS and NRAS mutations in addition to a hyperdiploid karyotype.^4,5

Evaluation and Diagnosis

Case Presentation

A 23-year-old Caucasian man presents to a primary care clinic for a pre-employment history and physical exam. He reports testicular pain on the sexually transmitted infections screening questionnaire. On examination, the physician finds a firm, mobile, minimally-tender, 1.5-cm mass in the inferior aspect of left testicle. No contralateral testicular mass or inguinal lymphadenopathy is noted, and a detailed physical exam is otherwise unremarkable. The physician immediately orders an ultrasound of the testicles, which shows a 1.5-cm hypoechoic mass in the inferior aspect of the left testicle, with an unremarkable contralateral testicle. After discussion of the results, the patient is referred a urologic oncologist with expertise in testicular cancer for further care.

The urologic oncologist orders a computed tomography (CT) abdomen and pelvis with and without contrast, which shows a 1.8-cm pathologic-appearing retroperitoneal lymph node at the level of the left renal vein. Chest radiograph with anteroposterior and lateral views is unremarkable. Tumor markers are as follows: beta human chorionic gonadotropin (beta-HCG) 8 mIU/mL (normal range, 0–4 mIU/mL), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) 2 ng/mL (normal range, 0–8.5 ng/mL), and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) 195 U/L (normal range, 119–213 U/L).

What is the approach to the initial workup and diagnosis of testicular cancer?

Clinical Presentation and Physical Exam

The majority of testicular cancers are diagnosed on work-up of a nodule or painless swelling of one testicle, usually noted incidentally by the patient. Approximately 30% to 40% of patients complain of a dull ache or heavy sensation in the lower abdomen, perianal area, or scrotum, while acute pain is the presenting symptom in 10%.³

In approximately 10% of patients, the presenting symptom is a result of distant metastatic involvement, such as cough and dyspnea on exertion (pulmonary or mediastinal metastasis), intractable bone pain (skeletal metastasis), intractable back/flank pain, presence of psoas sign or unexplained lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (bulky retroperitoneal metastasis), or central nervous system symptoms (vertebral, spinal or brain metastasis). Constitutional symptoms (unexplained weight loss, anorexia, fatigue) often accompany these symptoms.³

Rarely (5% or less), testicular cancer may present with systemic endocrine symptoms or paraneoplastic symptoms. Gynecomastia is the most common in this category, occurring in approximately 2% of germ cell tumors and more commonly (20%–30%) in Leydig cell tumors of testis.⁶ Classically, these patients are either 6- to 10-year-old boys with precocious puberty or young men (mid 20s-mid 30s) with a combination of testicular mass, gynecomastia, loss of libido, and impotence. Workup typically reveals increased beta-HCG levels in blood.

Anti-Ma2-antibody-associated limbic encephalitis is the most common (and still quite rare) paraneoplastic complication associated with testicular germ cell tumors. The Ma2 antigen is selectively expressed in the neuronal nucleoli of normal brain tissue and the testicular tumor of the patient. Importantly, in a subset of these patients, the treatment of testicular cancer may result in improvement of symptoms of encephalitis.⁷

The first step in the diagnosis of testicular neoplasm is a physical exam. This should include a bimanual examination of the scrotal contents, starting with the normal contralateral testis. Normal testicle has a homogeneous texture and consistency, is freely movable, and is separable from the epididymis. Any firm, hard, or fixed mass within the substance of the tunica albuginea should be considered suspicious until proven otherwise. Spread to the epididymis or spermatic cord occurs in 10% to 15% of patients and examination should include these structures as well.³ A comprehensive system-wise examination for features of metastatic spread as discussed above should then be performed. If the patient has cryptorchidism, ultrasound is a mandatory part of the diagnostic workup.

If clinical evaluation suggests a possibility of testicular cancer, the patient must be counseled to undergo an expedited diagnostic workup and specialist evaluation, as a prompt diagnosis and treatment is key to not only improving the likelihood of cure, but also minimizing the treatments needed to achieve it.

Role of Imaging

Scrotal Ultrasound

Scrotal ultrasound is the first imaging modality used in the diagnostic workup of patient with suspected testicular cancer. Bilateral scrotal ultrasound can detect lesions as small as 1 to 2 mm in diameter and help differentiate intratesticular lesions from extrinsic masses. A cystic mass on ultrasound is unlikely to be malignant. Seminomas appear as well-defined hypoechoic lesions without cystic areas, while NSGCTs are typically inhomogeneous with calcifications, cystic areas, and indistinct margins. However, this distinction is not always apparent or reliable. Ultrasound alone is also insufficient for tumor staging.⁸ For these reasons, a radical inguinal orchiectomy must be pursued for accurate determination of histology and local stage.

If testicular ultrasound shows a suspicious intratesticular mass, the following workup is typically done:

• Measurement of serum tumor markers (beta-HCG, AFP and LDH);
• CT abdomen and pelvis with and without contrast;
• Chest radiograph anteroposterior and lateral views, or CT chest with and without contrast if clinically indicated;
• Any additional focal imaging based on symptoms (eg, magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] scan with and without contrast to evaluate the brain if the patient has CNS symptoms).

CT Scan

CT scan is the preferred imaging modality for staging of testicular cancers, specifically for evaluation of the retroperitoneum, as it is the predominant site for metastases.⁹ CT scan should encompass the abdomen and pelvis, and contrast-enhanced sequences should be obtained unless medically contraindicated. CT scan of the chest (if not initially done) is compulsory should a CT of abdomen and pelvis and/or a chest radiograph show abnormal findings.

The sensitivity and specificity of CT scans for detection of nodal metastases can vary significantly based on the cutoff. For example, in a series of 70 patients using a cutoff of 10 mm, the sensitivity and specificity of CT scans for patients undergoing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection were 37% and 100%, respectively.¹⁰ In the same study, a cutoff of 4 mm increased the sensitivity to 93% and decreased the specificity to 58%. The current general consensus for this cutoff value is 8 to 10 mm measured in the short axis in the transverse (axial) plane.

Approximately 20% of men with clinical stage I testicular cancer (ie, those with non-enlarged retroperitoneal lymph nodes) who do not undergo any adjuvant therapy will have disease relapse in the retroperitoneum, suggesting that they had occult micrometastases that were missed on the initial CT scans.^11,12

MRI/Radionuclide Bone Scan/PET Scan

Abdominal or pelvic MRI, whole-body radionuclide bone scan, and positron emission tomography (PET) scans are almost never needed as part of the initial staging workup for testicular cancers due to several limitations, including a high false-negative rate, specifically for the PET scans, and lack of any additional value compared with CT and testicular ultrasound alone.^9,13,14 If necessary, these should only be ordered after a multidisciplinary oncology consultation to prevent unnecessary delays in treatment, inappropriate changes to treatment, and unnecessary increases in cost of care.

Tumor Markers, Biopsy, and Staging

What is the role of tumor markers in the management of testicular cancers?

Serum AFP, beta-hCG, and LDH have a well-established role as tumor markers in testicular cancer. The alpha subunit of hCG is shared between multiple pituitary hormones and hence does not serve as a specific marker for testicular cancer. Serum levels of AFP and/or beta-hCG are elevated in approximately 80% percent of men with NSGCTs, even in absence of metastatic spread. On the other hand, serum beta-hCG is elevated in less than 20% and AFP is not elevated in pure seminomas.³

Tumor markers by themselves are not sufficiently sensitive or specific for the diagnosis of testicular cancer, in general, or to differentiate among its subtypes. Despite this limitation, marked elevations in these markers are rarely due to causes other than germ cell tumor. For example, serum beta-hCG concentrations greater than 10,000 mIU/mL occur only in germ cell tumors, trophoblastic differentiation of a primary lung or gastric cancer, gestational trophoblastic disease, or pregnancy. Serum AFP concentrations greater than 10,000 ng/mL occur almost exclusively in germ cell tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma.¹⁵

The pattern of marker elevation may play an important role in management of testicular cancer patients. For example, in our practice, several patients have had discordant serum tumor markers and pathology results (eg, elevated AFP with pure seminoma on orchiectomy). One of these patients was treated with adjuvant retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, which confirmed that he had a NSGCT with a seminoma, choriocarcinoma, and teratoma on pathology evaluation of retroperitoneal lymph nodes.

Serum tumor markers have 2 additional critical roles—(1) in the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) staging¹⁶ and International Germ Cell Cancer Collaboration Group (IGCCCG) risk stratification of testicular cancer,¹⁷ and (2) in post-treatment disease monitoring.

Is a testicular biopsy necessary for diagnosis?

A testicular biopsy is almost never pursued to confirm the diagnosis of testicular cancer. There is a concern that percutaneous testicular biopsy, which is associated with scrotal skin violation, can adversely affect outcomes due to tumor seeding of scrotal sac or metastatic spread into the inguinal nodes via scrotal skin lymphatics.

Tissue diagnosis is made by radical orchiectomy in a majority of cases. Rarely in our practice, we obtain a biopsy of metastatic lesion for a tissue diagnosis. This is only done in cases where chemotherapy must be started urgently to prevent worsening of complications from metastatic spread. This decision should be made only after a multidisciplinary consultation with urologic and medical oncology teams.

How is testicular cancer staged?

Both seminomatous and nonseminomatous germ cell tumors of the testis are staged using the AJCC/UICC staging system, which incorporates assessments of the primary tumor (T), lymph nodes (N), and distant metastases (M) and serum tumor marker values (S). Details of this staging system are beyond the scope of this review and further information can be obtained through the AJCC website (www.cancerstaging.org). This TNMS staging enables a prognostic assessment and helps with the therapeutic approach.

For patients with advanced germ cell tumors, a risk group classification developed by the IGCCCG is used to classify patients into good-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk category (Table 2). This classification has been extensively validated for the past 2 decades, provides important prognostic information, and helps inform therapy decisions.

Case 1 Continued

Based on the patient’s imaging and biomarker results, the patient undergoes a left radical inguinal orchiectomy. The physician’s operative note mentions that the left testicle was delivered without violation of scrotal integrity. A pathology report shows pure spermatocytic seminoma (unifocal, 1.4 cm size) with negative margins and no evidence of lymphovascular invasion. No lymph nodes are identified in the resection specimen. Post-orchiectomy markers are “negative,” meaning within normal range. After discussions with medical and radiation oncology physicians, the patient opts to pursue active surveillance.

Surgery alone followed by active surveillance is an appropriate option for this patient, as the likelihood of recurrence is low and most recurrences can be subsequently salvaged using treatment options detailed below.

What are the therapeutic options for testicular cancer?

An overview of management for most testicular cancers is presented in Table 3. Note that the actual treatments are significantly more complex and need a comprehensive multidisciplinary consultation (urologic, medical and radiation oncology) at centers with specialized testicular cancer teams, if possible.

Fertility Preservation

All patients initiating treatment for testicular cancer must be offered options for fertility preservation and consultation with a reproductive health team, if available. At the time of diagnosis, approximately 50% patients have some degree of impairment in spermatogenesis, but with effective fertility preservation, successful pregnancy can occur for as many as 30% to 60% of patients.^18,19

Orchiectomy

Radical inguinal orchiectomy with high ligation of the spermatic cord at the level of the internal ring is the procedure of choice for suspected testicular cancer. The goal is to provide a definitive tissue diagnosis and local tumor control with minimal morbidity. It can be performed under general, regional, or local anesthesia. Depending on the complexity and surgical expertise, it can be done in an inpatient or outpatient setting. During the procedure, the testicle is delivered from the scrotum through an incision in the inguinal region and then resected. A testicular prosthesis is usually inserted, with resultant excellent cosmetic and patient satisfaction outcomes.²⁰

Testicular sparing surgery (TSS) has been explored as an alternative to radical orchiectomy but is not considered a standard-of-care option at this time. Small studies have shown evidence for comparable short-term oncologic outcomes in a very select group of patients, generally with solitary tumors < 2 cm in size and solitary testicle. If this is being considered as an option, we recommended obtaining a consultation from a urologist at a high-volume center. For a majority of patients, the value of a TSS is diminished due to excellent anatomic/cosmetic outcomes with a testicular prosthesis implanted during the radical orchiectomy, and resumption of sexual functions by the unaffected contralateral testicle.

Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection

As discussed, conventional cross-sectional imaging has a high false-negative rate for detection of retroperitoneal involvement. General indications for RPLND in various stages and histologies of testicular cancer germ cell tumors are outlined in Table 3. Seminoma tends to most commonly metastasize to retroperitoneum, but RPLND for seminoma is generally reserved for a very small subset of these patients. Patterns of metastases of NSGCT (except choriocarcinoma) are considered to be well-defined. In a series of patients with stage II NSGCTs, left-sided tumors metastasized to the pre- and para-aortic nodes in 88% and 86% of cases, respectively (drainage basin of left testicular vein); and right-sided tumors involved the interaortocaval nodes in 93% of patients.³ Inguinal and pelvic nodal metastases may rarely be seen and should not be used to rule out the diagnosis of testicular cancer.

Choriocarcinoma is an exception to this pattern of retroperitoneal spread, as it tends to have a higher likelihood of hematogenous metastases to distant organs. Compared with NSGCTs, pure seminomas are either localized to the testis (80% of all cases) or limited to the retroperitoneum (an additional 15% of all cases) at presentation.³

Depending on the case and expertise of the surgical team, robotic or open RPLND can be performed.²¹ Regardless of the approach used, RPLND remains a technically challenging surgery. The retroperitoneal “landing zone” lymph nodes lie in close proximity to, and are often densely adherent to, the abdominal great vessels. Complication rates vary widely in the reported literature, but can be as high as 50%.^21-23 As detailed in Table 2, the number and size of involved retroperitoneal lymph nodes have prognostic importance.

In summary, RPLND is considered to be a viable option for a subset of early-stage NSGCT (T1-3, N0-2, M0) and for those with advanced seminoma, NSGCT, or mixed germ cell tumors with post-chemotherapy residual disease.

Systemic Chemotherapy

Except for the single-agent carboplatin, most chemotherapy regimens used to treat testicular cancer are combinations of 2 or more chemotherapy agents. For this review, we will focus on the 3 most commonly used regimens: bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP), etoposide and cisplatin (EP), and etoposide, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (VIP).

The core principles of testicular cancer chemotherapy are:

1. Minimize dose interruptions, delays, or reductions, as these adversely affect outcomes without clearly improving side effect profile;
2. Do not substitute carboplatin for cisplatin in combination regimens because carboplatin-containing combination regimens have been shown to result in significantly poorer outcomes in multiple trials of adults with germ cell tumors;^24-27 and
3. Give myeloid growth factor support, if necessary.

BEP

The standard BEP regimen comprises a 21-day cycle with bleomycin 30 units on days 1, 8, and 15; etoposide 100 mg/m² on days 1 to 5; and cisplatin 20 mg/m² on days 1 to 5. Number of cycles varies based on histology and stage (Table 3). A strong justification to maintain treatment intensity comes from the Australian and New Zealand Germ Cell Trial Group trial. In this study, 166 men were randomly assigned to treatment using 3 cycles of standard BEP or 4 cycles of a modified BEP regimen (bleomycin 30 units day 1; etoposide 120 mg/m² days 1 to 3; cisplatin 100 mg/m² day 1) every 21 days. This trial was stopped at interim analyses because the modified BEP arm was inferior to the standard BEP arm. With a median follow-up of 8.5 years, 8-year overall survival was 92% with standard BEP and 83% with modified BEP (P = 0.037).²⁸

Bleomycin used in the BEP regimen has been associated with uncommon but potentially fatal pulmonary toxicity that tends to present as interstitial pneumonitis, which may ultimately progress to fibrosis or bronchiolitis obliterans with organizing pneumonia.²⁹ This has led to evaluation of EP as an alternative to BEP.

EP

The standard EP regimen consists of a 21-day cycle with etoposide 100 mg/m² on days 1 to 5, and cisplatin 20 mg/m² on days 1 to 5. Due to conflicting data from multiple randomized trials, there is considerable debate in the field regarding whether 4 cycles of EP are equivalent to 3 cycles of BEP.^30,31 The benefit of the EP regimen is that it avoids the higher rates of pulmonary, cutaneous, and neurologic toxicities associated bleomycin, but it does result in the patient receiving an up to 33% higher cumulative dose of cisplatin and etoposide due to the extra cycle of treatment. This has important implications in terms of tolerability and side effects, including delayed toxicities such as second malignancies, which increase with a higher cumulative dose of these agents (etoposide in particular).

VIP

The standard VIP regimen consists of a 21-day cycle with etoposide 75 mg/m² on days 1 to 5; cisplatin 20 mg/m² on days 1 to 5; ifosfamide 1200 mg/m² on days 1 to 5; and mesna 120 mg/m² IV push on day 1 followed by 1200 mg/m² on days 1 to 5. For patients with intermediate- or poor-risk disease, 4 cycles of VIP has demonstrated comparable efficacy but higher rates of hematologic toxicities compared with 4 cycles of BEP.^32-34 It remains an option for upfront treatment of patients who are not good candidates for a bleomycin-based regimen, and for patients who need salvage chemotherapy.

Adverse Effects of Chemotherapy

Acute and late chemotherapy toxicities vary significantly between regimens depending on the chemotherapy drugs used. Bleomycin-induced pneumonitis may masquerade as a “pneumonia,” which can lead to a delay in diagnosis or institution of treatment, as well as institution of an incorrect treatment (for example, there is a concern that bleomycin toxicity can be precipitated or worsened by a high fraction of inspired oxygen). Chemotherapy-associated neutropenia tends to occur a few days (7–10 days) after initiation of chemotherapy, and neutrophil counts recover without intervention in most patients after an additional 7 to 10 days. Myeloid growth factor support (eg, filgrastim, pegfilgrastim) can be given to patients either prophylactically (if they had an episode of febrile or prolonged neutropenia with the preceding cycle) or secondarily if they present with neutropenia (an absolute neutrophil count ≤ 500 cells/µL) with fever or active infection. Such interventions tend to shorten the duration of neutropenia but does not affect overall survival. Patients with asymptomatic neutropenia do not benefit from growth factor use.³⁵

Autologous stem cell transplant (SCT) is the preferred type of SCT for patients with testicular cancer and involves delivery of high doses of chemotherapy followed by infusion of patient-derived myeloid stem cells. While the details of this treatment are outside the scope of this review, decades of experience has shown that this is an effective curative option for a subset of patients with poor prognosis, such as those with platinum-refractory or relapsed disease.³⁶

Clinical Trials

Due to excellent clinical outcomes with front-line therapy, as described, and the relatively low incidence of testicular and other germ cell tumors, clinical trial options for patients with testicular cancer are limited. The TIGER trial is an ongoing international, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing conventional TIP (paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin) chemotherapy with high-dose chemotherapy with SCT as the first salvage treatment for relapsed/refractory germ cell tumors (NCT02375204). It is enrolling at multiple centers in the United States and results are expected in 2022. At least 2 ongoing trials are evaluating the role of immunotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory germ cell tumors (NCT03081923 and NCT03726281). Cluster of differentiation antigen-30 (CD30) has emerged as a potential target of interest in germ cell tumors, and brentuximab vedotin, an anti-CD30 monoclonal antibody, is undergoing evaluation in a phase 2 trial of CD-30–expressing germ cell tumors (NCT01851200). This trial has completed enrollment and results are expected to be available in late 2019 or early 2020.

When possible, patients with relapsed/refractory germ cell tumors should be referred to centers of excellence with access to either testicular/germ-cell tumor specific clinical trials or phase 1 clinical trials.

Radiation Therapy

Adjuvant radiation to the retroperitoneum has a role in the management of stage I and IIA seminomas (Table 3). In a randomized noninferiority trial of radiation therapy versus single-dose carboplatin in stage I seminoma patients, 5-year recurrence-free survival was comparable at approximately 95% in either arm.^37,38 In a retrospective database review of 2437 patients receiving either radiation therapy or multi-agent chemotherapy for stage II seminoma, the 5-year survival exceeded 90% in both treatment groups.³⁹ Typically, a total of 30 to 36 Gy of radiation is delivered to para-aortic and ipsilateral external iliac lymph nodes (“dog-leg” field), followed by an optional boost to the involved nodal areas.⁴⁰ Radiation is associated with acute side effects such as fatigue, gastrointestinal effects, myelosuppression as well as late side effects such as second cancers in the irradiated field (eg, sarcoma, bladder cancer).

Evaluation of Treatment Response

Monitoring of treatment response is fairly straightforward for patients with testicular cancer. Our practice is the following:

1. Measure tumor markers on day 1 of each chemotherapy cycle and 3 to 4 weeks after completion of treatment.
2. CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis with intravenous contrast prior to chemotherapy and upon completion of chemotherapy. Interim imaging is only needed for a small subset of patients with additional clinical indications (eg, new symptoms, lack of improvement in existing symptoms).
3. For patients with stage II/III seminoma who have a residual mass ≥ 3 cm on post-treatment CT scan, a PET-CT scan is indicated 6 to 8 weeks after the completion of chemotherapy to determine the need for further treatment.

Active Surveillance

Because testicular cancer has high cure rates even when patients have disease relapse after primary therapy, and additional therapies have significant short- and long-term side effects in these generally young patients, active surveillance is a critical option used in the management of testicular cancer.⁴¹

Patients must be counseled that active surveillance is a form of treatment itself in that it involves close clinical and radiographic monitoring. Because there is a risk of disease relapse, patients opting to undergo active surveillance must fully understand the risks of disease recurrence and be willing to abide by the recommended follow-up schedule.

Surveillance is necessary for a minimum of 5 years and possibly 10 years following orchiectomy, and most relapses tend to occur within the first 2 years. Late relapses such as skeletal metastatic disease from seminoma have been reported to occur more than 15 years after orchiectomy, but are generally rare and unpredictable.

The general guidelines for active surveillance are as follows:

For patients with seminoma, history and physical exam and tumor marker assessment should be performed every 3 to 6 months for the first year, then every 6 to 12 months in years 2 and 3, and then annually. CT of the abdomen and pelvis should be done at 3, 6, and 12 months, every 6 to 12 months in years 2 and 3, and then every 12 to 24 months in years 4 and 5. A chest radiograph is performed only if clinically indicated, as the likelihood of distant metastatic recurrence is low.

For patients with nonseminoma, history and physical exam and tumor markers assessment should be performed every 2 to 3 months for first 2 years, every 4 to 6 months in years 3 and 4, and then annually. CT of the abdomen and pelvis should be obtained every 4 to 6 months in year 1, gradually decreasing to annually in year 3 or 4. Chest radiograph is indicated at 4 and 12 months and annually thereafter for stage IA disease. For those with stage IB disease, chest radiograph is indicated every 2 months during the first year and then gradually decreasing to annually beginning year 5.

These recommendations are expected to change over time, and treating physicians are recommended to exercise discretion and consider the patient and tumor characteristics to develop the optimal surveillance plan.

Testicular cancer is the most common cancer afflicting young men. Prompt diagnostic workup initiated in a primary care or hospital setting followed by a referral to a multidisciplinary team of urologists, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists enables cure in a majority of patients. For patients with stage I seminoma, a radical inguinal orchiectomy followed by active surveillance may offer the best long-term outcome with minimal side effects. For patients with relapsed/refractory testicular cancers, clinical trial participation is strongly encouraged. Patients with a history of testicular cancer benefit from robust survivorship care tailored to their prior therapies. This can be safely delivered through their primary care providers in collaboration with the multidisciplinary oncology team.

CASE Low-risk maternity patient wants fewer prenatal visits

A recently pregnant patient asks her obstetrician if she can schedule fewer prenatal visits given that she is at low risk, wants to minimize missing work, and lives an hour away from the clinic office. Her physician tells her that she needs the standard 13 to 15 visits to have a healthy pregnancy.

Obstetric care in the United States largely remains a “one-size fits all” approach despite compelling data that fewer visits for low-risk women are medically acceptable and may be more cost-effective.

Prenatal care: One size does not fit all

With nearly 4 million births annually in the United States, prenatal care is one of the most widely used preventive health care strategies.^1,2 The ideal method for providing prenatal care, however, remains controversial. At the inception of early 20th century prenatal care in the United States, preventive strategies focused in part on eclampsia-related maternal morbidity and mortality, which in turn informed the content and frequency of prenatal visits.² Despite the dramatic changes in medical practice over the last 100 years, the basic timing and quantity of prenatal care has not changed substantively.

The lack of change is not because we have not explored other models of prenatal care and sought to introduce evidence-based change. Several studies have assessed the impact of reduced prenatal care visits for low-risk women.^3-7 Systematic reviews evaluated 7 randomized trials, with more than 60,000 women enrolled, of prenatal care models with a reduced number of planned antenatal visits (4 to 9 visits vs the traditional 13 to 15 visits).^3,8 There were no demonstrable differences in maternal or perinatal morbidity or mortality, particularly in higher resource settings.

Despite strong safety data and the potential cost-effectiveness of a reduced schedule of prenatal visits, US prenatal care practices generally continue to have a one-size-fits-all approach. Several organizations, however, have called for a change in practice.

Endorsing a reduced number of prenatal visits for low-risk women, the US Department of Health and Human Services Expert Panel on Prenatal Care issued a report in 1989 that stated “the specific content and timing of prenatal visits, contacts, and education should vary depending on the risk status of the pregnant woman and her fetus.”⁹ Consistent with that recommendation, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) jointly published guidelines that recommend a system of goal-oriented antenatal visits at specific gestational ages and that support a reduced schedule of prenatal visits, compared with traditional models, for low-risk, parous women.¹⁰ The World Health Organization also published recommendations for an 8 “contact” prenatal care system to reduce perinatal mortality and improve women’s prenatal experience.¹¹

Is obstetric dogma the reason for lack of change?

Concerns about patient satisfaction may play a role in limiting the use of a reduced prenatal care visit model. In trials that evaluated a model of reduced prenatal care visits, women were less satisfied with a reduced visit schedule and the gap between provider contacts.^3,8 Anecdotally, providers have expressed concerns about perceived liability. Most compelling, perhaps, is the idea that the traditional prenatal schedule has become obstetric dogma.

Continue to: Consciously or unconsciously, clinicians may feel...

Consciously or unconsciously, clinicians may feel uncomfortable diverging from a schedule of visits that is firmly entrenched in obstetric practice. Continuing the status quo is easier than restructuring prenatal care practice. Ultimately, a paradigm shift may be required to broadly adopt a model of fewer prenatal visits for low-risk pregnancies.¹² With these issues propelling the historic patterns of prenatal care, it is easy to see why we have not yet changed despite convincing reasons to do so.

In this article, we detail the reduced-visit prenatal care models developed at 3 institutions and how they incorporate use of today’s technology.

Approach #1: University of Utah Virtual Prenatal Care Program

The University of Utah Virtual Prenatal Care Program was conceived as a “baby step” toward developing a model of fewer total prenatal visits. Virtual visits were intended to reduce the number of prenatal face-to-face visits while maintaining the same total number of visits. Since large clinical trials had established the safety of reduced visits, the primary objectives were to retain patient satisfaction and to facilitate provider adoption.

Would women be satisfied with remote prenatal care? A prospective randomized controlled trial was designed in which 200 women were assigned to receive either a combination of telemedicine and 5 scheduled in-clinic prenatal visits (remote care group) or traditional in-clinic prenatal care (usual care group). Low-risk multigravida pregnant women who were between 6 0/7 and 16 0/7 weeks’ gestation were enrolled. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction.

The face-to-face visits were goal oriented, with scheduled physical examination, laboratory tests, or ultrasonography, and were conducted by the patient’s established obstetric provider (physician or nurse midwife) to maintain continuity of care. The remote care group self-collected measurements for weight, blood pressure, and fetal heart rate by handheld Doppler device prior to each telemedicine visit and entered the information into the electronic medical record. The purpose of the self-collected data was patient engagement and satisfaction, as well as increased provider comfort with the change in prenatal care schedule, rather than medical necessity.

The primary outcome of overall patient satisfaction with prenatal care was ascertained by questionnaire after delivery. The sample size calculation of 200 patients was based on noninferiority testing, and analysis was by intent-to-treat. The details of the trial are pending publication.

As expected, the remote care group had significantly fewer in-clinic prenatal care visits compared with the usual care group (7.2 vs 11.3 visits); the total number of prenatal visits was not different between groups. Overall satisfaction with prenatal care was very high in both the remote care and the usual care group (100% vs 97%).

The virtual prenatal care model for low-risk pregnancies, consisting of a novel remote monitoring strategy and a reduced number of in-clinic visits, was not associated with lower patient satisfaction compared with traditional care.

New care strategy gives patients a choice. The success of this clinical trial has led to its programmatic adoption at the University of Utah, and low-risk women currently are offered a choice between participating in the Virtual Prenatal Care Program or receiving traditional prenatal care. The University of Utah is moving on from the one-size-fits-all approach to adopt new strategies that provide personalized evidence-based prenatal care at the lowest cost, while retaining high patient satisfaction. Formal cost-effectiveness analyses are underway.

Continue to: Approach #2: Mayo Clinic OB Nest...

Approach #2: Mayo Clinic OB Nest

In 2011, the Mayo Clinic Obstetric Division partnered with 2 other Mayo Clinic divisions, the Center for Innovation and the Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, to redesign prenatal care for low-risk expectant mothers.Pregnant women and their obstetric health care teams (including obstetricians, certified nurse midwives, registered nurses, and clinical support staff) were convened to develop a novel model of prenatal care.⁴ The goal of this collaboration centered on:

• creating an evidence-driven prenatal care model for low-risk expectant women designed by relevant stakeholders
• focusing on meeting the on-demand needs of expectant mothers
• integrating innovative 21st century technology, and
• reducing the burden of prescheduled, low-value office visits.

Exploratory efforts to develop a novel care program. Based on feedback from the collaboration and guided by these goals, 141 expectant mothers participated in 19 different experiments, enabling the health care team to understand the impact of changing various components of prenatal care.

The experiments included integration of home monitoring (home fetal Doppler devices, drop-in fetal Doppler stations, home blood pressure monitoring devices), technology-enhanced communication with obstetric team members (video chats, tummy photos, virtual prenatal clinic appointments, proactive calls), and social media engagement (secure online prenatal care community).

Recommendations for the final components of OB Nest were based on feasibility and the potential impact on care. The recommendations included decreasing scheduled clinic appointments from 14 to 8, providing home monitoring devices to measure maternal blood pressure and fetal heart rate, establishing OB Nest virtual connected care visits with a registered nurse, and offering a secure online community of expectant mothers.

Trial assessed program’s efficacy, safety, satisfaction. A mixed-methods randomized controlled trial subsequently was conducted to evaluate the components of OB Nest.⁶ The trial included 300 pregnant women who were randomly assigned to standard prenatal care as recommended by ACOG or to OB Nest care.

OB Nest care consisted of 8 scheduled clinic appointments, 6 planned virtual (phone or online) connected care visits with a registered nurse dedicated to OB Nest, home monitoring of blood pressure (with a home digital sphygmomanometer) and fetal heart rate, and access to an online prenatal care community designated for OB Nest participants.

While publication of the trial results currently is pending, the OB Nest program appears to safely and effectively decrease the number of scheduled prenatal care visits for low-risk expectant mothers while improving the overall patient experience. OB Nest care now is offered as one of several options for low-risk expectant mothers at Mayo Clinic.

Additional avenues of study. Studies evaluating the impact of OB Nest in various nonacademic settings are now underway. Also under review is the potential cost savings of OB Nest as related to the productive lives of expectant mothers, while prenatal care safety is maintained.

The focus shift from a sick to a wellness perspective, stakeholder inclusion in the program design, and the integration of home monitoring tools are all major contributing factors to the success of OB Nest.

Continue to: Approach #3: Prisma Health utilizes mobile app technology...

Approach #3: Prisma Health utilizes mobile app technology

A third approach to reducing unnecessary visits for routine maternity care is to employ mobile app technology. Technology companies have developed app platforms for providers to use to educate and connect with patients; such apps reduce the number of routine obstetric office visits while maintaining patient satisfaction.

One group’s app experience. In a pilot study at a Prisma Health practice (South Carolina), 100 patients were placed on a reduced appointment schedule of 9 prenatal visits; the women self-monitored their weight gain and blood pressure using a remote monitoring system via an app called Babyscripts.⁷ Patient feedback was collected, with 45 of 100 patients responding.

Ninety-five percent of patients were satisfied with the mobile app, 94% reported positivity around pregnancy readiness, 90% were satisfied with their health care team, and 89% were happy with remote monitoring. Patients visited the app 3 times per week on average, and the top categories of interest were travel, exercise, genetics, and eating right.

One patient using the Babyscripts mobile health app and schedule optimization platform commented, “I am on my second pregnancy and wish this had been available for the first! The app is easy to use and I love seeing my weight on a graph. And I very much like the quality of the cuff” (personal data generated from Babyscripts).

In with the new

As clinicians strive to provide more patient-centered care, offering expectant families more than one way to receive their prenatal care is appropriate. Beyond the traditional 14-visit care model, we should offer use of novel options like mobile health apps, which improve the patient experience while decreasing the cost of care by reducing unnecessary visits.¹² Note also that reducing visits for low-risk mothers opens space in the provider schedule for patients who need services more quickly.

Benefits for postpartum care. Traditionally, clinicians see the low-risk patient for a single follow-up appointment at 6 weeks postpartum. However, the World Health Organization recommends evaluating women at 3 days, 1 to 2 weeks, and 6 weeks postpartum.¹³ Further, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance recommends screening all women for resolution of postpartum blues at 10 to 14 days.¹⁴

ACOG also has made recommendations on optimizing postpartum care. In a committee opinion, ACOG recommends that all women have contact with their provider within the first 3 weeks postpartum.¹⁵ Recognizing that such an in-person visit may be difficult, ACOG has endorsed communication via text messaging, app-based support, and remote monitoring.¹⁵ An app such as Babyscripts would fill this need conveniently for both patient and provider.

In 2019, patients want choice. As maternity care providers, we should be open to considering novel, evidence-based options that may provide more cost-effective obstetric care.

CASE Low-risk maternity patient wants fewer prenatal visits

A recently pregnant patient asks her obstetrician if she can schedule fewer prenatal visits given that she is at low risk, wants to minimize missing work, and lives an hour away from the clinic office. Her physician tells her that she needs the standard 13 to 15 visits to have a healthy pregnancy.

Obstetric care in the United States largely remains a “one-size fits all” approach despite compelling data that fewer visits for low-risk women are medically acceptable and may be more cost-effective.

Prenatal care: One size does not fit all

With nearly 4 million births annually in the United States, prenatal care is one of the most widely used preventive health care strategies.^1,2 The ideal method for providing prenatal care, however, remains controversial. At the inception of early 20th century prenatal care in the United States, preventive strategies focused in part on eclampsia-related maternal morbidity and mortality, which in turn informed the content and frequency of prenatal visits.² Despite the dramatic changes in medical practice over the last 100 years, the basic timing and quantity of prenatal care has not changed substantively.

The lack of change is not because we have not explored other models of prenatal care and sought to introduce evidence-based change. Several studies have assessed the impact of reduced prenatal care visits for low-risk women.^3-7 Systematic reviews evaluated 7 randomized trials, with more than 60,000 women enrolled, of prenatal care models with a reduced number of planned antenatal visits (4 to 9 visits vs the traditional 13 to 15 visits).^3,8 There were no demonstrable differences in maternal or perinatal morbidity or mortality, particularly in higher resource settings.

Despite strong safety data and the potential cost-effectiveness of a reduced schedule of prenatal visits, US prenatal care practices generally continue to have a one-size-fits-all approach. Several organizations, however, have called for a change in practice.

Endorsing a reduced number of prenatal visits for low-risk women, the US Department of Health and Human Services Expert Panel on Prenatal Care issued a report in 1989 that stated “the specific content and timing of prenatal visits, contacts, and education should vary depending on the risk status of the pregnant woman and her fetus.”⁹ Consistent with that recommendation, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) jointly published guidelines that recommend a system of goal-oriented antenatal visits at specific gestational ages and that support a reduced schedule of prenatal visits, compared with traditional models, for low-risk, parous women.¹⁰ The World Health Organization also published recommendations for an 8 “contact” prenatal care system to reduce perinatal mortality and improve women’s prenatal experience.¹¹

Is obstetric dogma the reason for lack of change?

Concerns about patient satisfaction may play a role in limiting the use of a reduced prenatal care visit model. In trials that evaluated a model of reduced prenatal care visits, women were less satisfied with a reduced visit schedule and the gap between provider contacts.^3,8 Anecdotally, providers have expressed concerns about perceived liability. Most compelling, perhaps, is the idea that the traditional prenatal schedule has become obstetric dogma.

Continue to: Consciously or unconsciously, clinicians may feel...

Consciously or unconsciously, clinicians may feel uncomfortable diverging from a schedule of visits that is firmly entrenched in obstetric practice. Continuing the status quo is easier than restructuring prenatal care practice. Ultimately, a paradigm shift may be required to broadly adopt a model of fewer prenatal visits for low-risk pregnancies.¹² With these issues propelling the historic patterns of prenatal care, it is easy to see why we have not yet changed despite convincing reasons to do so.

In this article, we detail the reduced-visit prenatal care models developed at 3 institutions and how they incorporate use of today’s technology.

Approach #1: University of Utah Virtual Prenatal Care Program

The University of Utah Virtual Prenatal Care Program was conceived as a “baby step” toward developing a model of fewer total prenatal visits. Virtual visits were intended to reduce the number of prenatal face-to-face visits while maintaining the same total number of visits. Since large clinical trials had established the safety of reduced visits, the primary objectives were to retain patient satisfaction and to facilitate provider adoption.

Would women be satisfied with remote prenatal care? A prospective randomized controlled trial was designed in which 200 women were assigned to receive either a combination of telemedicine and 5 scheduled in-clinic prenatal visits (remote care group) or traditional in-clinic prenatal care (usual care group). Low-risk multigravida pregnant women who were between 6 0/7 and 16 0/7 weeks’ gestation were enrolled. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction.

The face-to-face visits were goal oriented, with scheduled physical examination, laboratory tests, or ultrasonography, and were conducted by the patient’s established obstetric provider (physician or nurse midwife) to maintain continuity of care. The remote care group self-collected measurements for weight, blood pressure, and fetal heart rate by handheld Doppler device prior to each telemedicine visit and entered the information into the electronic medical record. The purpose of the self-collected data was patient engagement and satisfaction, as well as increased provider comfort with the change in prenatal care schedule, rather than medical necessity.

The primary outcome of overall patient satisfaction with prenatal care was ascertained by questionnaire after delivery. The sample size calculation of 200 patients was based on noninferiority testing, and analysis was by intent-to-treat. The details of the trial are pending publication.

As expected, the remote care group had significantly fewer in-clinic prenatal care visits compared with the usual care group (7.2 vs 11.3 visits); the total number of prenatal visits was not different between groups. Overall satisfaction with prenatal care was very high in both the remote care and the usual care group (100% vs 97%).

The virtual prenatal care model for low-risk pregnancies, consisting of a novel remote monitoring strategy and a reduced number of in-clinic visits, was not associated with lower patient satisfaction compared with traditional care.

New care strategy gives patients a choice. The success of this clinical trial has led to its programmatic adoption at the University of Utah, and low-risk women currently are offered a choice between participating in the Virtual Prenatal Care Program or receiving traditional prenatal care. The University of Utah is moving on from the one-size-fits-all approach to adopt new strategies that provide personalized evidence-based prenatal care at the lowest cost, while retaining high patient satisfaction. Formal cost-effectiveness analyses are underway.

Continue to: Approach #2: Mayo Clinic OB Nest...

Approach #2: Mayo Clinic OB Nest

In 2011, the Mayo Clinic Obstetric Division partnered with 2 other Mayo Clinic divisions, the Center for Innovation and the Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, to redesign prenatal care for low-risk expectant mothers.Pregnant women and their obstetric health care teams (including obstetricians, certified nurse midwives, registered nurses, and clinical support staff) were convened to develop a novel model of prenatal care.⁴ The goal of this collaboration centered on:

• creating an evidence-driven prenatal care model for low-risk expectant women designed by relevant stakeholders
• focusing on meeting the on-demand needs of expectant mothers
• integrating innovative 21st century technology, and
• reducing the burden of prescheduled, low-value office visits.

Exploratory efforts to develop a novel care program. Based on feedback from the collaboration and guided by these goals, 141 expectant mothers participated in 19 different experiments, enabling the health care team to understand the impact of changing various components of prenatal care.

The experiments included integration of home monitoring (home fetal Doppler devices, drop-in fetal Doppler stations, home blood pressure monitoring devices), technology-enhanced communication with obstetric team members (video chats, tummy photos, virtual prenatal clinic appointments, proactive calls), and social media engagement (secure online prenatal care community).

Recommendations for the final components of OB Nest were based on feasibility and the potential impact on care. The recommendations included decreasing scheduled clinic appointments from 14 to 8, providing home monitoring devices to measure maternal blood pressure and fetal heart rate, establishing OB Nest virtual connected care visits with a registered nurse, and offering a secure online community of expectant mothers.

Trial assessed program’s efficacy, safety, satisfaction. A mixed-methods randomized controlled trial subsequently was conducted to evaluate the components of OB Nest.⁶ The trial included 300 pregnant women who were randomly assigned to standard prenatal care as recommended by ACOG or to OB Nest care.

OB Nest care consisted of 8 scheduled clinic appointments, 6 planned virtual (phone or online) connected care visits with a registered nurse dedicated to OB Nest, home monitoring of blood pressure (with a home digital sphygmomanometer) and fetal heart rate, and access to an online prenatal care community designated for OB Nest participants.

While publication of the trial results currently is pending, the OB Nest program appears to safely and effectively decrease the number of scheduled prenatal care visits for low-risk expectant mothers while improving the overall patient experience. OB Nest care now is offered as one of several options for low-risk expectant mothers at Mayo Clinic.

Additional avenues of study. Studies evaluating the impact of OB Nest in various nonacademic settings are now underway. Also under review is the potential cost savings of OB Nest as related to the productive lives of expectant mothers, while prenatal care safety is maintained.

The focus shift from a sick to a wellness perspective, stakeholder inclusion in the program design, and the integration of home monitoring tools are all major contributing factors to the success of OB Nest.

Continue to: Approach #3: Prisma Health utilizes mobile app technology...

Approach #3: Prisma Health utilizes mobile app technology

A third approach to reducing unnecessary visits for routine maternity care is to employ mobile app technology. Technology companies have developed app platforms for providers to use to educate and connect with patients; such apps reduce the number of routine obstetric office visits while maintaining patient satisfaction.

One group’s app experience. In a pilot study at a Prisma Health practice (South Carolina), 100 patients were placed on a reduced appointment schedule of 9 prenatal visits; the women self-monitored their weight gain and blood pressure using a remote monitoring system via an app called Babyscripts.⁷ Patient feedback was collected, with 45 of 100 patients responding.

Ninety-five percent of patients were satisfied with the mobile app, 94% reported positivity around pregnancy readiness, 90% were satisfied with their health care team, and 89% were happy with remote monitoring. Patients visited the app 3 times per week on average, and the top categories of interest were travel, exercise, genetics, and eating right.

One patient using the Babyscripts mobile health app and schedule optimization platform commented, “I am on my second pregnancy and wish this had been available for the first! The app is easy to use and I love seeing my weight on a graph. And I very much like the quality of the cuff” (personal data generated from Babyscripts).

In with the new

As clinicians strive to provide more patient-centered care, offering expectant families more than one way to receive their prenatal care is appropriate. Beyond the traditional 14-visit care model, we should offer use of novel options like mobile health apps, which improve the patient experience while decreasing the cost of care by reducing unnecessary visits.¹² Note also that reducing visits for low-risk mothers opens space in the provider schedule for patients who need services more quickly.

Benefits for postpartum care. Traditionally, clinicians see the low-risk patient for a single follow-up appointment at 6 weeks postpartum. However, the World Health Organization recommends evaluating women at 3 days, 1 to 2 weeks, and 6 weeks postpartum.¹³ Further, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance recommends screening all women for resolution of postpartum blues at 10 to 14 days.¹⁴

ACOG also has made recommendations on optimizing postpartum care. In a committee opinion, ACOG recommends that all women have contact with their provider within the first 3 weeks postpartum.¹⁵ Recognizing that such an in-person visit may be difficult, ACOG has endorsed communication via text messaging, app-based support, and remote monitoring.¹⁵ An app such as Babyscripts would fill this need conveniently for both patient and provider.

In 2019, patients want choice. As maternity care providers, we should be open to considering novel, evidence-based options that may provide more cost-effective obstetric care.

CASE Low-risk maternity patient wants fewer prenatal visits

A recently pregnant patient asks her obstetrician if she can schedule fewer prenatal visits given that she is at low risk, wants to minimize missing work, and lives an hour away from the clinic office. Her physician tells her that she needs the standard 13 to 15 visits to have a healthy pregnancy.

Obstetric care in the United States largely remains a “one-size fits all” approach despite compelling data that fewer visits for low-risk women are medically acceptable and may be more cost-effective.

Prenatal care: One size does not fit all

With nearly 4 million births annually in the United States, prenatal care is one of the most widely used preventive health care strategies.^1,2 The ideal method for providing prenatal care, however, remains controversial. At the inception of early 20th century prenatal care in the United States, preventive strategies focused in part on eclampsia-related maternal morbidity and mortality, which in turn informed the content and frequency of prenatal visits.² Despite the dramatic changes in medical practice over the last 100 years, the basic timing and quantity of prenatal care has not changed substantively.

The lack of change is not because we have not explored other models of prenatal care and sought to introduce evidence-based change. Several studies have assessed the impact of reduced prenatal care visits for low-risk women.^3-7 Systematic reviews evaluated 7 randomized trials, with more than 60,000 women enrolled, of prenatal care models with a reduced number of planned antenatal visits (4 to 9 visits vs the traditional 13 to 15 visits).^3,8 There were no demonstrable differences in maternal or perinatal morbidity or mortality, particularly in higher resource settings.

Despite strong safety data and the potential cost-effectiveness of a reduced schedule of prenatal visits, US prenatal care practices generally continue to have a one-size-fits-all approach. Several organizations, however, have called for a change in practice.

Endorsing a reduced number of prenatal visits for low-risk women, the US Department of Health and Human Services Expert Panel on Prenatal Care issued a report in 1989 that stated “the specific content and timing of prenatal visits, contacts, and education should vary depending on the risk status of the pregnant woman and her fetus.”⁹ Consistent with that recommendation, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) jointly published guidelines that recommend a system of goal-oriented antenatal visits at specific gestational ages and that support a reduced schedule of prenatal visits, compared with traditional models, for low-risk, parous women.¹⁰ The World Health Organization also published recommendations for an 8 “contact” prenatal care system to reduce perinatal mortality and improve women’s prenatal experience.¹¹

Is obstetric dogma the reason for lack of change?

Concerns about patient satisfaction may play a role in limiting the use of a reduced prenatal care visit model. In trials that evaluated a model of reduced prenatal care visits, women were less satisfied with a reduced visit schedule and the gap between provider contacts.^3,8 Anecdotally, providers have expressed concerns about perceived liability. Most compelling, perhaps, is the idea that the traditional prenatal schedule has become obstetric dogma.

Continue to: Consciously or unconsciously, clinicians may feel...

Consciously or unconsciously, clinicians may feel uncomfortable diverging from a schedule of visits that is firmly entrenched in obstetric practice. Continuing the status quo is easier than restructuring prenatal care practice. Ultimately, a paradigm shift may be required to broadly adopt a model of fewer prenatal visits for low-risk pregnancies.¹² With these issues propelling the historic patterns of prenatal care, it is easy to see why we have not yet changed despite convincing reasons to do so.

In this article, we detail the reduced-visit prenatal care models developed at 3 institutions and how they incorporate use of today’s technology.

Approach #1: University of Utah Virtual Prenatal Care Program

The University of Utah Virtual Prenatal Care Program was conceived as a “baby step” toward developing a model of fewer total prenatal visits. Virtual visits were intended to reduce the number of prenatal face-to-face visits while maintaining the same total number of visits. Since large clinical trials had established the safety of reduced visits, the primary objectives were to retain patient satisfaction and to facilitate provider adoption.

Would women be satisfied with remote prenatal care? A prospective randomized controlled trial was designed in which 200 women were assigned to receive either a combination of telemedicine and 5 scheduled in-clinic prenatal visits (remote care group) or traditional in-clinic prenatal care (usual care group). Low-risk multigravida pregnant women who were between 6 0/7 and 16 0/7 weeks’ gestation were enrolled. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction.

The face-to-face visits were goal oriented, with scheduled physical examination, laboratory tests, or ultrasonography, and were conducted by the patient’s established obstetric provider (physician or nurse midwife) to maintain continuity of care. The remote care group self-collected measurements for weight, blood pressure, and fetal heart rate by handheld Doppler device prior to each telemedicine visit and entered the information into the electronic medical record. The purpose of the self-collected data was patient engagement and satisfaction, as well as increased provider comfort with the change in prenatal care schedule, rather than medical necessity.

The primary outcome of overall patient satisfaction with prenatal care was ascertained by questionnaire after delivery. The sample size calculation of 200 patients was based on noninferiority testing, and analysis was by intent-to-treat. The details of the trial are pending publication.

As expected, the remote care group had significantly fewer in-clinic prenatal care visits compared with the usual care group (7.2 vs 11.3 visits); the total number of prenatal visits was not different between groups. Overall satisfaction with prenatal care was very high in both the remote care and the usual care group (100% vs 97%).

The virtual prenatal care model for low-risk pregnancies, consisting of a novel remote monitoring strategy and a reduced number of in-clinic visits, was not associated with lower patient satisfaction compared with traditional care.

New care strategy gives patients a choice. The success of this clinical trial has led to its programmatic adoption at the University of Utah, and low-risk women currently are offered a choice between participating in the Virtual Prenatal Care Program or receiving traditional prenatal care. The University of Utah is moving on from the one-size-fits-all approach to adopt new strategies that provide personalized evidence-based prenatal care at the lowest cost, while retaining high patient satisfaction. Formal cost-effectiveness analyses are underway.

Continue to: Approach #2: Mayo Clinic OB Nest...

Approach #2: Mayo Clinic OB Nest

In 2011, the Mayo Clinic Obstetric Division partnered with 2 other Mayo Clinic divisions, the Center for Innovation and the Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, to redesign prenatal care for low-risk expectant mothers.Pregnant women and their obstetric health care teams (including obstetricians, certified nurse midwives, registered nurses, and clinical support staff) were convened to develop a novel model of prenatal care.⁴ The goal of this collaboration centered on:

• creating an evidence-driven prenatal care model for low-risk expectant women designed by relevant stakeholders
• focusing on meeting the on-demand needs of expectant mothers
• integrating innovative 21st century technology, and
• reducing the burden of prescheduled, low-value office visits.

Exploratory efforts to develop a novel care program. Based on feedback from the collaboration and guided by these goals, 141 expectant mothers participated in 19 different experiments, enabling the health care team to understand the impact of changing various components of prenatal care.

The experiments included integration of home monitoring (home fetal Doppler devices, drop-in fetal Doppler stations, home blood pressure monitoring devices), technology-enhanced communication with obstetric team members (video chats, tummy photos, virtual prenatal clinic appointments, proactive calls), and social media engagement (secure online prenatal care community).

Recommendations for the final components of OB Nest were based on feasibility and the potential impact on care. The recommendations included decreasing scheduled clinic appointments from 14 to 8, providing home monitoring devices to measure maternal blood pressure and fetal heart rate, establishing OB Nest virtual connected care visits with a registered nurse, and offering a secure online community of expectant mothers.

Trial assessed program’s efficacy, safety, satisfaction. A mixed-methods randomized controlled trial subsequently was conducted to evaluate the components of OB Nest.⁶ The trial included 300 pregnant women who were randomly assigned to standard prenatal care as recommended by ACOG or to OB Nest care.

OB Nest care consisted of 8 scheduled clinic appointments, 6 planned virtual (phone or online) connected care visits with a registered nurse dedicated to OB Nest, home monitoring of blood pressure (with a home digital sphygmomanometer) and fetal heart rate, and access to an online prenatal care community designated for OB Nest participants.

While publication of the trial results currently is pending, the OB Nest program appears to safely and effectively decrease the number of scheduled prenatal care visits for low-risk expectant mothers while improving the overall patient experience. OB Nest care now is offered as one of several options for low-risk expectant mothers at Mayo Clinic.

Additional avenues of study. Studies evaluating the impact of OB Nest in various nonacademic settings are now underway. Also under review is the potential cost savings of OB Nest as related to the productive lives of expectant mothers, while prenatal care safety is maintained.

The focus shift from a sick to a wellness perspective, stakeholder inclusion in the program design, and the integration of home monitoring tools are all major contributing factors to the success of OB Nest.

Continue to: Approach #3: Prisma Health utilizes mobile app technology...

Approach #3: Prisma Health utilizes mobile app technology

A third approach to reducing unnecessary visits for routine maternity care is to employ mobile app technology. Technology companies have developed app platforms for providers to use to educate and connect with patients; such apps reduce the number of routine obstetric office visits while maintaining patient satisfaction.

One group’s app experience. In a pilot study at a Prisma Health practice (South Carolina), 100 patients were placed on a reduced appointment schedule of 9 prenatal visits; the women self-monitored their weight gain and blood pressure using a remote monitoring system via an app called Babyscripts.⁷ Patient feedback was collected, with 45 of 100 patients responding.

Ninety-five percent of patients were satisfied with the mobile app, 94% reported positivity around pregnancy readiness, 90% were satisfied with their health care team, and 89% were happy with remote monitoring. Patients visited the app 3 times per week on average, and the top categories of interest were travel, exercise, genetics, and eating right.

One patient using the Babyscripts mobile health app and schedule optimization platform commented, “I am on my second pregnancy and wish this had been available for the first! The app is easy to use and I love seeing my weight on a graph. And I very much like the quality of the cuff” (personal data generated from Babyscripts).

In with the new

As clinicians strive to provide more patient-centered care, offering expectant families more than one way to receive their prenatal care is appropriate. Beyond the traditional 14-visit care model, we should offer use of novel options like mobile health apps, which improve the patient experience while decreasing the cost of care by reducing unnecessary visits.¹² Note also that reducing visits for low-risk mothers opens space in the provider schedule for patients who need services more quickly.

Benefits for postpartum care. Traditionally, clinicians see the low-risk patient for a single follow-up appointment at 6 weeks postpartum. However, the World Health Organization recommends evaluating women at 3 days, 1 to 2 weeks, and 6 weeks postpartum.¹³ Further, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance recommends screening all women for resolution of postpartum blues at 10 to 14 days.¹⁴

ACOG also has made recommendations on optimizing postpartum care. In a committee opinion, ACOG recommends that all women have contact with their provider within the first 3 weeks postpartum.¹⁵ Recognizing that such an in-person visit may be difficult, ACOG has endorsed communication via text messaging, app-based support, and remote monitoring.¹⁵ An app such as Babyscripts would fill this need conveniently for both patient and provider.

In 2019, patients want choice. As maternity care providers, we should be open to considering novel, evidence-based options that may provide more cost-effective obstetric care.

Uterine fibroids (myomas or leiomyomas) are common and can cause considerable morbidity, including infertility, in reproductive-aged women. In this roundtable discussion, moderated by OBG Management Editorial Board member Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA, 2 experts discuss imaging technologies and classification systems for assessing fibroids, various medical and surgical treatment options, and patient reproductive goals to consider when counseling women with fibroids.

Perspectives on a pervasive problem

Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA: First let’s discuss the scope of the problem. How prevalent are uterine fibroids, and what are their effects on quality of life?

Linda D. Bradley, MD: Fibroids are extremely prevalent. Depending on age and race, between 60% and 80% of women have them.¹ About 50% of women with fibroids have no symptoms²; in symptomatic women, the symptoms may vary based on age. Fibroids are more common in women from the African diaspora, who have earlier onset of symptoms, very large or more numerous fibroids, and more symptomatic fibroids, according to some clinical studies.³ While it is a very common disease state, about half of women with fibroids may not have significant symptoms that warrant anything more than watchful waiting or some minimally invasive options.

Ted L. Anderson, MD, PhD: We probably underestimate the scope because we see people coming in with fibroids only when they have a specific problem. There probably are a lot of asymptomatic women out there that we do not know about.

Case 1: Abnormal uterine bleeding in a young woman desiring pregnancy in the near future

Dr. Sanfilippo: Abnormal uterine bleeding is a common dilemma in my practice. Consider the following case example.

A 24-year-old woman (G1P1) presents with heavy, irregular menses over 6 months’ duration. She is interested in pregnancy, not immediately but in several months. She passes clots, soaks a pad in an hour, and has dysmenorrhea and fatigue. She uses no birth control. She is very distraught, as this bleeding truly has changed her lifestyle.

What is your approach to counseling this patient?

Dr. Bradley: You described a woman whose quality of life is very poor—frequent pad changes, clotting, pain. And she wants to have a child. A patient coming to me with those symptoms does not need to wait 4 to 6 months. I would immediately do some early evaluation.

Dr. Anderson: Sometimes a patient comes to us and already has had an ultrasonography exam. That is helpful, but I am driven by the fact that this patient is interested in pregnancy. I want to look at the uterine cavity and will probably do an office hysteroscopy to see if she has fibroids that distort the uterine cavity. Are there fibroids inside the cavity? To what degree does that possibly play a role? The presence of fibroids does not necessarily mean there is distortion of the cavity, and some evidence suggests that you do not need to do anything about those fibroids.⁴ Fibroids actually may not be the source of bleeding. We need to keep an open mind when we do the evaluation.

Continue to: Imaging technologies and classification aids...

Imaging technologies and classification aids

Dr. Sanfilippo: Apropos to your comment, is there a role for a sonohysterography in this population?

Dr. Anderson: That is a great technique. Some clinicians prefer to use sonohysterography while others prefer hysteroscopy. I tend to use hysteroscopy, and I have the equipment in the office. Both are great techniques and they answer the same question with respect to cavity evaluation.

Dr. Bradley: We once studied about 150 patients who, on the same day, with 2 separate examiners (one being me), would first undergo saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) and then hysteroscopy, or vice versa. The sensitivity of identifying an intracavitary lesion is quite good with both. The additional benefit with SIS is that you can look at the adnexa.

In terms of the classification by the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), sometimes when we do a hysteroscopy, we are not sure how deep a fibroid is—whether it is a type 1 or type 2 or how close it is to the serosa (see illustration, page 26). Are we seeing just the tip of the iceberg? There is a role for imaging, and it is not always an “either/or” situation. There are times, for example, that hysteroscopy will show a type 0. Other times it may not show that, and you look for other things in terms of whether a fibroid abuts the endometrium. The take-home message is that physicians should abandon endometrial biopsy alone and, in this case, not offer a D&C.

In evaluating the endometrium, as gynecologists we should be facile in both technologies. In our workplaces we need to advocate to get trained, to be certified, and to be able to offer both technologies, because sometimes you need both to obtain the right answer.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Let’s talk about the FIGO classification, because it is important to have a communication method not only between physicians but with the patient. If we determine that a fibroid is a type 0, and therefore totally intracavitary, management is different than if the fibroid is a type 1 (less than 50% into the myometrium) or type 2 (more than 50%). What is the role for a classification system such as the FIGO?

Dr. Anderson: I like the FIGO classification system. We can show the patient fibroid classification diagrammatically and she will be able to understand exactly what we are talking about. It’s helpful for patient education and for surgical planning. The approach to a type 0 fibroid is a no-brainer, but with type 1 and more specifically with type 2, where the bulk of the fibroid is intramural and only a portion of that is intracavitary, fibroid size begins to matter a lot in terms of treatment approach.

Sometimes although a fibroid is intracavitary, a laparoscopic rather than hysteroscopic approach is preferred, as long as you can dissect the fibroid away from the endometrium. FIGO classification is very helpful, but I agree with Dr. Bradley that first you need to do a thorough evaluation to make your operative plan.

Continue to: Dr. Sanfilippo...

Dr. Sanfilippo: I encourage residents to go through an orderly sequence of assessment for evaluating abnormal uterine bleeding, including anatomic and endocrinologic factors. The PALM-COEIN classification system is a great mnemonic for use in evaluating abnormal uterine bleeding (TABLE).⁵ Is there a role for an aid such as PALM-COEIN in your practice?

The PALM-COEIN system helps us to look at 2 things. One is that in addition to structural causes, there can be hematologic causes. While it is rare in a 24-year-old, we all have had the anecdotal patient who came in 6 months ago, had a fibroid, but had a platelet count of 6,000. Second, we have to look at the patient as a whole. My residents, myself, and our fellows look at any bleeding. Does she have a bleeding diathesis, bruising, nose bleeds; has she been anemic, does she have pica? Has she had a blood transfusion, is she on certain medications? We do not want to create a “silo” and think that the patient can have only a fibroid, because then we may miss an opportunity to treat other disease states. She can have a fibroid coexisting with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), for instance. I like to look at everything so we can offer appropriate treatment modalities.

Dr. Sanfilippo: You bring up a very important point. Coagulopathies are more common statistically at the earlier part of a woman’s reproductive age group, soon after menarche, but they also occur toward menopause. We have to be cognizant that a woman can develop a coagulopathy throughout the reproductive years.

Dr. Anderson: You have to look at other medical causes. That is where the PALM-COEIN system can help. It helps you take the blinders off. If you focus on the fibroid and treat the fibroid and the patient still has bleeding, you missed something. You have to consider the whole patient and think of all the nonclassical or nonanatomical things, for example, thyroid disease. The PALM-COEIN helps us to evaluate the patient in a methodical way—every patient every time—so you do not miss something.

The value of MRI

Dr. Sanfilippo: What is the role for MRI, and when do you use it? Is it for only when you do a procedure—laparoscopically, robotically, open—so you have a detailed map of the fibroids?

Dr. Anderson: I love MRI, especially for hysteroscopy. I will print out the MRI image and trace the fibroid because there are things I want to know: exactly how much of the fibroid is inside or outside, where this fibroid is in the uterus, and how much of a normal buffer there is between the edge of that fibroid and the serosa. How aggressive can I be, or how cautious do I need to be, during the resection? Maybe this will be a planned 2-stage resection. MRIs are wonderful for fibroid disease, not only for diagnosis but also for surgical planning and patient counseling.

Dr. Bradley: SIS is also very useful. If the patient has an intracavitary fibroid that is larger than 4.5 to 5 cm and we insert the catheter, however, sometimes you cannot distend the cavity very well. Sometimes large intramural fibroids can compress the cavity, making the procedure difficult in an office setting. You cannot see the limits to help you as a surgical option. Although SIS generally is associated with little pain, some patients may have pain, and some patients cannot tolerate the test.

Continue to: I would order an MRI for surgical planning when...

I would order an MRI for surgical planning when a hysteroscopy is equivocal and if I cannot do an SIS. Also, if a patient who had a hysteroscopic resection with incomplete removal comes to me and is still symptomatic, I want to know the depth of penetration.

Obtaining an MRI may sometimes be difficult at a particular institution, and some clinicians have to go through the hurdles of getting an ultrasound to get certified and approved. We have to be our patient’s advocate and do the peer phone calls; any other specialty would require presurgical planning, and we are no different from other surgeons in that regard.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Yes, that can be a stumbling block. In the operating room, I like to have the images right in front of me, ideally an MRI or an ultrasound scan, as I know how to proceed. Having that visual helps me understand how close the fibroid is to the lining of the uterus.

Tapping into radiologists’ expertise

Dr. Bradley: Every quarter we meet with our radiologists, who are very interested in our MRI and SIS reports. They will describe the count and say how many fibroids—that is very helpful instead of just saying she has a bunch of fibroids—but they also will tell us when there is a type 0, a type 2, a type 7 fibroid. The team looks for adenomyosis and for endometriosis that can coexist.

Dr. Anderson: One caution about reading radiology reports is that often someone will come in with a report from an outside hospital or from a small community hospital that may say, “There is a 2-cm submucosal fibroid.” Some people might be tempted to take this person right to the OR, but you need to look at the images yourself, because in a radiologist’s mind “submucosal” truly means under the mucosa, which in our liturgy would be “intramural.” So we need to make sure that we are talking the same language. You should look at the images yourself.

Dr. Sanfilippo: I totally agree. It is also not unreasonable to speak with the radiologists and educate them about the FIGO classification.

Dr. Bradley: I prefer the word “intracavitary” for fibroids. When I see a typed report without the picture, “submucosal” can mean in the cavity or abutting the endometrium.

Case 2: Woman with heavy bleeding and fibroids seeks nonsurgical treatment

Dr. Sanfilippo: A 39-year-old (G3P3) woman is referred for evaluation for heavy vaginal bleeding, soaking a pad in an hour, which has been going on for months. Her primary ObGyn obtained a pelvic sonogram and noted multiple intramural and subserosal fibroids. A sonohysterogram reveals a submucosal myoma.

The patient is not interested in a hysterectomy. She was treated with birth control pills, with no improvement. She is interested in nonsurgical options. Dr. Bradley, what medical treatments might you offer this patient?

Medical treatment options

Dr. Bradley: If oral contraceptives have not worked, a good option would be tranexamic acid. Years ago our hospital was involved with enrolling patients in the multicenter clinical trial of this drug. The classic patient enrolled had regular, predictable, heavy menstrual cycles with alkaline hematin assay of greater than 80. If the case patient described has regular and predictable heavy bleeding every month at the same time, for the same duration, I would consider the use of tranexamic acid. There are several contraindications for the drug, so those exclusion issues would need to be reviewed. Contraindications include subarachnoid hemorrhage. Cerebral edema and cerebral infarction may be caused by tranexamic acid in such patients. Other contraindications include active intravascular clotting and hypersensitivity.

Continue to: Another option is to see if a progestin-releasing intrauterine system...

Another option is to see if a progestin-releasing intrauterine system (IUS) like the levonorgestrel (LNG) IUS would fit into this patient’s uterine cavity. Like Ted, I want to look into that cavity. I am not sure what “submucosal fibroid” means. If it has not distorted the cavity, or is totally within the uterine cavity, or abuts the endometrial cavity. The LNG-IUS cannot be placed into a uterine cavity that has intracavitary fibroids or sounds to greater than 12 cm. We are not going to put an LNG-IUS in somebody, at least in general, with a globally enlarged uterine cavity. I could ask, do you do that? You do a bimanual exam, and it is 18-weeks in size. I am not sure that I would put it in, but does it meet those criteria? The package insert for the LNG-IUS specifies upper and lower limits of uterine size for placement. I would start with those 2 options (tranexamic acid and LNG-IUS), and also get some more imaging.

Dr. Anderson: I agree with Linda. The submucosal fibroid could be contributing to this patient’s bleeding, but it is not the total contribution. The other fibroids may be completely irrelevant as far as her bleeding is concerned. We may need to deal with that one surgically, which we can do without a hysterectomy, most of the time.

I am a big fan of the LNG-IUS, it has been great in my experience. There are some other treatments available as well, such as gonadotropin–releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. I tell patients that, while GnRH does work, it is not designed to be long-term therapy. If I have, for example, a 49-year-old patient, I just need to get her to menopause. Longer-term GnRH agonists might be a good option in this case. Otherwise, we could use short-term a GnRH agonist to stop the bleeding for a while so that we can reset the clock and get her started on something like levonorgestrel, tranexamic acid, or one of the other medical therapies. That may be a 2-step combination therapy.

Dr. Sanfilippo: There is a whole category of agents available—selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs), pure progesterone receptor antagonists, ulipristal comes to mind. Clinicians need to know that options are available beyond birth control pills.

Dr. Anderson: As I tell patients, there are also “bridge” options. These are interventional procedures that are not hysterectomy, such as uterine fibroid embolization or endometrial ablation if bleeding is really the problem. We might consider a variety of different approaches. Obviously, we do not typically use fibroid embolization for submucosal fibroids, but it depends on how much of the fibroid is intracavitary and how big it is. Other options are a little more aggressive than medical therapy but they do not involve a hysterectomy.

Pros and cons of uterine artery embolization

Dr. Sanfilippo: If a woman desires future childbearing, is there a role for uterine artery embolization? How would you counsel her about the pros and cons?

Dr. Bradley: At the Cleveland Clinic, we generally do not offer uterine artery embolization if the patient wants a child. While it is an excellent method for treating heavy bleeding and bulk symptoms, the endometrium can be impacted. Patients can develop fistula, adhesions, or concentric narrowing, and changes in anti-Müllerian hormone levels, and there is potential for an Asherman-like syndrome and poor perfusion. I have many hysteroscopic images where the anterior wall of the uterus is nice and pink and the posterior wall is totally pale. The embolic microsphere particles can reach the endometrium—I have seen particles in the endometrium when doing a fibroid resection.

Continue to: A good early study looked at 555 women for almost a year...

A good early study looked at 555 women for almost a year.⁶ If women became pregnant, they had a higher rate of postpartum hemorrhage; placenta accreta, increta, and percreta; and emergent hysterectomy. It was recommended that these women deliver at a tertiary care center due to higher rates of preterm labor and malposition.

If a patient wants a baby, she should find a gynecologic surgeon who does minimally invasive laparoscopic, robotic, or open surgery, because she is more likely to have a take-home baby with a surgical approach than with embolization. In my experience, there is always going to be a patient who wants to keep her uterus at age 49 and who has every comorbidity. I might offer her the embolization just knowing what the odds of pregnancy are.

Dr. Anderson: I agree with Linda but I take a more liberal approach. Sometimes we do a myomectomy because we are trying to enhance fertility, while other times we do a myomectomy to address fibroid-related symptoms. These patients are having specific symptoms, and we want to leave the embolization option open.

If I have a patient who is 39 and becoming pregnant is not necessarily her goal, but she does not want to have a hysterectomy and if she got pregnant it would be okay, I am going to treat her a little different with respect to fibroid embolization than I would treat someone who is actively trying to have a baby. This goes back to what you were saying, let’s treat the patient, not just the fibroid.

Dr. Bradley: That is so important and sentinel. If she really does not want a hysterectomy but does not want a baby, I will ask, “Would you go through in vitro fertilization? Would you take clomiphene?” If she answers no, then I feel more comfortable, like you, with referring the patient for uterine fibroid embolization. The point is to get the patient with the right team to get the best outcomes.

Surgical approaches, intraoperative agents, and suture technique

Dr. Sanfilippo: Dr. Anderson, tell us about your surgical approaches to fibroids.

Dr. Anderson: At my institution we do have a fellowship in minimally invasive surgery, but I still do a lot of open myomectomies. I have a few guidelines to determine whether I am going to proceed laparoscopically, do a little minilaparotomy incision, or if a gigantic uterus is going to require a big incision. My mantra to my fellows has always been, “minimally invasive is the impact on the patient, not the size of the incision.”

Sometimes, prolonged anesthesia and Trendelenburg create more morbidity than a minilaparotomy. If a patient has 4 or 5 fibroids and most of them are intramural and I cannot see them but I want to be able to feel them, and to get a really good closure of the myometrium, I might choose to do a minilaparotomy. But if it is a case of a solitary fibroid, I would be more inclined to operate laparoscopically.

Continue to: Dr. Bradley...

Dr. Bradley: Our protocol is similar. We use MRI liberally. If patients have 4 or more fibroids and they are larger than 8 cm, most will have open surgery. I do not do robotic or laparoscopic procedures, so my referral source is for the larger myomas. We do not put retractors in; we can make incisions. Even if we do a huge Maylard incision, it is cosmetically wonderful. We use a loading dose of IV tranexamic acid with tranexamic acid throughout the surgery, and misoprostol intravaginally prior to surgery, to control uterine bleeding.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Dr. Anderson, is there a role for agents such as vasopressin, and what about routes of administration?

Dr. Anderson: When I do a laparoscopic or open procedure, I inject vasopressin (dilute 20 U in 100 mL of saline) into the pseudocapsule around the fibroid. I also administer rectal misoprostol (400 µg) just before the patient prep is done, which is amazing in reducing blood loss. There is also a role for a GnRH agonist, not necessarily to reduce the size of the uterus but to reduce blood flow in the pelvis and blood loss. Many different techniques are available. I do not use tourniquets, however. If bleeding does occur, I want to see it so I can fix it—not after I have sewn up the uterus and taken off a tourniquet.

Dr. Bradley: Do you use Floseal hemostatic matrix or any other agent to control bleeding?

Dr. Anderson: I do, for local hemostasis.

Dr. Bradley: Some surgeons will use barbed suture.

Dr. Anderson: I do like barbed sutures. In teaching residents to do myomectomy, it is very beneficial. But I am still a big fan of the good old figure-of-8 stitch because it is compressive and you get a good apposition of the tissue, good hemostasis, and strong closure.

Dr. Sanfilippo: We hope that this conversation will change your management of uterine fibroids. I thank Dr. Bradley and Dr. Anderson for a lively and very informative discussion.

Watch the video: Video roundtable–Fibroids: Patient considerations in medical and surgical management

Uterine fibroids (myomas or leiomyomas) are common and can cause considerable morbidity, including infertility, in reproductive-aged women. In this roundtable discussion, moderated by OBG Management Editorial Board member Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA, 2 experts discuss imaging technologies and classification systems for assessing fibroids, various medical and surgical treatment options, and patient reproductive goals to consider when counseling women with fibroids.

Perspectives on a pervasive problem

Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA: First let’s discuss the scope of the problem. How prevalent are uterine fibroids, and what are their effects on quality of life?

Linda D. Bradley, MD: Fibroids are extremely prevalent. Depending on age and race, between 60% and 80% of women have them.¹ About 50% of women with fibroids have no symptoms²; in symptomatic women, the symptoms may vary based on age. Fibroids are more common in women from the African diaspora, who have earlier onset of symptoms, very large or more numerous fibroids, and more symptomatic fibroids, according to some clinical studies.³ While it is a very common disease state, about half of women with fibroids may not have significant symptoms that warrant anything more than watchful waiting or some minimally invasive options.

Ted L. Anderson, MD, PhD: We probably underestimate the scope because we see people coming in with fibroids only when they have a specific problem. There probably are a lot of asymptomatic women out there that we do not know about.

Case 1: Abnormal uterine bleeding in a young woman desiring pregnancy in the near future

Dr. Sanfilippo: Abnormal uterine bleeding is a common dilemma in my practice. Consider the following case example.

A 24-year-old woman (G1P1) presents with heavy, irregular menses over 6 months’ duration. She is interested in pregnancy, not immediately but in several months. She passes clots, soaks a pad in an hour, and has dysmenorrhea and fatigue. She uses no birth control. She is very distraught, as this bleeding truly has changed her lifestyle.

What is your approach to counseling this patient?

Dr. Bradley: You described a woman whose quality of life is very poor—frequent pad changes, clotting, pain. And she wants to have a child. A patient coming to me with those symptoms does not need to wait 4 to 6 months. I would immediately do some early evaluation.

Dr. Anderson: Sometimes a patient comes to us and already has had an ultrasonography exam. That is helpful, but I am driven by the fact that this patient is interested in pregnancy. I want to look at the uterine cavity and will probably do an office hysteroscopy to see if she has fibroids that distort the uterine cavity. Are there fibroids inside the cavity? To what degree does that possibly play a role? The presence of fibroids does not necessarily mean there is distortion of the cavity, and some evidence suggests that you do not need to do anything about those fibroids.⁴ Fibroids actually may not be the source of bleeding. We need to keep an open mind when we do the evaluation.

Continue to: Imaging technologies and classification aids...

Imaging technologies and classification aids

Dr. Sanfilippo: Apropos to your comment, is there a role for a sonohysterography in this population?

Dr. Anderson: That is a great technique. Some clinicians prefer to use sonohysterography while others prefer hysteroscopy. I tend to use hysteroscopy, and I have the equipment in the office. Both are great techniques and they answer the same question with respect to cavity evaluation.

Dr. Bradley: We once studied about 150 patients who, on the same day, with 2 separate examiners (one being me), would first undergo saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) and then hysteroscopy, or vice versa. The sensitivity of identifying an intracavitary lesion is quite good with both. The additional benefit with SIS is that you can look at the adnexa.

In terms of the classification by the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), sometimes when we do a hysteroscopy, we are not sure how deep a fibroid is—whether it is a type 1 or type 2 or how close it is to the serosa (see illustration, page 26). Are we seeing just the tip of the iceberg? There is a role for imaging, and it is not always an “either/or” situation. There are times, for example, that hysteroscopy will show a type 0. Other times it may not show that, and you look for other things in terms of whether a fibroid abuts the endometrium. The take-home message is that physicians should abandon endometrial biopsy alone and, in this case, not offer a D&C.

In evaluating the endometrium, as gynecologists we should be facile in both technologies. In our workplaces we need to advocate to get trained, to be certified, and to be able to offer both technologies, because sometimes you need both to obtain the right answer.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Let’s talk about the FIGO classification, because it is important to have a communication method not only between physicians but with the patient. If we determine that a fibroid is a type 0, and therefore totally intracavitary, management is different than if the fibroid is a type 1 (less than 50% into the myometrium) or type 2 (more than 50%). What is the role for a classification system such as the FIGO?

Dr. Anderson: I like the FIGO classification system. We can show the patient fibroid classification diagrammatically and she will be able to understand exactly what we are talking about. It’s helpful for patient education and for surgical planning. The approach to a type 0 fibroid is a no-brainer, but with type 1 and more specifically with type 2, where the bulk of the fibroid is intramural and only a portion of that is intracavitary, fibroid size begins to matter a lot in terms of treatment approach.

Sometimes although a fibroid is intracavitary, a laparoscopic rather than hysteroscopic approach is preferred, as long as you can dissect the fibroid away from the endometrium. FIGO classification is very helpful, but I agree with Dr. Bradley that first you need to do a thorough evaluation to make your operative plan.

Continue to: Dr. Sanfilippo...

Dr. Sanfilippo: I encourage residents to go through an orderly sequence of assessment for evaluating abnormal uterine bleeding, including anatomic and endocrinologic factors. The PALM-COEIN classification system is a great mnemonic for use in evaluating abnormal uterine bleeding (TABLE).⁵ Is there a role for an aid such as PALM-COEIN in your practice?

The PALM-COEIN system helps us to look at 2 things. One is that in addition to structural causes, there can be hematologic causes. While it is rare in a 24-year-old, we all have had the anecdotal patient who came in 6 months ago, had a fibroid, but had a platelet count of 6,000. Second, we have to look at the patient as a whole. My residents, myself, and our fellows look at any bleeding. Does she have a bleeding diathesis, bruising, nose bleeds; has she been anemic, does she have pica? Has she had a blood transfusion, is she on certain medications? We do not want to create a “silo” and think that the patient can have only a fibroid, because then we may miss an opportunity to treat other disease states. She can have a fibroid coexisting with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), for instance. I like to look at everything so we can offer appropriate treatment modalities.

Dr. Sanfilippo: You bring up a very important point. Coagulopathies are more common statistically at the earlier part of a woman’s reproductive age group, soon after menarche, but they also occur toward menopause. We have to be cognizant that a woman can develop a coagulopathy throughout the reproductive years.

Dr. Anderson: You have to look at other medical causes. That is where the PALM-COEIN system can help. It helps you take the blinders off. If you focus on the fibroid and treat the fibroid and the patient still has bleeding, you missed something. You have to consider the whole patient and think of all the nonclassical or nonanatomical things, for example, thyroid disease. The PALM-COEIN helps us to evaluate the patient in a methodical way—every patient every time—so you do not miss something.

The value of MRI

Dr. Sanfilippo: What is the role for MRI, and when do you use it? Is it for only when you do a procedure—laparoscopically, robotically, open—so you have a detailed map of the fibroids?

Dr. Anderson: I love MRI, especially for hysteroscopy. I will print out the MRI image and trace the fibroid because there are things I want to know: exactly how much of the fibroid is inside or outside, where this fibroid is in the uterus, and how much of a normal buffer there is between the edge of that fibroid and the serosa. How aggressive can I be, or how cautious do I need to be, during the resection? Maybe this will be a planned 2-stage resection. MRIs are wonderful for fibroid disease, not only for diagnosis but also for surgical planning and patient counseling.

Dr. Bradley: SIS is also very useful. If the patient has an intracavitary fibroid that is larger than 4.5 to 5 cm and we insert the catheter, however, sometimes you cannot distend the cavity very well. Sometimes large intramural fibroids can compress the cavity, making the procedure difficult in an office setting. You cannot see the limits to help you as a surgical option. Although SIS generally is associated with little pain, some patients may have pain, and some patients cannot tolerate the test.

Continue to: I would order an MRI for surgical planning when...

I would order an MRI for surgical planning when a hysteroscopy is equivocal and if I cannot do an SIS. Also, if a patient who had a hysteroscopic resection with incomplete removal comes to me and is still symptomatic, I want to know the depth of penetration.

Obtaining an MRI may sometimes be difficult at a particular institution, and some clinicians have to go through the hurdles of getting an ultrasound to get certified and approved. We have to be our patient’s advocate and do the peer phone calls; any other specialty would require presurgical planning, and we are no different from other surgeons in that regard.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Yes, that can be a stumbling block. In the operating room, I like to have the images right in front of me, ideally an MRI or an ultrasound scan, as I know how to proceed. Having that visual helps me understand how close the fibroid is to the lining of the uterus.

Tapping into radiologists’ expertise

Dr. Bradley: Every quarter we meet with our radiologists, who are very interested in our MRI and SIS reports. They will describe the count and say how many fibroids—that is very helpful instead of just saying she has a bunch of fibroids—but they also will tell us when there is a type 0, a type 2, a type 7 fibroid. The team looks for adenomyosis and for endometriosis that can coexist.

Dr. Anderson: One caution about reading radiology reports is that often someone will come in with a report from an outside hospital or from a small community hospital that may say, “There is a 2-cm submucosal fibroid.” Some people might be tempted to take this person right to the OR, but you need to look at the images yourself, because in a radiologist’s mind “submucosal” truly means under the mucosa, which in our liturgy would be “intramural.” So we need to make sure that we are talking the same language. You should look at the images yourself.

Dr. Sanfilippo: I totally agree. It is also not unreasonable to speak with the radiologists and educate them about the FIGO classification.

Dr. Bradley: I prefer the word “intracavitary” for fibroids. When I see a typed report without the picture, “submucosal” can mean in the cavity or abutting the endometrium.

Case 2: Woman with heavy bleeding and fibroids seeks nonsurgical treatment

Dr. Sanfilippo: A 39-year-old (G3P3) woman is referred for evaluation for heavy vaginal bleeding, soaking a pad in an hour, which has been going on for months. Her primary ObGyn obtained a pelvic sonogram and noted multiple intramural and subserosal fibroids. A sonohysterogram reveals a submucosal myoma.

The patient is not interested in a hysterectomy. She was treated with birth control pills, with no improvement. She is interested in nonsurgical options. Dr. Bradley, what medical treatments might you offer this patient?

Medical treatment options

Dr. Bradley: If oral contraceptives have not worked, a good option would be tranexamic acid. Years ago our hospital was involved with enrolling patients in the multicenter clinical trial of this drug. The classic patient enrolled had regular, predictable, heavy menstrual cycles with alkaline hematin assay of greater than 80. If the case patient described has regular and predictable heavy bleeding every month at the same time, for the same duration, I would consider the use of tranexamic acid. There are several contraindications for the drug, so those exclusion issues would need to be reviewed. Contraindications include subarachnoid hemorrhage. Cerebral edema and cerebral infarction may be caused by tranexamic acid in such patients. Other contraindications include active intravascular clotting and hypersensitivity.

Continue to: Another option is to see if a progestin-releasing intrauterine system...

Another option is to see if a progestin-releasing intrauterine system (IUS) like the levonorgestrel (LNG) IUS would fit into this patient’s uterine cavity. Like Ted, I want to look into that cavity. I am not sure what “submucosal fibroid” means. If it has not distorted the cavity, or is totally within the uterine cavity, or abuts the endometrial cavity. The LNG-IUS cannot be placed into a uterine cavity that has intracavitary fibroids or sounds to greater than 12 cm. We are not going to put an LNG-IUS in somebody, at least in general, with a globally enlarged uterine cavity. I could ask, do you do that? You do a bimanual exam, and it is 18-weeks in size. I am not sure that I would put it in, but does it meet those criteria? The package insert for the LNG-IUS specifies upper and lower limits of uterine size for placement. I would start with those 2 options (tranexamic acid and LNG-IUS), and also get some more imaging.

Dr. Anderson: I agree with Linda. The submucosal fibroid could be contributing to this patient’s bleeding, but it is not the total contribution. The other fibroids may be completely irrelevant as far as her bleeding is concerned. We may need to deal with that one surgically, which we can do without a hysterectomy, most of the time.

I am a big fan of the LNG-IUS, it has been great in my experience. There are some other treatments available as well, such as gonadotropin–releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. I tell patients that, while GnRH does work, it is not designed to be long-term therapy. If I have, for example, a 49-year-old patient, I just need to get her to menopause. Longer-term GnRH agonists might be a good option in this case. Otherwise, we could use short-term a GnRH agonist to stop the bleeding for a while so that we can reset the clock and get her started on something like levonorgestrel, tranexamic acid, or one of the other medical therapies. That may be a 2-step combination therapy.

Dr. Sanfilippo: There is a whole category of agents available—selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs), pure progesterone receptor antagonists, ulipristal comes to mind. Clinicians need to know that options are available beyond birth control pills.

Dr. Anderson: As I tell patients, there are also “bridge” options. These are interventional procedures that are not hysterectomy, such as uterine fibroid embolization or endometrial ablation if bleeding is really the problem. We might consider a variety of different approaches. Obviously, we do not typically use fibroid embolization for submucosal fibroids, but it depends on how much of the fibroid is intracavitary and how big it is. Other options are a little more aggressive than medical therapy but they do not involve a hysterectomy.

Pros and cons of uterine artery embolization

Dr. Sanfilippo: If a woman desires future childbearing, is there a role for uterine artery embolization? How would you counsel her about the pros and cons?

Dr. Bradley: At the Cleveland Clinic, we generally do not offer uterine artery embolization if the patient wants a child. While it is an excellent method for treating heavy bleeding and bulk symptoms, the endometrium can be impacted. Patients can develop fistula, adhesions, or concentric narrowing, and changes in anti-Müllerian hormone levels, and there is potential for an Asherman-like syndrome and poor perfusion. I have many hysteroscopic images where the anterior wall of the uterus is nice and pink and the posterior wall is totally pale. The embolic microsphere particles can reach the endometrium—I have seen particles in the endometrium when doing a fibroid resection.

Continue to: A good early study looked at 555 women for almost a year...

A good early study looked at 555 women for almost a year.⁶ If women became pregnant, they had a higher rate of postpartum hemorrhage; placenta accreta, increta, and percreta; and emergent hysterectomy. It was recommended that these women deliver at a tertiary care center due to higher rates of preterm labor and malposition.

If a patient wants a baby, she should find a gynecologic surgeon who does minimally invasive laparoscopic, robotic, or open surgery, because she is more likely to have a take-home baby with a surgical approach than with embolization. In my experience, there is always going to be a patient who wants to keep her uterus at age 49 and who has every comorbidity. I might offer her the embolization just knowing what the odds of pregnancy are.

Dr. Anderson: I agree with Linda but I take a more liberal approach. Sometimes we do a myomectomy because we are trying to enhance fertility, while other times we do a myomectomy to address fibroid-related symptoms. These patients are having specific symptoms, and we want to leave the embolization option open.

If I have a patient who is 39 and becoming pregnant is not necessarily her goal, but she does not want to have a hysterectomy and if she got pregnant it would be okay, I am going to treat her a little different with respect to fibroid embolization than I would treat someone who is actively trying to have a baby. This goes back to what you were saying, let’s treat the patient, not just the fibroid.

Dr. Bradley: That is so important and sentinel. If she really does not want a hysterectomy but does not want a baby, I will ask, “Would you go through in vitro fertilization? Would you take clomiphene?” If she answers no, then I feel more comfortable, like you, with referring the patient for uterine fibroid embolization. The point is to get the patient with the right team to get the best outcomes.

Surgical approaches, intraoperative agents, and suture technique

Dr. Sanfilippo: Dr. Anderson, tell us about your surgical approaches to fibroids.

Dr. Anderson: At my institution we do have a fellowship in minimally invasive surgery, but I still do a lot of open myomectomies. I have a few guidelines to determine whether I am going to proceed laparoscopically, do a little minilaparotomy incision, or if a gigantic uterus is going to require a big incision. My mantra to my fellows has always been, “minimally invasive is the impact on the patient, not the size of the incision.”

Sometimes, prolonged anesthesia and Trendelenburg create more morbidity than a minilaparotomy. If a patient has 4 or 5 fibroids and most of them are intramural and I cannot see them but I want to be able to feel them, and to get a really good closure of the myometrium, I might choose to do a minilaparotomy. But if it is a case of a solitary fibroid, I would be more inclined to operate laparoscopically.

Continue to: Dr. Bradley...

Dr. Bradley: Our protocol is similar. We use MRI liberally. If patients have 4 or more fibroids and they are larger than 8 cm, most will have open surgery. I do not do robotic or laparoscopic procedures, so my referral source is for the larger myomas. We do not put retractors in; we can make incisions. Even if we do a huge Maylard incision, it is cosmetically wonderful. We use a loading dose of IV tranexamic acid with tranexamic acid throughout the surgery, and misoprostol intravaginally prior to surgery, to control uterine bleeding.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Dr. Anderson, is there a role for agents such as vasopressin, and what about routes of administration?

Dr. Anderson: When I do a laparoscopic or open procedure, I inject vasopressin (dilute 20 U in 100 mL of saline) into the pseudocapsule around the fibroid. I also administer rectal misoprostol (400 µg) just before the patient prep is done, which is amazing in reducing blood loss. There is also a role for a GnRH agonist, not necessarily to reduce the size of the uterus but to reduce blood flow in the pelvis and blood loss. Many different techniques are available. I do not use tourniquets, however. If bleeding does occur, I want to see it so I can fix it—not after I have sewn up the uterus and taken off a tourniquet.

Dr. Bradley: Do you use Floseal hemostatic matrix or any other agent to control bleeding?

Dr. Anderson: I do, for local hemostasis.

Dr. Bradley: Some surgeons will use barbed suture.

Dr. Anderson: I do like barbed sutures. In teaching residents to do myomectomy, it is very beneficial. But I am still a big fan of the good old figure-of-8 stitch because it is compressive and you get a good apposition of the tissue, good hemostasis, and strong closure.

Dr. Sanfilippo: We hope that this conversation will change your management of uterine fibroids. I thank Dr. Bradley and Dr. Anderson for a lively and very informative discussion.

Watch the video: Video roundtable–Fibroids: Patient considerations in medical and surgical management

Uterine fibroids (myomas or leiomyomas) are common and can cause considerable morbidity, including infertility, in reproductive-aged women. In this roundtable discussion, moderated by OBG Management Editorial Board member Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA, 2 experts discuss imaging technologies and classification systems for assessing fibroids, various medical and surgical treatment options, and patient reproductive goals to consider when counseling women with fibroids.

Perspectives on a pervasive problem

Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA: First let’s discuss the scope of the problem. How prevalent are uterine fibroids, and what are their effects on quality of life?

Linda D. Bradley, MD: Fibroids are extremely prevalent. Depending on age and race, between 60% and 80% of women have them.¹ About 50% of women with fibroids have no symptoms²; in symptomatic women, the symptoms may vary based on age. Fibroids are more common in women from the African diaspora, who have earlier onset of symptoms, very large or more numerous fibroids, and more symptomatic fibroids, according to some clinical studies.³ While it is a very common disease state, about half of women with fibroids may not have significant symptoms that warrant anything more than watchful waiting or some minimally invasive options.

Ted L. Anderson, MD, PhD: We probably underestimate the scope because we see people coming in with fibroids only when they have a specific problem. There probably are a lot of asymptomatic women out there that we do not know about.

Case 1: Abnormal uterine bleeding in a young woman desiring pregnancy in the near future

Dr. Sanfilippo: Abnormal uterine bleeding is a common dilemma in my practice. Consider the following case example.

A 24-year-old woman (G1P1) presents with heavy, irregular menses over 6 months’ duration. She is interested in pregnancy, not immediately but in several months. She passes clots, soaks a pad in an hour, and has dysmenorrhea and fatigue. She uses no birth control. She is very distraught, as this bleeding truly has changed her lifestyle.

What is your approach to counseling this patient?

Dr. Bradley: You described a woman whose quality of life is very poor—frequent pad changes, clotting, pain. And she wants to have a child. A patient coming to me with those symptoms does not need to wait 4 to 6 months. I would immediately do some early evaluation.

Dr. Anderson: Sometimes a patient comes to us and already has had an ultrasonography exam. That is helpful, but I am driven by the fact that this patient is interested in pregnancy. I want to look at the uterine cavity and will probably do an office hysteroscopy to see if she has fibroids that distort the uterine cavity. Are there fibroids inside the cavity? To what degree does that possibly play a role? The presence of fibroids does not necessarily mean there is distortion of the cavity, and some evidence suggests that you do not need to do anything about those fibroids.⁴ Fibroids actually may not be the source of bleeding. We need to keep an open mind when we do the evaluation.

Continue to: Imaging technologies and classification aids...

Imaging technologies and classification aids

Dr. Sanfilippo: Apropos to your comment, is there a role for a sonohysterography in this population?

Dr. Anderson: That is a great technique. Some clinicians prefer to use sonohysterography while others prefer hysteroscopy. I tend to use hysteroscopy, and I have the equipment in the office. Both are great techniques and they answer the same question with respect to cavity evaluation.

Dr. Bradley: We once studied about 150 patients who, on the same day, with 2 separate examiners (one being me), would first undergo saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) and then hysteroscopy, or vice versa. The sensitivity of identifying an intracavitary lesion is quite good with both. The additional benefit with SIS is that you can look at the adnexa.

In terms of the classification by the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), sometimes when we do a hysteroscopy, we are not sure how deep a fibroid is—whether it is a type 1 or type 2 or how close it is to the serosa (see illustration, page 26). Are we seeing just the tip of the iceberg? There is a role for imaging, and it is not always an “either/or” situation. There are times, for example, that hysteroscopy will show a type 0. Other times it may not show that, and you look for other things in terms of whether a fibroid abuts the endometrium. The take-home message is that physicians should abandon endometrial biopsy alone and, in this case, not offer a D&C.

In evaluating the endometrium, as gynecologists we should be facile in both technologies. In our workplaces we need to advocate to get trained, to be certified, and to be able to offer both technologies, because sometimes you need both to obtain the right answer.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Let’s talk about the FIGO classification, because it is important to have a communication method not only between physicians but with the patient. If we determine that a fibroid is a type 0, and therefore totally intracavitary, management is different than if the fibroid is a type 1 (less than 50% into the myometrium) or type 2 (more than 50%). What is the role for a classification system such as the FIGO?

Dr. Anderson: I like the FIGO classification system. We can show the patient fibroid classification diagrammatically and she will be able to understand exactly what we are talking about. It’s helpful for patient education and for surgical planning. The approach to a type 0 fibroid is a no-brainer, but with type 1 and more specifically with type 2, where the bulk of the fibroid is intramural and only a portion of that is intracavitary, fibroid size begins to matter a lot in terms of treatment approach.

Sometimes although a fibroid is intracavitary, a laparoscopic rather than hysteroscopic approach is preferred, as long as you can dissect the fibroid away from the endometrium. FIGO classification is very helpful, but I agree with Dr. Bradley that first you need to do a thorough evaluation to make your operative plan.

Continue to: Dr. Sanfilippo...

Dr. Sanfilippo: I encourage residents to go through an orderly sequence of assessment for evaluating abnormal uterine bleeding, including anatomic and endocrinologic factors. The PALM-COEIN classification system is a great mnemonic for use in evaluating abnormal uterine bleeding (TABLE).⁵ Is there a role for an aid such as PALM-COEIN in your practice?

The PALM-COEIN system helps us to look at 2 things. One is that in addition to structural causes, there can be hematologic causes. While it is rare in a 24-year-old, we all have had the anecdotal patient who came in 6 months ago, had a fibroid, but had a platelet count of 6,000. Second, we have to look at the patient as a whole. My residents, myself, and our fellows look at any bleeding. Does she have a bleeding diathesis, bruising, nose bleeds; has she been anemic, does she have pica? Has she had a blood transfusion, is she on certain medications? We do not want to create a “silo” and think that the patient can have only a fibroid, because then we may miss an opportunity to treat other disease states. She can have a fibroid coexisting with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), for instance. I like to look at everything so we can offer appropriate treatment modalities.

Dr. Sanfilippo: You bring up a very important point. Coagulopathies are more common statistically at the earlier part of a woman’s reproductive age group, soon after menarche, but they also occur toward menopause. We have to be cognizant that a woman can develop a coagulopathy throughout the reproductive years.

Dr. Anderson: You have to look at other medical causes. That is where the PALM-COEIN system can help. It helps you take the blinders off. If you focus on the fibroid and treat the fibroid and the patient still has bleeding, you missed something. You have to consider the whole patient and think of all the nonclassical or nonanatomical things, for example, thyroid disease. The PALM-COEIN helps us to evaluate the patient in a methodical way—every patient every time—so you do not miss something.

The value of MRI

Dr. Sanfilippo: What is the role for MRI, and when do you use it? Is it for only when you do a procedure—laparoscopically, robotically, open—so you have a detailed map of the fibroids?

Dr. Anderson: I love MRI, especially for hysteroscopy. I will print out the MRI image and trace the fibroid because there are things I want to know: exactly how much of the fibroid is inside or outside, where this fibroid is in the uterus, and how much of a normal buffer there is between the edge of that fibroid and the serosa. How aggressive can I be, or how cautious do I need to be, during the resection? Maybe this will be a planned 2-stage resection. MRIs are wonderful for fibroid disease, not only for diagnosis but also for surgical planning and patient counseling.

Dr. Bradley: SIS is also very useful. If the patient has an intracavitary fibroid that is larger than 4.5 to 5 cm and we insert the catheter, however, sometimes you cannot distend the cavity very well. Sometimes large intramural fibroids can compress the cavity, making the procedure difficult in an office setting. You cannot see the limits to help you as a surgical option. Although SIS generally is associated with little pain, some patients may have pain, and some patients cannot tolerate the test.

Continue to: I would order an MRI for surgical planning when...

I would order an MRI for surgical planning when a hysteroscopy is equivocal and if I cannot do an SIS. Also, if a patient who had a hysteroscopic resection with incomplete removal comes to me and is still symptomatic, I want to know the depth of penetration.

Obtaining an MRI may sometimes be difficult at a particular institution, and some clinicians have to go through the hurdles of getting an ultrasound to get certified and approved. We have to be our patient’s advocate and do the peer phone calls; any other specialty would require presurgical planning, and we are no different from other surgeons in that regard.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Yes, that can be a stumbling block. In the operating room, I like to have the images right in front of me, ideally an MRI or an ultrasound scan, as I know how to proceed. Having that visual helps me understand how close the fibroid is to the lining of the uterus.

Tapping into radiologists’ expertise

Dr. Bradley: Every quarter we meet with our radiologists, who are very interested in our MRI and SIS reports. They will describe the count and say how many fibroids—that is very helpful instead of just saying she has a bunch of fibroids—but they also will tell us when there is a type 0, a type 2, a type 7 fibroid. The team looks for adenomyosis and for endometriosis that can coexist.

Dr. Anderson: One caution about reading radiology reports is that often someone will come in with a report from an outside hospital or from a small community hospital that may say, “There is a 2-cm submucosal fibroid.” Some people might be tempted to take this person right to the OR, but you need to look at the images yourself, because in a radiologist’s mind “submucosal” truly means under the mucosa, which in our liturgy would be “intramural.” So we need to make sure that we are talking the same language. You should look at the images yourself.

Dr. Sanfilippo: I totally agree. It is also not unreasonable to speak with the radiologists and educate them about the FIGO classification.

Dr. Bradley: I prefer the word “intracavitary” for fibroids. When I see a typed report without the picture, “submucosal” can mean in the cavity or abutting the endometrium.

Case 2: Woman with heavy bleeding and fibroids seeks nonsurgical treatment

Dr. Sanfilippo: A 39-year-old (G3P3) woman is referred for evaluation for heavy vaginal bleeding, soaking a pad in an hour, which has been going on for months. Her primary ObGyn obtained a pelvic sonogram and noted multiple intramural and subserosal fibroids. A sonohysterogram reveals a submucosal myoma.

The patient is not interested in a hysterectomy. She was treated with birth control pills, with no improvement. She is interested in nonsurgical options. Dr. Bradley, what medical treatments might you offer this patient?

Medical treatment options

Dr. Bradley: If oral contraceptives have not worked, a good option would be tranexamic acid. Years ago our hospital was involved with enrolling patients in the multicenter clinical trial of this drug. The classic patient enrolled had regular, predictable, heavy menstrual cycles with alkaline hematin assay of greater than 80. If the case patient described has regular and predictable heavy bleeding every month at the same time, for the same duration, I would consider the use of tranexamic acid. There are several contraindications for the drug, so those exclusion issues would need to be reviewed. Contraindications include subarachnoid hemorrhage. Cerebral edema and cerebral infarction may be caused by tranexamic acid in such patients. Other contraindications include active intravascular clotting and hypersensitivity.

Continue to: Another option is to see if a progestin-releasing intrauterine system...

Another option is to see if a progestin-releasing intrauterine system (IUS) like the levonorgestrel (LNG) IUS would fit into this patient’s uterine cavity. Like Ted, I want to look into that cavity. I am not sure what “submucosal fibroid” means. If it has not distorted the cavity, or is totally within the uterine cavity, or abuts the endometrial cavity. The LNG-IUS cannot be placed into a uterine cavity that has intracavitary fibroids or sounds to greater than 12 cm. We are not going to put an LNG-IUS in somebody, at least in general, with a globally enlarged uterine cavity. I could ask, do you do that? You do a bimanual exam, and it is 18-weeks in size. I am not sure that I would put it in, but does it meet those criteria? The package insert for the LNG-IUS specifies upper and lower limits of uterine size for placement. I would start with those 2 options (tranexamic acid and LNG-IUS), and also get some more imaging.

Dr. Anderson: I agree with Linda. The submucosal fibroid could be contributing to this patient’s bleeding, but it is not the total contribution. The other fibroids may be completely irrelevant as far as her bleeding is concerned. We may need to deal with that one surgically, which we can do without a hysterectomy, most of the time.

I am a big fan of the LNG-IUS, it has been great in my experience. There are some other treatments available as well, such as gonadotropin–releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. I tell patients that, while GnRH does work, it is not designed to be long-term therapy. If I have, for example, a 49-year-old patient, I just need to get her to menopause. Longer-term GnRH agonists might be a good option in this case. Otherwise, we could use short-term a GnRH agonist to stop the bleeding for a while so that we can reset the clock and get her started on something like levonorgestrel, tranexamic acid, or one of the other medical therapies. That may be a 2-step combination therapy.

Dr. Sanfilippo: There is a whole category of agents available—selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs), pure progesterone receptor antagonists, ulipristal comes to mind. Clinicians need to know that options are available beyond birth control pills.

Dr. Anderson: As I tell patients, there are also “bridge” options. These are interventional procedures that are not hysterectomy, such as uterine fibroid embolization or endometrial ablation if bleeding is really the problem. We might consider a variety of different approaches. Obviously, we do not typically use fibroid embolization for submucosal fibroids, but it depends on how much of the fibroid is intracavitary and how big it is. Other options are a little more aggressive than medical therapy but they do not involve a hysterectomy.

Pros and cons of uterine artery embolization

Dr. Sanfilippo: If a woman desires future childbearing, is there a role for uterine artery embolization? How would you counsel her about the pros and cons?

Dr. Bradley: At the Cleveland Clinic, we generally do not offer uterine artery embolization if the patient wants a child. While it is an excellent method for treating heavy bleeding and bulk symptoms, the endometrium can be impacted. Patients can develop fistula, adhesions, or concentric narrowing, and changes in anti-Müllerian hormone levels, and there is potential for an Asherman-like syndrome and poor perfusion. I have many hysteroscopic images where the anterior wall of the uterus is nice and pink and the posterior wall is totally pale. The embolic microsphere particles can reach the endometrium—I have seen particles in the endometrium when doing a fibroid resection.

Continue to: A good early study looked at 555 women for almost a year...

A good early study looked at 555 women for almost a year.⁶ If women became pregnant, they had a higher rate of postpartum hemorrhage; placenta accreta, increta, and percreta; and emergent hysterectomy. It was recommended that these women deliver at a tertiary care center due to higher rates of preterm labor and malposition.

If a patient wants a baby, she should find a gynecologic surgeon who does minimally invasive laparoscopic, robotic, or open surgery, because she is more likely to have a take-home baby with a surgical approach than with embolization. In my experience, there is always going to be a patient who wants to keep her uterus at age 49 and who has every comorbidity. I might offer her the embolization just knowing what the odds of pregnancy are.

Dr. Anderson: I agree with Linda but I take a more liberal approach. Sometimes we do a myomectomy because we are trying to enhance fertility, while other times we do a myomectomy to address fibroid-related symptoms. These patients are having specific symptoms, and we want to leave the embolization option open.

If I have a patient who is 39 and becoming pregnant is not necessarily her goal, but she does not want to have a hysterectomy and if she got pregnant it would be okay, I am going to treat her a little different with respect to fibroid embolization than I would treat someone who is actively trying to have a baby. This goes back to what you were saying, let’s treat the patient, not just the fibroid.

Dr. Bradley: That is so important and sentinel. If she really does not want a hysterectomy but does not want a baby, I will ask, “Would you go through in vitro fertilization? Would you take clomiphene?” If she answers no, then I feel more comfortable, like you, with referring the patient for uterine fibroid embolization. The point is to get the patient with the right team to get the best outcomes.

Surgical approaches, intraoperative agents, and suture technique

Dr. Sanfilippo: Dr. Anderson, tell us about your surgical approaches to fibroids.

Dr. Anderson: At my institution we do have a fellowship in minimally invasive surgery, but I still do a lot of open myomectomies. I have a few guidelines to determine whether I am going to proceed laparoscopically, do a little minilaparotomy incision, or if a gigantic uterus is going to require a big incision. My mantra to my fellows has always been, “minimally invasive is the impact on the patient, not the size of the incision.”

Sometimes, prolonged anesthesia and Trendelenburg create more morbidity than a minilaparotomy. If a patient has 4 or 5 fibroids and most of them are intramural and I cannot see them but I want to be able to feel them, and to get a really good closure of the myometrium, I might choose to do a minilaparotomy. But if it is a case of a solitary fibroid, I would be more inclined to operate laparoscopically.

Continue to: Dr. Bradley...

Dr. Bradley: Our protocol is similar. We use MRI liberally. If patients have 4 or more fibroids and they are larger than 8 cm, most will have open surgery. I do not do robotic or laparoscopic procedures, so my referral source is for the larger myomas. We do not put retractors in; we can make incisions. Even if we do a huge Maylard incision, it is cosmetically wonderful. We use a loading dose of IV tranexamic acid with tranexamic acid throughout the surgery, and misoprostol intravaginally prior to surgery, to control uterine bleeding.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Dr. Anderson, is there a role for agents such as vasopressin, and what about routes of administration?

Dr. Anderson: When I do a laparoscopic or open procedure, I inject vasopressin (dilute 20 U in 100 mL of saline) into the pseudocapsule around the fibroid. I also administer rectal misoprostol (400 µg) just before the patient prep is done, which is amazing in reducing blood loss. There is also a role for a GnRH agonist, not necessarily to reduce the size of the uterus but to reduce blood flow in the pelvis and blood loss. Many different techniques are available. I do not use tourniquets, however. If bleeding does occur, I want to see it so I can fix it—not after I have sewn up the uterus and taken off a tourniquet.

Dr. Bradley: Do you use Floseal hemostatic matrix or any other agent to control bleeding?

Dr. Anderson: I do, for local hemostasis.

Dr. Bradley: Some surgeons will use barbed suture.

Dr. Anderson: I do like barbed sutures. In teaching residents to do myomectomy, it is very beneficial. But I am still a big fan of the good old figure-of-8 stitch because it is compressive and you get a good apposition of the tissue, good hemostasis, and strong closure.

Dr. Sanfilippo: We hope that this conversation will change your management of uterine fibroids. I thank Dr. Bradley and Dr. Anderson for a lively and very informative discussion.

Watch the video: Video roundtable–Fibroids: Patient considerations in medical and surgical management

Keeping current with causes of and treatments for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) is important. AUB can have a major impact on women’s lives in terms of health care expenses, productivity, and quality of life. The focus of this Update is on information that has been published over the past year that is helpful for clinicians who counsel and treat women with AUB. First, we focus on new data on endometrial polyps, which are a common cause of AUB. For the first time, a meta-analysis has examined polyp-associated cancer risk. In addition, does a causal relationship exist between endometrial polyps and chronic endometritis? We also address the first published report of successful treatment of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN, formerly complex endometrial hyperplasia with atypia) using the etonogestrel subdermal implant. Last, we discuss efficacy data for a new device for endometrial ablation, which has new features to consider.

What is the risk of malignancy with endometrial polyps? 

Sasaki LM, Andrade KR, Figeuiredo AC, et al. Factors associated with malignancy in hysteroscopically resected endometrial polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25:777-785. 

What can information from more than 21,000 patients with polyps teach us about the risk factors associated with endometrial malignancy? For instance, with concern over balancing health care costs with potential surgical risks, should all patients with endometrial polyps undergo routine surgical removal, or should we stratify risks and offer surgery to only selected patients? This is the first meta-analysis to evaluate the risk factors for endometrial cancer (such as obesity, parity, tamoxifen use, and hormonal therapy use) in patients with endometrial polyps.

Risk factors for and prevalence of malignancy

Sasaki and colleagues found that about 3 of every 100 patients with recognized polyps will harbor a premalignant or malignant lesion (3.4%; 716 of 21,057 patients). The identified risk factors for a cancerous polyp included: menopausal status, age greater than 60 years, presence of AUB, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, obesity, and tamoxifen use. The risk for cancer was 2-fold greater in women older than 60 years compared with those younger than age 60 (prevalence ratio, 2.41). The authors found no risk association with use of combination hormone therapy, parity, breast cancer, or polyp size.

The investigators advised caution with using their conclusions, as there was high heterogeneity for some of the factors studied (including age, AUB, parity, and hypertension).

New evidence associates endometrial polyps with chronic endometritis 

The second important study published this year on polyps was conducted by Cicinelli and colleagues and suggests that inflammation may be part of the pathophysiology behind the common problem of polyps. The authors cite a recent study that showed that abnormal expression of "local" paracrine inflammatory mediators, such as interferon-gamma, may enhance the proliferation of endometrial mucosa.¹ Building on this possibility further, they hypothesized that chronic endometrial inflammation may affect the pathogenesis of endometrial polyps.  

Details of the study 

To investigate the possible correlation between polyps and chronic endometritis, Cicinelli and colleagues compared the endometrial biopsies of 240 women with AUB and hysteroscopically and histologically diagnosed endometrial polyps with 240 women with AUB and no polyp seen on hysteroscopy. The tissue samples were evaluated with immunohistochemistry for CD-138 for plasma cell identification.  

The study authors found a significantly higher prevalence of chronic endometritis in the group with endometrial polyps than in the group without polyps (61.7% vs 24.2%, respectively; P <.0001). They suggest that this evidence supports the hypothesis that endometrial polyps may be a result of endometrial proliferation and vasculopathy triggered by chronic endometritis. 

Continue to: Can endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia be treated with the etonogestrel subdermal implant? 

Can endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia be treated with the etonogestrel subdermal implant? 

Wong S, Naresh A. Etonogestrel subdermal implant-associated regression of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:780-782. 

Recently, Wong and Naresh gave us the first case report of successful treatment of EIN using the etonogestrel subdermal implant. With so many other options available to treat EIN, some of which have been studied extensively, why should we take note of this study? First, the authors point out the risk of endometrial cancer development among patients with EIN, and they acknowledge the standard recommendation of hysterectomy in women with EIN who have finished childbearing and are appropriate candidates for a surgical approach. There is also concern about lower serum etonogestrel levels in obese patients. In this case, the patient (aged 36 with obesity) had been nonadherent with oral progestin therapy and stated that she would not adhere to daily oral therapy. She also declined hysterectomy, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device therapy, and injectable progestin therapy after being counseled about the risk of malignancy development. She consented to subdermal etonogestrel as an alternative to no therapy.  

EIN regressed. Endometrial biopsies at 4 and 8 months showed regression of EIN, and at 16 months after implantation (as well as a dilation and curettage at 9 months) demonstrated an inactive endometrium with no sign of hyperplasia. 

New endometrial ablation technology shows promising benefits  

Do we need another endometrial ablation device? Are there improvements that can be made to our existing technology? There already are several endometrial ablation devices, using varying technology, that currently are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of AUB. The devices use bipolar radiofrequency, cryotherapy, circulating hot fluid, and combined thermal and radiofrequency modalities. Additional devices, employing heated balloon and microwaves, are no longer used. Data on a new device, approved by the FDA in 2017 (the AEGEA Vapor System, called Mara), were recently published.  

Details of the study 

Levie and colleagues conducted a prospective pivotal trial on Mara's safety and effectiveness. The benefits presented by the authors include that the device 1) does not require that an intrauterine array be deployed up to and abutting the fundus and cornu, 2) does not necessitate cervical dilatation, 3) is a free-flowing vapor system that can navigate differences in uterine contour and sizes (up to 12 cm in length), and 4) accomplishes ablation in 2 minutes. So there are indeed some novel features of this device.  

This pivotal study was a multicenter trial using objective performance criterion (OPC), which is based on using the average success rates across the 5 FDA-approved ablation devices as historic controls. In the study an OPC of 66% correlated to the lower bound of the 95% confidence intervals. The primary outcome of the study was effectiveness in the reduction of blood loss using a pictorial blood loss assessment score (PBLAS) of less than 75. Of note, a PBLAS of 150 was a study entry criterion. FIGO types 2 through 6 fibroids were included in the trial. Secondary endpoints were quality of life and patient satisfaction as assessed by the Menorrhagia Impact Questionnaire and the Aberdeen Menorrhagia Severity Score, as well as the need to intervene medically or surgically to treat AUB in the first 12 months after ablation.  

Efficacy, satisfaction, and quality of life results 

At 12 months, the primary effectiveness end point was achieved in 78.7% of study participants. The satisfaction rate was 90.8% (satisfied or very satisfied), and 99% of participants showed improvement in quality of life scores. There were no reported serious adverse events.